NATION

PASSWORD

PASSED: Cultural Heritage Protection

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Bergnovinaia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jul 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

PASSED: Cultural Heritage Protection

Postby Bergnovinaia » Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:48 pm

Cultural Heritage Protection

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING that certain member nations have many historical and artistic artifacts that reflect their heritage;

RECOGNIZING that several of these artifacts could be threatened during conflict;

ACKNOWLEDGES that nations should have the rights and institutions to properly preserve these artifacts;

BELIEVING that preserving these artifacts will allow citizens to further understand their heritage and expand international recognition of culture collectively;

Hereby,

DEFINES an artifact as any item of cultural, historical, or archeological interest to the member nation in question.

DEFINES a cultural heritage site as a area of interest, archeological, historical, or cultural to any member nation within its own jurdisticion.

BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;

REQUIRES that member states enact and enforce legislation criminalizing the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states citizens against other states;

ESTABLISHES the Cultural Heritage Preservation Committee as a non-profit organization that may assist non-governmental organizations and government agencies overseeing cultural heritage sites upon request;

ENCOURAGES member states to:
a) Make historical artifacts accessible to the public where possible
b) Ensure that where an admission fee exists for a historical monument, they are as reasonable as possible and balanced between the attraction of tourism and the preservation of such monument;
c) Pass on knowledge of the history and the functions of historical artifacts to all interested parties.

Co-written by Charlottle Ryberg
Last edited by Flibbleites on Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
I am pursuing my undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University in Psychology and Spanish. My goal in life is to be a marriage and family counselor. If you have questions about me or my life, just ask!

My girlfriend and I blog about Christian & general marriage, relationship, and dating advice!

NS member since 2009. WA Resolution Author (mostly all repealed), NS sports fanatic.

User avatar
Occultototus
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Nov 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Cultural Heritage Protection (Soon to be at vote)

Postby Occultototus » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:18 pm

I believe this should be ammended to include that no nation may place military installations, keep prisoners or store weaponry etc. at a site that is recognised as "Cultural Heritage".

User avatar
The Obamanator
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Nov 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Obamanator » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:26 pm

Occultototus wrote:I believe this should be ammended to include that no nation may place military installations, keep prisoners or store weaponry etc. at a site that is recognised as "Cultural Heritage".

I think it's time we had a national conversation about amendments. We need to get past all the amendments and recognize that we are our own best hope for overcoming fear. We need artifacts, not military installations. Artifacts are our hope. And we need to have hope for change in this protection of our cultural heritage.

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1623
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Goobergunchia » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:08 pm

The PRESIDING OFFICER: Order. Amendments are not in order at this time.

Question put, That the resolution be agreed to.

Voting to end on Friday, at the (formerly) major update.

SUSAN ZAFKORO (Goobergunchia): For the information of all ambassadors, I would like to mention that discussion pertaining to the drafting of this resolution can be found in the World Assembly Forum at 3rd Forum 404117 et seq.

Since we have not yet determined our position on this resolution, I will yield the floor.

EDITS: Cross-references are good for later NS generations
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.
(+5175 posts from mostly pre-Jolt)
Making NationStates a different place since 17 May 2003.
NSwiki Administrator
Priest of the Council of Ma'at, Osiris
Citizen of the Rejected Realms
Nasicournian Officer
IRC: Goobergunch @ irc.esper.net or irc.gamesurge.net
Sponsor, HR#22, SC#4
Member, UNOG
Timelines: Historical GA SC
Rules: GA SC
NS Forum Moderator
For your forum moderation needs: The Moderation Forum
For your in-game moderation needs: The Getting Help Page
What are the rules? See The One-Stop Rules Shop.
Who are the mods? See the All About Moderators sticky.

User avatar
Delibera
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Nov 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Delibera » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:20 pm

This resolution fails to define what a "cultural heritage site" is. Unless there are requirements as to what one may be, I can in no way agree to this.
Last edited by Delibera on Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1623
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Goobergunchia » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:42 pm

Delibera wrote:This resolution fails to define what a "cultural heritage site" is. Unless there are requirements as to what one may be, I can in no way agree to this.


On the contrary; the resolution "DEFINES a cultural heritage site as a area of interest, archeological, historical, or cultural to any member nation within its own jurdisticion [sic]."

Susan Zafkoro
Legislative Assistant
Goobergunchian UN Embassy
(+5175 posts from mostly pre-Jolt)
Making NationStates a different place since 17 May 2003.
NSwiki Administrator
Priest of the Council of Ma'at, Osiris
Citizen of the Rejected Realms
Nasicournian Officer
IRC: Goobergunch @ irc.esper.net or irc.gamesurge.net
Sponsor, HR#22, SC#4
Member, UNOG
Timelines: Historical GA SC
Rules: GA SC
NS Forum Moderator
For your forum moderation needs: The Moderation Forum
For your in-game moderation needs: The Getting Help Page
What are the rules? See The One-Stop Rules Shop.
Who are the mods? See the All About Moderators sticky.

User avatar
Northern Fury
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Fury » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:43 pm

Delibera wrote:This resolution fails to define what a "cultural heritage site" is. Unless there are requirements as to what one may be, I can in no way agree to this.


DEFINES a cultural heritage site as a area of interest, archeological, historical, or cultural to any member nation within its own jurdisticion.


From my interpretation of this provision, cultural heritage sites are determined by each member nation within its borders. It follows that it is up to that nation to determine/define their cultural heritage.

I like this resolution, and it seems to be well thought out. Although some spelling errors always happen, "jurdisticion" / "jurisdiction", and I really do hate myself for being compelled to point that out.

I will certainly be voting for this resolution for my nation.

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:02 pm

We're developing a strategery for figuring out just what this "jurdisticion" is and whether or not we have such a thing. Until then we will abstain.
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:46 am

Occultototus wrote:I believe this should be ammended to include that no nation may place military installations, keep prisoners or store weaponry etc. at a site that is recognised as "Cultural Heritage".


We agree strongly with the esteemed ambassador from Occultototus, and the Empire opposes the resolution currently at vote. As written, this resolution allows military bases and other defense infrastructure to be defined as a cultural heritage site, and would greatly impede the ability of member states to make war. While Quelesians are a peace-loving people generally opposed to war, we believe that this resolution is certainly not the proper vehicle to practically prohibit effective warfare.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Sentrocalipto
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Nov 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sentrocalipto » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:04 am

I like the proposal but hate its contents.

User avatar
La Nueva Roma
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Nov 02, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby La Nueva Roma » Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:49 am

The Republic of La Nueva Roma has voted against this proposal.

In particular, we take issue with the following:
- International law banning "blocking" monuments from citizens of other countries: THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS. In Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are banned from entering the holy city of Mecca. The World Assembly would, in effect, be passing a law that overrides a religious restriction of the world's second largest religion.
- Requirement of national legislation in member nations of the WA for the same.

La Nueva Roma strongly urges fellow member nations of the WA to vote AGAINST the current resolution.

User avatar
Tsukasa-chan
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Nov 04, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Tsukasa-chan » Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:50 am

I agree with the ambassadors from Quelesh and Occultototus; an active military installation in an area marked as a cultural heritage site should result in the immediate nullification of that site's heritage status.

As for the complaint of the ambassador from the Republic of La Nueva Roma, I fail to see where the legislation requires allowing access to heritage sites by foreign nationals; the closest I can find in the proposal is the following article:
Bergnovinaia wrote:ENCOURAGES member states to:
a) Make historical artifacts accessible to the public where possible

This clause is not mandatory ("ENCOURAGES") and allows for governments to determine whether it is possible for a given site to be opened. While I wholeheartedly welcome the opening of heritage sites to the public, there are certain circumstances under which this may be unwanted (eg. if the site is fragile/undergoing restoration).

For the moment, I will abstain from the vote.

Rin 4
International Ambassador
The Incorporated States of Tsukasa-chan
“Mochi goes whee!”
The Community of Mochi Ambassadors is the wholly owned WA agent for the ISTc.

User avatar
Massachussets Bay
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Nov 13, 2009
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Massachussets Bay » Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:07 am

La Nueva Roma wrote:The Republic of La Nueva Roma has voted against this proposal.

In particular, we take issue with the following:
- International law banning "blocking" monuments from citizens of other countries: THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS. In Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are banned from entering the holy city of Mecca. The World Assembly would, in effect, be passing a law that overrides a religious restriction of the world's second largest religion.
- Requirement of national legislation in member nations of the WA for the same.

La Nueva Roma strongly urges fellow member nations of the WA to vote AGAINST the current resolution.

Massachussets Bay is concerned, like La Nueva Roma, that "blocking", in the context of this resolution, is unclear in meaning. Consequently, the Commonwealth cannot lend its support to the resolution until this is clarified.

Regards.
Commonwealth of Massachussets Bay, Berkshire, Cape Cod, and Nantucket
Speaker of the People’s Assembly: Alenka NicDhòmhnaill (EX)

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:31 am

If we are at war with a nation, and our presidential mansion is on the list we WILL block access to it.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador ~ USP
Last edited by Philimbesi on Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:59 am

I must admit that it could be better but at least it no longer mandates the transferring all monuments into public property upon passing. Under the public referendum rules, the Charlotte Ryberg honoured ambassador's vote is dependent on the outcome of the referendum results, the polls which close at 2200 GMT tonight and should be revealed by tomorrow morning. Although we are quite confident of this resolution passing the population really has the final say.

User avatar
The Obamanator
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Nov 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Obamanator » Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:03 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I must admit that it could be better but at least it no longer mandates the transferring all monuments into public property upon passing. Under the public referendum rules, the Charlotte Ryberg honoured ambassador's vote is dependent on the outcome of the referendum results, the polls which close at 2200 GMT tonight and should be revealed by tomorrow morning. Although we are quite confident of this resolution passing the population really has the final say.


These people haven't had progress for fifty years. So you can't be surprised if they get bitter and cling to their polls and their referendum results and their public referendum rules. That's what my campaign is about. Teaching all the little people in this country that they can have decisive leadership.

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:39 am

I must admit that it could be better but at least it no longer mandates the transferring all monuments into public property upon passing. Under the public referendum rules, the Charlotte Ryberg honoured ambassador's vote is dependent on the outcome of the referendum results, the polls which close at 2200 GMT tonight and should be revealed by tomorrow morning. Although we are quite confident of this resolution passing the population really has the final say.


One would wonder why such a vote and a disclaimer is required on a resolution the Honored Ambassador is recognized as the co-author on?
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:43 am

We vote against, with consideration to a rising problem in Unibot. Tree-hugging third parties whose influence on our political system has caused a rise of bills being passed labelling large areas of land contains lots, and lots of valuable oil as "cultural heritage sites".

These hippies seem to think that oil is an important artifact to preserve before humanity consumes all of it, and drilling territory is therefore considered a "cultural heritage site", or an "area of interest".

Yet, they seem to be unaware that the interest in the area lies not in Oil Drilling Museums, but in drilling the frigging oil.

I believe if this bill is passed, it will encourge these hippies to pass more nefarious bills to "protect" these lands, and quickly crush our automobile manufacturing sector with increased prices -- or gosh dammit, even force us to import oil !!

We vote against.
Last edited by Unibotian WASC Mission on Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:53 am

Philimbesi wrote:
I must admit that it could be better but at least it no longer mandates the transferring all monuments into public property upon passing. Under the public referendum rules, the Charlotte Ryberg honoured ambassador's vote is dependent on the outcome of the referendum results, the polls which close at 2200 GMT tonight and should be revealed by tomorrow morning. Although we are quite confident of this resolution passing the population really has the final say.


One would wonder why such a vote and a disclaimer is required on a resolution the Honored Ambassador is recognized as the co-author on?

The honoured ambassador has been figuring how democratic a nation would have to be to become perfect democratic utopia at an international stage. At least corruption has been minimised since we replaced the compliance gnomes last week: anyway, a balance has to be struck between the effects of the economy and preserving the success of the economy too.

Yours etc,

User avatar
The Obamanator
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Nov 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Obamanator » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:00 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
Philimbesi wrote:
I must admit that it could be better but at least it no longer mandates the transferring all monuments into public property upon passing. Under the public referendum rules, the Charlotte Ryberg honoured ambassador's vote is dependent on the outcome of the referendum results, the polls which close at 2200 GMT tonight and should be revealed by tomorrow morning. Although we are quite confident of this resolution passing the population really has the final say.


One would wonder why such a vote and a disclaimer is required on a resolution the Honored Ambassador is recognized as the co-author on?

The honoured ambassador has been figuring how democratic a nation would have to be to become perfect democratic utopia at an international stage. At least corruption has been minimised since we replaced the compliance gnomes last week: anyway, a balance has to be struck between the effects of the economy and preserving the success of the economy too.

Yours etc,


I think it's time we had a national conversation about honoured ambassadors. We need to get past all the corruption and recognize that we are our own best hope for overcoming compliance gnomes. We need perfect democratic utopia, not success of the economy. Perfect democratic utopia reflects our hopes about the effects of the economy. And we need to have hope for the progress to move forward and change our honoured ambassadors.

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:18 pm

I'm more interested in the fact that the co-author of this resolution believes it's flawed.
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
The Palentine
Diplomat
 
Posts: 588
Founded: May 18, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Palentine » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:28 pm

Personally I'm all for corruption...how else am I going to fund my many unsavory and unwholesome habits. also i have to agree with my colleague from Philimbesi. If the co-author finds it flawed why do they continue to support it. More importantly...if it is flawed, why should I support it.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
"There aren't quite as many irredeemable folks as everyone thinks."
-The Dourian Embassy

"Yeah, but some (like Sen. Sulla) have to count for, like 20 or 30 all by themselves."
-Hack

User avatar
Amfas
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Nov 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

The Flaws

Postby Amfas » Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:14 pm

I come before you today, as the leader of the Great Nation of Amfas, to address the flaws in this piece of WA(GA) legislation.

The critical flaws that my advisors, both cultural and military alike, have pointed out are that the bill does not stipulate 1) that military instillations can not, should not, and can never be considered by the member states as a area or section of "cultural heritage," and 2) the bill does not express the illegality of member nations occupying their own areas of "cultural heritage" during times of war, which would grant them not only an unfair advantage, but would also prevent the effectiveness of the other WA nations during times of war and in attempting to uphold WA sanctions.

I believe it is these particular flaws that make the legislation's intent null and void; because by its own wording, and lack of specificity, it promotes the use of these cultural areas as tools of war, not of peace and of monuments to the cultural achievements of the member states.

Furthermore, I object to this piece of legislation by the GA on another account. The effects of this bill will, regardless of its amendments or additions, hamper the war efforts of not only my nation, but also my allies’ nations and the nations of the WA. I urge all members of this most high body to reject this act of limitation on our nation's ability to wage war and protect not only our citizens, but also our foreign interests, which are essential to the national security and prosperity of our respective nations and people.

Make the stand today to not pass legislation that will only benefit those nations who are outside of the WA. Stand with me and the Great Nation of Amfas and reject the attempt of particular members of this most high assembly to limit our national sovereignty to wage war and govern our own internal affairs.

Dictator of Amfas
Lord Protector of the People

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:23 pm

Also, when you write, "Charlottle Ryberg" , what nation are you referring to?

I know of Charlotte Ryberg. But no Charlottles....
Last edited by Unibotian WASC Mission on Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:23 pm

The honoured ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg's opinion on what could be better is that it could be extended to include areas of outstanding natural beauty, areas which have outstanding wildlife. However, that appears to be covered in part by the Endangered Species Protection.
Last edited by Charlotte Ryberg on Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads