[Draft] Repeal Cultural Site Preservation

[Imperium Anglorum]

In response to a terrorist attack on the Palace at Eastminster by a terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Cambigta and the Solent with the death of thousands of our citizens and blaming this Resolution for preventing additional security in time for its defence, the Foreign Office has instructed me to propose this bill to you.

Repeal Cultural Site Preservation
Category: Repeal

---

Acknowledging the need of cultural sites and the increasing military presence required for their protection in an ever-more dangerous world,

Viewing the failure of this resolution to account for changes in the armament of non-state actions as detrimental to the security of these sites,

Remembering the importance of national histories for the functioning of a peaceful and ordered society as well as the academic necessity of the fruits of the past in the research of ancient civilisations, and,

Believing that the World Assembly should not place limits on the extent to which governments defend their cultural heritage locations,

This august World Assembly;

1. Objects to the requirement that culturally relevant sites cannot be used to house military or intelligence assets without the approval of the Trust,
   
   
   1. as this is a danger of the functioning and defence of sensitive cultural institutions;
      
   2. and as the Resolution prohibits the establishment of further forceful defences for new or existing culturally relevant sites in the face of rising terrorism or nationally sanctioned conflict by stating that exemptions can only be granted 'in order to preserve its use as such [a facility]';
2. Objects to the above requirement's need for a nation to inform the Trust, which forces classified information pertinent to national security into the public sphere;
   
3. Disapproves of the failure of the Resolution to account for increases in terrorist activity in some sections of the world, thereby increasing the risk of the destruction of these monuments by non-state actors, and hence, the World Assembly hereby;
   
4. Repeals Cultural Site Preservation.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Objects to the branding of the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage (hereafter referred to as the Trust), as this is contrary to Secretariat policy on the naming of organisations;

OOC: No, it's not.

IC follows:

"This repeal is terribly disappointing to us. We would dearly love to see the Resolution in question repealed such that something meaningful could be passed, but your repeal is arguing instead the opposite, that a Resolution that was deliberately designed to be too mild is instead too strong. We could never support such an argument. A pity."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Amerieka]

Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't terrorists do what they do regardless of what resolutions are written to protect cultural sites?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Dark Star Republic, our objection is not that the resolution is too strong. It is that it prevents nations from building up defences inside their cultural heritage sites. This delegation finds that a flaw which cannot be allowed to stand. As long as a replacement is passed which addresses that flaw (and whatever issues that it throws up in its own time), our Empire has no objection.

Amerieka, you're correct. The issue is that the legislation prevents nations from bolstering the defences of their cultural sites, not that it does not prevent terrorists from attacking.

[Normlpeople]

"Condolences to you in this time of sorrow for your nation. In regards to the draft.... there was a loophole... should such sites have already been militarized, they could continue to be. Surely this palace had a military presence to protect your rulers?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Of course, but that military presence can only be preserved. It cannot be expanded, Your Excellency.

[Normlpeople]

Of course, but that military presence can only be preserved. It cannot be expanded, Your Excellency.

"Excellency is not a title im used to" Clover said with a smile "However, im my comprehension, an exemption granted by clause 7 is an exemption to the document itself. Perhaps a better angle is noting clause 6 forbids willful militarization of a site, even when such a thing would be reasonably required under clause 5......"

[Imperium Anglorum]

'Your excellency, it also requires that our security measures and plans be made available for Trust to view and approve. By stating 'preserve', we interpret it narrowly, that our military presence must be preserved, that is, not change'.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

So a bomb goes off in your palace, and we need to repeal a resolution? What's next?

[Amerieka]

Jean Pierre Trudy are you saying that it is not worthy of at least generating a civilized and critical evaluation of the resolution and that you have to make some flippy comment? Aiyoyo.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So a bomb goes off in your palace, and we need to repeal a resolution? What's next?

Answer the 4 questions.

[Normlpeople]

'Your excellency, it also requires that our security measures and plans be made available for Trust to view and approve. By stating 'preserve', we interpret it narrowly, that our military presence must be preserved, that is, not change'.

"I am afraid we interpret it differently then. I shall watch, pun intended, with interest, to see where this goes."

[Defwa]

What defenses are you hoping to put in place inside the palace? Specifics, please. Because I want to know just how you think the present resolution is going to prevent you from effective defense.
The way I see it, setting up some metal detectors in the lobby doesn't really stop someone from detonating an explosive in the lobby. Your defenses would be far more effective around your culturally relevant site, anyway.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The legislation states:

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

This, by using the word preserve, prevents us from further increasing defences. I would support the same legislation if national governments were granted a broad exemption for security purposes.

Furthermore, this government does not believe in the statement that it is the ability of 'WATCH to grant exemptions'. It should be the ability of the government to simply state to the Trust that these are the exemptions and give a short reasoning why. Naturally, the Trust should be allowed to rescind those exemptions in cases where it is not in good faith — after investigation. Basically, this would shift the burden of proof from the nations to the Trust.

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with a bill to preserve culture, since, as in the words of a Mycroft Holmes, 'traditions define us'.

[Defwa]

The legislation states:

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

This, by using the word preserve, prevents us from further increasing defences. I would support the same legislation if national governments were granted a broad exemption for security purposes.

Furthermore, this government does not believe in the statement that it is the ability of 'WATCH to grant exemptions'. It should be the ability of the government to simply state to the Trust that these are the exemptions and give a short reasoning why. Naturally, the Trust should be allowed to rescind those exemptions in cases where it is not in good faith — after investigation. Basically, this would shift the burden of proof from the nations to the Trust.

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with a bill to preserve culture, since, as in the words of a Mycroft Holmes, 'traditions define us'.

I'm not sure how you're reading that.
If a culturally significant building was used for military reasons prior to being declared culturally significant, WATCH will always grant exemptions so that the structure can be updated as much as necessary to maintain its value as a military asset.
That could be adding a new satellite dish or filling the walls with concrete.

[Bananaistan]

Bananaistan is opposed. We can't agree with the fundamentally unsound interpretation of section 7 provided by the proposing delegation. There is nothing in the target resolution which stops a nation from increasing the defences of any culturally relevant site. They are merely not obliged to do so if it is currently used as a military or intelligence asset. The word preserves refers to preserving its use as a military or intelligence asset, not preserving the exact number of soldiers/operatives/etc.

[Poly City]

interesting

[Amerieka]

U better justify why u said it is interesting or Jean Trudy will come and scold u

[Separatist Peoples]

U better justify why u said it is interesting or Jean Trudy will come and scold u

"I think you'll find that goading delegations who call you out when your contributions are lacking is a bad idea, ambassador. Kindly take your personal feud elsewhere?"

[Bears Armed]

Dark Star Republic, our objection is not that the resolution is too strong. It is that it prevents nations from building up defences inside their cultural heritage sites. This delegation finds that a flaw which cannot be allowed to stand. As long as a replacement is passed which addresses that flaw (and whatever issues that it throws up in its own time), our Empire has no objection.

And if nations are allowed to build up defences in their cultural heritage sites, watch some nations try to get all of their military establishments declared as 'cultural heritage' sites so that they have WA legal protection against enemy [WA member nation] attack...

[Amerieka]

it is not about calling me out. it is about calling mean delegates out babe.

[Wallenburg]

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ADDRESS BY PRIME MINSTER HUGO VOLK:
We are dismayed at the Imperium's reaction to the situation. Certainly they should be capable of defending themselves against terrorist action without searching for a scapegoat in reasonable international legislation!
Rather than repealing laws protective of the most important artifacts of our world, we hope that measures will go into effect to further reduce terrorist action.
Terrorism is a hydra. Cutting off its heads is irrelevant. Sever it at its roots!

[Polinasia]

U better justify why u said it is interesting or Jean Trudy will come and scold u

Well... I said it was interesting because I think the reason for forming this proposal was a certain news that have hit the papers lately!
Well that's really how I create my Ideas too!!!