First Draft: Historical Monument Act

[Hot Nerdy Women]

As a new nation, and Regional Delegate to Division 6, I have submitted my first proposal, the Historical Monument Act. I am aware that "historical" is misspelled in the original draft here http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/start=5

I realize that I should have posted a draft here first in order for myself and other regions to develop it further, but what's done has been done.

Your support and/or approval is appreciated. If you have constructive criticism as to why you cannot support this proposal, please feel free to state it.

Thank you for your time.

Historical Monument Act

A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage

Description: Reimplementing General Assembly resolution #69, repealed by resolution #71, in a more detailed manor, for the purposes of preserving heritage, history, tolerance, and national pride.

NOTING that resolution 71 requests a more well-thought out proposal, yet provides no examples of its own. (e.g. Pointing out "loopholes" in resolution #69 and providing no examples of said loopholes.)

ALSO NOTING that there are spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors within resolution #71 while also belittling resolution #69 for the same errors.

FINALLY NOTING that resolution #69 states that "Historical Monuments not be attacked, bombed or used as cover, shelter or vantage points by military personnel of attacking or defending countries, unless they are being used as such by the enemy." This bears no significance as the regions and nations of Nation States are not allowed to wage war on one another.

This new proposal STATES that individual nations and regions shall be able to distinguish Historical Monuments (defined as a structure or significant location, preexisting or built, that symbolizes a historical event, a culture or influential individuals) within their own boarders.

(1) Historical monuments include, but are not limited to, buildings, natural forests, statues, private homes, places of war, etc.
(1a) The declaration of a private home becoming a monument does not automatically revert ownership to the government. (e.g. The home of a deceased famous author, whose has left his/her home in a will to his/her child.)
(1b) In the event of a private home monument declaration, a plaque shall be placed on the property stating why a place of residence is important, (e.g. what historical significance it bears) with the owners permission.

(2) Once a monument has been established, vandalism of said property will be treated with zero tolerance.
(2a) Vandalism includes, but is not limited to, graffiti, demolition, the erasing and/or changing of words on a monument's plaque, etc.
(2b) It is perceived that a malicious act on a historical monument is an attack on a nation and/or region. Therefore, all vandalizers will be treated as terrorists, depending on the severity of the crime.

(3) Maintenance of historical monuments and public education of the significance of said monuments shall be paid for by the government of individual nations and/or regions, which comes out of taxes paid by it's citizens.
(3a) Maintenance resulting from vandalism will be paid by the vandalizer. If the vandalizer cannot pay in monetary value, then he/she will receive extended jail time and/or community service.
(3b) If said monument is beyond repair due to economic crisis, it shall be photographed and then demolished. The photograph shall be placed in the national archives, along with a description, so that a nation/region's history may still be preserved.

(4) All historical monuments will be under surveillance 24 hours a day to help prevent acts of vandalism.
(4a) Private owners of monuments will be required to have surveillance of the outside of their property, but the government will pay for it if private owner refuses or is not able to.

(5) All historical monuments shall be taught in school to children, teenagers, college age adults in order to spread awareness of national and regional history.

(6) Historical events surrounding said monuments may not be fabricated.

[Grays Harbor]

This appears to be a duplicate of Resolution #72, Cultural heritage Protection, and as such is quite unnecessary.

[Kryozerkia]

This proposal is redundant given the existence of resolution #72 -- Cultural Heritage Protection (as Grays Harbor pointed out).

Your definition in clause 1 is covered in resolution #72, in these two clauses from said resolution:

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.

The second clause in your proposal, which covers vandalism and acts of violence against said monuments is covered in these clauses from resolution #72;The same clauses also cover the fourth clause in your proposal.:

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;

Resolution #72 also created an oversight committee, which would cover a number of the preservation measures mentioned in your proposal:

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;

Your fifth clause is covered in this segment:

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.

The only real notable difference between the resolution and your proposal is that the resolution isn't as specific as your proposal is. Your proposal also happens to contain spelling errors.

[Bergnovinaia]

This appears to be a duplicate of Resolution #72, Cultural heritage Protection, and as such is quite unnecessary.

I do concur that this is indeed very similar to my resolution except more specific in what must be done. Your clause 5 I believe is also redundant since as my resolution states:

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

and

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.

which are pretty much the same except more vague.