by Fargoalmus » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:17 am
by Crabulonia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:20 am
Fargoalmus wrote:NOTING that the Cultural Heritage Protection Act states that any culturally important site or object may not be harmed regardless of its health effects or use. This could be abused and could make cultural artifacts a weapon immune to disarmament or legal responsibility.
DECLARES that such artifacts may be dismantled or destroyed if the pose a threat to the health of others.
Need one endorsement to repel the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:20 am
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:25 am
Description: 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
by Fargoalmus » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:30 am
This states that regardless of any of its properties it may not be damaged in any way shape or from.BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:31 am
Fargoalmus wrote:This states that regardless of any of its properties it may not be damaged in any way shape or from.BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;
by Philimbesi » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:34 am
by Fargoalmus » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:38 am
The owners may not find it harmful. [Ex: 3rd world countries unaware of its ( Radioactivity, Pollution, Ect.)]"Against other states..." I think this leaves destruction of sites within ones jurdistiction up to them ambassador.
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:42 am
Fargoalmus wrote:The owners may not find it harmful. [Ex: 3rd world countries unaware of its ( Radioactivity, Pollution, Ect.)]"Against other states..." I think this leaves destruction of sites within ones jurdistiction up to them ambassador.
by Fargoalmus » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:45 am
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:47 am
Fargoalmus wrote: DEFINES a health risk as anything that can cause disease or otherwise shorten the life span of a living organism .
by Grays Harbor » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:50 am
Philimbesi wrote:Much as I wish the act wasn't pelled in the first place I can't support this effort to repel it.
by Grays Harbor » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:52 am
by Fargoalmus » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:53 am
I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"
by Grays Harbor » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:56 am
Fargoalmus wrote:I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:58 am
Fargoalmus wrote:I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"
by Fargoalmus » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:07 am
by A mean old man » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:10 am
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:15 am
Fargoalmus wrote:RL instance: A statue is made out of a large amount of granite which is highly radio active. The amount of cancer cases spike causing a jump in death tolls. This statue if in the form of the virgin marry and is protected by the country's army. Dismantling and destroying this monument is out of the question because of this resolution.
Grays Harbor wrote:Fargoalmus wrote:I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"
As an argument in favour of a repeal, that holds little or no weight. "What If" scenarios which have a very small liklihood of happening are not a compelling argument.
by Crabulonia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:21 am
Fargoalmus wrote:RL instance: A statue is made out of a large amount of granite which is highly radio active. The amount of cancer cases spike causing a jump in death tolls. This statue if in the form of the virgin marry and is protected by the country's army. Dismantling and destroying this monument is out of the question because of this resolution.
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:24 am
Crabulonia wrote:Fargoalmus wrote:RL instance: A statue is made out of a large amount of granite which is highly radio active. The amount of cancer cases spike causing a jump in death tolls. This statue if in the form of the virgin marry and is protected by the country's army. Dismantling and destroying this monument is out of the question because of this resolution.
Maybe if a statue was made of uranium it would cause a spike in cancer cases. I'm pretty certain granite is quite inert in terms of radiation and it would be a shame to destroy anything of historical or aestheic beauty simply because there is the smallest chance it could be radioactive.
(OOC: The City of Aberdeen in the North of Scotland is almost entirely made of granite and is not much reknowned for its cancer rate being significantly higher. Should we destroy this ancient and historically viable city so that we can stop a tiny effect from being exerted in almost no cases?)
by Fargoalmus » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:30 am
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:33 am
Fargoalmus wrote:There could also be an instance in which the owner is lacking the knowledge to properly dismantle it.
by Fargoalmus » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:33 am
by Crabulonia » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:37 am
Fargoalmus wrote:No the owner mat need help dismantling it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Zandos
Advertisement