PASSED: Protection of historical monuments

[The Autumn Clans]

To all representatives out there; Please support my proposal for the Protection of Historical Monuments (the second one - the first had a typo)

Why support this?
Historical monuments are symbols of the formation of our cultures. No matter where you are from, there is going to be a location which is significant to the formation of your country as it is now.

With out propper care and protection these monuments will become dammaged and eventualy fall appart.

People should be aware of their history and these monuments could be the only reminders of us once our societies are lost in the sands of time.

Frankly the WA isn't encoraging the protection of cultural heritage enough. It's all environment at the cost of industry countered by industry at the cost of the environment.

[Flibbleites]

Would you mind posting the text here so it's easier for us to comment on it?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[The Autumn Clans]

Version 4.

RECOGNIZING that due to war, development and lack of public interest, historical monuments are being damaged, destroyed or entering a state of disrepair.

NOTING that historical monuments represent history and the formation of our cultures and that their worth surpasses that of monetary value.

DEFINES “historical monument” as a structure or significant location that symbolises a historical event, a culture or influential individuals.

STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations.

CREATES the World Assembly Monuments Register, an official list containing all Historical Monuments in World Assembly Countries. Monuments not in the list are unaffected by this act.

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly Monuments Register, so that this act may apply to them.

CREATES the Monument Assessment Committee to asses the monuments being proposed for the World Assembly Monuments Register so that they are of actual historical importance, and not selected as a way of protecting people.

REQUIRES the protection and repair of historical monuments by the government to whom the monument belongs. Unless:
1. Said monument is beyond repair to the extent that any attempts would be too expensive or frequent to be economically feasible for the nation.

2. Repairs would directly or indirectly lead to the harm of civilians.

3. The damage is considered as a famous feature of the monument (although any non famous damage should still be repaired.)

4. The country to whom the monument belongs is in or has been in a state of crisis (this includes war, natural disasters, political overhaul and economic depression) so that its funds must be diverted elsewhere.

REQUIRES 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.

REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.

ENCOURAGES governments to educate citizens about the history and meaning of their monuments.

[Tyranteous]

REQUIRES the prevention of development within a 1 kilometre radius of the monument and that the monument be made government property and can not be owned by a private party.


Tyranteous considers this an extreme invasion of the sovereignty of the nation state. National monuments are just that. They belong to the nation in question. Whether or not a private citizen of that nation can or cannot own land near the monument is not for the World Assembly to decide.

This is interference with National policy and as such Tyranteous is vehemently against it!

Respectfully,

Ambassador of the Kingdom of Tyranteous.

[The Autumn Clans]

were that part removed would I have your suport

[Tyranteous]

were that part removed would I have your suport

Certainly not!

The definition of an historic monument is arbitrary. 250 years seems to be a number picked at random. Furthermore there may be instances where the removal of an historic cultural icon or monument may be beneficial to the development of a nation, particularly if that nation has a chequered past. It is up to the government of that nation to decide the fate of its cultural history, not the World Assembly.

Respectfully,

Ambassador of the Kingdom of Tyranteous.

OOC: Don't mind my tone, "RANT" is in my nation;s name

[The Autumn Clans]

It's ok. I can't win everyone over. Thanks for your honesty. Do you think it's well writen though?

[Rutianas]

RECOGNIZING that due to war, development and lack of public interest, historical monuments are being damaged, destroyed or entering a state of disrepair.

So? It's the nation in question that's allowing it to happen. Let them deal with it.

NOTING that historical monuments represent history and the formation of our cultures and that their worth surpasses that of monetary value.

I can agree with this. Culture is important as is history.

DEFINES “historical monument” as a structure or location older than 250 years that symbolises a major historical event or the formation of a culture.

250 years is a long time to some nations and a very short time to others. For the Imperial Republic, if it's over a thousand, it's historical. Anything under that and it's still very modern.

DEFINES “protection” as the prevention or illegalisation of damage in any form

You don't really need a definition of protection. It's an obvious term.

REQUIRES the protection and repair of historical monuments by the government to whom the monument belongs and any invading forces, unless doing so would directly lead to the harm of civilians.

If the nation is at war, I don't think the enemy is really going to care if they destroy a monument or not. How would you suggest they protect it? Just shake a finger and say 'can't target this'? I guarantee that if this is passed, monuments will be destroyed by an air strike rather than a ground attack in an attempt to demoralise the enemy, if the nation really cares about the monument in the first place.

ENCORAGES the condemning of countries that damage historical monuments during war.

Encourages is what you want here. Sure, condemn the country. Well, if they're not a WA member, a lot of good that's going to do. They're not going to care.

REQUIRES the prevention of development within a 1 kilometre radius of the monument and that the monument be made government property and can not be owned by a private party.

That's a pretty large radius. If you've got an overpopulated country, you need every meter of space you can get. Putting a one kilometer radius that can't be developed isn't right. I don't think the WA needs to determine whether or not an area can be developed. Particularly if it's right in the middle of a city block. Or someone's privately owned farmland.

CREATES the Historical Monument Protection Committee (HMPC) to identify historical monuments and supervise the protection and management of historical monuments.

Yet another committee that'll go into nations. Better yet, this one gets to determine what is and is not a historical monument! Never mind the fact that the committee probably has no clue what the culture or history of the nation is and is likely to make mistakes at what the nation wants as a historical monument. Best to leave the identification of the monuments up to the nations.

ENCOURAGES tourism to the historical monuments in order to educate people about their significance and to generate funds for maintaining the monument.

I would think most nations already do this.

REQEIRES that if tourism and donations are insufficient, the money must be obtained from income taxes.

Requires is the word you want here. I severely dislike the WA telling nations that they must spend their own income tax money for maintaining the monument. I think you should strongly encourage. A nation may not have enough tax money to sustain them, particularly if the WA goes in and determines what is and is not a historical monument. A nation could end up with numerous monuments and not enough money to support all of them and go broke.

You're asking too much of nations in this. The creation of monuments and determining where to come up with the money for maintaining them really should be left up to the individual nation. Protecting them, however, is a noble effort.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Burninati0n]

Let's say I have a historical building on a site that's darn unstable, and would be even more darn expensive to try to keep from collapsing. Unfortunately, I'd be forced to spend money on trying to keep the un-salvageable building standing for as long a time as possible.

Somehow, I doubt my taxpayers would go for that.

[The Autumn Clans]

thanks for all your help, you were actualy very kind in the way you told me what was wrong. I've taken what you said in to account and will write up a draft for a reworked proposal soon.

THANKS

PS. sorry about the spelling, my key board is broken and turns 'q' in to 'qe' as well as other things. I try to correct them, but I miss some (esspecialy because I'm dyslexic)

[The Autumn Clans]

RECOGNIZING that due to war, development and lack of public interest, historical monuments are being damaged, destroyed or entering a state of disrepair.

NOTING that historical monuments represent history and the formation of our cultures and that their worth surpasses that of monetary value.

DEFINES “historical monument” as a structure or significant location that symbolises a major historical event or the formation of a culture.

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly so that this act may apply to them.

REQUIRES the protection and repair of historical monuments by the government to whom the monument belongs. Unless said monument is beyond repair to the extent that any attempts would be temporary or that doing so would lead to the harm of civilians

REQUIRES that, during war situations, both invading and defending nations do not attack historical monuments or use them as cover, unless the enemy is using them as cover or a vantage points.

REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.

ENCOURAGES tourism to the historical monuments in order to educate people about their significance and to generate funds for maintaining the monument.

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES that, if tourism and donations are insufficient, the governing body obtain required money from income taxes.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Category? Strength/Focus?

[Tyranteous]

I still dislike this clause:

REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.

I do not want WA legislation to decide what can and cannot be owned by a private citizen of my nation.

[The Autumn Clans]

It's an Education and Creativity proposal that focuses on Cultural Heritage.

Tyrantus- the fact is that the government can't protect something it doesn't own.

[Rigbyland]

REQUIRES the prevention of development within a 1 kilometre radius of the monument and that the monument be made government property and can not be owned by a private party.

That's too far, I think.

[The Magic Spirit]

I too find the protected range of one kilometer around a monument too much. It could be as simple as a statue. A km would be overkill. Also, I won't support the idea unless the 250 year clause is redefined. For starters The Magic Spriti is a young nation and by those standards none of our heritige would qualify for protection under this act. You need another way to define historic monument.

[Le Port]

Although your proposal is well-written and most citizens in my nation would agree that historical sites are worth the effort of maintaining, we would have to agree with the responses already given here.

If one of our cities was destroyed by a natural disaster or through war, forcing our government to prioritise restoring historical sites over, say, distributing relief aid and repairing vital infrastructure would be very counter-productive.

Respectfully,

Juliette Laroche, Le Port Foreign Affairs Minister.

[Celtica and Neotopia]

We have several objections to the bill, some of which have already been noted by other ambassadors. We whole-heartedly agree that monuments should be protected. However, we do not think the WA might always agree with our definition of a "major" historical event. Monuments made to commemorate the founding of towns might not be considered "major" by them, while the residents of such towns find them of great importance and our government would identify them as a monument. We feel the word "major" should be dropped.

Furthermore, there are monuments to more than just historical events or formations of culture. For example, monuments made to commend influential artists, politicians, or those who have done much for their community should also be protected.

As to the repair and protection of monuments, the word "temporary" is a bit ill-chosen. No structure may be expected to last forever. Also, certain monuments have previously fallen into a state of disrepair but are now protected. However, their disrepaired state may be more well-known and symbolic than their original, and so there should be an exception for this. ((OOC: The colloseum in Rome is a good example of this. It is most well-known in its state of disrepair and fully repairing it would make it lose its identity))


It might be better to simply ban the destruction of monuments in war-time and to place an invading force in them, unless they pose a current and direct danger to the lives of civilians and soldiers, or important facilities such as hospitals. This would stop the use by member nations, as well provide the ability to attack non-member nations using monuments as staging points.

We think a monument can still be protected even if it is private property. For example, an old house of historical value might be owned privately, but its resident bearing the responsibility to keep to not alter or damage it and its maintenance funded by the state.

Penultimately, we do not feel it is possible to officially "encourage tourism", but do think governments should provide education about monuments and their signifigance. Finally, it is not the WA business to decide where governments get their funding from, and the clause very nearly implements a direct tax on citizens which is in conflict with current resolutions.

[The Autumn Clans]

OK first off - please read the rewrite, not the original, some people complained about stuff I changed.
2 - said governments get to choose their own monuments, but must regester them so that this act can apply to them.
3 - yep the more think about it the more I think I should remove those 2 last parts.
4 - I still think they should not be private property otherwise an individual could abuse the laws and have his monument repaired for free, but he still gets the tourism money.
5 - some things to need rewording and redeifining, and I will add a clause saying that repairing a monument should not take priority over more important issues.

Thanks for your comments. I'll write a new one up soon(ish)

[Gobbannium]

OOC: some people edit the version of their proposal in the original post (or near enough in this case) to try to avoid this sort of confusion.

[The Autumn Clans]

Oh OK, from now on I'll edit the original
-OK I've posted the new one, tell me what you think.

[The Autumn Clans]

OK, unless anyone has any more complaints, issues or recomendations, I'll send this off soon.

[Philimbesi]

REQUIRES that Historical Monuments not be attacked, bombed or used as cover, shelter or vantage points for war by attacking or defending countries. Unless they are being used as such by the enemy.

So, the citizens of my country can't take refuge in a historic church, during a bombing, but enemies who have captured my nation can?

Second, by the power invested in my by my president and (points to Shady AO Organization) and uh... that guy, I hereby place every structure in all my nation as historically significant in some way, and therefore they can not be attacked, further as he is the leader of our nation and a monument to our society I place Josiah Bartlet on the list so he also can't be attacked... de'ja vu anyone?

[The Autumn Clans]

that wouldn't work, first if you hide in a building that is a monument then they can attack you. And if they use it you can attack them.

REQUIRES that Historical Monuments not be attacked, bombed or used as cover, shelter or vantage points for war by attacking or defending countries. Unless they are being used as such by the enemy.

(but since WA members MUST obay the rules, this last part only applies in a conflict between a member and a non-member)

second a person CANT be a monument but a statue to someone could (ie mount rushmore), the proposal said;

DEFINES “historical monument” as a structure or significant location that symbolises a historical event, the formation of a culture or influential individuals.

Frankly it doesn't seem like your being constructive, just agressive towards me and my proposal. Learn to read the proposal properly, think, and then post you opinions.

[Rutianas]

REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.

I still have a problem with this one bit. Why can it not be owned by a private party? It would seem to me that if it were privately owned, then the government doesn't have to bother with the upkeep, thus saving the government money in the process.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador