NationStates Jolt Archive

Protection of Historical Sites

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage
Proposed by: Lapis Heaven

Description: The United Nations,

AWARE of the importance of historical sites for the international community and future generations;

NOTING that history isn't only a national subject, but of international concern;

BELIEVING that keeping history alive therefore is without doubt worth being handled by the United Nations;

DECIDES to protect historical sites of importance


Therefore:

§1 DEFINES a 'historical site' as

a. building (including fountains, aqueducts and structures to similar purpose)
b. remains
c. excavation
d. grave/tomb or
e. cult site

with historical means to a specific nation or folk as well as to the international community.


§2 ESTABLISHES the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' containing all historical sites, that are of supraregional importance, because they are/were

a. a masterpiece of human creation
b. a major watershed in architecture, technology, urban development or landscaping
c. a unique or at least rare evidence of a contemporary or lost civilization
d. an outstanding example of an architectural, technical or scenic type, that emblematize one or more important episode(s) in history of humanity
e. an outstanding example of traditional human housing schemes or land/sea utilization, which is typical for one or more cultures or
f. connected directly or at least distinguishable with events, traditional ways of life, ideas, credos, artistic or literary acts of exceptional universal meaning.


§3 ESTABLISHES the 'United Nations Committee for Protection of Historical Sites' (UNCPH) as board of twelve independent members, elected by UN.


§4 MANDATES the UNCPH to keep the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) updated ex officio and publish it in print and online via database. Each member state per application as well as 10% of the population of a member state per petition can request a change (admission or deletion) of the list. The UN hereby forbids any other change of the list.


§5 ENACTS that every item of the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) must not be destroyed or changed in substance, except for restoration or faithful reproduction above remains, if they maintain the originality and meaning of the item. Primarily the reason for being on the list (see §2) must be conserved.


§6 ALLOWS member nations to diverge from §5 in times of war, if a opposing belligerent has taken position within or near an item on the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) and maintaining the item would be of strategic disadvantage, as long as they minimize damage to the item as far as possible. Any damage will be reviewed by UNCPH after the conflict has ended and possible sanctions will be determined.


§7 RECOMMENDS member nations to maintain other national historical sites as well in order to keep the memory of regional and supraregional history alive.

Authored by Damned PoPer

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

(This can be locked/deleted if the author(s) wish to make a topic.)

Clause 3 of the proposal is in direct violation of the Metagaming rule:

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee.

We confidently expect that our distinguished Moderators will delete the proposal as soon as this comes to their attention.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I'm sure, when you take time to read the rules properly, you'll get to realize, that our propoal doesn't in any way harm them.

1) There are no 'nations' in the UNCPH, there are 12 anonymous mystical beings (called member), elected by UN.

2) The UNCPH is not the only purpose of this proposal. It's just the (neccessary) instrument to build, update and control §2, 5 and 6.

As you can see, there is no violation of any rule...

Sincerly,
Damned PoPer

We confidently expect that our distinguished Moderators will delete the proposal as soon as this comes to their attention.

Nowhere does Clause 3 state that the members are nations, nor even UN members specifically. The twelve are Committee Members the way I read it.

It's a totally unnecessary line, but I don't think it's illegal, Ausserland.

No Prob that you've started the topic, Jay.
We're learning this time to make it better when we'll make our second proposal ;)

As Damned PoPer has outlined before, the UNCPH is necessary to bring live into the resolution. UNCPH is not intended nor have we anything written about ingame mechanisms that would be necessary to estabilsh it. There will be twelve wise wo/men who'll make mystical decisions and no real player will ever be involved.
Someone may sometimes referr to UNCPH in a future issue. But that will be on the gamemasters discretion solely and is not intended by us at the moment.

Yay! Another list in which to add "Bob Flibble's Genetic Jackhammer"!

Nowhere does Clause 3 state that the members are nations, nor even UN members specifically. The twelve are Committee Members the way I read it.

It's a totally unnecessary line, but I don't think it's illegal, Ausserland.Seems to me the "elected by the UN" bit is MetaGam--

aww, nevermind.

Yay! Another list in which to add "Bob Flibble's Genetic Jackhammer"!

That would fall under clause 2a right?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative ON STRIKE!

Well, in order for it to be a historical site in the first place, it has to fall under clause 1. Perhaps 1b?

Fredrickk Reynolds
Very Interim Undersecretary to the United Nations for Bad Jokes

The Democratic Republic of Zyrwick will vote against this proposal if it comes to the floor.

While we generally agree with the need to protect historical sites. Foreign nations should not have the right to name sites or objects inside other nations. This was an abuse that happened under the World Heritage List and should not be repeated. As this is not addressed by this proposal we shall vote and campaign against it.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Good thing it doesn't allow that then. Anyways, although we prefer this to the other various replacements for PHS, we do not particularily like it.

Unless we can be convinced otherwise, New Anonia ABSTAINS.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Nowhere does Clause 3 state that the members are nations, nor even UN members specifically. The twelve are Committee Members the way I read it.

It's a totally unnecessary line, but I don't think it's illegal, Ausserland.

OOC: But they're going to be "elected by the UN"? We're going to hold elections for committee members now? Sorry, Fris. I still say this is patently illegal.

Sorry, Fris. I still say this is patently illegal.

I don't like the line either, but I contend that it's not "patently illegal". I'm not going to delete it for a line that has multiple interpretations and absolutely zero effect on anything inside or outside the resolution.

Also, given that I missed that line when I deleted their first posting for Branding, I sorta kinda gave 'em a clean bill of health on the repost. It would be going back on my word, in a way, and I just don't want to do that. Believe it or not, I'm an ethical being who still thinks his word has value.

If it violates the intent of Hack's ruleset, he can delete it. Wouldn't really bother me, as long as I'm not the one pulling the lever.

Wuf. Talk about thin gray line...

By using the word "members", the implication is that it will be UN member nations; that's the classic method of interpreting that particular word. However, it doesn't actually say member nations, and the author seems to have intended for it to mean twelve gnomes.

At best, this is an utterly worthless phrase and a waste of space. At worst, we still have a violation because of the "elected" clause, an argument Kenny half-heartedly brought up. That's the crux as I'm seeing it.

The question is: is there a portion of the UN that elects gnomes to committees aside from member nations. In other words, who is doing this electing? Are the gnomes getting together and electing twelve of their member? Sadly, we have no case law to go on here.

A very strict read on my metagaming rules demands that this is deleted, though. "[T]hey are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee." This implies no elections would be possible, as the act of passing a bill generates the staffers.

I'm torn, really. Rules are pointless if they aren't interpreted how they're written, but on the other hand, this is, at its heart, a total non-issue. How the committee is staffed really doesn't mean a flipping thing as long as it's not by nations.

Sigh.

I'm... gonna let this slide. As the regulars know, I have no problems deleting Proposals in queue, but I'm just not sure it's worth it here. My parents always told me to pick my battles, and I just don't think it's worth it here. If people want to waste space talking about how the gnomes staff their committees, I don't really see the harm. Especially with this one being so minor. Yes, I'd prefer if the clause wasn't there, but... meh.

OOC: (Not trying to be snide, but I'd suggest the committee section of the rules be revisited at some point, given there seems to be such confusion about what is legal and illegal. Also, clause 6 contradicts Cultural Heritage in War, because it introduces 'strategic disadvantage', which CHiW makes no accommodation for, yet equally allows for sanctions against actions CHiW does allow. This too, though, is a very mild violation.)

IC: This is a little embarrassing. The last few days I've noticed the UN's obsession with cloning and protecting historical sites, but I'd assumed they were fads that would blow over; had I realized a proposal was going to make quorum, I would have tried to surrender some comments. So, after checking the queue for any approval-gathering cloning proposals, I'll say that we are opposed to this, just.

There's going to be lots of bleating about this nuance and that definition and how it violates national sovereignty, but what really concerns us is the 10% threshold. That really is very low, and the idea that 10% of a nation's population - remember, some nations maintain micronations as their UN offices, and so 10% might equal 'the finance department' - can vote away protection of an item is really rather disturbing.

Further, there seems no way for disputes to be resolved. 10% of Quintessence of Dust votes to remove a monument to veterans of the Second Civil War. 10% votes to reinstate it. The first 10% rally, and vote...how is the to-ing and fro-ing resolved? Who makes the final decision?

Sorry, this proposal is under par, and while we reluctantly support the idea - reluctantly, because we are not convinced of the need or efficacy thereof - we cannot support its execution. We will be placing our vote against.

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://z13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Hirota is voting FOR this - it's the only proposal we have seen on this subject which is satisfies my governments conditions for legislation on the matter, that is it legislates (mostly correctly, in our opinion) that the protection (or lack of) Historical sites are an international concern, and thus should not be a decision taken by nations - especially when those nations go on to willfully destroy sites which might conflict with their policy, but internationally is a painful loss.

Hirota is voting FOR this - it's the only proposal we have seen on this subject which is satisfies my governments conditions for legislation on the matter, that is it legislates (mostly correctly, in our opinion) that the protection (or lack of) Historical sites are an international concern, and thus should not be a decision taken by nations - especially when those nations go on to willfully destroy sites which might conflict with their policy, but internationally is a painful loss.
So why would you vote for a proposal that then gives nations the right to make that decision, by applying for sites to be removed or added to the list, if so empowering nations is something you disagree with?

-- Samantha Benson

We have several problems with this proposal, not the least of which is the fact there are three other drafts of legislation (ours, the esteemed delegates from Zyrwich, & Audientes) which have been and continue to be picked over not only on the GA floor but elsewhere in Reclamation, while this legislation was 'back doored' on to the floor. I realize that delegates are not required to post drafts for open debate, but we find it hard to believe the the delegate from Lapis Heaven didn't realize that was what was happening else where in the GA, and in the interest of good faith should have let us seen their idea. Or at least made some indication during the Repeal debate they were thinking of drafting a replacement.

That said, we believe on the grounds that this is so close to the borderline of being illegal, and that we believe any of the other three resolutions are better than this we would have to oppose.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

So why would you vote for a proposal that then gives nations the right to make that decision, by applying for sites to be removed or added to the list, if so empowering nations is something you disagree with?My understanding is that every site which satisfies the criteria of §2 is automatically on this "List of UN-protected Historical Sites." §4 then says nations can petition (or requests) for a site to be removed. That doesn't mean that request is going to be honoured everytime does it? The question then is, who decides? I'd say UNCPH - they are the ones who manage the list, so they decide.

So the scenario I see is these twelve members of the UNCPH (presumably gnomes) holding the list, with nations and significant portions of nations enpowered to petition for things to be taken off. I see the right to decide being held by the UNCPH, not by the nation.

On a personal level, it's not empowering nations that I especially disagree with. It's protecting sites of importance for the good of the international community that I agree with. If that means protecting them from nations bulldozers, so be it.

OOC: (Not trying to be snide, but I'd suggest the committee section of the rules be revisited at some point, given there seems to be such confusion about what is legal and illegal.Fair enough. Feel free to give your suggestions in the comments thread.

Also, clause 6 contradicts Cultural Heritage in War, because it introduces 'strategic disadvantage', which CHiW makes no accommodation for, yet equally allows for sanctions against actions CHiW does allow. This too, though, is a very mild violation.)Please expand on this.

My understanding is that every site which satisfies the criteria of §2 is automatically on this "List of UN-protected Historical Sites." §4 then says nations can petition (or requests) for a site to be removed. That doesn't mean that request is going to be honoured everytime does it? The question then is, who decides? I'd say UNCPH - they are the ones who manage the list, so they decide.

So the scenario I see is these twelve members of the UNCPH (presumably gnomes) holding the list, with nations and significant portions of nations enpowered to petition for things to be taken off. I see the right to decide being held by the UNCPH, not by the nation.

Correct, that's what the resolution is supposed to do. As Lapis Heaven said before: This is our first proposal ever and so we are still learning :) Thank you all for your comment.

And no, there are no gnomes in the UNCPH, they all are elves ;)

Seriously: "elected" was the best word i could find for "picking someone out of X million people because the UN members in majority think, he/she is the right one" - maybe someone can suggest a better term for future proposals?

And no, there are no gnomes in the UNCPH, they all are elves ;)

Then I object as this resolution is Anti-Gnome!

Seriously: "elected" was the best word i could find for "picking someone out of X million people because the UN members in majority think, he/she is the right one" - maybe someone can suggest a better term for future proposals?

You don't have to include it, UN Committees are not elected or selected or volunteered by anything or anyone.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

Protection of Historical Sites

§1 DEFINES a 'historical site' as

a. building (including fountains, aqueducts and structures to similar purpose)
b. remains
c. excavation
d. grave/tomb or
e. cult site

with historical means to a specific nation or folk as well as to the international community.




If All the sites in the world that fit this description are to be declared historical there would be no possible area for economic activity to occur. Particularly with definition "D". People are buried everywhere. Indeed just a few weeks ago in Zyrwinya, a provincial city in our Democratic Republic a large burial site was found when we were building a foundation for a new weapons factory.

While we stopped brought in archaeologists to do an excavation, this might not be prudent for other nations. Indeed if every site that fits that description is to be listed and can only be removed. This could prove disastrous to many nation's economies, particularly ones like ours which are rapidly expanding due to industrialization.

This proposal is very misguided, and on the very edge of legal ( and while I personally feel it should be nuked immediately--I must leave that decision with the mods ).

I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal. And to consider the other three proposals on this issue.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

We are against this proposal for a variety of reasons. First, we think one of the proposals currently being drafted in the GA would suit much better. Second, we think that this proposal still has major flaws - the main ones have already been pointed out by Quod - that need to be fixed, and lastly, though we can't go against a mod ruling, we still feel that the language is wrong, and therefore we protest in legal means by not allowing this to be passed.

Oh, and the proposal's anti-Gnome. We like Gnomes. We're Advocates for the Gnome Bureaucracy(™ 2007 by the Wolf Guardians). We should start a club of gnome advocates.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

First, I have to congratulate the authors on putting together an interesting proposal. Unfortunately there are a few small things that make it difficult for me to support it.

The most annoying problem is the definition of 'historical site'. The curse of definitive lists is what they miss out; in this case battlefields, parkland and the like. While we could register one of the overblown country houses people seem to like so much in my nation, we couldn't register the acres of landscaped gardens that go with it, and are arguably more historically important. Similarly if a place is "only" the site of an important battle within or between nations, it can't be defined as a historical site.

Then we get to the clashes with Cultural Heritage in War.

§6 ALLOWS member nations to diverge from §5 in times of war, if a opposing belligerent has taken position within or near an item on the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) and maintaining the item would be of strategic disadvantage, as long as they minimize damage to the item as far as possible. Any damage will be reviewed by UNCPH after the conflict has ended and possible sanctions will be determined.

3. Requires member nations to refrain from, and prevent to the best abilities their forces and the civilian populations of areas under their control from engaging in:
- the deliberate and targeted destruction or damage of cultural heritage, except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life;
As you can see, the bolded part of the proposal is a stronger condition than UNR#207 makes. Given the amount of argument we had over that, it doesn't bode well for this proposal. On the plus side, the idiots who were screaming over CHiW giving enemies safe places to hole up probably won't even notice this clause. I don't think this is illegal per se, but it's treading close to the line.

The possible sanctions bit on the end is more problematic to my mind. Given that UNR#207 specifically unprotects sites being used for military purposes, introducing potential sanctions looks like it introduces potential contradictions. This can get very muddy very fast.

If All the sites in the world that fit this description are to be declared historical there would be no possible area for economic activity to occur. Particularly with definition "D". People are buried everywhere. Indeed just a few weeks ago in Zyrwinya, a provincial city in our Democratic Republic a large burial site was found when we were building a foundation for a new weapons factory.1. Is meaningless. It's 2 that's relevant.

Please expand on this.
Ok, well, I don't intend on dragging this out, but:

Its clause §6 allows nations to destroy/damage items that clearly would fall under the definition of protected items under Resolution #207 'if a opposing [sic] belligerent has taken position within or near an item...and maintaining the item would be of strategic disadvantage'. But Resolution #207 simply said 'except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life'.

So, it did not allow the destruction of protected sites if belligerents were simply near them, but only if there were actually using them; similarly, it allows destruction in order to save life, but not simply to gain 'strategic disadvantage'. Thus, ironically, this proposal contradicts Cultural Heritage in War in actually allowing the destruction of cultural heritage more readily.

That said, I don't think it's a big enough contradiction to warrant it being made illegal, given the committee violation also wasn't. It's probably more confusing than anything, as it will be unclear which set of rules takes precedence.

1. Is meaningless. It's 2 that's relevant.

My friend do you fail to see that if the definition is meaningless the whole resolution is flawed? Any other thinking person would not.

Also what is and is not history is naturally a question of culture. I fail to understand how it is that people can think that history is something objective rather than subjective. It clearly isnt. As such designations should be left to the nations.

Add to the fact that there are three better draft proposals on the table the fact that this made it to queue only proves that this is a topic of great interest, however, this one like the others will end up repealed, if it passes which I doubt.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassdor.

That said, I don't think it's a big enough contradiction to warrant it being made illegal, given the committee violation also wasn't. It's probably more confusing than anything, as it will be unclear which set of rules takes precedence.The question is does a number of minor, borderline possible illegalities stack up and become enough to make something illegal?

My understanding is that every site which satisfies the criteria of §2 is automatically on this "List of UN-protected Historical Sites." §4 then says nations can petition (or requests) for a site to be removed. That doesn't mean that request is going to be honoured everytime does it? The question then is, who decides? I'd say UNCPH - they are the ones who manage the list, so they decide.
Hmm. On reflection, you may be right. I jumped the gun a little there. That also somewhat voids our earlier objection, although we will rallly round behind the Gobbannian one - fancy excluding battlefields from a proposal about historical sites! (and in fact, my earlier example of a 'monument' would probably also be excluded).

Nonetheless, the very idea that 10% of a nation can even request a removal or addition is a little troubling, isn't it? There have been perfectly moderate countries generally regarded as 'liberal', 'progressive' and whatever where extremist parties have still gathered 10% in an election, which is not troubling in their winning the vote, but is in that they were so successful. I don't see why similar kinds of things couldn't occur here: for example, a minority group being victimised by their cultural assets being requested for delisting, if public furore was whipped up against them.
1. Is meaningless. It's 2 that's relevant.
Um, no, it's not meanginless. Its meaning is 'to be considered a "historical site", and thus considered eligible for inclusion on the list, a site must be one of these 5 things'. Something that is not one of those 5 things - such as a field or a famous railway line - cannot be included.

-- Samantha Benson

Um, no, it's not meanginless. Its meaning is 'to be considered a "historical site", and thus considered eligible for inclusion on the list, a site must be one of these 5 things'. Something that is not one of those 5 things - such as a field or a famous railway line - cannot be included.It was a rather flippant response wasn't it? ;)

Meaningless was a poor choice of words. Still, a historical site under 1 is not automatically going to be in the "list" under 2 - I don't see any protection for buildings and sites which satisfy 1 but not 2 - which is why I feel 1 isn't the section to be especially concerned about.

I agree with the field and railway line observation. I'm going to have to talk to my government and see if I can persuade them to abstain and hopefully place pressure on the author to do better.

Meaningless was a poor choice of words. Still, a historical site under 1 is not automatically going to be in the "list" under 2 - I don't see any protection for buildings and sites which satisfy 1 but not 2 - which is why I feel 1 isn't the section to be especially concerned about.
My concern was the other way round: anything not covered under 1 cannot be considered under 2. I think - for once - we basically agree.

-- Samantha Benson

Foreign nations should not have the right to name sites or objects inside other nations.
Good thing it doesn't allow that then.While it galls us to agree even in part with the Zyrwickians over anything, we see no restriction in the proposed resolution to nations submitting sites in other nations. Nor is it apparent that the UNCPH would have the authority to reject such a submission if it met the thin criteria in §§ 1 and 2.

Unlike the Zyrwickians, we don't object to other nation's submitting sites for protection, but would prefer a committee that is peopled by experts in appropriate fields (history, archeology, architecture, for examples) and has the authority to evaluate sites for inclusion and protection.

That said, this resolution comes closer than any of the other current drafts to a resolution that we could support. It's weaknesses (as noted by the Gobbanium and Quoddite delegations) are, however, fatal.

Yay! Another list in which to add "Bob Flibble's Genetic Jackhammer"!

That would fall under clause 2a right?

Well, in order for it to be a historical site in the first place, it has to fall under clause 1. Perhaps 1b?We were thinking 1e and 2f... making it a cult site connected directly ... with ... traditional ways of life, [and] ... artistic ... acts of exceptional universal meaning. Performance art for the win.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

The Raptor Pack is for this proposal. Our kind has had more history than any of you humans will ever have. Seventy million years.

The question is does a number of minor, borderline possible illegalities stack up and become enough to make something illegal?Indeed. How many minor (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12821859&postcount=12) offenses (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12823338&postcount=27) does it take to kill a proposal?

Will you finally delete it if we come back with a third?

Distinguished colleagues,

As noted by the Zyrwickian delegation, this proposal allows an extranational body to designate sites within a nation without that nation's consent. We feel that this unjustly infringes upon national sovereignty. Begrudgingly, nations should be able to decide for themselves between the potential revenue derived from the development of such sites, and the potentially perpetual revenue garnered from tourism and research associated with these sites of historical import (not to mention the admiration of their peers, which is sure to follow from the decision to protect such sites for the benefit of all peoples). We feel that this decision is best left to the individual nations in which these sites lie.

Granted, the proposal includes a provision for nations to petition the UNCPH for removal of a site. As mentioned, it does not guarantee it, and it leaves room for a perpetual battle between 10-percenters to continuously add and remove a site. Since all sites fitting the problematic criteria would presumably be protected upon passage of this resolution, I foresee a storm of petitions flooding the UNCPH for the removal of sites, and a storm of petitions demanding their re-inclusion. The twelve gnomes responsible for the UNCPH -- which seems an incredibly small, and potentially unrepresentative number by the way -- would be deluged. Perhaps the poor gnomes could manage it, being known for their heroic industriousness.

Nevertheless, we feel that this proposal is plagued with errors, the majority of which already have been pointed out. Seeing as how our delegation has its own proposal -- which is not without its own faults -- being discussed in the GA, we abstain with objections.

-UN Delegation of the Republic of Audientes

My government opposes this proposal, not only because we dispute the claim that the matter in question should be dealt with by the UN rather than by the governments of the separate nations, and becausewe agree with some of the arguments that other ambassadors have already raised about its flaws, but also because of its speciesist nature: I refer you to clause #2, specifically the words that I have marked in red here _

2 ESTABLISHES the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' containing all historical sites, that are of supraregional importance, because they are/were

a. a masterpiece of human creation
b. a major watershed in architecture, technology, urban development or landscaping
c. a unique or at least rare evidence of a contemporary or lost civilization
d. an outstanding example of an architectural, technical or scenic type, that emblematize one or more important episode(s) in history of humanity
e. an outstanding example of traditional human housing schemes or land/sea utilization, which is typical for one or more cultures or
f. connected directly or at least distinguishable with events, traditional ways of life, ideas, credos, artistic or literary acts of exceptional universal meaning.

What of the works of, for example, the Elves and the Dwarves? And why should the representative of the Raptor Pack support this proposal, as he does, when it clearly regards his own people's history as unworthy of the protection that it offers to Human nations' histories?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this confounded penguin costume!)

Well, as i can see, our editor has made an unexcusable fault - be sure, he will be removed from office. Of course this clauses were ment to be:

"a masterpiece of sentinent-being creation"

"one or more important episode(s) in history of sentinent-beings"

and

"an outstanding example of traditional sentinent-beings' housing schemes or land/sea utilization"

I simply didn't know, that the NSUN has member nations from outer space or never-never land, which is pretty surprising, thinking about the RLUN ;)

By the way: A nation can choose to protect a historical site, NOT being on the list. The disadvatage of items not on the list, but handled by the nations as if it were, is apparent in war times only.

The disadvatage of items not on the list, but handled by the nations as if it were, is apparent in war times only.
That's quite a statement, given there is already a resolution to cover that exact exigency. So what on earth is the point of this one!?

-- Samantha Benson

The Democratic Republic of Zyrwick will vote against this proposal if it comes to the floor.

While we generally agree with the need to protect historical sites. Foreign nations should not have the right to name sites or objects inside other nations. This was an abuse that happened under the World Heritage List and should not be repeated. As this is not addressed by this proposal we shall vote and campaign against it.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

The Protectorate of Planting wholeheartedly agrees with the Democratic Republic of Zyrwick and will also vote against this resolution if it comes to the floor. Who can decide what best represents a nation or a culture than the residents of that nation themselves? Let us decide what we want to preserve.

Planting Mushrooms
Ambassador to the United Nations
Protectorate of Planting

i think if a nation wants to have some of it's historical sites protected it's should take out the protection for that historical site it should be the nations decision or option to make it historical if the government doesn't want the site to be historical it shouldn't have to be.

I am FOR the proposition but that is what i reckon would give each nation a more open Option.

;)

That's quite a statement, given there is already a resolution to cover that exact exigency. So what on earth is the point of this one!?

1) The proposal primarily protects histroical sites, which are NOT handled by the nations as if the list existed and if the items would be on the list. See answer #2 below...

Who can decide what best represents a nation or a culture than the residents of that nation themselves? Let us decide what we want to preserve.

2) Fully respecting national souvereignty, i nevertheless believe, that there are several parts in history (and therefor historical sites), which are connected to more than one nation or to a nation, that dosn't have access to their historical sites. These items must be conserved, even if one (other) nation declares it as not important to their history.

As RL examples there would be the chinese wall, the pyramides, the wailing wall, etc.

2) Fully respecting national souvereignty, i nevertheless believe, that there are several parts in history (and therefor historical sites), which are connected to more than one nation or to a nation, that dosn't have access to their historical sites. These items must be conserved, even if one (other) nation declares it as not important to their history.

The Protectorate of Planting agrees that while there may be objects/sites/places of historical interest beyond the scope of our own nation's accomplishments; or certain accomplishments of ours that we don't view as worth saving, giving another nation or national body permission to denote what is and is not to be protected within the boarders of our nation takes away a large dose of national pride as well as our national sovereign rights.

If we loose our history, we loose our future!!!! That is why alweg is in full support of this resolution, and will vote for it when it comes to a vote

There is a little confusion at the Kivistan table as Oskar finds himself being queried by a young couple who seem to have snuck up on him. There are some almost heated whispers for a moment until Oskar bursts into a small bout of laughter and waves them forward to speak

A young man arises, adjusting his tie, looking a little nervous as he scans Oskars notes on the current discussion. After a brief moment, his nerves seem to give way to thought as he continues to read.

"Ummm....Hi. Pardon me, I'm new here. My name is Bernard. This here" he pulls the accompanying female over beside him "is my wife, Lina. Long story that brings us here, so we won't bore you with the details right now. We have a couple of questions and remarks about what we've got in front of us here. Like I say, we're a little new here, so let's take this a little slow. Forgive me if I repeat something that's already been said. So then, from the top...


Description: The United Nations,

AWARE of the importance of historical sites for the international community and future generations;

NOTING that history isn't only a national subject, but of international concern;

Alright, not to jump the gun overmuch, but why? What use has the international community of protecting the history of small sections of the world as a whole. Realistically, on the grander scale of things, what does it matter if some historical piece of architecture or something within Kivisto is forgotten by the world as a whole. It would be fairly rational to assume that those things that are of true concern or import to the world will be remembered whether they continue to physically exist or not, much as those individuals who have made the greatest impact upon the face of the world are remembered well by nations world wide millenia past their own demises.

Well, anyways, moving along...

BELIEVING that keeping history alive therefore is without doubt worth being handled by the United Nations;

Now we're running into a completely different matter that I believe really does need to be mentioned. If we go with the notion that the history of the world is worth preserving through the protection of 'things', then we have to realize that the UN can only do this for a small percentage of the world, it's history or representative things.

I know, I know, the UN can only do so much and doing something is better than nothing, but the statement is that this is something worth being handled by the UN, and that is blatantly misleading. The proposed ideal here is something completely beyond the capacity of the UN. You wish to preserve the history of the world, but are only capable of protecting the tiniest little bit of it. Alright, I'll grant you that that is better than doing nothing at all. But wouldn't it make more sense to at least make token efforts towards engaging in discourse with non members to show them that what we are attempting to do is a good thing and try to convince them to do the same. No, we cannot mandate anything onto them, and I wouldn't suggest that we do. I would suggest that we could talk to them about it, though.

Yes, I realize that there is nothing stopping nations from doing this on their own anyways, and all the power to those nations that make the effort and congratulations to those that succeed, but would it not make for a much more convincing display were it the entire UN offering these ideals and suggestions to non-members? Would it not be more efficient to have every UN member making the effort to reach the multitudes than to leave it to those select few that take it upon themselves?"

DECIDES to protect historical sites of importance

Lina twitches visibly

"What is it honeybunch?"

"A minor pet peeve. It's nothing worth really bothering with at this stage."

"Well, come on then. If it's nothing major then nobody will really be bothered by hearing about it."

"I would just really prefer it if that line could have been rewritten."

"How so?"

"blah blah 'Sites of historical importance', instead of 'historical sites of importance. It really isn't anything major. I just don't like the way it rolls. Feels sloppy."

"Alright. Nothing wrong with preferring your legal system to be well written, muffin."

"Thanks, hun."

"Anyways, moving forward...

Therefore:

§1 DEFINES a 'historical site' as

a. building (including fountains, aqueducts and structures to similar purpose)
b. remains
c. excavation
d. grave/tomb or
e. cult site

with historical means to a specific nation or folk as well as to the international community.

So I think it's already been mentioned that there are a few items which should be included on this list which are not. Battlefields, monuments, etc. That's an absolute shame. We also have a bit of a concern regarding, not so much the definition itself, but the scope of the definition. As I understand it, it's generally accepted protocol to make legislative definitions explicitly for the purposes of that single piece of legislation. I'm not sure if that explicit disclaimer was purposefully omitted, accidentally forgotten, or is even really that important. Maybe I'm overblowing my reaction to its absence, but without it, it occurs to me that this make it such that no other piece of UN legislation could possibly use a different definition for an 'historical site'. That may not sound particularly offensive, but that would mean that the UN could never recognize any site as having any historical significance unless that significance surpassed national boundaries, since the definition here clearly states that the site must have meaning to the international community. We would be unable to ever officially acknowledge that a nation's internal historical sites have any importance to us whatsoever. For that alone, we will be casting our vote against this."

Bernard takes a momentary pause for breath

"Anywhoooo...

§2 ESTABLISHES the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' containing all historical sites, that are of supraregional importance, because they are/were

a. a masterpiece of human creation
b. a major watershed in architecture, technology, urban development or landscaping
c. a unique or at least rare evidence of a contemporary or lost civilization
d. an outstanding example of an architectural, technical or scenic type, that emblematize one or more important episode(s) in history of humanity
e. an outstanding example of traditional human housing schemes or land/sea utilization, which is typical for one or more cultures or
f. connected directly or at least distinguishable with events, traditional ways of life, ideas, credos, artistic or literary acts of exceptional universal meaning.

You'll have to excuse me while I find this a little bit funny. Oskar here has a note about the Genetic Jackhammer, which I thought was purely a joke. It seems that there is a joke, but not on the notepaper. The joke is that our friend the owner of said hammer has valid claim to be on this list using more than one of these criteria.

Using a, it could be argued that the Genetic Jackhammer is an absolute marvel, and it was definitely created by humans, which actually brings up the humanocentric issues in a UN containing many nonhuman races that will have their works ignored as a result of that rather unfortunate politically incorrect slip.

Using b, I have heard rumours about that particular Jackhammer having a great deal to do with the development of urban population centers by way of helping to populate them.

With c, there are few that would argue the fact that Bob Flibble carries an incredibly unique piece of evidence of a contemporary civilization, and perhaps some evidence of an ancient race of near god like superbeings.

D is a bit of a stretch to say the the Genetic Jackhammer is quite scenic, but someone is likely to end up making the argument at some point.

E is pretty well a write-off, but is made up for with f, where that Genetic Jackhammer is very closely and directly connected to the international dealings of this very body regarding one now extinct World Heritage List. In fact, there are many bodies who will surely agree that one can barely think of one without the other coming immediately to mind. That in and of itself should easily grant Bob Flibble that extra claim to international historical immortality with these criteria.

And, as much respect as we hold for the nation of Flibbleites, the very fact that a phallus could so easily make its way onto this list demonstrates that there are some obvious issues with it.

§3 ESTABLISHES the 'United Nations Committee for Protection of Historical Sites' (UNCPH) as board of twelve independent members, elected by UN.

I don't care for elections. Past that, I will grant that giving this list some oversight is a good idea, but declaring an apparently arbitrary number for size, no source of funding for the committee or its efforts, and stating that the UN must come to some form of consensus as to who should staff it raises any number of red flags for me.

<<OOC: Not aiming at legality or anything with that, just trying to form an IC opinion of it>>

§4 MANDATES the UNCPH to keep the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) updated ex officio and publish it in print and online via database. Each member state per application as well as 10% of the population of a member state per petition can request a change (admission or deletion) of the list. The UN hereby forbids any other change of the list.

A definite improvement over WHL, however there have already been raised concerns over the logistics of petitions. While the committee, which I believe to be dramatically understaffed at 12 individuals, and has no apparent source of money with which to accomplish anything, could in theory resolve any conflicting issues arising over changes, there remains the fact that such work will likely completely bog down this tiny group as each nation could field 11 petitions regarding any single site on the list. That's one for the government, and another one for each 10% of the population. There are also matters of alterations outside of admission or deletion, including changes of the size of the site protected. That is, is a pyramid is protected, and later it is found that only half of it is legitimate, that other half is probably not of significance, but there is no allowance for removing half of the site, only deletion of the whole.

§5 ENACTS that every item of the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) must not be destroyed or changed in substance, except for restoration or faithful reproduction above remains, if they maintain the originality and meaning of the item. Primarily the reason for being on the list (see §2) must be conserved.


§6 ALLOWS member nations to diverge from §5 in times of war, if a opposing belligerent has taken position within or near an item on the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) and maintaining the item would be of strategic disadvantage, as long as they minimize damage to the item as far as possible. Any damage will be reviewed by UNCPH after the conflict has ended and possible sanctions will be determined.

For the sake of nitpicking, define "near". I realize that most rational nations won't have an issue with being reasonable about it, but, in all fairness, there are nations with weapons that can devastate hundreds of square miles at a time. "Near", to them, would be within the blast radius, which would mean that they couldn't use their most effective weapon, which puts them at a strategic disadvantage, which would mean that they could atomize multiple historical sites all at once, in theory, while still remaining within the letter of this proposed law.

§7 RECOMMENDS member nations to maintain other national historical sites as well in order to keep the memory of regional and supraregional history alive.

Here we get back into that definition issue again. Our national historical sites will be of national import, and possibly of very little regional or supraregional historical import. Further, our national sites are not recognized as historical sites by this proposal, not can they be so recognized by the UN were this to pass.

The Dominion of Kivisto shall be casting its vote against this through our UN Bordello for ouselves and for our region.

Thank you for giving me a bit of your time. We must run back to the Antarctic Oasis, now"

Bernard and Lina hurriedly walk out the back doors of the assembly hall

Unfortunately there has been a medium heavy flooding in the northern parts of Damned PoPer, so i must head back there as soon as possible. Therefore take my short answers and please don't weighr up every word, because I'm in a hurry.

1) Welcome to the UN Headquarter. You two are UN delegates?

2) We strongly believe, that histroy is of important meaning to all nations. It points out faults, that have been made, and makes us learn something for our future and the future of our nations. And because ancient empires were not bound to today's borders, there are a couple of histroical sites, which are important for more than one country (=international meaning).

3) As you already pointed out, the UN can't force non-members to do or desist something. But it is better to protect some sites than protect no sites, just because we can't reach all of them.

4) Damned PoPer is in lively discussion with it's neighboring states, which are not members of the UN - amongst others about the protection of historical sites. But we don't think it's right to designate the member states' topics of foreign affairs with non-member states.

That may not sound particularly offensive, but that would mean that the UN could never recognize any site as having any historical significance unless that significance surpassed national boundaries, since the definition here clearly states that the site must have meaning to the international community. We would be unable to ever officially acknowledge that a nation's internal historical sites have any importance to us whatsoever.

5) As i pointed out already, there is no reason, NOT to protect an item, which is not on the list. But the items on the list are especially protected by UN and on THIS list there are only items of international meaning, because otherwise it would affect nations's souvereignity as you pointed out yourself.

6) Be sure, the UNCPH will set up a special board for 'Jackhammers and other uber-things'. No, seriously: I don't see, why a independant committee may list a joke item...

7) Too bad, you don't care for elections, since the UN is based on elections. Moreover the proposed resolution does not require consens as you assumed, but a majority vote only.

[OOC: I'm new too and i didn't know, that the UN usually has committees, that just pop into existance after being named in an resolution...]

8) There are even more than 11 request per member nation possible, because every nation can choose to request for as many items as they wish. Because of this there will be (as with every committee established by NSUN) a huge, mystical network of gnomes or elves, that handle all applications. The 12 members of UNCPH define the guidelines and decide as ultimate ressort.

9) There is no definition of near, because it varys depending on the situation, typ of conflict, used guns, surroundings, etc. But there is an important part, you have missed. Attacking an item on the list is alowed only when minimizing the damage as far as possible. Wheather this was the fact or not will be reviewed by UNCPH...

10) I hope, i lighted the copse a little bit for you. But now i really have to catch my helicopter to nothern Damned PoPer. I will be back as soon as our emergency management units have everything control.

As our Safgaurding our History Act has failed to recieve the a quarum. We feel the ability to rise in opposition of this resolution, we wish the authors had taken the time to circulate drafts around the building as we feel the problems with this draft might have been ironed out before it's submission.

Our biggest problem is it seems that if ouy President went on a trip abroad and signed an important treat in the other countries capital that we can now call that capitol a historic site in our country. That is a blatent threat to soverignty. We feel as though we should have the right to suggest that the nation hold that site dear, but certianly we do not feel as though we have the right to force the situation.

Add to that the fact that it seems from the definitions that this resolution would protect graves of the fallen solgiers but not the field where they fell, would not protect the spot where our nation was finally joined by the first transcontinental railroad, the bluff over looking the battle of Painted Run where three of our 3rd Combat Division solgiers held their ground from 150 enemy forces. Should I tell them that if they had fallen we would be able to honor them or at least their graves not the loction of their bravery? I'm sure the nation attacking them might find that bluff to be less historically significant that we do? Would that keep it off the list?

This proposal is a half way decent first draft, not a finished product, it should be voted if for other reason than to clean the original idea in the writing sessions.

We plan to oppose.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large

Chris Carter, attaché of Damned PoPer, transmitts the following message from the Damned PoPer chancellor:

1) As i stated above several times, there is no reason, why you should NOT protect your battlefields, even if they are not on the list. They aren't protected by UN, but YOU can protect them, if you want to. But you will not be forced to by UN.

PLUS

2) There is always the possibility to add a missing chapter to the UN legislation by another resolution. If you think, it is important to protect battle fields as well, why not proposing a "Protect Battle Fields" Proposal. Let's see if it will be approved and passed.

=> There is no reason to vote against this resolution just because it protects too few, because you can always enlage a regulation, but cutting it down would mean to repeal the resolution as a whole.

Our battlefields are protected... by us and our "Safeguarding Our History Act" passed by our legislature and signed by our president, so if one of our citizens defaces or destroys one of our historical sites they face heavy fines. The problem is this resolution is in the international law realm and as such none of the combat provisions stated in this law would apply to items nations classify on our own. So if we are invaded, my battlefields and historic sites that the other nations of the UN don't feel are worthy of protection aren't.

PLUS

More importantly you are still allowing other nations to claim areas of my nation as historically significant. I guarantee anyone who tries that it won't go very well, and I know I'm not alone in that sentiment.

PLUS

On top of that how many more pieces of legislature will we need to get it right? One piece of succinct legislation not full of glaring loopholes will do much better than this and two or three others to get the things we missed on this one.

As a side note, if you are in need of assistance we have some excellent flood relief alternatives. Feel free to telegram and ask.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

More importantly you are still allowing other nations to claim areas of my nation as historically significant. I guarantee anyone who tries that it won't go very well, and I know I'm not alone in that sentiment.

No, I do not. This resolution - if it will be passed - allows a UN committee and therefore the UN to claim areas of your nation as historically significant. And if you don't like to be limited by the UN because of international concern, you should ask yourself the question: Why did I join the UN?

On top of that how many more pieces of legislature will we need to get it right? One piece of succinct legislation not full of glaring loopholes will do much better than this and two or three others to get the things we missed on this one.

Well - there IS one piece of legislation, which is enough. YOU wanted to cover more sites and I suggested to do so. But it is not a reason to vote against this resolution, because everything it does, is just fine. You just think, one could protect more... If the member nations agree to your opinion, they surely will pass your addition.

--snip n00bish nonsense--

If the member nations agree to your opinion, they surely will pass your addition.

Actually no they can't. If you would have bothered to read the UN's rules at all which after reading your arguments you have not. Amendments are illegal.

If one would want to protect more or less or change this resolution if passed which I hope that it isn't as its utter trash. Its a first draft and not even a very good one at that.

The WHOLE THING must be repealed and replaced. Instead it would be a much wiser course to get it done and done right the first time.

Comrade Ulyanov has instructed the Zyrwickian UN Mission to vote against this proposal and will continue to point out that there are three other proposals on the floor being debated now. All of which address this problem much better.

Antranig Zylovnov
Zyrwickian Deputy UN Ambassador

§4 MANDATES the UNCPH to keep the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) updated ex officio and publish it in print and online via database. Each member state per application as well as 10% of the population of a member state per petition can request a change (admission or deletion) of the list. The UN hereby forbids any other change of the list.

So 10% of any population of country can request to remove an item of historical value from any nation from the list?


§5 ENACTS that every item of the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) must not be destroyed or changed in substance, except for restoration or faithful reproduction above remains, if they maintain the originality and meaning of the item. Primarily the reason for being on the list (see §2) must be conserved.

ummm what?

Oh, and the proposal's anti-Gnome. We like Gnomes. We're Advocates for the Gnome Bureaucracy(™ 2007 by the Wolf Guardians). We should start a club of gnome advocates.

Seconded

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

No, I do not. This resolution - if it will be passed - allows a UN committee and therefore the UN to claim areas of your nation as historically significant. And if you don't like to be limited by the UN because of international concern, you should ask yourself the question: Why did I join the UN?

Please spare me the psycological deflection. I can assure you the reasons our nation joined the UN do not include 12 gnomes dictating to us what parts of my nation we should pay attention to.

The UN has no right to claim any land in any of its countries. Will the UN be dispatching forces to maintain the security on the property? Of course not it doesn't have them, will the UN pay for the upkeep of the area of my country is claiming, of course not, it has no money? Therefore the UN really can't do any claiming now can it.

Well - there IS one piece of legislation, which is enough. YOU wanted to cover more sites and I suggested to do so. But it is not a reason to vote against this resolution, because everything it does, is just fine. You just think, one could protect more... If the member nations agree to your opinion, they surely will pass your addition.

Well considering there are still major questions with what exactly it does, I'd say the extent to which it does those things is yet undetermined. I also believe you didn't exactly answer my concern as to what happens when nationally protected sites come under attack, considering how they lack the protections that the UN selected sites have.

Actually no they can't. If you would have bothered to read the UN's rules at all which after reading your arguments you have not. Amendments are illegal.

Concerning amendments, you're perfectly right, but this "addition" woouldn't be a amendment as defined in the rules, because it could stand alone. If the CPH act would be repealed, battle fields would still be protected. That's why it's not an amendment. (Otherwise nearly everything would be an "amendment" of the basic charta)

So 10% of any population of country can request to remove an item of historical value from any nation from the list?

Yes, request. As stated above repeatedly, this doesn't FORCE the UNCPH to remove it!

ummm what?

May be, you explain your incomprehension - i may be able to help you then.

Seconded

Welcome to the pro-gnom-community! But in terms of variety, we should allow both elves and gnomes, right?

[OOC: You're not gonna offend a proposal, because it doesn't say something about gnomes for real, are you?]

Yes, request. As stated above repeatedly, this doesn't FORCE the UNCPH to remove it!

Yes but say someone from Rubina thinks an object of historical/cultural significance to Cookesland as something stupid. Then they can just request to have it removed...i know it doesn't force the UNCPH to remove it, but i just dislike the concept.

May be, you explain your incomprehension - i may be able to help you then.

Thats exactly it, i have no idea of what you're trying to say.

Welcome to the pro-gnom-community! But in terms of variety, we should allow both elves and gnomes, right?

agreed

~ R.Y.

[OOC: You're not gonna offend a proposal, because it doesn't say something about gnomes for real, are you?]

ooc: what do you mean by offend? if im going to vote against this proposal that would probably be the last reason.

Seconded

Welcome to the club! Have a complimentary jacket. And this certificate for two free drinks on me in the Stranger's Bar.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Concerning amendments, you're perfectly right, but this "addition" wouldn't be a amendment as defined in the rules, because it could stand alone. If the CPH act would be repealed, battle fields would still be protected.

But it could only be pursuant to an existing resolution, not based on it, because then it would be an amendment. Or maybe you could explain this in a less confusing way.

That's why it's not an amendment.
So, you're now proposing a separate proposal for protection of battlefields? My head hurts.


(Otherwise nearly everything would be an "amendment" of the basic charta)

You mean charter, right? 'Cause we don't have one.

Yes, request. As stated above repeatedly, this doesn't FORCE the UNCPH to remove it!

I agree with Mr. York. It's still a poor concept.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

So, you're now proposing a separate proposal for protection of battlefields? My head hurts.

No they are proposing that my nation propose a separate proposal for battlefields, but keep in mind thats it's not because his nation's proposal falls short in defining things, no it's fine as it is, it just requires other proposals to make it a stronger proposal. So we can propose this new proposal on his proposal.

Then we can have proposals limiting the number of proposals that we can propose after we've proposed a few more proposals about other proposals. It's all in the memo about sending out less memos.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

No they are proposing that my nation propose a separate proposal for battlefields, but keep in mind thats it's not because his nation's proposal falls short in defining things, no it's fine as it is, it just requires other proposals to make it a stronger proposal. So we can propose this new proposal on his proposal.

Then we can have proposals limiting the number of proposals that we can propose after we've proposed a few more proposals about other proposals. It's all in the memo about sending out less memos.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi



I see. Well there is a slight problem with that concept of his then. Should this proposal pass and then have subsequent proposals tacked on to it to make it stronger, should this current proposal in question ever be repealed. Which will surely happen as I will be writing one upon passage. All the other proposals would not be long off.

First there is the House of cards question.

Second any proposal basing itself off of this one would also be subject to repeal...and in short order.

As I have said before, there are three. THREE proposals at debate on the GA floor now and each one of them while different address the issue of historically significant locations and/or objects significantly better than this load of dung.

My own is a Sovereignty friendly proposal that would leave it up to member nations to designate sites or objects within their territory and only in their territory. They can also remove the designation as well. The UN committee only maintains records and maybe puts up a plaque.

Any resolution that allow other nations to dictate to a nation should be handled with extreme care, if not outright shot down immediately. We've already been there and done that...it was called the world heritage list. This list was so prone to abuse that Ambassadorial genitalia was actually submitted as locations for protection.

Indeed it was often used as a form of economic warfare. That mistake should not be repeated.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

You got me wrong:

I said, that our proposal covers everything, it was desinged for - IF you want to protect more than these items, you will have to propose a new resolution, because we will not implement this into our proposal.

But: This is no reason to vote against our proposal, because it doesn't something bad or unwanted - it just falls a little short (from your POV)

Aye?

[btw: with 'offend' i meant 'oppose' - i just mixed up the vocabulary]

You got me wrong:

I said, that our proposal covers everything, it was desinged for - IF you want to protect more than these items, you will have to propose a new resolution, because we will not implement this into our proposal.

But: This is no reason to vote against our proposal, because it doesn't something bad or unwanted - it just falls a little short (from your POV)

Aye?

Nay it's exactly the reason to vote against your proposal. UN selection of the sites, a bad definition of said sites are both bad and unwanted in my eyes.

Depending how you look at it, a battlefield could quite easily be a grave or tomb (on the basis that people tend to die on battlefields), or indeed, depending on the technology involved (especially high explosives), could be considered a major watershed in landscaping, and/or a major watershed in (the application of) technology, specifically munitions.

Seriously however, if we put battlefields into the list, that would be a lot of land to cover. I mean, I have heard of this nation called Belgium which was pretty much one large battleground for a few years. Where does a battlefield end?

This is why battlefields are not included in our proposal - there would be not much fields left, where no battles have taken place.

[OOC: To have the RL exapmle: North America is a battle field because of the independance war, tribe wars of indians and the second world war - South America is a battle field becuase of Maye/Inka/etc. tribe wars and several civil wars - Europe is a battle field because of two world wars and several wars in the medieval times (crusades, Karl der Große, etc.) and afterwards (Napoleon) - Afrika is a battle field because of tribe wars, colony wars and civil wars/independance wars - Middle East is a battle field because the more recent wars (Gulf war I and II, war on terror) - Asia/Far East is a battle field because of acient wars in the times of emperors - Ozeania is a battlefield because of severl tribe wars - Australia may have some place without battlefield - that's it...]

While we are respecting a nation's wish to protect their battlefields, we think, that the UN can't protect them, because if the UN did, they had to protect all battle field (there's not much reason for one battle field being more worth protecting than others), and that would be nearly impossible, because of the sheer expanse.

This is why battlefields are not included in our proposal - there would be not much fields left, where no battles have taken place.
Now that's just damn stupid. Being on the list means that a thing could be a historical site, not that is must be. Not being on the list means that it cannot be a historical site, even if it is one.

Please read my FULL posting:

because if the UN did, they had to protect all battle field (there's not much reason for one battle field being more worth protecting than others), and that would be nearly impossible, because of the sheer expanse.

After carefully considering all of the arguments both pro and con presented by our esteemed colleagues, we are prepared to make a decision reagrding this proposal.

The Allied States of Probstopia must commend the distinguished gentleman from Damned PoPer for his efforts in writing this proposal and for the principles which led him to those efforts. However, the definitions are incomplete and vague, the 10% approval/disapproval method of selection is troublesome, and the author's anti-gnome stance is disappointing.

We are forced to say that we will oppose this proposal when, or if, it is brought to a vote.

While we are respecting a nation's wish to protect their battlefields, we think, that the UN can't protect them, because if the UN did, they had to protect all battle field (there's not much reason for one battle field being more worth protecting than others), and that would be nearly impossible, because of the sheer expanse.

OOC; That is obviously not true. Many, many nations in real life choose certain battlefields to be historical sites, but do not choose all. Factors determining which are chosen and which are not can include number of participants in the battle, location of the battle, significance of the outcome to the future of the nation/region, etc. Obviously, the Normandy invasion of World War Two is much more significant to the average person around the world than a common gun battle between 20-30 native Americans and the Anglo settlers in 1828 for instance. The first has a good reason for an international body to think it is worthy of selection as a historical site, but the second probably does not.

and the author's anti-gnome stance is disappointing.

Oh come on! This is nation states not "Whose delegate is most freaky" ...

Besides: I never stated anything against gnomes, but said - with a sense of humor - that just for equality there had to be elves and dwarfs as well...

Please read my FULL posting:
because if the UN did, they had to protect all battle field (there's not much reason for one battle field being more worth protecting than others), and that would be nearly impossible, because of the sheer expanse.
I did. If this logic were true, it would apply to all other sorts of sites too. If that were the case, there would be not much of anything left unprotected.

Since you don't accept that (and nor do I), you can't make the case different for battlefields. Different battlefields are regarded with more or less importance, and the nature of what needs protecting is different too. For example, the Fields of Abraham at the mythical City of Quebec are said to be open parkland rather than the farmland that was fought across, but that still allows the appreciation of the battles that decided the fate of a city and indeed an entire region. The other battles of that campaign pale in comparison.

Or more briefly: no, that's just damn stupid.

No, I do not. This resolution - if it will be passed - allows a UN committee and therefore the UN to claim areas of your nation as historically significant.It's quite apparent that you honestly think that's what your legislation would do. The actual effect, however, is based on the text of the resolution. You have not adequately described the committee's composition, authority, or role in order for the committee to act in the way you think it will.

[QUOTE=Cookesland;12838096]Yes but say someone from Rubina thinks an object of historical/cultural significance to Cookesland as something stupid. Then they can just request to have it removed...The petitions are already being circulated. ;) Luckily for Cookesland, Rubina is big. Really, really big. So it will take awhile to reach a 10% signature rate. :D

Leetha Talone
Liquored up, but still Ambassador

The petitions are already being circulated. ;) Luckily for Cookesland, Rubina is big. Really, really big. So it will take awhile to reach a 10% signature rate. :DAnd then the committee will still have to consider the request. Assuming the gnomes have some degree of common sense, they'd look at it pragmatically.

Although I was wondering if battlefields (or specific parts of battlefields, and indeed anything else which might have historical importance but has slipped through the cracks) might be eligible for admission if requested?

I've had a thought on the whole issue of the international nature of historical sites, and I'm back to thinking it's bunk, for the following reason:

Let's say there's an ancient temple in Quintessence of Dust that we are thinking about knocking down to build a supermarket. People from Hirota and Rubina and Gobbannium complain, because they feel this temple is a priceless historical relic that all people should have the right to visit, and that if we destroy it we will not just be damaging our national heritage, but the world's collective heritage. Fine, no argument.

But how are these people from Hirota and Rubina and Gobbannium getting to Quintessence of Dust to see the temple in the first place? The UN has never legislated on entry to nations, so far as I can tell: and although Quodite border controls are actually non-existent, we certainly could impose an absolute ban on tourists. Furthermore, I think if the UN did try to legislate, with a 'nations must open their borders inasmuch as allowing tourists to visit sites of world heritage' proposal, everyone would go apeshit and vote it down as a violation of national sovereignty (not unreasonably, given who you let into your country is probably one of the biggest areas of sovereignty, over which even moderates and sceptics of the sovereigntist movement would claim absolute legitimacy).

So really, how are these sites international? If we knock it down, it doesn't necessarily make any difference.

(This example would be a whole lot better if I didn't live in such a beatnik state, that lets everyone in and actively preserves heritage...try to imagine I'm from Nastystan instead. Or Gruenberg.)

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Thanks to Hirtoa - he got it!

A request doesn't force the Committee to accept it - it just forces the Committee to do something, i.g. to take a look at the request and approve OR DECLINE it.

If anyone will come up with "Why should other nations make my buildings a historical site?" again, this will be the posting to quote!

My government agrees to an extent with the considered words of Ambassador Madison that access into nations should remain the province of national legislation (and this coming from a nation who is not especially concerned about national sovereignty!). I'm not sure we want historical sites automatically becoming tourist attractions – for a start that can contribute to the elimination of those sites. After all, if you allow scores of schoolkids to start putting their grubby hands on priceless thousand year-old sandstone statues, those statues are going to erode pretty quickly.

However, if we remove that link between historical sites of international importance, and tourism and the international transit that brings, does that mean that the sites are no longer of international importance? Perhaps another example would be a site of international importance generally inaccessible due to it’s location, or the weather conditions. A good example might be underwater historical sites which would be generally unavailable to land walking civilians.

Whilst a nation might control the territory associated with the site, borders change, nations die, governments change and others rise in their place. What remains constant is that these sites offer value to all peoples as a whole in furthering understanding of the past. I’d imagine such sites would offer examples for scientific research, and I’d hope even the most insular of nations would invite archelogists and other specialist in relevant fields the opportunity to research and learn and diseminate their studies for the good of all peoples.

In summary (and I’m sure I am grossly oversimplifying the position expressed by Ambassador Madison) , just because a historical site is either unavailable because of travel restrictions, or simply unsuitable for tourism should not instantly negate it’s value to society.

Ok, the point about the possibility of governments changing, and administrations more likely to allow in visitors coming to power; I suppose in the lifetime of a historic monument such as The Great Penis-Shaped Object Of Questionable Taste, that stands at the centre of Highmark City's main square, human politicians must flicker by in the blink of an eye. I'll have to reconsider a little more.

But I still see that as a bit of a dodge. I'll take an example from another nation, because Quintessence of Dust isn't a great case study. There is a nation called Gruenberg that was once active in the UN, that has Wenaism as its national religion. The spiritual home of Wenaism, The Holy City, is found in Gruenberg, and only Wenaists are allowed to visit it. But Gruenberg additionally has very strict immigration laws, meaning Wenaists in other countries - it's never really caught on in Quintessence of Dust, but we hear there are some small groups here and there - may find it very difficult to enter Gruenberg and visit The Holy City. If we set aside the question of how just Gruenberg's immigration laws - and we might probably accept anyway that they are none of the UN's business - we are faced with a dynastic monarchy, in which sudden policy change is actually very unlikely. So what Gruenberg does in The Holy City, which doubtless contains many ancient buildings that would firmly qualify as historical sites, is really of little consequence to the international community because it's equally unlikely the international community will ever get more than a postcard of it.

So I'm still not entirely convinced. I will think it over some more.

-- George Madison

Thanks to Hirtoa - he got it!

A request doesn't force the Committee to accept it - it just forces the Committee to do something, i.g. to take a look at the request and approve OR DECLINE it.

If anyone will come up with "Why should other nations make my buildings a historical site?" again, this will be the posting to quote!

Really? Would the representative point out where in the resolution the committee is given authority to deny a request? The committee is tasked to "keep the 'List of UN-protected Historical Sites' (see §2) updated ex officio and publish it in print and online via database". It is given no authority whatever to make any judgment about what is included on the list. Nations and 10% slices of their populations request addition of sites to the list. There is nothing to say that addition is not then automatic. In fact, the presence of "ex officio" would seem to indicate that the committee does not have the authority to pass judgment on requests.

As far as we're concerned, this very badly written proposal would put us right back in the bad old days of the "World Heritage List". In fact, it's worse than that one was. This would even permit internecine economic warfare within nations due to the "10%" provision.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

May be, you need to learn a little latin:

ex - from/out of
officium - office

ex offico - out of office

This means, that the UNCPH has to update the list even if there were NO requests at all! And thats the answer to your question: The UNCPH updates the list - Fullstop! Everything after this fullstop is a possibility marked by "may"...

Hmm.

ex officio /ˈɛks əˈfɪʃiˌoʊ/ –noun
by virtue of office or official position.

Seems pretty clear to me.

You're right about the meaning of ex officio. We really shouldn't have included that comment; it proved nothing. We can't accept how you've twisted this horribly worded provision, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that we do.

Now please explain how you can twist this around to mean that the committee is empowered to refuse to add a site that's requested in accordance with the resolution. The committee gets its authority (its "official position") from the provisions of the resolution. Nowhere is it given authority to determine what goes on the list. Maybe you meant to do that. You should have done it. You simply didn't do it.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I did, but you don't (want to) realize it ...

1) We have a list
2) On this list schould be everything matching the conditions
3) Because there are changes in history and in the international communitys point of view, this list must be kept up to date
4) UNCPH does this update, any other change to the list is forbidden
5) UNCPH therefore (conclusion from 2, 3 and 4) defines, what matches the conditions and what does not

Got it now?

The power of the UNPCH to add or reject sites is implied in the proposal, but not stated explicitly. The honorable member from Ausserland makes a valid point. The UNPCH lacks any defined power to make any judgment for inclusion or exclusion. The definitions in sections 1 & 2 determine what goes on the list, not the UNPCH. The committee only seems to have the power to act as recordkeepers. The intent of section 4 is noble, but it would have been nice to have actually given the UNPCH some actual, explicit powers to enact that intent.

It's a pity this resolution only takes buildings into account, while my nation would prefer to see a better protection for natural sites as well (whose history may well go back to way before many major buildings).

The resolution does NOT protect buildings only. It does protect grave/tombs, excavations and cult sites.

If your natural sites are none of them, they come under 'environmental protection', which is not included in this resoultion willfully.

For the most part I agree with this resolution. However, what about financial compensation.

Suppose tomorrow we discover a huge lost city under a city of my nation, and my nations building were affecting this lost city. All building works would have to stop reducing my nations growth, this could have a detrimental effect on my nations finances. Do we not need a section in the proposal for eventualities such as this?

The resolution does NOT protect buildings only. It does protect grave/tombs, excavations and cult sites.

If your natural sites are none of them, they come under 'environmental protection', which is not included in this resoultion willfully.

Perhaps the representative would explain for us what a "cult site" is. It's a term we've never heard before and which is undefined in the resolution. We can only assume that it's a site belonging to or of particular significance to a cult.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I'm voting NO on this measure its a fundamental violation of my nations land rights and use of those rights serving no prupose- its not a matter of environmental concern. If they want to protect such sites let them BUY the site from my country at a suitably high value and pay for security and maintaining of them. Its bad enough that animal cruelty law passed but this is much worst we already protect valuable sites we find valuable no need to make a nation do so. I urge a NO vote.

:gundge:

My nation feels that while the preservation of historic sites is important. We believe that it is better if this duty remains in the hands of each individual nation and not the UN. Our reasons for this is that in order for something to be considered worth protecting it must be unique or extraordinary. We see no way that the UN can fairly decide what deserves protection. Either everything suggested will be protected and resources will be stretched trying to protect the large number of historical objects or a decision must be made on what culture's history is more significant to the international community and thus deciding which culture is more important then other but the UN would be able to protect the few that have been chosen. No we feel it's best that each nation protect it's own history without the interference of outsiders

Damned PoPer,

The only problem I see with your proposal is that you state that sanctions could be filed against a Nation who fails to protect a National Site of Importance to a high enough degree during War.

Well, Nothing can be protected too much during a war.

I just think that's a little harsh; don't you think they would feel the guilt enough for letting one of their cherished landmarks destroyed?

Please Respond, Sincerely,

The Republic of Aissurus

I for one voted against this proposal and have now empowered the Ministry of Civil Order to begin razing all sites with potential historical interest to limit the effect such a proposal would have on the internal affairs of my fine nation.

Well, Nothing can be protected too much during a war.

Right - that's why these sanctions are in case of not protecting the items enough, the belligerents aren't forced to protect the items too much. For definition of "too much" see said paragraph...

Just say I was against

why would I against anyway, there is no reason why to against this , only if the kids want to to touch the BIG dinasour leg ! Yes it's fun but what are we doing, we are damaging hestorigal fossils from million and millins years ago!

Come to think of it,
why do we have fossils!

From:
The new Emperor of Armenegeddon

Hail and Greetings from Cresea. I, Emilynn Dethre, once again serve as the voice of the Holy Childe Deaha and Her will.

After reading this proposal, We are indeed interested in helping to preserve all important historical locations and sites to the best of Our ability. However, as most of Our nation is located under sea level, so too are most those very sites We must protect. This brings in the ever present threat of erosion due to the very nature of the ocean We live in. While it is possible for Us to delay the inevitable, it is and will be extremely costly. Nearly constant upkeep, rather.

We would refuse to be held responsible for any damages the structures or sites took due to time taking its natural course. Countless times We've seen entire locations disappear under large amounts of silt and covered with flora and still those sites are and have remained dear to Us. Damages mean nothing to us as long at the memory of what occured there remain. We do not need other persons to come into our nation and tell us to fix them, or else.

And so, for the reasons that following this proposal would be an absolutely enormous strain on our economy as well as Our thinking that it is none of the other nations' businesses what happens to those cherished sites, we disagree with this proposal.

Lady Emilynn Dethre,
Ambassador of Cresea
Voice of the Childe

We also mark that should this proposal come to pass, we will uphold it but only to the points where deemed necessary. Should anything happen during war, of course it will be addressed and remedied, as well.

Just say I was against

why would I against anyway, there is no reason why to against this , only if the kids want to to touch the BIG dinasour leg ! Yes it's fun but what are we doing, we are damaging hestorigal fossils from million and millins years ago!

Come to think of it,
why do we have fossils!

From:
The new Emperor of Armenegeddon

I agree fully with that post.

And where did you take this from?

The resolution says "must not be destroyed or changed in substance" - this requires intent.

But don't you see the gray area?

There is no specific line that dictates how much protection is enough. So this will just break down into countries squabbling with the Protection Committee about how they think they protected it to a high enough degree. It is just a nasty loop hole is all I am saying.

Sincerely,

Aissurus

There is no specific line that dictates how much protection is enough. So this will just break down into countries squabbling with the Protection Committee about how they think they protected it to a high enough degree. It is just a nasty loop hole is all I am saying.

The Protectorate cannot agree more fully. Protection is relative... from the force or might that backs it, to the way we see it. Our forests for example house extensive ruins of our ancestor's civilization. We feel that the tree canopy of the rain forest provides adequate protection for them, as we would never harm the relics... and there is nothing in the environment that would cause harm either. There are more than likely governments out there that would disagree with our assessment of these relics' safety. How would disagreements such as these be dealt with?

And where did you take this from?

The resolution says "must not be destroyed or changed in substance" - this requires intent.

Er...no, it doesn't.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

And where did you take this from?

The resolution says "must not be destroyed or changed in substance" - this requires intent.

Wow...this just goes further to show that the authors of these proposals don't know how to write proposals. Nations should be free to do as they choose when it comes to their own heritage and history. Normally, Egdak is in favor of a strong group to rule all, but this becomes crazy at a point.

Egdak's Final Answer On The Proposal: :mad:

Emperor Jolly Wally The Penguin

Umm... may be it's a problem of language then...

In german there are two different words for a) "being destroyed (caused by what so ever)" and b) "destroying something with intend"

(For those who speak german: a) "dürfen nicht kaputt gehen" - b) "dürfen nicht zerstört werden")

Of course, I meant b)

Now when we repealed the last resolution attempting to protect Historical sites, we did so because it had no outline for what was meant by "historical site", "protection" and "historical value." This time these things are explained in detail. Despite the intrinsic problems with trying to form a committee among the players that is not allowed under the current UN rules, the rest of the resolution is a solid work of writing that should go into effect as soon as possible.

This is one of the best written resolutions we've seen in a long time and feel it's purpose is spelled out clearly for a change.

Therefore, HawaiianFreedom is in support of this resolution, assuming the 3rd clause doesn't strike the resolution down immediately.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

Dr. Hodz wipes his glasses on his suit jacket and put them on.

"Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Let's see.

NOTING that history isn't only a national subject, but of international concern;

I disagree completely with this statement. Strike one.

a. a masterpiece of human creation [...]
d. an outstanding example of an architectural, technical or scenic type, that emblematize one or more important episode(s) in history of humanity[...]
e. an outstanding example of traditional human housing schemes or land/sea utilization

Clearly biased towards humans. That makes the proposal useless for the Guardians, I suppose. As well as the Raptor Pack. Strike two.

§3 ESTABLISHES the 'United Nations Committee for Protection of Historical Sites' (UNCPH) as board of twelve independent members, elected by UN.

Oh great. A committee. Strike three.

Firmly against.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

While I am a man of history, there are too many loop holes in this proposal. The Holy Empire of Ehmer will vote against.

@Akimonad: Please read the topic, BEFORE asking questions, that have been already answered...

The petitions are already being circulated. ;) Luckily for Cookesland, Rubina is big. Really, really big. So it will take awhile to reach a 10% signature rate. :D

great, now i have time to procrastinate until the night before!

Abstain....for now, but those Human clauses aren't looking too good.

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

this resolution violates sovereignty. if a people wish to destroy their past then outsiders have no right to interfere.

this resolution violates sovereignty. if a people wish to destroy their past then outsiders have no right to interfere.

This debate violates my sanity. I'm off to the bar to see if I can't drink enough to erase this garbage from my mind.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Why would you vote yes for the Protection of Historical Sites item in the UN? Bad legislation it is, allowing outsiders to simply wiggle their fingers and proclaim you cannot use a part of your own country, because THEY think a silly statue is important from 5000 years ago. Encourage protection? Fine. List what they think is important? Fine. Tell me what I can do within my Empire? NO! I firmly believe you should vote against this bad consideration.

The Empire of Amur Panthera Tigris Votes no... and will ensure 100% citizen cooperation with our govornment's views of any items listed within our borders if this travesty passes.

The Most Serene Republic of Los De Abajo, on behalf of the Regional Alliance of the Democratic Federal Union, mindful of the importance of preserving the memory of a nation's past, must nonetheless urge a NO vote on the Resolution before the August body of the United Nations.

The Resolution infringes excessively upon the Sovereignty of the various member nations, arrogating to a central body the right to make decisions best left at the national or regional level.

/S/ Johannes Toynbee, Archduke and Ambassador to the United Nations for the Most Serene Republic of Los De Abajo

Sovereignty blah blah blah....

My government has directed me to vote for.

Since "national souvereignity" is the answer to ALL proposals (except those, which don't do anything), this is not a valid cause ...

The nation of the twin dragon will vote for this resolution....
as both of the great dragon twins see the importance of preserving historical sites for future generations...

Then the United States of Philimbesi hopes the Twin Dragons are happy with the UN gnomes telling them what sites in their great nation they should honor.

I rise, as I’m sure no one in here is surprised to find, to oppose this proposal. It does not properly define a historical site, leaving us to write - as the author has stated – more legislation to sure it up. I know the honorable delegates who authored it will also state that there is nothing stopping us from designating our own sites as historic which is completely true however, you will note that the international protections afforded by this proposal would not apply to them.

Furthermore, while I won’t go so far as to complain it steals our sovereignty I believe it does force 12 gnomes to dictate to us things the UN has no right in dictating. Adding sites is out of the nation’s control as well as having them removed. This proposal is muddy at best and our world history deserves something clearer.

World History is a tapestry made up of threads painted in the colors our individual nations. It matters not what 12 gnomes in the UN believe is important and worth protecting. It matters what we feel is important to protect, national pride is based on our history, it’s based on what we as a nation hold up to the world and say ‘this is what makes us unique, this is what make us countrymen, this is what makes us proud.’

That is why The United States of Philimbesi opposes this proposal. It doesn’t ask us what makes us proud, only in the end tells us what to be proud of.

It does not properly define a historical site, leaving us to write - as the author has stated – more legislation to sure it up.

If you don't understand, what I mean - okay

But PLEASE do READ, what i write...

I only said, that there had to be further legislation IF a battle field should be a histroical site too, because in this resolution it is not. I nowhere stated, that the current definition needs more legislation to be more properly. If it does need it, is totally up to the nations POW on this topic, but don't quote things, i didn't say!

If you don't understand, what I mean - okay

But PLEASE do READ, what i write...

I only said, that there had to be further legislation IF a battle field should be a histroical site too, because in this resolution it is not. I nowhere stated, that the current definition needs more legislation to be more properly. If it does need it, is totally up to the nations POW on this topic, but don't quote things, i didn't say!

Please, we understand fully what your write. I know full well you think this proposal is enough but we and other nations do not. The definitions in it aren't anywhere near enough and you have suggested on the GA floor that if we didn't think they are good enough, we should come up with more legislation. This is a colossal waste of time, and whether or not you want to admit it, will act to sure up this proposal.

I would also suggest you read what I write as well, battlefields were only one of a few things we found lacking in this proposal, so under your suggestion we should we come up with several different proposals to make them work or should we just tie them up in one big one? Maybe the "Reasons the Protection of Historical Sites Falls Woefully Short Act"?

It can be tailored to work, maybe, but why should we have to debate and legislate to make it fit, we have a clean slate and we should fill that slate once.

And what happens when you run out of land and everything in your country becomes a UN protected historical landmark? There are only so many places to build and eventually they will all house somthing that could be considered to be of historical signifigance. No where in the legislature does it restrict what the UN can consider to be of historical signifigance. Nor is there any restrictions on the amount of land that can be allocated and protected.

And I'm sorry but the sovereignty argument here DOES have bearing. We're not arguing about whether countries have the rights to cruelly mistreat animals but you're trying to tell them what to do with their own land and country. This is panamount to conquest. This is the UN taking land for their own use away from sovereign nations.

This cannot stand and I urge everyone to vote no. If this is still something you believe in write better legislation such as somthing with restrictions and not all power in the UN. Maybe give the nations the option to adopt the UN proposals, with rejection causing lack of funds or some such sent to them for upkeep.

Great, another list for someone to add "Bob Flibble's Genetic Jackhammer" to, AGAINST.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL Victim

On behalf of the New Cultural Revolution, I must express disappointment that yet another resolution purporting to be of cultural benefit to the UN community falls well short of the exacting standards this body should apply to such endeavours. I have cast our vote in opposition.

Benedictions,

@Akimonad: Please read the topic, BEFORE asking questions, that have been already answered...
He didn't ask any questions. He doesn't think history's an international concern, he doesn't think UN resolutions should be biased towards humans, and he dislikes committees. I happen to disagree with him, but is it that hard to understand?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

You know, someone once said in 2003 (when there were scores of posts whining on about sovereignty) that the UN isn't the one that steals away your sovereignty, it's you giving it away when you asked to join.

Edit: Sorry I shouldn't complain too much. Instead of several dozen different threads of the same tripey reasons, at least now we have several dozen replies in one place ;)

It states that the only exception is if a historical site is involved in military action. Namely, if an enemy is using it for defense. How the UN sanction a nation if it 'determines' a country took too strong of an action to defend itself?

This is a blatant (intended or not) attack on sovereignty and Brookslandia must cast a vote against it.

You know, someone once said in 2003 (when there were scores of posts whining on about sovereignty) that the UN isn't the one that steals away your sovereignty, it's you giving it away when you asked to join.You say that like it's some excuse for making bad law.

It states that the only exception is if a historical site is involved in military action. Namely, if an enemy is using it for defense. How the UN sanction a nation if it 'determines' a country took too strong of an action to defend itself?

This is a blatant (intended or not) attack on sovereignty and Brookslandia must cast a vote against it.

Ailyn poked her head back into the hall. "New Vandalia's vote goes against, too, by the way. My nation stands with our regionmate, Brookslandia, in opposing this proposal. That said, I'm heading back to the bar. My drink's getting warm."

Ausserland has voted NO.

This resolution is a dangerous mish-mash of gobbledygook. What is a "cult site"? What does "historical means" mean? And those examples are from the definition of what this is all about.

The resolution allows 10% of the people in any nation to request addition of a site in any other nation. The resolution gives the committee no authority to refuse such a request as long as the site meets the criteria in the jumbled definition. We're back to the bad old days of the "World Heritage List" and economic warfare.

The resolution makes no provision for those unfortunate situations in which historical sites may have to be destroyed in the interests of protecting the public safety and welfare -- building a dam to control disastrous flooding, for example.

The resolution's muddled definition would not allow addition to the list of any undeveloped site unless it was a "cult site". "What's a cult site?", you may ask. We asked the author, and he ignored our question. The term is undefined in the resolution and its plain meaning would be a site of importance to some specific cult. No battlefields. No other undeveloped sites on which historic events took place.

We would support a properly written resolution giving protection to sites of historical value. Not this one.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Votes For: 3,181
Votes Against: 1,793
Voting Ends: Mon Jul 9 2007

There is a good chance this is going to pass. I don't think even the feeders can keep back the tide of fluffy morons. It is also intitutively obvious to even a casual representative that this resolution is the World Heritage List all over again. Pain and suffering, misery and anguish, gosh we will have repealers occupied for months, perhaps years. Hey a delegate's gotta have a hobby.

Well I have to get started working on a list of all the places around the world that my people will clearly want to preserve. I wonder if every movie house that featured "march of the penguins" counts as a "cult site?"

great, now i have time to procrastinate until the night before!Cookesland is toast! :D :cool:

Great, another list for someone to add "Bob Flibble's Genetic Jackhammer" to, AGAINST.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
WHL VictimStart a cult; make a million. ;)


Rubina has cast her vote AGAINST and is picketing the assembly with a "VOTE NO" signboard. Anyone wishing a rational explanation of why, see the statement of the Ausserland delegation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12850970&postcount=122).

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

There is a good chance this is going to pass. I don't think even the feeders can keep back the tide of fluffy morons.

It appears as though the only requirement for a resolution to pass on this floor is a fluffy title.

Sad.


Now if you excuse me I have to join Rubina with my own "VOTE NO" sign board. It has a picture of a beautifully restored cannon from our war for civil rights, with the words... aren't I important too?

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

@Akimonad: Please read the topic, BEFORE asking questions, that have been already answered...

I did.

Anything else?

Rubina has cast her vote AGAINST and is picketing the assembly with a "VOTE NO" signboard.

Us too. I find this resolution lacking. In what? Everything. Nothing. Just lacking.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Has a hunk of cardboard
and a Sharpie

OOC: Plus, I still think it's illegal and it shouldn't have even made it this far.

Three Cheers!!!



Rubina has cast her vote AGAINST and is picketing the assembly with a "VOTE NO" signboard.

HIP-HIP...HOORAY!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausserland

This resolution is a dangerous mish-mash of gobbledygook.

HIP-HIP...HOORAY!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philimbesi
Then the United States of Philimbesi hopes the Twin Dragons are happy with the UN gnomes telling them what sites in their great nation they should honor.

HIP-HIP..........HOORAY!!!

OOC: Plus, I still think it's illegal and it shouldn't have even made it this far.

OOC: I'm with you there. That bit about sanctions is really getting up my craw.

Y'all've convinced me. I'm going against. Nonetheless, I have a feeling my 16 votes aren't going to mean much in the end.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

The President CEO of Repressionland United John Michaels officially lodges his protest against this resolution as a blatant attempt at UN-sanctioned socialism which will only harm those among us who care about our industry. We officially oppose any such attempts to "protect" the historical sites at the expense of commerce and industry. While we bulldozed all of our historical sites a long time ago, we cannot in good faith support such a blatant attack on industry by socialist pigs.

The Ambassador - Hon. (Brig. ret) Marcus Diegaus III
The Prime Minister - Rt. Hon. Martin Welles, 2nd Baron Welles

M. Diegaus: Well, this protection of historic sites is on the table.
M. Welles: And you're telling me, because?
M. Diegaus: Isn't your house on the Royal Historic Register?
M. Welles: Well, yeah.
Diegaus: Then I wanted your opinion on the matter.
Welles: You're the diplomat, not me, Ambassador. Personally, because my house, and others like it, are on the RHR, it's essentially safe from private industries wanting to take the land for development. We do not need a UN resolution to protect it further.
Diegaus: What about times of war?
Welles: My house is a castle. It's a military post, like other places of residence of royalty and baronage. I'm pretty sure it's defendable.
Diegaus: Have you told His Majesty about it?
Welles: The Sovereign is aware of the decision, and thinks it's laughable. I haven't told him about your apparent lack of decision-making, though. You owe me.
Diegaus: Understood, Prime Minister.
Welles: Good day, Ambassador.
-click-

Approaching the floor:

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Genoshan Isles has decided to vote AGAINST. We are completely capable of deciding what is fit for preservation.


Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

What about other nations? Do their historical sites not merit protection?

Just playing devil's advocate here, NA voted against too.

Devon Rose, Ph.D.
Assistant UN Representative ("Environmental Issues" really doesn't describe what I actually do.)

Well I have to get started working on a list of all the places around the world that my people will clearly want to preserve. I wonder if every movie house that featured "march of the penguins" counts as a "cult site?"

If that counts, then any theater that shows "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" has to qualify.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If that counts, then any theater that shows "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" has to qualify.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hear, hear!

M. Diegaus III
RFGI UN Rep.

Voted against. :cool:

While the fine nation of Excelsiore has just freshly been accepted into the United Nations, we feel the need to strongly oppose this measure. And to encourage our fellow leaders to do the same.

A number of objections have already been brought forward by our esteemed fellow members, both about the legality of this proposal and its implications. It is true that by applying for the UN, nations must be willing to give up some of their sovereignty. That is a given. But I do feel that this proposal crosses the line of what is an acceptable level of decision-making in regard to our nation’s activities. The people of Excelsiore do not think that other nations have the right to determine what parts of our history demand protection.

Even if we were to agree that the historical sights of Excelsiore should be maintained by other nations, the vague wording of this proposal, and exactly what it does/does not protect, is troubling. For instance, what is considered a cult sight? How large a following must exist before something is a ‘cult site?’ Is the birthplace of a religious leader with 500 worshippers considered as such? What about the first staging area of a wildly popular play or a particularly memorable concert? Quite frankly, there is no definition or guidelines for what could become protected.

Finally, while we understand and agree on the need to protect heritage, the nation of Excelsiore must also balance the needs of its industry and economy. While in an ideal world, such concerns would not trump the desire to preserve history. But, this is the real world, and we must be pragmatic. We have a small nation with a growing population, and the need for homes, as well as jobs to provide for our people, is pressing. We must strive to protect the great works of our past, indeed. But it should not prevent our current generation from achieving their own great works.

That is why we must vote no to this proposal.

-Nathan Fletcher
Minister of International Affairs, Excelsiore

Excellent legislation. We feel children should be taught the necessary importance of Historical identity. As well as this thought people need a reminder, day in and day out, of their National heritage. Historical landmarks highlight one's own tradition. This in itself is the #1 reason, at least to myself, this legislation should be allowed to pass.

Cookesland votes AGAINST, the 10% vote removal bit are what killed it for us. But have no fear, five votes won't do a whole lot at this stage.


Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Comrades, this proposal goes completely against a nations right to choose. Our glorious nation has many fantastic historical sites such as the Red Panda statue in our capital of Menjamuka that should be protected to show future generations our accomplishments; We do not disagree with that. However, we must not let this pass. A country sometimes isn't proud of its heritage and may want to forget. Perhaps there has been a change in the way a country is governed, what if a symbol of the previous oppressive government had to remain because it was deemed historical.

This must not past.

Vlad Kashmir, Commissar for Foreign Affairs representing the United Socialist States of Panda Worship

I agree with your argument up to a point , but if a country doesnt feel proud about a certain site the decision to keep it is completely up to them.

We really like the idea of giving right to change the list of protected sites to the people, but clear discrimination of all non-human sentient beings makes this resolution absolutely unacceptable for us.
The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka votes against this resolution.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

You know, if your main objection to this is because it implies humanity over other species, you might as well start drafting the repeals for all the human rights proposals, you know, the ones which promote human rights.

Comrades, this proposal goes completely against a nations right to choose. Our glorious nation has many fantastic historical sites such as the Red Panda statue in our capital of Menjamuka that should be protected to show future generations our accomplishments; We do not disagree with that. However, we must not let this pass. A country sometimes isn't proud of its heritage and may want to forget. Perhaps there has been a change in the way a country is governed, what if a symbol of the previous oppressive government had to remain because it was deemed historical.

This must not past.

Vlad Kashmir, Commissar for Foreign Affairs representing the United Socialist States of Panda Worship

yes but look at it that way....it is important to leave that symbol as a reminder of their mistake so they won't repeat them...

haha well actually when it says "Human" rights and alike it actually refers to all intelligent living things....

"We have had a long debate about this within our nation and though we do agree that preserving and maintaining our historical sites are paramount we also believe that this is NOT an issue for the United Nations and that it is for the individual nations to decide whether they wish to continue preserving these sites."
"We have also come to recognise that some sites of historical importance are better removed and destroyed than left standing, an example is those sites which portray negative and oppressive symbols. It is for this reason that I and the High Council of New Asiria vote AGAINST the protection of historical sites."

A Message From;

The Minister of Culture
Minister Sylvia Senate
The High Council
Brittany Bay Island
New Asiria

You know, if your main objection to this is because it implies humanity over other species, you might as well start drafting the repeals for all the human rights proposals, you know, the ones which promote human rights.

fair enough i'll remove that from my reasons of objections.

You know, if your main objection to this is because it implies humanity over other species, you might as well start drafting the repeals for all the human rights proposals, you know, the ones which promote human rights.

No thanks. But I'll keep my argument. I'm entitled to my opinion.









I'm not so sure about you, however.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

IX stands, speaking in his soothing voice. "I submitted a poll to the Great Commonwealth, and have finished processing the results. The collective Guardian Citizens have utter disdain for this particular topic. They feel that our soldiers and technology do a fine job protecting anything of importance within our borders, and that UN nations are the least likely to be endangering those locations. There is no need for UN legislation on this topic. We vote against. However, given that it's likely going to pass, it will fall upon our Office of Miscellaneous Affairs to ignore it as best as possible for the rest of us.

"And thank you for supporting the Gnome Bureaucracy."

Do we need to protect cult sites????? I think not.....please vote no. ==Fitzilvania==:mad:

You know, if your main objection to this is because it implies humanity over other species, you might as well start drafting the repeals for all the human rights proposals, you know, the ones which promote human rights.

Term ‘Human Rights’ is used inside of category name so we are considering it unavoidable anachronism, but references to the ‘masterpiece of human creation’ and ‘history of humanity’ is absolutely unnecessary and can lead to pretty horrible abuses.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

the u.n. gets stupuder and stupider as days go by. I don't need another crackpot idea to go through that drains money away from what we really need.

For the record, Jey has voted AGAINST.

Drew Domz
Presiding Jevian UN Representative
Delegate of the United Nations (region)

the u.n. gets stupuder and stupider as days go by. I don't need another crackpot idea to go through that drains money away from what we really need.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/nomoneycardud0.png

Our delegation's initial enthusiasm for this idea, though once passionate as a midnight tryst in the shadow of a volcano, has cooled and left our desire to see the passage of this legislation (as well as our metaphors) little more than shells of their former glory.

Given the excellent reasonings and analyses provided by the delegations of Ausserland, Rubina, Akimonad, and Kivisto, and based upon our own readings of the given tract, we are hereby forced to vote AGAINST the proposal "Protection of Historical Sites"

By the glory of the Emperor,

Van Turin Lath
His Excellency the Ambassador of Allech-Atreus

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/nomoneycardud0.png

And it's resolutions like this (combined with the fact that we seem be able to pass a funding resolution to save our lives) that put the UN in that position.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We in Qallegnia are against this resolution. While we find most of the text in good spirit, we feel that many of the sections are not up to the level of quality expected of a resolution (section 1 in particular).

M.K.P.
&c.

I'm a big supporter of protecting historical sites from the people who want to live in the past and indulge in a backwards voyeurism that often merely serves to trivialize the past rather then enabling us to learn from it.

Sadly, this resolution would be rather opposed to that admirable goal.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I'm a big supporter of protecting historical sites from the people who want to live in the past and indulge in a backwards voyeurism that often merely serves to trivialize the past rather then enabling us to learn from it.

Sadly, this resolution would be rather opposed to that admirable goal.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I'm not certain that trivializing the past is a worthy goal, learning from it is most certainly to be desired.

Well, the resolution has passed and as I am a loyal member of the international community I will abide by its wishes.

Sadly, the international community has sought laws specifically against my fine nation, to wit

Laws have been enacted to bring the Community of Dotards into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Protection of Historical Sites".

I will inform the bulldozers at once to cease and desist further razing efforts of known sites of historical interest...wait, they have already withdrawn due to substantial completion of the work. Hooray, now said land can be developed free of UN restraints for the expansion of our Arms Manufacturing Industry.

This just shows that some nations can't take a freakin step, unless the UN tells them the proper protocol of movement.

Why do you even have a government?

(Not so) Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Well apparently this passed so the question becomes who is going to set up the evil NS Wiki page? I have a number of historical sites that need to be proposed to the Gnomes.

At least we are not going to have the whole debacle of nations going "You disagree with me, so I'm going to add you to the WHL!"

At least now that have to request it's addition, or it's subsequent removal when the nation in question compels 10% of it's population to do a counter-request.:p

At least we are not going to have the whole debacle of nations going "You disagree with me, so I'm going to add you to the WHL!"

At least now that have to request it's addition, or it's subsequent removal when the nation in question compels 10% of it's population to do a counter-request.:p

Yeah, but if we request an addition to the list -- or 10% of our people do -- and it meets the definition, that committee better damn well add it. As we pointed out repeatedly, there's nothing in the resolution that gives it authority to refuse a request. It's just WHL with another bureaucratic step.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

It's just sad that there were at least two or three others proposals completely better than this one that won't see the light of day because this drivel was rushed through.

It's just sad that there were at least two or three others proposals completely better than this one that won't see the light of day because this drivel was rushed through.

Actually my friend I believe we both have an interest in a repeal of this. But first let it lie for just a second...let people see that it will fail just like the WHL did.

In all honest I believe the only reason it passed was because most of the voters simply read the title and thats it. Personally I think thats a bad way to vote but what can one do about it? Its been a problem in the UN since day one.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassdor.

You know, if your main objection to this is because it implies humanity over other species, you might as well start drafting the repeals for all the human rights proposals, you know, the ones which promote human rights.

Or get a resolution passed requiring that all member-nations give all other sapient species that have any members present within their borders the same rights that the UN insists they give to Humans...
I was going to spend part of my holidays this summer making a serious attempt at getting one or another of the various proposals that I've posted here during the last year (or so) to quorum, anyway: The one chosen for that activity could be 'Rights for Intelligent Beings' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504936)...

(This has been an OOC message.)

Oh I like that! :)

Yeah, but if we request an addition to the list -- or 10% of our people do -- and it meets the definition, that committee better damn well add it. As we pointed out repeatedly, there's nothing in the resolution that gives it authority to refuse a request. It's just WHL with another bureaucratic step.I did wonder if instead of nations using armies to invade nations, they'd use them to sign petitions. Why, I can imagine expenditure on stationery products in some nations to increase overnight!

Or get a resolution passed requiring that all member-nations give all other sapient species that have any members present within their borders the same rights that the UN insists they give to Humans...
I was going to spend part of my holidays this summer making a serious attempt at getting one or another of the various proposals that I've posted here during the last year (or so) to quorum, anyway: The one chosen for that activity could be 'Rights for Intelligent Beings' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504936)...

(This has been an OOC message.)

Sorry, but simply saying "All human rights apply to other sentinent beings as well" (even if you define it well) would be illegal, because it's an amendment. If the human rights fall, this resolution falls. And this is the definition of an amendment in the game rules. So you will have to repeat everything in the human rights resolution, just to change "human" in "sentinent beings". Then we would have two resolutions with exactly the same content except for one word.

this is (imho) not a good idea ...

Um... what?

Um... what?

Oh don't ask that he'll start speaking in acronym.

Sorry, but simply saying "All human rights apply to other sentinent beings as well" (even if you define it well) would be illegal, because it's an amendment. If the human rights fall, this resolution falls. And this is the definition of an amendment in the game rules. So you will have to repeat everything in the human rights resolution, just to change "human" in "sentinent beings". Then we would have two resolutions with exactly the same content except for one word.

this is (imho) not a good idea ...

*Sigh* You didn't even bother following the link that I provided to my proposal, did you? :(

I have read the rules.
I did already know about amendments being illegal.
And so I didn't use the line "All human rights apply to other sentinent beings as well" (or even "to all 'sapient' beings as well"...) in that proposal...

What the most relevant clause of that proposal actually says is _
3. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all Sapients as legally ‘Human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where their types’ innate differences from the species ‘Homo sapiens’ would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair; And this, because it targets the national governments rather than the actual Resolutions, does seem to be legal...
Well, none of the Mods has complained about its wording on the grounds of legality yet -- despite the proposal having gone through a drafting thread here, and a couple of unsuccessful attempts at reaching quorum too -- anyway...

Afterthought: and it might only require a relatively slight change in the wording to extend its scope so that it covers most resolutions from other categories -- such as the one whose thread this actually is -- as well: Something along the lines of replacing as legally ‘Human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions with as legally ‘Human’ for the general purpose of all matters that are covered by UN resolutions (except where those other resolutions themselves specifically block this) should work, I think, as long as it doesn't take the whole proposal over the length limit...

The lenght limit ... Once again ... :rolleyes:

Oh don't ask that he'll start speaking in acronym.

Yepp, it IS fun to play with such fantastic players! :headbang:

Yepp, it IS fun to play with such fantastic players!

And true to form your insults make no sense.

OK, we're well off topic here, and the vote on this topic is over. Request a lock.

Sorry, but simply saying "All human rights apply to other sentinent beings as well" (even if you define it well) would be illegal, because it's an amendment. If the human rights fall, this resolution falls. And this is the definition of an amendment in the game rules. So you will have to repeat everything in the human rights resolution, just to change "human" in "sentinent beings". Then we would have two resolutions with exactly the same content except for one word.

this is (imho) not a good idea ...Sonny, before you try going all rules lawyer on people, you really need to be here a few more years.

Philimbesi - everyone makes mistakes. Move on.

(Gotta agree with Kenny on this one)

Philimbesi - everyone makes mistakes. Move on.



Fair enough... apologies.