PASSED: Protection of historical monuments

[Borinata]

REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.

So a monument, say a religious building (OOC:the Vatican, Angkor Wat), has to be ceded to the government to qualify as a monument? While it is certainly true that whoever owns it doesn't have to seek monument status for the building; however this unfairly and unnecessarily discourages private maintenance, ownership and promotion of site of historic and cultural interest.

AGAINST

[Golgoglot]

For those who oppose this resolution (such as my nation), there is good news to be had!

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly Monuments Register, so that this act may apply to them.

This means that it is up to you to decide which monuments, if any, will fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution.

I believe that this resolution was submitted with good intentions; however, I greatly disagree with some of its mandates (including the first STATES and the last REQUIRES). With that in mind, I have cast my vote against the resolution, but if it shall pass, then I will ensure that our nation does not submit any of our cherished monuments to the WAMR.

[OOC: So wait... my understanding is that even if this passes, you technically don't have to declare any monuments to the Register. Am I wrong? Because if I'm not, then what's the point of this resolution?]

EDIT: [OOC: Yeah, it's already been pointed out. My bad. But still, that's a pretty big loophole that could easily render the whole resolution useless...]

[Absolvability]

Sadly, I've been away for far too long. I'm sure that I won't be the first to say any of the following, but from the vote count I feel it all needs to be said again. Forgive me for repeating anything that's been covered, but I'm struggling to catch up with all that I've missed.

NOTING that historical monuments represent history and the formation of our cultures and that their worth surpasses that of monetary value.
…
REQUIRES the protection and repair of historical monuments by the government to whom the monument belongs. Unless:
1. Said monument is beyond repair to the extent that any attempts would be too expensive or frequent to be economically feasible for the nation.

I’ve been out of the game for a while and maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me, but this seems to be a terrible contradiction. Their worth either surpasses that of monetary value or it doesn’t. I don’t presume to know which answer is correct… but I feel the creating delegation has a responsibility to take a side here. Especially when it so directly effects the later contents.

STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations

Historical monuments, as the statute presumed to define them, is any structure or location that represents a historical event, culture, or influential individuals. This definition is far too broad if we plan on continuing to say that they may not be used as a place of residence. By its very definition these historical monuments seem to be most applicable to the natives of a land… or—shall we simply say minorities to be brief? We’ll be taking sacred land from people and turning it into museums? Which wouldn’t be so bad except that the poor wording of this particular clause leaves available a plethora of other options… excluding simply military installations and places of residence. This is woefully insufficient and, however inadvertantly, mean.

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly Monuments Register, so that this act may apply to them.

CREATES the Monument Assessment Committee to asses the monuments being proposed for the World Assembly Monuments Register so that they are of actual historical importance, and not selected as a way of protecting people.

And, continuing on down the same vein, if a nation were to overlook this loophole and continue with the intentions this resolution obviously carries (though we all know that intentions are simply not enough,) they would unfortunately be dragged into compliance by a responsibility to register these lands… essentially stealing them from whoever they may’ve belonged to.

I’d like to ramble on about what makes the World Assembly think it should be able to decide for each member nation what historical monuments are ‘actually important’ as well… but really, this statute has greater flaws than misguided arrogance.

So... in summation, and surely surprising nobody that is familiar with me, I've come out against this resolution in order to see one replace it in our forum that better represents the intentions I humbly assume the author wished.

[Golgoglot]

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly Monuments Register, so that this act may apply to them.

CREATES the Monument Assessment Committee to asses the monuments being proposed for the World Assembly Monuments Register so that they are of actual historical importance, and not selected as a way of protecting people.

And, continuing on down the same vein, if a nation were to overlook this loophole and continue with the intentions this resolution obviously carries (though we all know that intentions are simply not enough,) they would unfortunately be dragged into compliance by a responsibility to register these lands…

Because of the way the resolution was written, there isn't even a implied "responsibility to register". It is the responsibility of the governing bodies to identify their monuments (in the sense that it's up to the individual nations to decide which monuments to submit to the WAMR), but they aren't responsible for it (in the sense that they won't be held accountable to some sort of punishment if they don't submit anything).

This resolution offers a guilt-free way to opt out of it. If, theoretically, not a single monument is submitted to the WAMR, then this resolution will just be a waste of space in the books, so to speak.

[Absolvability]

Because of the way the resolution was written, there isn't even a implied "responsibility to register". It is the responsibility of the governing bodies to identify their monuments (in the sense that it's up to the individual nations to decide which monuments to submit to the WAMR), but they aren't responsible for it (in the sense that they won't be held accountable to some sort of punishment if they don't submit anything).

CREATES the World Assembly Monuments Register, an official list containing all Historical Monuments in World Assembly Countries. Monuments not in the list are unaffected by this act.

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly Monuments Register, so that this act may apply to them

I disagree honored Ambassador. You might be correct, if this document wasn't highly contradictory, but it seems to me that in a very round-about way it ensures that all 'historical monuments' are to be registered. The possible loophole you describe is effectively patched, as far as I can tell.

then this resolution will just be a waste of space in the books, so to speak.

I can agree with that however. Am I to presume that the Ambassador from Golgoglot is against this statute as well? Though we seem not to entirely agree, I think we can both say that this legislation needs refining before it becomes a part of our prestigious list of passed legislation.

[Golgoglot]

I disagree honored Ambassador. You might be correct, if this document wasn't highly contradictory, but it seems to me that in a very round-about way it ensures that all 'historical monuments' are to be registered. The possible loophole you describe is effectively patched, as far as I can tell.

I am inclined to disagree with you, but I hope that input from other ambassadors will shed more light onto these questionable clauses.

I can agree with that however. Am I to presume that the Ambassador from Golgoglot is against this statute as well? Though we seem not to entirely agree, I think we can both say that this legislation needs refining before it becomes a part of our prestigious list of passed legislation.

You are correct, esteemed ambassador; my vote against it has already been noted. Though I do quite disagree with the aforementioned questionable clauses, they are not my only gripe with this resolution. In fact, I will admit that your previous statement concerning monetary value vs. no monetary value highlighted further problems that I had missed on my read-throughs of the resolution.

Admittedly, I am beginning to doubt whether this is something over which the WA should have jurisdiction, and if I may be so rude to say, the various arguments against this resolution have thus far only strengthened my doubt.

[The Autumn Clans]

look so far more people are voting for than against. You're the minority, I'm note going to take down my own proposal.
And as for that 'asses' thing...

Grow up OK your not 4 (I hope) Every one can see it is meant to be 'assess'. OK it's one letter, sorry if I'm Dyslexic. What if I had laugh about how ugly you are, how would you feel? We're all born different live with it, the world should be a more accepting and understganding place.

[Kingdom Brittania]

Please, if you can rewrite it, please add a clause allowing the support and partial ownership of monuments.

Jefe de Asuntos Internacionales de
Ministro Andrés Valdez

[Bears Armed]

And as for that 'asses' thing...

Grow up OK your not 4 (I hope) Every one can see it is meant to be 'assess'.

"However, according to longstanding precedent wwithin both this organisation itself and its precursor, "The Law Does What The Law Says"... and so your proposed commission would indeed have to "asses" -- in some way -- all of the sites in question..."

OK it's one letter, sorry if I'm Dyslexic. What if I had laugh about how ugly you are, how would you feel? We're all born different live with it, the world should be a more accepting and understganding place.

"And does the honourable ambassador not have any staff who are not dyslexic to assist him with the use of correct spelling in his government's proposals?"


(OOC: This would have gone better if you hadn't been in such a rush, and had waited for more feedback on the 'final' draft before submitting it...)

[Philimbesi]

Nigel raised his hand, "Point of order. Does leaving the classification of monuments totally up to the nation make this voluntary? Therefore illegal?"

[Bears Armed]

Nigel raised his hand, "Point of order. Does leaving the classification of monuments totally up to the nation make this voluntary? Therefore illegal?"

Borrin shrugged.
"I personally would think that the binding nature of the other clauses, as they apply to any monuments that have been listed, are enough to make this 'legal'. After all, even a WA member nation that chooses not to have any of its own monuments placed on the list would still be bound to refrain from military use of those sites that had been listed within and by other member nations..."

[Philimbesi]

it seems to me that in a very round-about way it ensures that all 'historical monuments' are to be registered. The possible loophole you describe is effectively patched, as far as I can tell.

I agree with the good ambassador from Golgoglot, though in a way both of you are correct. As there are no explicit definitions of what constitutes a historical monument, combine that with the clause leaving it up to the nations to decide and this resolution can be read (and abused) in many different ways. Nations can essentially ignore this and not register any monuments or they can nominate the existing national monuments they may have, or they decide that all of the buildings in the nation are historical and therefore are worthy of protection from international law.

In the end we are left with pretty much a pile of crap wrapped in a fluffy bag, and because the delegate proposing it suffers from premature submission disorder and a microscopic number of delegates actually participate in the debate and proposal process, I fear we will all be left holding the fluffy bag...

[Hustinnia]

Even in its current state, the resolution proposed by the ambassador of The Autum Clans is unacceptable to the Empire of Hustinnia.
While the Empire applauds the idea behind the resolution, it simply cannot agree to mandatory government ownership of historical sites, even if they are of utmost cultural importance.
Hustinnia urges all like minded nations to vote against the proposed resolution.

[Grays Harbor]

look so far more people are voting for than against. You're the minority, I'm note going to take down my own proposal.

That means nothing. Far too many WA members never read beyond the title, and vote on the "feel good" items.

This should be taken down. It is far to all-encompasing, one size fits all approach to monuments.

There will be repeals written for this should it pass by many here who object to this sort of WA interference in what should be a purely national matter, I can pretty much guarentee that.

[Gobbannium]

look so far more people are voting for than against. You're the minority, I'm note going to take down my own proposal.

That means nothing. Far too many WA members never read beyond the title, and vote on the "feel good" items.

This should be taken down. It is far to all-encompasing, one size fits all approach to monuments.

Regrettably once a resolution is at vote it cannot be taken down. The only recourse at this stage is to repeal it should it pass. Since we are none too keen on evicting our royal cousins from their residences, we would be happy to assist any drafting efforts to such an end.

[Baranthar]

Regrettably once a resolution is at vote it cannot be taken down.

Then let us defeat it.

The resolution is weak, and it pains me to see how many people still seem to support it. My government, for one, has spotted at least three problems with it.

This resolution would compel the government to take possession of any recognized monuments. We do not believe in pointless government property. Several great monuments are in fact owned and well cared for by private individuals, and we see no reason to change that.

More alarmingly, the resolution signally fails to guarantee the protection of monuments. By waiving the requirement to restore and maintain monuments in times of crisis, including an economic depression, the resolution would allow any WA member states to simply stop paying for a monument's upkeep once the economy goes down. My government fails to see how this would "protect" such monuments.

Thirdly, we have serious problems with the military aspects of the resolution. While we agree that using monuments for national defense could arguably be considered 'barbaric', we feel that such matters of national defense are the concern of a nation's government, not of some WA cultural committee. Worse, the resolution then makes an exception for monuments occupied by the enemy - effectively meaning that our own military forces should avoid such monuments, unless the enemy's inside them, in which case they can legally be reduced to rubble.

[Bears Armed]

Worse, the resolution then makes an exception for monuments occupied by the enemy - effectively meaning that our own military forces should avoid such monuments, unless the enemy's inside them, in which case they can legally be reduced to rubble.

"But if the enemy nation in question is also a WA member then its forces must also refrain from using or attacking those monuments..."

[Baranthar]

"But if the enemy nation in question is also a WA member then its forces must also refrain from using or attacking those monuments..."

True enough. But sadly, may of the more aggressive nations in this world are not members of the WA - and even if they were, it would be of little consequence. Any member state bold enough to invade a fellow WA member would surely be prepared to ignore such cultural resolutions as well.

[La Habana]

I seriously hope that someone drafts a repeal to this if it does pass, because all of the concerns raised are genuine, even the one concerning the provision of 'asses' that was in this line:

"CREATES the Monument Assessment Committee to asses the monuments being proposed for the World Assembly Monuments Register so that they are of actual historical importance, and not selected as a way of protecting people."

I mean I know that you have dyslexia as you mentioned, but you could have easily got one of the forum members to check the final draft before you submitted it, it's not THAT difficult. Since WA Resolutions have to be obeyed TO THE LETTER by WA members, the whole thing should be repealed, lest we have a world of monuments that are constantly getting 'assed'.

The provision for governments to own historic monuments is also absolutely asinine, as many governments do not have the funding to maintain these buildings, leading to them eventually going to ruin from lack of maintenance. That insanity deserves a triple facepalm

[Noordeinde]

REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.

" Thank you Mister Chairman, I have a very simple question for the honorable Ambassador of The Autumn Clans, why shouldn't citizens, as a private party, not be permitted to own a monumental building?"

"For example Noordeinde has multiple Monumental and old City Centres, these City Centres include some Historical Houses, Residences. So will this mean that the Noordeindian Government should force people out of their houses just because it's a monument? Because if so, it's quite ridiculous"

[Baranthar]

"For example Noordeinde has multiple Monumental and old City Centres, these City Centres include some Historical Houses, Residences. So will this mean that the Noordeindian Government should force people out of their houses just because it's a monument? Because if so, it's quite ridiculous"

That... appears to be what it says, yes.

[Noordeinde]

That... appears to be what it says, yes.

"Well if so we will vote against this proposal and boycot the following clause:"

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly Monuments Register, so that this act may apply to them.

"Noordeinde will deny to report it's Monuments to the World Assembly if this proposal will become a resolution and hopefully someone will Repeal it very soon. We will boycot this clause only because we are not going to remove our citizens by Force out of their houses. Thoug we sympathize with the idea to legally protect Monuments."

[The Palentine]

In the end we are left with pretty much a pile of crap wrapped in a fluffy bag, and because the delegate proposing it suffers from premature submission disorder and a microscopic number of delegates actually participate in the debate and proposal process, I fear we will all be left holding the fluffy bag...

Holding the bag? I think you can go blind doing that.....or at least thats what my mother always said.
<Rimshot!>
Heeeyoooh! Thank you very much folks, I'll be here all week. The next show is at Ten. Please, try the veal and remember to tip your waitress!

Excelsior
Sen. Horatio "Slappy" Sulla

[Scott Tree]

Why can't a private party own a historical place? People in Scotland own private castles that have been part of the history of the country. You can’t force our government to give up the right to private property. We refuse to remove the owner from what rightful belongs to him or her. The owner has to has to keep things a certain way for historical reasons and can’t destroy the site. Our government has very strict detailed guide lines on this sort of thing.

[Gop-Conservatives]

I believe it should be left up to the Nation's on how they want to handle this Proposal. It should not be any concern at all to the WA.