[Passed] Repeal "Cultural Heritage Protection"

[The Dourian Embassy]

The World Assembly,

Understanding that culturally significant sites are important cornerstones to many societies,

Regretting, however, that Cultural Heritage Protection(GA#72) fails to perform its function without placing an undue burden on WA nations,

Knowing that GA#72 "DEFINES a cultural heritage site as a [sic] area of interest, archeological, historical, or cultural to any member nation within its own jurdisticion [sic]" regardless of that site's current use,

Lamenting that any site, even those of incredibly minor "archeological, historical, or cultural" importance, may be designated as protected at the whim of the nation housing such a site,

Accepting that, regardless of its cultural importance, a site used to house military weapons, soldiers, prisoners of war, or used as a base for espionage should be a valid target for military attack or liberation,

Bemoaning that, while cultural sites are often housed in or near population centers, GA#72 may encourage the use of cultural sites to house military assets because of the protections it provides,

Believing that GA#72 was never intended to provide protection for military assets,

Regretting that this error has been left uncorrected despite open acknowledgement by nations involved in writing the resolution,

Hereby repeals Cultural Heritage Protection(GA#72).

So this one is an old resolution. The forum thread for GA#72 is here. I'd love any feedback you guys can muster.

Edit: The final clause about acknowledgement of the errors are referencing these posts:
viewtopic.php?p=973775#p973775 (That's from Bergnovinaia) and viewtopic.php?p=967596#p967596 (Charlotte Ryberg's mentioning their efforts to repeal it)

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: This is one instance where I would like to see a replacement, and am quite keen on resurrecting Cultural Heritage in War. So I'm glad to see you working on a repeal!

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: I appreciate that.

IC: I would not mind a bit of critique, if anyone has some. Though "It looks good" would at least give me an idea of what I'm working with here. Heh.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Although you say it obliquely, I think it would be a good idea to specifically state that it prohibits targetting sites of cultural heritage even if they are being used for military purposes, and hence that it would leave military forces unable to repel enemy forces endangering even civilian life in that event. Furthermore, that resolution does not prohibit actually using sites of cultural heritage for military purpose (though this argument is only worth making if you in good faith wish to see a replacement; if you don't, then don't argue this).

"I think your argument as it stands follows logically, I'm just not sure it's quite explicit enough.

"I also dislike the 'Cognizant' clause. Yes, it's true, but it's also not very relevant. It could be argued about any resolution that infringements of the law might occur. Stressed soldiers might succumb to the temptation to abuse their detainees; doesn't mean we should repeal "Prevention of Torture"."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[The Dourian Embassy]

Well, the cognizant clause is supposed to follow logically from the rest:

The resolution defines cultural sites as anything a nation chooses as significant ->The resolution bans the "destruction" of cultural sites->Cultural sites may contain things that necessitate attack(and were obviously not supposed to be afforded protection) due to the loose definition->Attacks will inevitably lead to accidental "destruction".

That said, I think you're right on the argument being harder to follow than it needs to be. I may condense a couple of clauses and see what I come up with. One moment.

Edit: Rather than take on the exact suggestion, I added the "believing clause" as you see it. I think it makes the point very clearly. Lemme know what you folks think.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Well, my feeling is simply that it still isn't explicit enough. You should actively say something like:

Concerned that this resolution would prevent the targeting of military assets, including those endangering the lives of civilians, if they were quartered in sites designated as protected cultural heritage

"That's not really a suggested wording - but I consider protecting human* life to be one of the most important things the WA can do, and this resolution actively prevents that goal."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC: Shut up.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Further edits made to the draft. I believe it is more explicit now?

[Mousebumples]

This was passed before this delegation returned to it's activity here on the forums, so I wasn't present for the drafting of this resolution originally. I'm sure we would have likely opposed it on NatSov grounds, if we had been present, and I do wish you the best of luck in your endeavor to repeal this resolution.

Another point worth mentioning within the repeal: any level of cultural importance merits a site as being protected. Our great King Archibald once used this commode by the roadside on the road to Hanai. Does that slight historical merit mean that we must ensure that the commode shall be accessible to the public? (Clause A) So far as the history and functions go (Clause C), should we be trying to determine what sort of ... functions he employed while using said commode? And extreme example, to be sure, but I really think that this text could use a bit more emphasis on those lettered nation-duties to bring the point home.

That's not to say that nation-on-nation crime/damage isn't the focus of this resolution, but I think you'll have an easier sell of telling nations "here's what you're supposed to do within your own border! Isn't that silly?" rather than trying to persuade them that it should be okay for a different member nation to damage/etc., locations within their nation - be they of cultural significance or not. (For example, I'd figure there are some nations that would use the loopholes within this resolution to outlaw "the destruction, blocking, and looting" of pretty much everywhere within their borders - because they can. And, yes, that's a problem. However, I don't know how much that's a winning repeal argument, unless you try to frame it from the other side. And you do do that to some extent, but you may want to broaden your scope a bit.)

Best of luck, etc.,
Adele Hale
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Bergnovinaia]

OOC: While I suppose there are errors here that would allow nationstates to bend the twist the rules like a pretzel, such bending would be a heinous act by the nationstate and would indicate that they have a self-death wish, essentially, for their "cultural" site.

IC: I guess the argument's validity really depends on the belief that people would define "prisons" and "warehouses" as "cultural" places. If the argument seems valid on a large scale, the repeal would be necessary. I don't think the argument really applies, so I will not openly endorse this repeal until an effective replace is drafted and agreed upon. The protection of cultural sites is a matter of great international importance, in my opinion.

Two things that I find irksome about this piece:

Bemoaning that, while cultural sites are often housed in or near population centers, GA#72 encourages the use of cultural sites to house military assets because of the protections it provides,

The bolded seems to suggest it was the active goal of the resolution to allow people to bend the rules. It was not, and you acknowledge that, so change that word to be more passive in nature.

Regretting that this

egregious

error has been left uncorrected despite open acknowledgement by nations involved in writing the resolution,

Once again, egregious seems to indicate that the intention was, at the conception, malicious in intent. Maybe just remove this adjective.

I may support this at some point if a replace is drafted that effectively deals with the issue. The ambassador from the Dourian Embassy is reknown for some devious tactics where legislation gets repealed and not replaced, *cough* #106, which I guess was replaced, but again repealed. Your crusade of repeals, while keeping the GA in check, arguably undoes some good legislation, in our opinion. That being said, if you want to throw the dictionary (and/or NatSov arguement) at GA #72, you are free to do so. LIke I said, though, some better replace is necessary before we will endorse anything.

--Ms. Thekenbail

[The Dourian Embassy]

I may support this at some point if a replace is drafted that effectively deals with the issue. The ambassador from the Dourian Embassy is reknown for some devious tactics where legislation gets repealed and not replaced, *cough* #106, which I guess was replaced, but again repealed. Your crusade of repeals, while keeping the GA in check, arguably undoes some good legislation, in our opinion. That being said, if you want to throw the dictionary (and/or NatSov arguement) at GA #72, you are free to do so. LIke I said, though, some better replace is necessary before we will endorse anything.

--Ms. Thekenbail

First of all, I can see the issue you might have with those pieces of language. Let me know what you think of it now. As for the rest...

Our replacement for 106 failed(the one you were co-author for, and that I submitted and campaigned for), if memory serves. We tried and failed to replace it, that's the best you can expect of me. It wasn't devious at all. 106 needed repealing, even if it wasn't replaced, it was incredibly flawed, and was not "better than nothing". However, despite my misgivings, and as many people can attest, when I promise a replacement, I try my best to deliver(take a look at the current Chemical Weapons repeal and replace at vote).

Let me be clear, I am not promising a replacement on this, but if someone wishes to draft a replacement, I will assist them as best as I am able.

You. Random person reading this. Hop to!

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I'm interested in redrafting "Cultural Heritage in War" if this gets repealed, but if someone else wishes to I'd be willing to work with them instead.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Well if you'd like to resurrect the drafting on that, you probably could now. This may be ready for proposal by the end of the weekend(barring any significant issues I have failed to correct). Berg may very well wish to work with you on that replacement(at least from the Telegrams I've exchanged with them).

[The Dourian Embassy]

A few more edits have been made. I believe this may be ready for a test run tomorrow, unless there is something further?

[Mousebumples]

I don't really see many/any new edits along the lines of what I had pointed in my comment above, here. If you disagree with the merits within, that's your call - of course, but I wanted to be sure they hadn't been overlooked somewhere along the line ...

[The Dourian Embassy]

I don't really see many/any new edits along the lines of what I had pointed in my comment above, here. If you disagree with the merits within, that's your call - of course, but I wanted to be sure they hadn't been overlooked somewhere along the line ...

I think that, given the original author's acceptance of the flaws this resolution contains, I needn't belabor the point. The issues are outlined clearly.

This has also been submitted(after pulling it to replace a period with a comma), and I'll be campaigning it into the queue before the end of the day.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I sort of wish you'd waited until the replacement was ready, but you were certainly under no obligation to do so, and the queue is long enough that it might be ready in time anyway.

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: I sort of wish you'd waited until the replacement was ready, but you were certainly under no obligation to do so, and the queue is long enough that it might be ready in time anyway.

OOC: The queue was what guided my thinking. This may not even got to vote until next week. And while I don't actively want a replacement, I'd still just as well give y'all time to polish off the drafting.

[The Dourian Embassy]

As this is now going to vote, I shall, as a courtesy, bump this thread for the secretariat.

[Alpha Empire]

The Supreme Nyan will approve of this repeal. The original though has a good idea.

I'm sure there are many nations that have sites that are both culturally and militarily important. The current law makes it illegal to take aggresive action on those cultural\military sites. This loophole is bothersome and should not be ignored. Rebels can use these "historic fortresses" and would technically be protected by the original law since it protects all sites.

A replacement should be made that addresses sites that house military equipment.

Now if you excuse me, I must now inform the Nyan Church military wing that the emperor is planning on removing their invulnerability from potential missle strikes. Hope they take the news well.

[Zarkanians]

I wonder when we'll get our first "Repeal "Repeal "*insert bill here*""".

Ahem, Zarkanians votes FOR this repeal, and commends the Dourian Ambassador for its dedication to taking a blow-torch the WA's shackles.

[Mousebumples]

I wonder when we'll get our first "Repeal "Repeal "*insert bill here*""".

Unless the techies change the coding, the answer will be never. Repeals do not have the "Repeal this resolution" link below them and are unable to be repealed.

Anyhow, I was proud to register my votes in favor of this repeal. Best of luck to the Dourian Embassy in their future repeal endeavors.

[Athenoi]

How long until the WA repeals itself? There have been more repeals going under a vote recently than actual resolutions. We and those we represent are against this repeal. The WA is becoming a sickening place.

[Zarkanians]

How long until the WA repeals itself? There have been more repeals going under a vote recently than actual resolutions. We and those we represent are against this repeal. The WA is becoming a sickening place.

The WA is already a sickening place; that's why we're doing so many repeals.

[Mosktopia]

I for one am happy with the recent wave of repeals. Every once in a while, it's good to cleanse the palate of less-savory resolutions so as to open up fertile ground for authors to plant the seeds of new legislative concepts. I know I mixed my metaphors there, and badly. But I'm sure you all get my point.

Happy to vote FOR the repeal of GA #72, which (1) is riddled with silly spelling errors unbefitting a WA resolution, (2) contains an overly broad definition of a cultural heritage site (just about every site might be an area of "interest" to a member nation), and (3) does not contain appropriate exceptions for "heritage sites" that are used for nefarious purposes.

[New Octopucta]

How long until the WA repeals itself? There have been more repeals going under a vote recently than actual resolutions. We and those we represent are against this repeal. The WA is becoming a sickening place.

If you have an issue, perhaps you'd like to propose your own legislation.