NationStates Jolt Archive

I offer this proposal for your comments and consideration. The proposals presented by the Philimbesian delegation and the Zyrwickian delegation also
deserve attention. The power of the past is something that no nation may escape. It is our duty to learn from the past and preserve it for the edification of future generations.


Resolution to Protect World Heritage

Category: Education & Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage
Strength: Mild

THE UNITED NATIONS,

RECOGNIZING that the record of the achievements of all peoples educates and inspires the present as well as the future,

AND that the knowledge of the continuing, and diverse experiences of all peoples benefits all nations,

AND that the record of the experiences of all peoples exists in part in historically- and culturally-significant sites,

DO HEREBY;

1) Strongly encourage member states to identify, preserve, and protect sites of historical, cultural, and social importance within their own nations;

2) Strongly encourage regions to identify, preserve, and protect sites of historical, cultural, and social importance within their own regions;

3) Establish the United Nations Commission on World Heritage (UNCWH) to assist member states and regions in identifying sites of historical, cultural, and social importance that exemplify the achievements of the universal experience of all peoples;

4) Mandate the UNCWH to solicit from member states the nomination of World Heritage Sites, defined as any geographical area, building, cemetery, battlefield, or other specific location that exemplifies either the triumphs or the limitations of the universal spirit of all peoples;

5) Declare that a member state may only nominate a site located within its sovereign territory;

6) Provide the UNCWH with the power to establish criteria for adjudicating such a nomination, based on the merits of its proposal and its importance to world heritage, regardless of its political locale;

7) Mandate the UNCWH to develop and maintain a list of World Heritage Sites, based on UNCWH criteria;

8) Declare that any World Heritage site, once designated as such, shall remain a World Heritage Site, on condition of its nation's membership in the UN;

9) Declare that World Heritage Sites, being important to the community of nations, be designated as protected cultural property, and thus subject to protection during times of war and political insurrection;

10) Mandate the UNCWH to create a fund and solicit voluntary donations to provide for the administration of the UNCWH;

11) Mandate the UNCWH to provide funding and resources, in accordance with international law, to assist in the preservation of World Heritage Sites when a member state demonstrably lacks the resources to preserve a declared World Heritage Site;

12) Mandate the UNCWH to actively foster the general knowledge and research of World Heritage sites for the advancement of historical, cultural, and social understanding across political boundaries;

RESOLVED that the adoption of these measures will provide for the preservation and protection of world heritage for the benefit of both present and future generations.

You used section 7 twice; my numbering in my arguments will reflect the logical changes necessary due to an honest error.

Section 12 is illegal. Nations do not stand on committees, rather they are ran by "imaginary" beings known as "gnomes" which exist solely to serve on committees, commissions what have you.

Section 8 is already covered by UNR#207 "Cultural Heritage in War". Illegal for duplication.

Section 7 seems to be a rehash of the repealed "World Heritage List". Nations should be allowed to change their designations of historically and/or culturally significant sites and/or objects as they deem necessary. Also Section 2, seems to promote the practice of nations naming site in other nations, a practice that is (or at least was at one time) viewed as inappropriate in the UN. Again the "World Heritage List", been there, repealed that.

Section 2 is also potentially illegal for meta-gaming, but I think a Mod needs to rule on it.

Aside from the things that would make it illegal, and have it deleted if you have submitted it (which I hope you haven't). Its a pretty good first draft, and as we generally hate most proposals...thats high praise.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Esteemed Zyrwickian Ambassador:

Thank you for your comments. I have corrected the numbering.

- As for section 12, I shall delete it, deferring to the gnomes.

- In regards to section 8, I will admit that it covers much of the same ground as Resolution #207. In section 1 of UNR 207, it mentions sites designated by international law. If someone points out where international law already designates such sites, I will happily amend the section.

- As for section 7, I feel that if a nation submits a site for World Heritage Status, it must recognize that the site is extremely valuable in terms of its historical, cultural, or social significance for the world. It should not be a decision taken lightly by any member state.

- Your point about section 2. I would think this issue would be resolved within a region. Barring that, I think that a member state, being imposed upon in such a way, would be in a good position to petition the UNCWH to stop the process.

-As for your second point about section 2, your suggestion is probably wise.

Your comments are incredibly helpful. I look forward to future input to create a draft that might stand up. I anticipate working with you in the future to develop a better proposal.

Regards,
Mr. Wilhelm Bordeaux
UN Ambassador
Republic of Audientes

Clause 2 is implausible for the simple reason that there are no member regions of the UN. Membership is something only granted to nations. Given that we can't tell non-members to do anything, it's probably best to drop it. Note that this means clause 3 needs fixing as well!

My government fully supports this, although as my esteemed colleague from Gobbannium has pointed out, clause 2 should be dropped.

Perhaps it would also be advisable to allow member nations to include sites (exclusively from their own sovereign territory) unilaterally on this list, to speed up procedures, protect such sites forever, and bring their existence to the attention of the international community, for the benefit of all sentient beings.


Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Clause 2 is implausible for the simple reason that there are no member regions of the UN. Membership is something only granted to nations. Given that we can't tell non-members to do anything, it's probably best to drop it. Note that this means clause 3 needs fixing as well!

Esteemed colleague,

You make an important point. Our thinking was this: since regions may have a UN delegate, we assumed that they might be influenced by UN actions. Perhaps you could help me clarify my thinking on this point. Is it plausible to state that the UN may encourage, but not mandate, regions to identify and preserve sites of regional importance? The term "member region" is problematic, as you noted, and is an error on our part. We will drop the "member" part. I am grateful for your comments and look forward to working with you to strengthen this resolution.

Regards,
Mr. Wilhelm Bordeaux
UN Ambassador
Republic of Audientes

Perhaps it would also be advisable to allow member nations to include sites (exclusively from their own sovereign territory) unilaterally on this list, to speed up procedures, protect such sites forever, and bring their existence to the attention of the international community, for the benefit of all sentient beings.


Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Honorable colleague,

You illuminate a crucial point which the original proposal overlooked. That is, member states should only be allowed to nominate sites located within their own borders. The new section 5 addresses this deficiency.

In regards to unilateral designation, we considered this approach. The other proposals now being crafted, I believe, allow for unilateral designation. We however felt that by including a review process within the UN, only sites of relatively universal importance would be included on the list. We fully support the protection of all historical sites, but we recognize that some sites may only be seen as important by the citizens of one nation, or one village even. We think unilateral designation would flood the UNCWH with sites of limited significance to the larger world community. Such an abundance of sites, we believe, would strain the resources of the UNCWH to the point where it would become ineffective in preserving and promoting the sites which truly exemplify the universal spirit of all peoples.

We hope we have clarified the central objective of this proposal for you, and welcome your support. We also welcome any further comments that may improve this resolution.

Regards,
Mr. Wilhelm Bordeaux
UN Ambassador
Republic of Audientes

Section 8 is already covered by UNR#207 "Cultural Heritage in War". Illegal for duplication.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.


Honorable Zyrwickian Ambassador,

We have amended section 9 such that sites may be covered by UNR #207. We believe this may remedy your concern, but we welcome your opinion.

Regards,
Mr. Wilhelm Bordeaux
UN Ambassador
Republic of Audientes

11) Mandate the UNCWH to provide funding and resources to assist in the preservation of World Heritage Sites when a member state demonstrably lacks the resources to preserve a declared World Heritage Site;

OOC: Are there any limits on this mandate? As currently written, it seems open-ended enough that if a (non-UN) army were threatening to destroy a World Heritage Site and the nation in which that site was located lacked the troops to defend it then the UNCWCH would have to intervene militarily... which arguably breaks, or at least bends, the "No UN Armies" rule.
Perhaps you might consider adding a clarification?

OOC: Are there any limits on this mandate? As currently written, it seems open-ended enough that if a (non-UN) army were threatening to destroy a World Heritage Site and the nation in which that site was located lacked the troops to defend it then the UNCWCH would have to intervene militarily... which arguably breaks, or at least bends, the "No UN Armies" rule.
Perhaps you might consider adding a clarification?

Good point. I have added language to section 11.

In light of the deficiencies of the proposal currently in queue, we offer the second draft of our proposed resolution for consideration and comment. The Zyrwickian proposal regarding world heritage has been posted recently to the UN, and is deserving of its own consideration. Our proposal, however, approaches the matter from a different perspective and we humbly submit it for additional debate.

Resolution to Protect World Heritage

Category: Education & Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage


THE UNITED NATIONS,

RECOGNIZING that the record of the achievements of all peoples educates and inspires the present as well as the future,

AND that the knowledge of the continuing, and diverse experiences of all peoples benefits all nations,

AND that the record of the experiences of all peoples exists in part in historically- and culturally-significant sites,

DO HEREBY;

1) Strongly encourage member states to identify, preserve, and protect sites of historical, cultural, and social importance within their own nations;

2) Strongly encourage regions to identify, preserve, and protect sites of historical, cultural, and social importance within their own regions;

3) Establish the United Nations Commission on World Heritage (UNCWH) to assist member states and regions in identifying sites of historical, cultural, and social importance that exemplify the achievements of the universal experience of all peoples;

4) Mandate the UNCWH to solicit from member states the nomination of World Heritage Sites, defined as any geographical area, building, cemetery, battlefield, or other specific location that exemplifies either the triumphs or the limitations of the universal spirit of all peoples;

5) Declare that a member state may only nominate a site located within its sovereign territory;

6) Provide the UNCWH with the power to establish criteria for adjudicating such a nomination, based on the merits of its proposal and its importance to world heritage, regardless of its political locale;

7) Mandate the UNCWH to develop and maintain a list of World Heritage Sites, based on UNCWH criteria;

8) Declare that any World Heritage site, once designated as such, shall remain a World Heritage Site, on condition of its nation's membership in the UN;

9) Declare that World Heritage Sites, being important to the community of nations, be designated as protected cultural property, and thus subject to protection during times of war and political insurrection;

10) Mandate the UNCWH to create a fund and solicit voluntary donations to provide for the administration of the UNCWH;

11) Mandate the UNCWH to provide funding and resources, in accordance with international law, to assist in the preservation of World Heritage Sites when a member state demonstrably lacks the resources to preserve a declared World Heritage Site;

12) Mandate the UNCWH to actively foster the general knowledge and research of World Heritage sites for the advancement of historical, cultural, and social understanding across political boundaries;

RESOLVED that the adoption of these measures shall provide for the preservation and protection of world heritage for the benefit of both present and future generations the world over.


Mr. Wilhelm Bordeaux
UN Ambassador
Republic of Audientes

I must admit, I quite like this. It isn't overly prescriptive, it neatly sidesteps clashes with Cultural Heritage in War, and it does what it says. I only have one objection.

5) Declare that a member state may only nominate a site located within its sovereign territory;
I know that the Ambassador from Zyrwick has whined incessantly about this, but I like the idea of being able to nominate a site in another nation. There are times when it is necessary; one needs only to consider the fabled Holy City of Jerusalem to see that. As a focal place for three different religions, only one of which is given priority within the nation itself, there are likely holy places within it which are of immense international cultural significance but which would not be nominated at all by the host nation.

The example, fictional though it is, also shows that external nominations are tricky things; being a turbulent place, any acceptance or denial of nominations, and indeed acceptance or denial of the concept of external nominations, is likely to be fraught in the Holy City. In the real world, nations may try to use external nominations to hinder another nation's military preparedness. Conversely, a nation may avoid nominating an 'inconvenient' site that is none the less truly culturally important. Since it's impossible to legislate a global right answer, the resolution ought to stick with its principles and let the UNCWH decide.

So some possible alternative words for you:

5) Declare that a member state may nominate a site located outside its sovereign territory, but that such nominations will be treated with caution;

Esteemed Colleague from Gobbannium,

You make a good argument. In the interest of national sovereignty, however, we feel that the nation in which a site is located should make the nomination. We feel that if a site has particular value for many peoples outside of its boundaries, a nation may wisely see the profit in protecting it (what with all of the subsequent potential t-shirt sales, world admiration, and whatnot). Of course, the other side of that coin is a nation may make the unfortunate decision to bulldoze the site instead and build a shopping center. We are trying to keep the proposal as pro-sovereignty as possible, as problematic as that is, but we appreciate your suggestions.

We are trying to keep the proposal as pro-sovereignty as possibleI read that to say pandering to sovereignty personally.

I've explained why I'm not supporting another proposal which is pretty much the same as this one in the other thread already, so I'm not going to go on about that.

What I would say is that all 3 proposals I oppose for the same reason (those by Audientes, Philimbesi & Zyrwick) are in a catch-22 situation. If the one proposal I do support (Protection of Historical Sites) does pass, then these three are going to be off the table till a repeal is passed (and then I doubt the UN has the will to go through another discussion and vote on the exact same issue with one of your proposals). If it fails, then I'd wager that the casual players of NS are unlikely to notice the distinction between the one at vote, and any of your efforts, and the casual player is a pretty substantial voting bloc.

What I would say is that all 3 proposals I oppose for the same reason (those by Audientes, Philimbesi & Zyrwick) are in a catch-22 situation. If the one proposal I do support (Protection of Historical Sites) does pass, then these three are going to be off the table till a repeal is passed (and then I doubt the UN has the will to go through another discussion and vote on the exact same issue with one of your proposals). If it fails, then I'd wager that the casual players of NS are unlikely to notice the distinction between the one at vote, and any of your efforts, and the casual player is a pretty substantial voting bloc.

It would seem that the honorable member would rather see those delegations offering alternative proposals simply give up. The passage of the proposal soon to be voted on is still in question. With its myriad problems, it may not be passed. Since it is still up in the air, it is our duty to continue to offer alternative solutions to this important issue. As for your view of casual players, we believe they are savvier than you contend. We fully believe they can understand the differences between proposals and judge the merits of each accordingly. We also assert that our proposal, along with those being offered by Zyrwick and Philimbesi, present better solutions than the one soon to be at vote, and have complete confidence in the UN membership to recognize that fact.

As for your view of casual players, we believe they are savvier than you contend. We fully believe they can understand the differences between proposals and judge the merits of each accordingly.
The repeated shooting down of proposals to finance the UN suggests otherwise. Not that that's a sore point or anything...

Call me an optimist. :)

It would seem that the honorable member would rather see those delegations offering alternative proposals simply give up.No, I'm implying that you are going to have to look at a longer term strategy if any of you want your alternative proposals to pass.The passage of the proposal soon to be voted on is still in question. With its myriad problems, it may not be passed. Since it is still up in the air, it is our duty to continue to offer alternative solutions to this important issue. As for your view of casual players, we believe they are savvier than you contend. We fully believe they can understand the differences between proposals and judge the merits of each accordingly.The average Casual player does not even know your proposals exist, so I'd be impressed if they could understand the differences between a proposal at vote, and proposals (as far as I can see) are only on the drawing board. We also assert that our proposal, along with those being offered by Zyrwick and Philimbesi, present better solutions than the one soon to be at vote, and have complete confidence in the UN membership to recognize that fact.I wouldn't say better. Still, if you three are serious about getting one of your proposals to vote, it might be best if you got behind one proposal, rather than tripping each other up.

The average Casual player does not even know your proposals exist, so I'd be impressed if they could understand the differences between a proposal at vote, and proposals (as far as I can see) are only on the drawing board.

I have complete confidence that the casual player has the ability, curiosity, and intellectual acumen to inform themselves about any issue, and to make judgments accordingly.

We have decided to offer our proposal to the GA for comments in order to correct obvious oversights and identify potential conflicts it may have with existing international law. Seeing as this is such an important issue, we feel that it would have been hasty, and regrettable, to submit a proposal to the UN that was fraught with errors, poorly written, and possibly illegal. I only wish that the authors of the current proposal at vote had done the same.

I have complete confidence that the casual player has the ability, curiosity, and intellectual acumen to inform themselves about any issue, and to make judgments accordingly.

Ah, to be young and ignorant again. Trust me, 90% of the delegates don't even look at the proposal list without being telegrammed. And furthermore the vast majority of UN members will only read the title of a resolution before casting their vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

"As one of the Understudy to the UN Deligate, I know for a fact that the Shazbotdom UN Deligate reads through UN Legislation when it is on the floor, which is why he rarely votes for them cause he doesn't like most of them that go through"

#21 Understudy to the Shazbotdom Deligate

Ooo, a "deligate." Can I get a ham and cheese sandwich on rye, hold the mayo, extra mustard?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

I think the Shazbotdom delegate is the exception. My sister worked for a Regional Delegate in another nation, and he never looked through the proposal list unless TG'd. And he was probably better than average, because he DID read the proposals on the floor. Many UN members, and even Delegates, don't even do that.

Grundy Goblin, UN rep.

A pity. Nevertheless, we believe in an informed electorate (firmly grasping the mast as the ship seems to be sinking ever so slowly). We shan't give it up! (That's right, I said "shan't"!)

A pity. Nevertheless, we believe in an informed electorate (firmly grasping the mast as the ship seems to be sinking ever so slowly). We shan't give it up! (That's right, I said "shan't"!)Don't worry about it, you are a ickle baby nation. You don't get cynical till you have been around...at least two or three months.

No doubt I shall become cynical soon enough, as I watch such a bad bill get such support.