[Passed] Repeal "Physical Sites Protection Act"

[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.

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

I don't think it has any substance beyond the WA not being able to "comprehend" the issues of its constituent members. This is the same NatSov drum-beating that rears its head pretty frequently, except this doesn't really have any compelling argument behind it beyond "The WA is just not very good at stuff". I therefore question why you are even part of this assembly if you think so low of it. This is what G-R stated and I gave him credit for that without seeing the need to repeat it. I said all of this in my initial statement.

Furthermore, I expect higher standards of English in resolution repeals and, for me, this does not cut it. Regardless of substance, I don't want to look at past passed resolutions that look like they are written by 5th graders. I have said it before to you and I guess I'll say it again: If you want help with the language in your resolution submissions, there are many people that would be willing to go through this with you. You just have to ask.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

That gave me a chuckle. Thank you.

[Castelo Quintas]

After reading for the 2nd time, and reading the original resolution, i have to agree with this. It's up to every nation to decide if they want to preserve their historic sites. Altough i can't see a reason why some nations would destroy their historic sites.
BUT... at the same time, this resolution was made before i joined NationStates, and i choose to stand by the people who vote "for" back then, especially when this resolution only has 2 months old. It seems to me that this repeal is made by someone who voted "against" and i think he has to learn to accept the rules of democracy.

[The Black Hat Guy]

After reading for the 2nd time, and reading the original resolution, i have to agree with this. It's up to every nation to decide if they want to preserve their historic sites. Altough i can't see a reason why some nations would destroy their historic sites.
BUT... at the same time, this resolution was made before i joined NationStates, and i choose to stand by the people who vote "for" back then, especially when this resolution only has 2 months old. It seems to me that this repeal is made by someone who voted "against" and i think he has to learn to accept the rules of democracy.

I hope you understand that repeals are part of the rules of this democracy. When a nation attempts a repeal, it means that it doesn't believe that the international community truly understood the implications of the resolution, or it thinks that they may have changed their minds since then. It's part of the democratic process, and telling a nation to "learn to accept the rules of democracy" is another way of saying that it shouldn't be able to exercise its right to use the powers that it is given by that very same democracy.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

this doesn't really have any compelling argument behind it beyond "The WA is just not very good at stuff".

Well...it's not. I mean, look around you at the representatives gathered here. Do these look like people who are good at stuff?

ahem...

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in favor of this repeal.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We certainly hope the Eternal Kawaiian delegate doesn't honestly think that it's the WA delegates who run the WA. It's those gnomes, quasi-magical trans-dimensional beings that hop around interpreting the laws.

[Eist]

*snip*

That gave me a chuckle. Thank you.

Well, I'm glad you find it humorous. May you forever revel in your mediocrity.

@The Eternal Kawaii: I really don't follow your rationale.

[Castelo Quintas]

After reading for the 2nd time, and reading the original resolution, i have to agree with this. It's up to every nation to decide if they want to preserve their historic sites. Altough i can't see a reason why some nations would destroy their historic sites.
BUT... at the same time, this resolution was made before i joined NationStates, and i choose to stand by the people who vote "for" back then, especially when this resolution only has 2 months old. It seems to me that this repeal is made by someone who voted "against" and i think he has to learn to accept the rules of democracy.

I hope you understand that repeals are part of the rules of this democracy. When a nation attempts a repeal, it means that it doesn't believe that the international community truly understood the implications of the resolution, or it thinks that they may have changed their minds since then. It's part of the democratic process, and telling a nation to "learn to accept the rules of democracy" is another way of saying that it shouldn't be able to exercise its right to use the powers that it is given by that very same democracy.

Yes, you are right, but it was only two months a go, we should wait more time to see the true replications of this resolution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: I'd just like to point out, to those of who are are following my position, that I did actually vote for this repeal. I don't like the parochial and elitist language about the WA not being "smart enough," which is so often used by the Old Guard when they're really trying to say "We could write it better than you," but the resolution itself is flawed and should be repealed...

[Eist]

OOC: I'd just like to point out, to those of who are are following my position, that I did actually vote for this repeal. I don't like the parochial and elitist language about the WA not being "smart enough," which is so often used by the Old Guard when they're really trying to say "We could write it better than you," but the resolution itself is flawed and should be repealed...

Oh, I apologise for misrepresenting you. What do you do if the repeal is even more flawed than the original, though?

[United Federation of Canada]

Repeal looks good to me. Nicely done Dourian.

APPROVED

[Discoveria]

"This is a misguided repeal of a weak resolution," said Matthew after some time. "On balance, we feel that voting against the repeal is more appropriate."

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: CeniCeni

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;

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;

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;

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 This clause makes the inclusion of any site under the PHPC's remit (and thereby the authority of GAR#244) contingent on obtaining consent from the nation's government. The author even admitted as much. In other words, a nation may refuse to comply with GAR#244 by simply withholding consent to consider any sites for 'certification' by the PHPC. This is the case in Discoveria where conservation issues are dealt with by the Office of National Heritage without interference from the bureaucratic WA gnomes. This clause is the real reason why GAR#244 should be repealed, IMHO.
(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 It would be foolish for any nation to give control of their sites to the PHPC when this mechanism of decertification does not guarantee that the nation could be given back that control. This issue ought to have been addressed.

Votes For: 7,590 (56%)
Votes Against: 5,846 (44%)
Implemented: Fri Mar 15 2013

As for the repeal:

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, Agreed except for the issue of sites situated within multiple nations, where one could argue for a WA role in conservation efforts.

Further insisting that the WA cannot begin to comprehend the cultural significance, nor regulate the use of innumerable sites that exist in WA nations, We agree with Glen-Rhodes' criticism. For all the WA's many and varied faults, the intellectual ability of the gnomes is not one of them. The intellectual ability of other WA persons, however...

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, Yes, but in that case the nation should simply withhold consent from the PHPC. The resolution does not need to be repealed on this basis alone. It should be repealed for being ineffective due to the presence of that loophole.

Insisting that the PHPC’s interference in a nation’s preservation could actually cause more harm to the site’s integrity and value, A generic objection that could apply to all WA resolutions.

Noting the development of a culturally significant site may be tied directly to non-interference in its creation and maintenance, I'm sure the PHPC could specify that non-interference is best for such sites. Not a great argument.

Realizing that individual nations can protect their cultural heritage more efficiently and effectively than the World Assembly as a whole, NatSov, though I agree. (With exception of multi-nation sites.)

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

[Minetopia (Ancient)]

I have decided to possibly vote to your your topic

[New Event Horizon]

The WA is just not very good at stuff.

That being said, we vote for this repeal. We expect a WA representative to mistake one of our utility fog nodes for something of cultural importance.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

We certainly hope the Eternal Kawaiian delegate doesn't honestly think that it's the WA delegates who run the WA. It's those gnomes, quasi-magical trans-dimensional beings that hop around interpreting the laws.

The gnomes are only as useful as the orders they are given by this Assembly. The resolution currently up for repeal certainly isn't the worst law they've had to enforce, but it's definitely up there.

[Free South Califas]

Califan voters were less than pleased with the NatSov implications of some of the language here - indeed, impunity seems to be the norm in the WA, and we wonder if it is appropriate to trust member nations so deeply. Or why have WAGA at all? That being said, we appreciate the authors' optimism.

Our voters resolved that the other arguments were internally consistent, logically sound and well founded. The Delegate Affairs office at the Califan Detachment to the Red Fleet had already applied a less rigorous standard to the proposal in queue and approved it. The final federal tally mandated the Califan WA Delegation to vote FOR this proposal, with mild protest of the NatSov language.

Califans agreed with the Dourian argument that it is unnecessary to have a replacement ready. The current resolution is bad law, and not on an especially sensitive political topic; if anything, repealing it should help by pointing out the flaws clearly so that someone can come along and write a better one. This is not something like abortion, where a compromise position has been struck to prevent undue discord.

Like the Cowardly delegation, we hope that the replacement proposal will be as noble in spirit but less draconian.

We wish the Dourian ambassadors the best of luck in this endeavor.

Maria Ribaldo, F.D., elected from China Lake Military Air Mfg.
Communications Delegate
Commission on Current WA Proposals
Califan WA Detachment, 83rd Federal Assembly

[Nicktopia (Ancient)]

I have not been in the world assembly yet on this topic. Could one of you telegram me to tell what is going on?





Nicktopia

[United Federation of Canada]

I have not been in the world assembly yet on this topic. Could one of you telegram me to tell what is going on?





Nicktopia

Or you could simply read this here debate thread, that you amazingly enough posted in and find out the story for yourself.....

[Free South Califas]

I hope you understand that repeals are part of the rules of this democracy. When a nation attempts a repeal, it means that it doesn't believe that the international community truly understood the implications of the resolution, or it thinks that they may have changed their minds since then. It's part of the democratic process, and telling a nation to "learn to accept the rules of democracy" is another way of saying that it shouldn't be able to exercise its right to use the powers that it is given by that very same democracy.

Yes, you are right, but it was only two months a go, we should wait more time to see the true replications of this resolution.

No. You can rationalize your unwillingness to move from a position which you cannot justify, if you want. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Your stated reasons, frankly, have nothing to do with anything relevant.

this doesn't really have any compelling argument behind it beyond "The WA is just not very good at stuff".

Well...it's not. I mean, look around you at the representatives gathered here. Do these look like people who are good at stuff?

ahem...

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in favor of this repeal.

Don't accept Eist's premise. He ignores the most important part of the argument, commercial use, because he knows that his original position (the personal attack) would be impossible to sustain if he addressed that issue. I happen to agree with his main thrust about the NatSov argument, but that's small potatoes. The NatSov guy wrote it so it's got some NatSov language - if I wrote it it would sound more like my politics, big whoop.

The real weakness in this repeal is minor and adaptable. The language in the repeal - "vast assortment of sites", etc. - does not preclude the WA getting involved in physical site protection again, especially for cross-border sites.

---

Maria Ribaldo, F.D., elected from China Lake Military Air Mfg.
Communications Delegate
Commission on Current WA Proposals
Califan WA Detachment, 83rd Federal Assembly

[The Dourian Embassy]

The real weakness in this repeal is minor and adaptable. The language in the repeal - "vast assortment of sites", etc. - does not preclude the WA getting involved in physical site protection again, especially for cross-border sites.

I should note, cross border sites, and the issues of culturally significant sites belonging to cultures not residing in the same nation as the site, are reasonable cases for some sort of resolution on the topic. That is an international issue, and by almost any metric an issue deserving some international attention. I wouldn't guarantee I'd vote for something like that(having no idea what it would look like), but I certainly wouldn't take the time to repeal it(if it covered those clearly international issues).

[Sufani]

President Shrunia De Lithu of Sufani backs this repeal with full support.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Thanks for the support everyone. Glad to put this one behind us.