[ReFormatted] On Archaeological Excavations

[Lexicor]

Category: Education| Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage | Proposed by: Lexicor

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the discovery and preservation of the past to be in the interest of all member-states,

Concerned that in the ever advancing progress of the World Assembly and its member states that cultural sites are often destroyed,

Understanding that disputes over cultural heritage sites and artifacts may arise between nations,

Aiming to create a forum to mediate these disputes and to further preserve and protect cultural heritage

Hereby: Expands the powers of WATCH (World Assembly Trust Fund for Cultural Heritage) to further improve global efforts of cultural discovery and preservation by virtue of the following:

I. To examine artifacts recovered at cultural heritage sites to determine their authenticity and relevance, in cooperation with other relevant bodies and governments of member states;

II. To coordinate archaeological research projects of international scope, which researchers from member states may choose to participate in, under the emblem of the WATCH or in concert with national governments of origin/residence, with funds for such projects to be funded directly by grants from the governments, public research institutions, privately owned foundations, corporations, and donations from concerned individuals, at the discretion of these individuals and organizations;

III. To accept and review applications of member states to designate new cultural heritage sites,

IV. Allows WATCH to rescind cultural heritage site status, if the sites basis for cultural heritage status is upon further investigation by the local authorities in cooperation with WATCH or independently determine that the basis for cultural heritage status is empirically false or woefully inaccurate,

Affirms a nations [government] rights to appeal the decision made by local authorities/WATCH,

Allows nations to request WATCH as an impartial mediator in cultural disputes to:
a. Verify or clarify the cultural and empirical validity of a cultural artifact;
b. Archive visual, verbal, physical or literary works pertinent to the dispute in a newly created special archive building;
c. Create frameworks for lending cultural and archaeological artifacts between museums of member states; and;

V. Tasks WATCH with creating facsimile documents in case the originals are damaged or destroyed;

Urges member-states enact all necessary pre-cautions before developing public land to ensure that developments do not destroy culturally significant sites;

Urges all member states to contribute to archaeological discovery and preservation to the best of their ability.

Category: Education| Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage | Proposed by: Lexicor

Recognizing the discovery and preservation of the past to be in the interest of all member-states,

Concerned that in the ever advancing progress of the World Assembly and its member states that cultural sites are often destroyed,

Re-affirming World Assembly commitments to cultural preservation and applauding progress made thus far,

Noting that more can be done to preserve the countless cultures and cultural sites throughout the universe,

I. Hereby: Expands the powers of WATCH (World Assembly Trust Fund for Cultural Heritage) to further improve global efforts of cultural discovery and preservation by virtue of the following:

a) To examine artifacts recovered at cultural heritage sites to determine their authenticity and relevance, in cooperation with other relevant bodies and governments of member states;

b) To coordinate archaeological research projects of international scope, which researchers from member states may choose to participate in, under the emblem of the WATCH or in concert with national governments of origin/residence, with funds for such projects to be funded directly by grants from the governments, public research institutions, privately owned foundations, corporations, and donations from concerned individuals, at the discretion of these individuals and organizations;

c) To accept and review applications of member states to designate new cultural heritage sites,

d) Allows WATCH to rescind cultural heritage site status, if the sites basis for cultural heritage status is questioned and upon further investigation is deemed to have been empirically false or woefully inaccurate,

II. Urges member-states enact all necessary pre-cautions before developing public land to ensure that developments do not destroy culturally significant sites;

III. Mandates member-states enact all necessary pre-cautions before developing land in disputed or international territories so as to not unintentionally destroy culturally significant sites;

IV. Urges all member states to contribute to archaeological discovery and preservation to the best of their ability.

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing the abundance of sites with cultural significance within member nations and the need to preserve them for future generations,

Acknowledging the World Assembly as the perfect medium to assist with such preservation,

1. Hereby creates the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage(WATCH),

2. Empowers the WATCH to perform the following actions:
a. Designate sites, in consultation with the nation housing said site, as culturally relevant,
b. Create an archive including, but not limited to, visual, verbal, and literary works that pertain to culturally relevant sites,
c. Recommend specific preservation practices to nations for their culturally relevant sites,
d. Fulfill requests by nations to assist in the preservation of sites when the nation in question is unable to do so,

3. Urges nations to follow the preservation recommendations of the WATCH,

4. Encourages all nations to make a good faith effort to preserve their culturally relevant sites, and to assist other nations in the preservation of their culturally relevant sites,

5. Mandates that nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant,

6. Further mandates that nations shall not willingly use culturally relevant sites to house military or intelligence assets,

7. Requires the WATCH to grant exemptions in good faith to the protections and requirements of sections 5 and 6 for a site currently used as an intelligence or military asset in order to preserve its use as such.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Right off the bat, I think Education & Creativity has an area of focus, rather than a Strength. Artistic/Educational/Cultural Heritage/Free Press. Obviously Cultural Heritage is your best choice.

EDIT: OK, the preamble needs expanding, and you need a little more clauses except the throw-away one at the end which appears to have been added so it doesn't look like it's a committee-only proposal.

But on the whole this is an interesting subject for a resolution, and I hope you keep up with it.

[Lexicor]

GA Resolution #287 already deals with cultural site preservation in a broad sense. The aim is to increase cooperation and support for archaeological digs. Me likes the digging for things.

*Grabs fedora and whip while muttering about undiscovered treasure.*

As always, I appreciate the suggestions and critiques lobbed by regulars of this snake pit.

*Backs out of the conference hall quietly, hoping the treasure map in his hand is authentic and not a chotsky from the Lilliputan giftshops.*

[Ratateague]

I'm quite fond of the idea. When and if it comes to fruition, I'd like to be one of the first large contributors to the fund.

Although, one thing I noticed is the wording of clause II. Maybe it's just me, but "enact all necessary precautions" sounds equally vague as it does restrictive.

[Jarish Inyo]

I wouldn't be able to support this resolution. I do not believe that the scientific community needs to have an international watch dog to verify their results. Nor do I believe that a nation needs to enact anything before developing public lands.

[Honor and Glory]

"I don't see how archaeology needs international meddling. whether or not we dig up the once buried bodies of our ancestors wont impact anyone outside of our nation, and if our citizens disagree with our current motto of 'A good bone deserves to stay buried' then they always have the option bring it to national vote to change it"

[The Austria-Hungary]

cool

I agree most strongly

[Hakio]

"I don't see how archaeology needs international meddling. whether or not we dig up the once buried bodies of our ancestors wont impact anyone outside of our nation, and if our citizens disagree with our current motto of 'A good bone deserves to stay buried' then they always have the option bring it to national vote to change it"

"Archaeological excavations can lead to international disputes over the ownership of the remains thus making it an international issue."

[Louisistan]

"I don't see how archaeology needs international meddling. whether or not we dig up the once buried bodies of our ancestors wont impact anyone outside of our nation, and if our citizens disagree with our current motto of 'A good bone deserves to stay buried' then they always have the option bring it to national vote to change it"

"Archaeological excavations can lead to international disputes over the ownership of the remains thus making it an international issue."

Johannes Keller, Chargé d'affaires ad interim:
"While that may be true, this proposal does absolutely nothing to resolve such disputes.

We do however accept the premise that international cooperation in scientific research is a topic worthy of WA support, which is what this proposal provides, albeit only of coordinating nature. Are the General Fund Hawks on your back, or is there another reason, why we don't allow at least some of the grants to be paid out of the General Fund?

It may be a little hard to sell clause II. to the Minister of Urban Development, but I believe we can push through a yay vote on this.

One thing, though: Don't you think clause I. c) should be two separate clauses? It seems to deal with two whole different things: Designating new sites and rescinding cultural heritage status from existing sites."

[Separatist Peoples]

II. Mandates member-states enact all necessary pre-cautions before developing public land to ensure that the development is not destroying culturally significant sites;

"This seems unnecessary as a mandate. If a nation wishes to build a MegaMart on the ruins of an ancient metropolis in their territory, why, exactly, is it the WA's business what is destroyed? In disputed or international territory, it would make perfect sense, but all member territory? That treads into jurisdiction of national governments, by my appraisal."

[Lexicor]

One thing, though: Don't you think clause I. c) should be two separate clauses? It seems to deal with two whole different things: Designating new sites and rescinding cultural heritage status from existing sites."

Clauses have been split.

II. Mandates member-states enact all necessary pre-cautions before developing public land to ensure that the development is not destroying culturally significant sites;

"This seems unnecessary as a mandate. If a nation wishes to build a MegaMart on the ruins of an ancient metropolis in their territory, why, exactly, is it the WA's business what is destroyed? In disputed or international territory, it would make perfect sense, but all member territory? That treads into jurisdiction of national governments, by my appraisal."

Clause II. has been watered down to a paltry "Urges" as the Lexicorian Industry Minister had a panic attack upon reading this resolution. It has also been split. I think all precautions to be taken on international/disputed territory is reasonable a mandate Mr.Bell

"Now if you'll excuse me! I have some treasure to find!"

[Bears Armed]

Clarification, please. Do the following functions apply only if the relevant nations actually request WATCH action, or would the proposal let that agency force its way in anyhows?

a) To examine artifacts recovered at cultural heritage sites to determine their authenticity and relevance, in cooperation with other relevant bodies and governments of member states;

b) To coordinate archaeological research projects of international scope, which researchers from member states may choose to participate in, under the emblem of the WATCH or in concert with national governments of origin/residence, with funds for such projects to be funded directly by grants from the governments, public research institutions, privately owned foundations, corporations, and donations from concerned individuals, at the discretion of these individuals and organizations;

[Lexicor]

Clarification, please. Do the following functions apply only if the relevant nations actually request WATCH action, or would the proposal let that agency force its way in anyhows?

a) To examine artifacts recovered at cultural heritage sites to determine their authenticity and relevance, in cooperation with other relevant bodies and governments of member states;

b) To coordinate archaeological research projects of international scope, which researchers from member states may choose to participate in, under the emblem of the WATCH or in concert with national governments of origin/residence, with funds for such projects to be funded directly by grants from the governments, public research institutions, privately owned foundations, corporations, and donations from concerned individuals, at the discretion of these individuals and organizations;

As to not infringe upon a nations sovereignty when dealing with its own archaeological and cultural sites, WATCH operates on a voluntary basis. This is merely an effort to promote cooperation in archaeology and site preservation, while giving WATCH some powers that it sorely needed to do its fine work.

under the emblem of the WATCH or in concert with national governments of origin/residence

Emphasis added.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Much more tolerable. You have two clause III's now, though."

[Lexicor]

"Much more tolerable. You have two clause III's now, though."

And an intern has now been fired

[Lexicor]

Bump! If there are any criticisms/problems/obvious flaws with this resolution speak!

[Separatist Peoples]

Bump! If there are any criticisms/problems/obvious flaws with this resolution speak!

"This is not ready for submission so soon. You need to leave this up for at least another week. Possibly more."

[Lexicor]

Bump! If there are any criticisms/problems/obvious flaws with this resolution speak!

"This is not ready for submission so soon. You need to leave this up for at least another week. Possibly more."

OOC: Don' have the endorsements to submit it anyways at the moment.

"Its frustrating having a draft sit in the dustbin. I know Archaeology isn't the most important issue this September Assembly has on its plate, but when their are only tumbleweeds in a draft hall it means either the draft sucks or the "RL" disease has hit this assembly full force!"

*Edit* Typos.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: not everybody, like myself, has regular access to the forum, so some regulars haven't chimed in yet. I haven't had the chance to visit this forum on a desktop computer in two weeks , for example, which makes in-depth analyses from smart phones very difficult. Give it time.

[Lexicor]

OOC: not everybody, like myself, has regular access to the forum, so some regulars haven't chimed in yet. I haven't had the chance to visit this forum on a desktop computer in two weeks , for example, which makes in-depth analyses from smart phones very difficult. Give it time.

OOC: Hope life is going well. I am an impatient fellow. I can wait but not too long

[Normlpeople]

"I can see nothing overly offensive regarding this, but I do question why WATCH has the final say on what is considered authentic over local authorities, who are far more knowledgeable and qualified to make that determination. While the first section states that they do so in co-operation with local authorities, it does not say who is correct in the event of a conflict. In fact, section 4 would seem to give that power to the committee instead of locals, who are far more aware of their heritage than the WA. I would also question why WATCH needs to be notified and investigate these artifacts before the locals can do so. While I don't oppose the idea of a cultural database, I do believe that the local authorities should maintain a degree of control, and not immediately turn over said control of any archeological site to a WA committee."

OOC: I would venture that this falls afoul of the 'just a committee' rule. While the committee already exists, all this resolution does is expand powers, it does nothing else.

[Lexicor]

d) Allows WATCH to rescind cultural heritage site status, if the sites basis for cultural heritage status is upon further investigation by the local authorities in cooperation with WATCH or independently determine that the basis for cultural heritage status is empirically false or woefully inaccurate,

"I wager this is the clause that is the source of your concern Ambassador. The goal of this resolution is quite simple and I do admit it that submitting early would have been a rash and stupid mistake to make at this juncture. I understand the concern and the position that the delegation of Normlpeople has on this issue. The proposed amendment to clause (IV) has been denoted in bolded text on the Lexocron. We hope this assuages this concern!"

OOC: Its sitting on a gray area at this point. If it gets taken down for "just a committee" rule I'll refocus and redraft from there.

[Normlpeople]

d) Allows WATCH to rescind cultural heritage site status, if the sites basis for cultural heritage status is upon further investigation by the local authorities in cooperation with WATCH or independently determine that the basis for cultural heritage status is empirically false or woefully inaccurate,

"I wager this is the clause that is the source of your concern Ambassador. The goal of this resolution is quite simple and I do admit it that submitting early would have been a rash and stupid mistake to make at this juncture. I understand the concern and the position that the delegation of Normlpeople has on this issue. The proposed amendment to clause (IV) has been denoted in bolded text on the Lexocron. We hope this assuages this concern!"

OOC: Its sitting on a gray area at this point. If it gets taken down for "just a committee" rule I'll refocus and redraft from there.

Clover nodded "This works.. Perhaps setting up an appeals process with an independent 3rd party in case of conflict may also be prudent, if it can be put in somehow that is..."

OOC: I was once told a good way to test is to remove the committee and see what you have left. Unfortunately, not much in this case. It could be fixed though, with some fluff requirements such as recommending nations contribute to a non-committee database, recommending or mandating access to this database, etc...

[Bears Armed]

OOC; RL is being awkward, will comment in more detail if & when I can...

[The Dark Star Republic]

III. Mandates member-states enact all necessary pre-cautions before developing land in disputed or international territories so as to not unintentionally destroy culturally significant sites;

"The Cousin Loving Space Aliens of The Dark Star Republic hereby dispute every single territorial claim made by every WA state.

"While not as bad as the WHL, this proposal seems to have the capacity to make industrial development grind to a halt."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

(OOC: I honestly question how much good this proposal can do, though. The previous resolution is a blocker. Expanding on it is going to be extremely difficult.)