[Passed] Repeal "Physical Sites Protection Act"

[The Dourian Embassy]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the good intentions of GA#244,

Believing, however, that the vast assortment of sites in WA nations would be better handled by those individual nations,

Further insisting that the WA cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance, nor regulate the use of innumerable sites that exist in WA nations,

Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

Considering the flaws present in the original resolution, and confident in the ability of WA nations to legislate on this issue individually,

Hereby repeals GA#244.

Co-Authored by Gatchina

Discuss!

[Ceni]

Well, thanks for not discussing this BEFORE submitting it! And I'm not pissed about that because it was my proposal.

I think it's a NatSov argument, anyways.

[Ceni]

OK, here's a detailed criticism.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the good intentions of GA#244,

OK.

Believing, however, that the vast assortment of sites in WA nations would be better handled by those individual nations

Further insisting that the WA cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance, nor regulate the use of innumerable sites that exist in WA nations,

Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,

Apparently you didn't read this:

Or to create a sufficient permit program that preserves the site and its inhabitants

. It doesn't ban commercial use at all.

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,

How so?

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,

And it doesn't ban maintenance.

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

How so, again?

Considering the flaws present in the original resolution, and confident in the ability of WA nations to legislate on this issue individually,

NatSov plain and simple.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Lets examine the three main arguments from the repeal:

Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,

Which addresses B of the mandates clause, in the original piece: "(B) Ban commercial activities within the site that would cause damage to the site or its inhabitants". Now A, from the mandate clause is a different part, addressing a specifically different issue. That issue is "harming the site or it's inhabitants" and allows a permit system to allow use that may harm sites as long as it's not commercial use, which is addressed itself specifically in section B.

B contains no alternative, it simply bans commercial use. If we consider the Dourian Monolith, one of the tallest structures in the world, which is at it's core an office building, we may begin to see the issue with the banning of commercial use that could harm the site or it's inhabitants. Any commercial use has the potential to harm the site, and would be banned. It's unacceptable. That clause specifically addresses the problem.

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,

A site could garner its value by it's degradation. Preserving the site itself may harm its cultural value. I don't have to explain how that's a problem.

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,

Again, once a site is deemed culturally significant, it must be protected. This is a serious problem, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. In order for such a site to maintain it's cultural significance, it may need to be left alone.

These are the core arguments of the repeal, and particularly noteworthy.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*bump*

[Grays Harbor]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the good intentions of GA#244,

Believing, however, that the vast assortment of sites in WA nations would be better handled by those individual nations,

Further insisting that the WA cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance, nor regulate the use of innumerable sites that exist in WA nations,

Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

Considering the flaws present in the original resolution, and confident in the ability of WA nations to legislate on this issue individually,

Hereby repeals GA#244.

Co-Authored by Gatchina

Discuss!

We shall tell you what we have told many others...
Submitting a proposal THEN posting it with a request to "discuss" is the most pointless exercize possible in the GA. What is there to discuss? It has been submitted and cannot be changed unless it is removed from the queue. It is, at best, little more than blatant narcissism, a statement of "Look what I submitted, now tell me how awesome I am!". Pointless, purposeless and not a bit self-indulgent. You want to submit any old claptrap without discussion? Fine. Do so. But don't expect us to participate in your back-patting.

[The Dourian Embassy]

We shall tell you what we have told many others...
Submitting a proposal THEN posting it with a request to "discuss" is the most pointless exercize possible in the GA. What is there to discuss? It has been submitted and cannot be changed unless it is removed from the queue. It is, at best, little more than blatant narcissism, a statement of "Look what I submitted, now tell me how awesome I am!". Pointless, purposeless and not a bit self-indulgent. You want to submit any old claptrap without discussion? Fine. Do so. But don't expect us to participate in your back-patting.

OOC: This thread has been around for what... two weeks? It's not my fault if people ignored it till now. I'm bumping it because it's quorumed and will go to vote tonight. The mods will need to sticky it and I'm making it easier for them to find it.

Edit: And furthermore, as the author of a couple of UN resolutions, and quite a few WA resolutions(including WA4, and the first repeal in the WA, WA13) I don't need your advice on how to draft. I appreciate your input nonetheless.

[Grays Harbor]

We shall tell you what we have told many others...
Submitting a proposal THEN posting it with a request to "discuss" is the most pointless exercize possible in the GA. What is there to discuss? It has been submitted and cannot be changed unless it is removed from the queue. It is, at best, little more than blatant narcissism, a statement of "Look what I submitted, now tell me how awesome I am!". Pointless, purposeless and not a bit self-indulgent. You want to submit any old claptrap without discussion? Fine. Do so. But don't expect us to participate in your back-patting.

OOC: This thread has been around for what... two weeks? It's not my fault if people ignored it till now. I'm bumping it because it's quorumed and will go to vote tonight. The mods will need to sticky it and I'm making it easier for them to find it.

Edit: And furthermore, as the author of a couple of UN resolutions, and quite a few WA resolutions(including WA4, and the first repeal in the WA, WA13) I don't need your advice on how to draft. I appreciate your input nonetheless.

OOC: I wasn't giving advise on how to draft. I was pointing out, incorrectly this time it seems, that drafts should be posted here first, and with so much of that happening currently (I hate summer here sometimes) I missed your initial posting date. I too have authored resolutions and repeals, so I do know what I am talking about as well. Apologies this time though, for the grave error of mistaking you for somebody else.

[Astracarn]

Now at vote.

[Maynardian Diplomatic Mission to the WA]

As a nation which opposed the resolution when it went to vote, we are glad to support this repeal.

[The Akashic Records]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #244
Physical Sites Protection Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Ceni

Description: APPLAUDING that member nations have sites of outstanding physical beauty or that contain large numbers of endangered species

NOTING that such sites of physical significance are increasingly threatened with destruction

REALIZING that certain sites of physical significance need to be protected in the best interests of sapient peoples

The World Assembly hereby:
DEFINES sites of physical significance as the following:
(A) Natural formations or groups of such formations, or other physical features which are of outstanding universal excellence for their beauty or aesthetics, of special scientific significance, or of an unique nature OR
(B) Natural habitats home to a variety or large numbers of rare, important or endangered flora and fauna OR
(C) Outstanding examples of sites, man-made or natural, which have greatly influenced the culture, history or development of the area's inhabitants over a lengthy period of time OR
(D) Showcase noteworthy examples of ecological and evolutionary processes of various flora and fauna OR
(E) Showcase noteworthy examples of ecological processes of terrestrial, maritime, or coastal habitats and biomes;

Clause (C) of the definition is the Achilles heel, because it does not state whether a site still in use qualifies. As pointed out by The Dourian Embassy, the office building is still in use, and as such, could cause harm to the site, in which case, would, as mandated, have all its current activities be banned.

REQUIRES nations to sufficiently protect such sites as determined by the PHPC;

MANDATES nations to

(A) Ban the harming in any way of such sites or their inhabitants, or to create a sufficient permit program that preserves the site and its inhabitants
(B) Ban commercial activities within the site that would cause damage to the site or its inhabitants
(C) Take the effects of developments within their nation to sites in their nation and in other nations into account;

Clause (A) and (B) of the mandate only becomes a problem because of clause (C) of the definition. (A) addresses activities detrimental to the preservation of the site, but is only insofar as it is non-commercial. As such, the permit, as stated by (A), will be nulled by (B), as (B) specifically addresses commercial activities.

ESTABLISHES the Physical Heritage Preservation Committee as a non-profit organization to:

(A) Aid nations that cannot protect such sites themselves
(B) Aid agencies and programs overseeing such sites
(C) Set standards relating to the protection of such sites;

Here, (C) is the problem. Having PHPC set the standards may work for one site, but not necessarily for another. As pointed out by the author of this repeal, some sites could garner value by its degradation. Street art, for example could qualify as "degradation", and yet, it provides cultural value (in some instances, but not in all).

ENCOURAGES member nations to:
(A) Make these sites available to the public when possible and desirable
(B) Preserve and protect sites that are not accredited by the PHPC
(C) Promote tourism to such sites without harming the site or putting tourists in harm's way

The PHPC shall certify sites as follows:
(A) The PHPC shall convene and any member may propose a site to be considered with the consent of the nation's government
(B) The PHPC shall look into evidence pertaining to the proposed site
(C) If such site meets one or more criteria listed above, the site shall be certified by the PHPC.

The PHPC shall decertify a site as follows:
(A) Any member or national government may propose a site to be delisted
(B) The PHCP shall determine whether the site still meets the criteria and/or deserves to be on the list
(C) If such site is determined to not merit inclusion, it shall be decertified

Votes For: 7,590 (56%)
Votes Against: 5,846 (44%)

Implemented: Fri Mar 15 2013

Barring the flaws, it is a good attempt at preserving physical heritage sites that would otherwise be harmed in favor of economy instead of the environment. Then again, you need to apply to be on the list, and while it does specifically try to address the environment, the Achilles heel of the resolution is in its (rather) vague definition of some of what merits to be on the list of sites that is to be preserved. Still, between the resolution and the repeal, it's basically an argument of bad or worse.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the good intentions of GA#244,

Believing, however, that the vast assortment of sites in WA nations would be better handled by those individual nations,

"Better handled" has already been covered by the resolution in question, specifically, in the establishment of the PHPC (B), though, still valid as pointed I pointed out earlier.

Further insisting that the WA cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance, nor regulate the use of innumerable sites that exist in WA nations,

Clarifying that man-made sites may become significant through their commercial use, and that banning such use would irreparably harm a site's cultural significance,

This addresses the concerns of the flaws in the resolution, which is valid.

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value,

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance,

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

The PHPC is only there to help preserve the sites, not preserve it themselves. It is still up to the nations themselves how they go about it, and whether or not their site will qualify to be on the PHPC list. To be on the list is an active effort on the nations' part, not an automatic absolute event.
Side note: This repeal feels eerily similar to another repeal, though, not as vague or misleading.

Considering the flaws present in the original resolution, and confident in the ability of WA nations to legislate on this issue individually,

Hereby repeals GA#244.

Co-Authored by Gatchina

The decision of whether or not to apply to be on the PHPC Heritage List still lies with the nations themselves, in short, a matter of National Sovereignty.
Conclusion: The Akashic Records votes AGAINST this repeal. Unless, a replacement is written up with more scrutiny, it is generally a bad idea to repeal it for now.

[Castelo Quintas]

I didn't understant what this proposal wants to do, so i'm undecided, for now.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

I don't necessarily agree. The PHPC is there to aid both nations(which is optional) and "agencies and programs overseeing such sites". This the primary sticking point with your issues there, because while a nation may decide that a particular program overseeing a site is not the true steward, the PHPC could decide elsewise.

And the idea that a replacement needs to be written and should be ready to drop into place before we repeal what is frankly a dramatic overreach in WA law is laughable. I appreciate your comments, but the WA will inevitably do more harm in a situation that requires incredible nuance and attention to detail, and is ultimately not essential to either the protection of freedom or persons worldwide.

The original resolution has dramatic flaws(the commercial use clause is probably the most glaring of all). The resolution Is needed to neither ensure freedom nor to preserve life. And it is perfectly acceptable to allow a nation to preserve it's own cultural heritage until a better resolution comes along(if at all). There is no pressing need to wait, and numerous reasons to act.

I acted. The rest of the WA should as well, and vote to repeal this piece of well meaning but ultimately flawed legislation.

[Solorni]

I support this and on behalf of Balder have voted aye on this.

[Glen-Rhodes]

While we believe that the minor error of banning commercial activities in man-made "sites of physical significance" is worthy of repealing and replacing this resolution, and while we will vote in favor for that reason, the notion that the World Assembly "cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance" of these sites is incredibly insulting and patently absurd. The Secretariat is capable of reading. It's capable of communicating with various cultures and societies.

This idea, which unfortuantely permeates the offices of the longer-running delegations in this Assembly, is highly parochial. "Well, we can understand the cultural significance, but the World Assembly can't!" We shouldn't need reminding that the Secretariat is a highly technical body, with considerable expert knowledge in many areas. Our fiscal contributions to this body are spent on hiring the best minds to fill the committees and agencies we task the Secretariat with creating.

Let this please be the last repeal or resolution stating that the World Assembly is too stupid to understand the intracies of modern society.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Bears Armed]

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

And what about cases where a site isn't specifically a part of the cultural heritage of the [modern] nation in which it happens to be located or not a part of only that particular nation's heritage, anyway -- but is considered important more widely instead?

(OOC: some RL examples of such sites being the Wailing Wall and the Dome of the Rock, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre [also in Jeruselem], the Bamiyan Buddhas, the Ka'aba, the Great Pyramid, Auschwitz, Cape Canaveral...)

[Cowardly Pacifists]

My delegation votes FOR this repeal. While "Physical Sites Protection" has a noble environmental aim, it ultimately gives a WA committee the power to ban commercial use of land, and impose strict "preservation" standards, if the committee finds that the land showcases "outstanding examples of sites, man-made or natural," or "noteworthy examples of ecological processes." That's a pretty sweeping power to trust blindly to the discretion of WA bureaucrats. While environmental preservation is a laudable goal, I do not believe such draconian methods are warranted.

Best Regards,

[The Akashic Records]

I don't necessarily agree. The PHPC is there to aid both nations(which is optional) and "agencies and programs overseeing such sites". This the primary sticking point with your issues there, because while a nation may decide that a particular program overseeing a site is not the true steward, the PHPC could decide elsewise.

And the idea that a replacement needs to be written and should be ready to drop into place before we repeal what is frankly a dramatic overreach in WA law is laughable. I appreciate your comments, but the WA will inevitably do more harm in a situation that requires incredible nuance and attention to detail, and is ultimately not essential to either the protection of freedom or persons worldwide.

OOC: I'd like to think it actually does something, laughable though it may be, and even if its effects may not be as far reaching you'd expect them to (even the RL counterpart isn't doing much anyways).

The original resolution has dramatic flaws(the commercial use clause is probably the most glaring of all). The resolution is needed to neither ensure freedom nor to preserve life. And it is perfectly acceptable to allow a nation to preserve it's own cultural heritage until a better resolution comes along(if at all). There is no pressing need to wait, and numerous reasons to act.

I acted. The rest of the WA should as well, and vote to repeal this piece of well meaning but ultimately flawed legislation.

IC: We will take this into consideration, and deliberate with members of the Grand Palace. It was a 55/45 against the repeal, so this might change it to undecided.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

While we believe that the minor error of banning commercial activities in man-made "sites of physical significance" is worthy of repealing and replacing this resolution, and while we will vote in favor for that reason, the notion that the World Assembly "cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance" of these sites is incredibly insulting and patently absurd. The Secretariat is capable of reading. It's capable of communicating with various cultures and societies.

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

And what about cases where a site isn't specifically a part of the cultural heritage of the [modern] nation in which it happens to be located or not a part of only that particular nation's heritage, anyway -- but is considered important more widely instead?

We rise with our colleagues to state our objections to certain details of this proposal. While this proposal has been before us for a few weeks, and the point of commerce is sufficient to secure our abstention, we do feel that to evade flaws in proposals it would be more sensible for delegates to wait until more of the well respected delegates in this assembly have time to critique a proposal before it is submitted, so that such flaws can be pointed out. Unless authoring delegations want to be remembered for submitting sub-par proposals.

[Aardenland]

Not a well written appeal, otherwise I might support it.

[The Akashic Records]

After much deliberation, we were able to attain a 51/49 for this repeal. Although we also received a mixed reaction from the people, the ones in commerce, were the most vocal about support for this repeal.
We do however, share our esteemed colleagues' view,

While we believe that the minor error of banning commercial activities in man-made "sites of physical significance" is worthy of repealing and replacing this resolution, and while we will vote in favor for that reason, the notion that the World Assembly "cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance" of these sites is incredibly insulting and patently absurd. The Secretariat is capable of reading. It's capable of communicating with various cultures and societies.

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole,

And what about cases where a site isn't specifically a part of the cultural heritage of the [modern] nation in which it happens to be located or not a part of only that particular nation's heritage, anyway -- but is considered important more widely instead?

[Eist]

I'm with G-R on this. There is nothing of substance in this proposal and it is unsurprisingly, for Dourian, poorly written and edited. I am voting against AGAINST.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I'm with G-R on this. There is nothing of substance in this proposal and it is unsurprisingly, for Dourian, poorly written and edited. I am voting against AGAINST.

Nothing of substance and poorly written. So rather than argue the content, you're going to pretend there is none?

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is delighted to support our esteemed Dourian colleagues and vote in favour of this repeal", Lord Raekevik declared with a smile.

[Mayonaise]

Needs a bit of work