[DRAFT] Preservation of Cultural Artefacts

[Rotasu]

Preservation of Cultural Artefacts

Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage

The World Assembly,

Appalled at the suppression of cultures through the destruction of their artefacts,

Believing that significant artefacts should be preserved for future generations as a means to understand where their culture and society originated from,

Wishing to protect culturally significant artefacts in member nations by the following regulations,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

a. "artefact" as any object or work of art which holds significant cultural and historical value, and is valuable for its unique artistic qualities or provides insight into a culture or past society,

b. “restoration” as a process to attempt to return an artefact to its original form due to an alteration, or to make an artefact more resistant to future alterations;

2. Prohibits Member States from:

a. Allowing alterations to or damaging neglect of artefacts in their possession, without justifiable cause, such as restoration,

b. Allowing the erasure or intentional mislabeling of the artefact's culture of origin,

c. Relinquishing artefacts to unqualified or unwilling caretakers;

3. Encourages Member States to:

a. Display artefacts to the public and educate them on the cultures behind them, ensuring compliance with clause 2 of this resolution while doing so,

b. Display artefacts from a diverse array of cultural origins where applicable,

c. Maintain the original form of artefacts when appropriat,

d. Handle artefacts with the utmost care,

e. Surrender the artefact to a qualified caretaker within that member nation if they are incapable of doing the above,

4. Clarifies that clauses 2 and 3 of this resolution do not apply:

a. to artefacts with historically offensive significance, or

b. in emergency or disaster situations.

[Riverpost]

"Ambassador, is there not potential for loopholes and the mistreatment of cultural artefacts to occur if it is up for nations to decide what constitutes a qualified caretaker - say, friends of the regime or a well-paying donor? To alleviate this, I would consider adding some sort of given archaeological standard or licensing by the WATCH, which could work in conjunction with local academic and historical organizations in a member state to decide what exactly a qualified caretaker must entail; with some consideration for domestic particularities, of course, such as the nature of the artefacts, culture of origin, the state and value in which it was found, et cetera.

What do you think?"

[Tinfect]

OOC:
For the record, the prior iteration of this thread was barely a few months old, it would've been entirely normal to drag it back up.

[Riverpost]

OOC: Also, I happened to come across the origin of the WATCH in regards to this resolution from here. It seems well-established, but what would happen if such resolution were to get repealed for whatever reason, the WATCH disbanded, and this were to stay in the event that it becomes law?

[Kenmoria]

"Ambassador, is there not potential for loopholes and the mistreatment of cultural artefacts to occur if it is up for nations to decide what constitutes a qualified caretaker - say, friends of the regime or a well-paying donor? To alleviate this, I would consider adding some sort of given archaeological standard or licensing by the WATCH, which could work in conjunction with local academic and historical organizations in a member state to decide what exactly a qualified caretaker must entail; with some consideration for domestic particularities, of course, such as the nature of the artefacts, culture of origin, the state and value in which it was found, et cetera.

What do you think?"

“A qualified caretaker is someone who is qualified to take care of an artefact, ambassador. Now member states decide which caretaker is best suited, given that artefacts can only be given to qualified persons to begin with, is rightfully a national decision. Involving a committee for no reason doesn’t sit well with me. However, I agree that perhaps some more elaboration on what qualifies a ‘qualified caretaker’ might be necessary.”

[Riverpost]

"Ambassador, is there not potential for loopholes and the mistreatment of cultural artefacts to occur if it is up for nations to decide what constitutes a qualified caretaker - say, friends of the regime or a well-paying donor? To alleviate this, I would consider adding some sort of given archaeological standard or licensing by the WATCH, which could work in conjunction with local academic and historical organizations in a member state to decide what exactly a qualified caretaker must entail; with some consideration for domestic particularities, of course, such as the nature of the artefacts, culture of origin, the state and value in which it was found, et cetera.

What do you think?"

“A qualified caretaker is someone who is qualified to take care of an artefact, ambassador. Now member states decide which caretaker is best suited, given that artefacts can only be given to qualified persons to begin with, is rightfully a national decision. Involving a committee for no reason doesn’t sit well with me. However, I agree that perhaps some more elaboration on what qualifies a ‘qualified caretaker’ might be necessary.”

"A committee insofar that independent archaeological input is designed, Ambassador. While I give it so far as for the author to decide, I believe a unification of independent academic input where possible is an admirable goal, much less than the bureaucratic meandering of a giant body on her own will. There are dictators who prosecute on discriminatory means, Ambassador, and for your nation's storied membership I would have hoped you would have known better to recognize it has long been contrary to what the folk of these hallowed halls believe in while still preserving the sanctity of nationhood. The consolidation of knowledge and history is something we have all held as a true virtue of the assembly since just about day 1, and it is almost something certainly that we must not let go - even with admirable business connections, if I may say.

There is little to say then that in nations democratic or dictatorial that the sway of powerful individuals cannot just simply dictate quality on a whim, for it would be no different than judging a doctor's experience on the premise of if a nation's administration itself were to choose to. In that case, it is almost always the doctors with their teachings through generations and good care that the modern medicinal practices have developed in quite a many nations. Even then, the WA has made itself shown to ensure this applies universally, and for the nature of most sapients it is only the just course of action to take. The very few countries which try to shrivel, say, oaths to the patient, are not those who know what they speak of but those who are uncomfortable with dissent and diversion from often discriminatory and unjust paths, and therefore mockeries of true leadership. It is when those men, women, and folk in suits guide the proper hand to nurture the professional and the craftsman that all the joyful things we have in society appear, and that we find honest political workings, for otherwise it falls awry to misuse and a mockery of the sapient by the wrack of paper and vice.

By such reasoning, ergo, an artefact does not de facto arrive to the qualified persons, particularly when good-meaning nations apply such perception upon those who have incredibly clique-filled values, and resultingly clique-filled values on qualified persons and their work or ownership. The true basis of national sovereignty lies in the people, and if I were to announce a reason-lacking committee, it would be so to ensure that politician and constituent work hand-in-hand for the furthermost of the feel-good. Though if the harmony of private and public service is something the Ambassador for Kenmoria does not believe constitutes to to their nation or the greater will of the assembly, then they have every right to see it so.

On the note of clarification, I do think we are well agreed. But looking at the great many nations in our body, the varied cultures in which artefacts arise may greatly vary, and for that the assurance - even informal - some sense of cohesion does no harm, and on top of that gives nations the much-desired national sovereignty clause, if that may help. For example, preserving age-old digital technology can have vastly different implications of preservation than age-old pots and pans... I mostly worry that one definition gives too much creative legal room to overlook or bypass it, but if the author can find one which is a size fits-all, I'm for hearing it."

[Araraukar]

"A committee insofar that independent archaeological input is designed, Ambassador. While I give it so far as for the author to decide, I believe a unification of independent academic input where possible is an admirable goal, much less than the bureaucratic meandering of a giant body on her own will. There are dictators who prosecute on discriminatory means, Ambassador, and for your nation's storied membership I would have hoped you would have known better to recognize it has long been contrary to what the folk of these hallowed halls believe in while still preserving the sanctity of nationhood. The consolidation of knowledge and history is something we have all held as a true virtue of the assembly since just about day 1, and it is almost something certainly that we must not let go - even with admirable business connections, if I may say.

There is little to say then that in nations democratic or dictatorial that the sway of powerful individuals cannot just simply dictate quality on a whim, for it would be no different than judging a doctor's experience on the premise of if a nation's administration itself were to choose to. In that case, it is almost always the doctors with their teachings through generations and good care that the modern medicinal practices have developed in quite a many nations. Even then, the WA has made itself shown to ensure this applies universally, and for the nature of most sapients it is only the just course of action to take. The very few countries which try to shrivel, say, oaths to the patient, are not those who know what they speak of but those who are uncomfortable with dissent and diversion from often discriminatory and unjust paths, and therefore mockeries of true leadership. It is when those men, women, and folk in suits guide the proper hand to nurture the professional and the craftsman that all the joyful things we have in society appear, and that we find honest political workings, for otherwise it falls awry to misuse and a mockery of the sapient by the wrack of paper and vice.

By such reasoning, ergo, an artefact does not de facto arrive to the qualified persons, particularly when good-meaning nations apply such perception upon those who have incredibly clique-filled values, and resultingly clique-filled values on qualified persons and their work or ownership. The true basis of national sovereignty lies in the people, and if I were to announce a reason-lacking committee, it would be so to ensure that politician and constituent work hand-in-hand for the furthermost of the feel-good. Though if the harmony of private and public service is something the Ambassador for Kenmoria does not believe constitutes to to their nation or the greater will of the assembly, then they have every right to see it so.

On the note of clarification, I do think we are well agreed. But looking at the great many nations in our body, the varied cultures in which artefacts arise may greatly vary, and for that the assurance - even informal - some sense of cohesion does no harm, and on top of that gives nations the much-desired national sovereignty clause, if that may help. For example, preserving age-old digital technology can have vastly different implications of preservation than age-old pots and pans... I mostly worry that one definition gives too much creative legal room to overlook or bypass it, but if the author can find one which is a size fits-all, I'm for hearing it."

IC: "And can you give the same answer without making it a lecture, please?"

OOC: I'll get you feedback on the contents of the proposal later. Also, are you aware of this resolution?

Oh and 2.a. seems to ban correcting erroneous information on old artefacts orignally attributed to civilization X when later research shows they're really from civilization Y.

[Riverpost]

IC: "And can you give the same answer without making it a lecture, please?"

"I would be happy to give it in French."

[Rotasu]

OOC: Also, I happened to come across the origin of the WATCH in regards to this resolution from here. It seems well-established, but what would happen if such resolution were to get repealed for whatever reason, the WATCH disbanded, and this were to stay in the event that it becomes law?

OOC: I think 3f can be taken out, I'd rather not see any clause of this become redundant in the future. What do you think?

"Ambassador, is there not potential for loopholes and the mistreatment of cultural artefacts to occur if it is up for nations to decide what constitutes a qualified caretaker - say, friends of the regime or a well-paying donor? To alleviate this, I would consider adding some sort of given archaeological standard or licensing by the WATCH, which could work in conjunction with local academic and historical organizations in a member state to decide what exactly a qualified caretaker must entail; with some consideration for domestic particularities, of course, such as the nature of the artefacts, culture of origin, the state and value in which it was found, et cetera.

What do you think?"

OOC: As I said above, the WATCH is not something I want to rely heavy on and 3f is a clause I'm considering taking out, I'd much rather expand the definition of qualified caretaker. Thank you for your feedback!

"Ambassador, is there not potential for loopholes and the mistreatment of cultural artefacts to occur if it is up for nations to decide what constitutes a qualified caretaker - say, friends of the regime or a well-paying donor? To alleviate this, I would consider adding some sort of given archaeological standard or licensing by the WATCH, which could work in conjunction with local academic and historical organizations in a member state to decide what exactly a qualified caretaker must entail; with some consideration for domestic particularities, of course, such as the nature of the artefacts, culture of origin, the state and value in which it was found, et cetera.

What do you think?"

“A qualified caretaker is someone who is qualified to take care of an artefact, ambassador. Now member states decide which caretaker is best suited, given that artefacts can only be given to qualified persons to begin with, is rightfully a national decision. Involving a committee for no reason doesn’t sit well with me. However, I agree that perhaps some more elaboration on what qualifies a ‘qualified caretaker’ might be necessary.”

OOC: Thank you for your feedback, what do you think about "2c. Relinquishing cultural artefacts to unqualified or unwilling caretakers, such as unlicensed practitioners of restoration"

OOC: I'll get you feedback on the contents of the proposal later. Also, are you aware of this resolution?

Oh and 2.a. seems to ban correcting erroneous information on old artefacts orignally attributed to civilization X when later research shows they're really from civilization Y.

OOC: Yes, I am aware of Resolution 434, however if I recall correctly it does not reference the destruction or vandalism of artefacts in any way.

Also I interpret 2a as concerning the artefact itself, information about the artefact can be amended. However if there is anyway I could clear the confusion within the proposal I'd love to do so.

[Riverpost]

OOC: I think 3f can be taken out, I'd rather not see any clause of this become redundant in the future. What do you think?

OOC: I'd happily back that. It's always sound to make sure that the resolution can stand on its own based on the given information.

(add-on)

Oh and 2.a. seems to ban correcting erroneous information on old artefacts orignally attributed to civilization X when later research shows they're really from civilization Y.

OOC: Later research uncovering new details about old artefacts is reasonable cause to update informational knowledge, though the old artefacts still remain what they are, so there hasn't exactly been an alteration to it of any physical sort; the latter notation appears to be the focus of the clause. It might be good to have the resolution add another bit that mandates information about the cultural artefacts be - as much as their condition and present field knowledge allows - accurate, holistically truthful, and stemming from credible and independent academic sources in history and archaeology, so the integrity of their past isn't tarnished through differing national and international claims which could say this or that for political purposes and what not.

[Cartezium]

I am a Historian, And culture belongs to tradition. So if we have to keep the cultural artifacts, we should be decisive. Don't ever mixing traditional eastern culture with modern western culture which causing a great extinction of traditional eastern values. Society should keep their own honor without being threatened by strange culture. This kind of extinction affected also by Religious culture. The values of religiosity without being acculturated causing greatest extinction of traditional cultures. So, if we want to sustain the traditional culture, we have to show respect, give attention, and never give a negative influence on 'em

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Thank you for your feedback, what do you think about "2c. Relinquishing cultural artefacts to unqualified or unwilling caretakers, such as unlicensed practitioners of restoration"

(OOC: Looking back, elaboration wasn’t required too much anyway. What you have there should be fine. I will give the proposal a look-through at some point later today.)

[Araraukar]

OOC and IC as marked.

Appalled at the destruction of cultural artefacts,

IC: "Where? Certainly not in Araraukar. Perhaps you should change this to "in many member nations" or even "in some member nations" or "under certain regimes" or something like that, since it's not a universally occurring thing."

Aware of the suppression of cultures through the destruction of cultural artefacts,

IC: "You should make this your opening clause, and make this start with "appalled", because this is a much stronger argument than just some old crap being destroyed."

Aware of the cultural significance of these artefacts,

IC: "How? How do you know what is culturally significant to a culture you are not part of? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?"

OOC: "Cultural significance" is a very subjective term, I would leave this out entirely. If you add "significant" into the previous clauses before "cultural artefact", you'll have made your point.

Believing that cultural artefacts are tools to promote education and are important to preserve for future generations,

OOC: You don't have to actually justify the category in the text like that (struck out bit).

IC: "I would re-word this as "Believing that significant cultural artefacts should be preserved for future generations as a means to understand where their culture and society originated from", as that would both make your point smoother as well as specify exactly why they are important."

Acknowledging the World Assembly as the perfect medium to assist with such preservation,

OOC: You have the WA acknowledging that the WA is the perfect medium. Aside from subjective, that's a highly debatable point. I'd leave this out entirely.

IC: "I would suggest replacing this with something like "Wishing to protect culturally significant artefacts in member nations by the following regulations", since that's pretty much what you're trying to do, isn't it?"

a. "cultural artefact" as any rare object which holds significant cultural value to a current or past society,

OOC: Okay, there are several problems here. What is a "rare object"? Many archaeological finds are rare in our time, but they were often mindbogglingly common in their time, that's why some have survived until modern times. They might hold significant cultural value to us because they tell us how the people in the past civilizations lived, but would not have been significant to the people at the time. So they are at the same time rare and not rare. And how rare is rare? Unique? Only a thousand in existence? Also, without literary sources (since history of artefacts extends way past any written record), how is an item's significance to an extinct culture/civilization supposed to be known? I would rethink this somewhat.

Also, I'd change the definition to define "artefact" without the "cultural", as that will save space and as you define it as culturally significant, the meaning still applies. You could then nix "cultural" from "artefact" throughout the proposal.

IC: "You're going to run into serious issues here, when said objects are owned by private citizens - are you going to ban them from doing as they wish with their own property? Are you aware that nations are required to compensate owners of seized property? How do you value a unique piece of art, for example? Is your intention to bankrupt the nations? And don't say "WA will pay", because the General Fund's funds come from the member nations! Also, statues might just count as objects, but buildings? Murals? Mosaics?"

b. “safe space” as a container or area where a cultural artefact is safe from alteration or theft,

c. “restoration” as a process to attempt to return a cultural artefact to its original form due to an alteration, or to make a cultural artefact more resistant to future alterations

OOC: You can leave these out, since you're using them in the generally understood manner, so they don't need to actually be defined.

a. Committing recurring or systemic alteration of cultural artefacts within their possession without reasonable cause (which may include additions to legal documents or restoration, but may not include the artefact's culture of origin)

OOC: This currently still reads as "can't change the culture of origin". I think the problem comes from the bit after "but" referring to the bit before the but, not the clause outside the round brackets. Alternatively, the bit after "but" bans from actually attaching the artefact's culture of origin AT ALL. As in, you couldn't write down anywhere what culture it's from.

IC: "I'd change this to, "Allowing alterations to cultural artefacts in their possession, without justifiable cause, such as restoration," and add a separate subclause for "Allowing the erasure or intentional mislabeling of the artefact's culture of origin". And using "allowing" instead of "committing", because if the artefacts are not owned by the state and you're only forbidding the state from doing bad things to them, then you're not actually protecting the artefacts. Unless it was deliberate, in which case just swap verbs. Making them separate subclauses makes more sense than trying to cram them into the same one. It reduces misunderstandings as well."

b. Systemically or repeatedly neglecting to put a cultural artefacts within their possession in a safe space whenever it is necessary for its preservation

OOC: I don't think this would work as you wanted it to. Because if you're putting them somewhere out of reach, out of sight, their cultural significance is going to start dropping, because it's not a constant value. Also, do consider the fact that this proposal in its entirety would have banned destroying Nazi symbols after WW2, even in nations where they were forced upon them by the German occupiers. Same for the various statues of Stalin and other USSR paraphernalia in former Russian-terrorized states after they gained independence. Or, I'm sure, many such examples in various subject states and former colonies where the artefacts installed by the occupiers were themselves an attempt to destroy the local culture and erase their rich history. It's difficult and I can't think of an easy solution to it, but perhaps make some allowance for removing the protections from historically offensive (another very subjective term, I know - I said it's difficult!) artefacts that were used to oppress the local people and their culture?

IC: "I notice this only bans systemic or repeated neglect. So one-time neglect is fine, even if the object was destroyed as a result of it? In addition to which, I don't think a "safe space" is the answer. You should just require them to be adequately protected, period. Though do make some clarification somewhere that in a disaster situation, saving the artefacts should not be put ahead of saving lives."

c. Relinquishing cultural artefacts to unqualified or unwilling caretakers

IC: "What if they are currently in the possession of such?"

OOC: Privately owned, or currently owned by nations that unwillingly came into the possession of them (see Nazi etc. artefacts reference) and would like to destroy them as hated reminders of oppression.

a. Display cultural artefacts to the public and educate them on the cultures behind them

IC: "I know this is just a recommendation, but this might actually clash with the requirement of safety of the artefacts."

OOC: Two words: flash photography.

b. Display a diverse array of cultural artefacts

IC: "What exactly does this mean? Would the Araraukarian National Museum be banned from only displaying Araraukarian artefacts?"

OOC: I can't quite get the meaning even OOCly. What does "diverse array" mean? Just "more than one object"? How's that going to work if the "object" in question is a building or a statue?

c. Maintain the original form of cultural artefacts, including conducting restorations in a safe space when damaged

IC: "Most restorations are done to restore the original form, not maintain the form the item is in now. So which do you actually want? Keep archaeological finds as they are now, or restore them by for example painting them the colour they originally were?"

OOC: Case in point, Greek and Roman marble statues were originally painted in really gaudy colours (see here). Should they be re-painted even though they'd look ridiculous to us who are used to thinking of them as majestic white marble?

d. Handle cultural artefacts with the utmost care

IC: "This should really be in the requirements, not the encouragements."

e. Surrender the cultural artefact to a qualified caretaker if they are incapable or unwilling to do all of the above,

f. Surrender the cultural artefact to the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage (WATCH) if they are incapable or unwilling to do the above,

IC: "How exactly does this match with the whole drive of the proposal to ensure that culture erasure doesn't happen? If a nation wants to get rid of the troublesome culture of some subset of the population, which doesn't fit the rest of the nation - not that Araraukar has ever done that - they could just throw all such artefacts out of the nation?"

OOC: The issue of the privately owned ones persists here too. The nation might be willing to let the committee have it, but the actual owner might not.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

(OOC) I found the "restoration" definition a little confusing at first — it might help to specify that restoration isn't a type of alteration, and maybe even to define alteration separately.

Also — you tend to use the exact phrase "cultural artefact" a lot in close conjunction (especially at the start of the draft), and while I understand that's the topic of the proposal I still think the redundancy could be reduced in little ways while still staying true to the defined term (e.g. "such artefacts").

(But take this all with a grain of salt, because I'm pretty new to this forum.)

Good luck, by the way!

[Rotasu]

Edits have been made, thank you all who have made suggestions so far!

[Rotasu]

OOC: Bump, would love to get some feedback!

[Rotasu]

Note: I'll be submitting this in a week