NationStates

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:45 am**

Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection
Category & AoE: Education and Creativity, Cultural Heritage
Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

NOTING the protection afforded to culturally significant artefacts by General Assembly Resolution 72;

RECOGNISING that there are many non-material aspects of culture not protected or preserved by that resolution;

DEFINING an intangible cultural heritage as a custom, practice, tradition or skill, and all locations and objects associated therewith, which is considered to be a part of the cultural heritage of a community, group, or society by members of such a community, group or society;

MANDATES that the Intangible Cultural Heritage Commission (ICHC) be established to categorise and record intangible cultural heritage;

ORDERS member states to assist the ICHC in its task by providing information regarding intangible cultural heritage within their territories;

REQUIRES member states to:
a. adopt a general policy towards the protection of intangible cultural heritage
b. criminalise any deliberate action which has the consequence of destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means.

AFFIRMS the right of member states to restrict cultural practices that may cause harm to national populations, provided that academic information regarding these practices is recorded and submitted to the ICHC.

ENCOURAGES member states to institute policy aimed at training specialists with the necessary knowledge to protect and record intangible cultural heritage;

CALLS UPON member states to provide for education regarding intangible cultural heritage.

Any suggestions for improvements or comments are welcome.

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:07 am**

Category and strength/AOE?

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:19 am**

Sorry about that, they have been added. I wasn't sure about the strength, so I decided to go for the higher one to be on the safe side.

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:05 am**

Describe an act that could destroy a societies intangible cultural heritage.

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:12 am**

One example pulled off the top of my head would be the prohibition of a traditional form of weaving. Or maybe the intentional destruction of looms used for that weaving. There are many possible examples, but I hope that illustrates my point in a basic way.

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:46 am**

Banning a language perhaps? Something like that? Or particular burial customs?

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:16 am**

Indeed, those would perhaps be more significant examples than my loom one...

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:28 pm**

Jonas pulls out a pen, and a draft of the Bill.

Line by line examination - since no one else has done this yet:

The World Assembly,

NOTING the protection afforded to culturally significant artefacts by General Assembly Resolution 72;

RECOGNISING that there are many non-material aspects of culture not protected or preserved by that resolution;

DEFINING an intangible cultural heritage as a custom, practice, tradition or skill, and all locations and objects associated therewith, which is considered to be a part of the cultural heritage of a community, group, or society by members of such a community, group or society;

Boilerplate - but mandatory boilerplate. Further, possible house of cards in the reference to GAR #72 - possible rulebreaking?

MANDATES that the Intangible Cultural Heritage Commission (ICHC) be established to categorise and record intangible cultural heritage;

OK...so far, so good - a committee is established and given a job to do.

REQUESTS that member states assist the ICHC in its task by providing information regarding intangible cultural heritage within their territories;

How much information? Some nations would loophole and provide just the name of intangible cultural heritage. If anyone cries lawbreaking, the relative nation would simply say "well, we did provide information". Please be more specific.

REQUIRES member states to:
a. adopt a general policy towards the protection of intangible cultural heritage
b. criminalise any action aimed at deliberately destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means.

Odd, this could be contradictory. A nation may adopt a policy towards the protection of intangible cultural heritage (i.e. that it shouldn't be protected), yet they would be required to criminalise any destruction thereof...possible loopholes again

ENCOURAGES member states to institute policy aimed at training specialists with the necessary knowledge to protect and record intangible cultural heritage;

No problem there...

CALLS UPON member states to provide for education regarding intangible cultural heritage.

Fine also.

Overall, apart from the mandatory boilerplate, the possible rulebreaking and the possible loopholes, everything is good. I would like a written Opinion on the following questions:

1) Is the reference to GAR #72 in the boilerplate paragraph a possible contravention of the House of Cards rule? (to be answered by someone knowledgeable of the Rules - preferably independant from myself or the author please)
2) On examination of the Legislation, could the alleged loopholes actually be loopholes? (to be answered by the author and one other independant examiner)

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:44 pm**

Just to elimiate any possible avoidance, I would amend clause 5 to read:

"REQUESTS that member states assist the ICHC in its task by providing detailed and useful information regarding intangible cultural heritage within their territories;"

You are quite right on loopholes, it was an oversight on my part. Perhaps if it were amended to read:

"REQUIRES member states to:
a. adopt a general policy for the protection of intangible cultural heritage
b. criminalise any action aimed at deliberately destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means."

That way any policy adopted must be to protect the intangible cultural heritage.

On the "house of cards" matter I am certainly not an expert, but I believe that applies to when one resolution relies on another. This is merely noting that physical cultural heritage sites are protected, and that intangible cultural heritage should be too. Though I too would like a second opinion on that.

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:11 pm**

Merfurian wrote:Overall, apart from the mandatory boilerplate, the possible rulebreaking and the possible loopholes, everything is good. I would like a written Opinion on the following questions:

1) Is the reference to GAR #72 in the boilerplate paragraph a possible contravention of the House of Cards rule? (to be answered by someone knowledgeable of the Rules - preferably independant from myself or the author please)

No, it's a passing reference in a preamble clause and if it's removed the proposal can stand on its own, it's fine.

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:49 pm**

Pollepao would support this resolution once the changes already suggested are implemented. We commend it's purpose.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:04 am**

Ile Royale wrote:Just to elimiate any possible avoidance, I would amend clause 5 to read:

"REQUESTS that member states assist the ICHC in its task by providing detailed and useful information regarding intangible cultural heritage within their territories;"

Actually, it's still quite easy to get around this clause, the change you've made hasn't done anything to stop avoidance (hint: requests can be denied.)

You are quite right on loopholes, it was an oversight on my part. Perhaps if it were amended to read:

"REQUIRES member states to:
a. adopt a general policy for the protection of intangible cultural heritage
b. criminalise any action aimed at deliberately destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means."

That way any policy adopted must be to protect the intangible cultural heritage.

Still fairly easy to loophole if one so wished, specifically one could argue that an action was not aimed at deliberately destroying it, that just happened to be a secondary issue. (Example: I bulldoze the last museum housing the looms in your example, my aim is not to destroy the looms, my aim is to remove the museum as it has been designated structurally unsafe. If nobody has moved the looms then they will be destroyed, but that was not my aim and so this act doesn't apply.)

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:53 am**

I do like this proposal, but I see some problems. How do we determine whether a group of individuals is big/influential enough to have their traditions considered an intangible cultural heritage? I see no problem in determining the New Year traditions of an ethnic group to be a cultural heritage, but I definitely would count the hundred year old custom of pouring champagne over the principal's head at the graduation ceremony of the local high school to be cultural heritage.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:11 am**

This resolution makes no provision for aspects of intangible cultural heritage which are harmful to society such as human sacrifice, as such we are opposed. Also, the title is far too long. We recommend "Safeguarding Tradition" if you're going to continue pursuing this.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:08 am**

Thank you all for your feedback, the "REQUESTS" will be changed to "ORDERS".

I hope that the following amendment will also help to eliminate a possible loophole, I will amnend it to read

"b. criminalise any deliberate action which has the consequence of destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means."

In response to Morlango's point, we obviously wish to take into account that some nations may be very sparsely populated, with many small communities nevertheless maintaing a rich heritage which deserves to be protected. That is why I believe the language should be left deliberately vague, and the levels decided by the ICHC in its classification scheme.

On the point made by Ossitania, we believe that everything which is currently allowed by the WA should be recorded, despite its possible unsavoury character. Of course, if an act is later prohibited by the WA, then the provisions of that resolution will supersede this one, and even if it is considered an intangible heritage, it will be banned.

With regards to the name change, we will consider changing it if any other delegations express concern, but we believe that it most precisely expresses what we are trying to protect.

It might be useful to publish the draft as it currently stands, which is as follows.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the protection afforded to culturally significant artefacts by General Assembly Resolution 72;

RECOGNISING that there are many non-material aspects of culture not protected or preserved by that resolution;

DEFINING an intangible cultural heritage as a custom, practice, tradition or skill, and all locations and objects associated therewith, which is considered to be a part of the cultural heritage of a community, group, or society by members of such a community, group or society;

MANDATES that the Intangible Cultural Heritage Commission (ICHC) be established to categorise and record intangible cultural heritage;

ORDERS member states to assist the ICHC in its task by providing information regarding intangible cultural heritage within their territories;

REQUIRES member states to:
a. adopt a general policy towards the protection of intangible cultural heritage
b. criminalise any deliberate action which has the consequence of destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means.

ENCOURAGES member states to institute policy aimed at training specialists with the necessary knowledge to protect and record intangible cultural heritage;

CALLS UPON member states to provide for education regarding intangible cultural heritage.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:25 am**

Ile Royale wrote:On the point made by Ossitania, we believe that everything which is currently allowed by the WA should be recorded, despite its possible unsavoury character. Of course, if an act is later prohibited by the WA, then the provisions of that resolution will supersede this one, and even if it is considered an intangible heritage, it will be banned.

But it won't. The rules of the WA are clear; you can't contradict extant law. If this resolution were on the books, we wouldn't be able to ban anything considered "intangible cultural heritage" even if that "intangible cultural heritage" includes "using children equipped with bombs as a weapon of war".

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:29 am**

Thank you for clarifying that. What addition would you make to prohibit those things being considered cultural heritage? Perhaps "No custom shall be considered an intangible cultural heritage if it causes harm to non-conenting persons."?

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:41 am**

Ile Royale wrote:Thank you for clarifying that. What addition would you make to prohibit those things being considered cultural heritage? Perhaps "No custom shall be considered an intangible cultural heritage if it causes harm to non-conenting persons."?

I would suggest something along the lines of "AFFIRMS the right of member-states to restrict cultural practices that may cause harm to national populations as long as they preserve academic information on these practices and deliver this information to the ICHC".

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:47 am**

That seems an eminently sensible addition, thank you.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:02 am**

No problem. You know you can edit the OP right? Usually if you update a proposal, it's common practice to put it up there.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:18 am**

Ok, I'll put the latest version in the OP. I think this is nearly ready to propose, but I'll leave it open for comment for a few more hours.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:21 am**

Ile Royale wrote:Ok, I'll put the latest version in the OP. I think this is nearly ready to propose, but I'll leave it open for comment for a few more hours.

Make it days, at least. Drafting is not a sprint, but a marathon.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:41 am**

Haha, I've only ever passed a SC resolution before, and it's usually best to ram those through before the opposition know what's hit them.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am**

Ile Royale wrote:Haha, I've only ever passed a SC resolution before, and it's usually best to ram those through before the opposition know what's hit them.

Ah, I understand. No, here, rushing is a very bad idea.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:14 pm**

Ile Royale wrote:Haha, I've only ever passed a SC resolution before, and it's usually best to ram those through before the opposition know what's hit them.

As a general rule the best proposals come from at least a week or two of drafting around here.

NationStates

[PASSED] Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection

[PASSED] Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection