[DRAFT] National Airspace Act/ On the Control of Airsp

[Elke and Elba]

I don't think any nation's should be claiming space. It's not ours for the taking, and as such I would vote against this.

"Did I miss something? Isn't this resolution about airspace, rather than outer space? You mean to say you don't care about the security of the skies above your own citizens' heads? I find that extremely hard to believe."

"Also, there are any number of syndicates, corporations, and space empires that would dispute your estimate of what people 'should be claiming.'. But that's neither here nor there."

"Again, no problems with the draft, but I am curious what comes after Paragraph 8."

Apparently nothing. I forgot to remove the 'and'.

And yep, this entire resolution is about airspace - insofar that I had to put the Karman line in to delineate it from outerspace, which is another can of worms.

Lemme do the necessary minute changes first. There’s enough time to deal with the remaining two issues slowly.

[Elke and Elba]

With the passing of the Civilian Aircraft Accord, I will be putting aside the question on whether to include overflying rights and the associated can of worms, partially because I'd rather there be a subsequent legislation alongside Civilian Aircraft Accord to deal with these extant concerns.

This proposal therefore is almot ready to go - we're just short of one filler for he preamble.

[Elke and Elba]

*coughs*

Do we have any suggestions for the preamble?

[Povinksi]

What if you're nation is an island? Would the waters in between your nation and another's be uncontrolled by anyone, or would they belong to one of the nations?

[Elke and Elba]

What if you're nation is an island? Would the waters in between your nation and another's be uncontrolled by anyone, or would they belong to one of the nations?

Please read Bears Armed's Law of the Seas for your answer, which is slightly more complex than yes/no.

The legislation only follow previously accorded boundaries set by other resolution pertaining to the land and sea, so if LotS gets repealed and replaced, this legislation will adhere to that new legislation.

[Elke and Elba]

Double-post, but:

I will probably be changing the entire preamble as well as clause 5, to finally wean this draft's reliance on text and terminology from LoTS as a template and format of sorts, and which subsequently do not require the prior permission of Bears Armed to use part of that text anymore.

Despite so, Bears Armed will most certainly be credited due to the extensive input I received from the bears, not even including with regards to the LoTS draft.

[Elke and Elba]

Another post (it's usually a soliloquy here), but Clause 5 reworded, and the preamble rewritten.

Would appreciate constructive help for tightening as well as refining the language. After that it looks ready to go.

[Elke and Elba]

"Any last suggestions before it goes?"

"I am slightly worried about this getting dinged on plagiarism charges - something that should definitely not happen given that I have the written confirmation on the Bears Armed's part that I could use part of his language from Law of the Seas."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Any last suggestions before it goes?"

"I am slightly worried about this getting dinged on plagiarism charges - something that should definitely not happen given that I have the written confirmation on the Bears Armed's part that I could use part of his language from Law of the Seas."

"I see no reason to worry about that if permission has been given. Looks to be fine!"

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: I've printed out a copy of the final draft, to read after I have to log off from here this evening...)

[John Turner]

"Any last suggestions before it goes?"

"I am slightly worried about this getting dinged on plagiarism charges - something that should definitely not happen given that I have the written confirmation on the Bears Armed's part that I could use part of his language from Law of the Seas."

If there is anything in the Civilian Aircraft Accord that you can use, you have full permission.

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. DEFINES the term 'border' as the point where the jurisdiction of the state ends;

Parsons: We have to look at this definition of border and ... find problems with it. The jurisdiction of a state is ... not the best way of determining borders, since jurisdiction isn't like some sort of on-off state. It is continuous and can be shared between multiple nations. There are issues with this definition and we would like to see them corrected.

Considering that the rest of the proposal is built upon this definition, we find rectification integral to the proposal's character itself.

OOC: Unfortunately, real life matters have precluded my proposal of remedies on this matter.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Indeed, how does that work in regards to the universal jurisdiction of certain crimes?"

[Ainocra]

All in all I am pleased with the current draft.

I can support this

[Elke and Elba]

partial IC/OOC:

Ahh, feedback for once! Let me try to address all of them.

Chester: Thanks so much for offering your resolution! However it probably won't be utilised, as I have geared this proposal towards more of covering certain rights with regards of national airspace, whilst leaving more than enough breather room for subsequent resolution dealing with aircraft and airspace to be enacted.

Imperium Anglorum and Separatist Peoples: Very astute observation indeed! I have been thinking about jurisdiction vs control - given that this draft primarily delineates the control over airspace, versus jurisdiction - which isn't covered much - if at all here due to the complexities regarding legal jurisdiction (that any resolution dealing with airspace legal jurisdiction should be written from a land-based on law-based standpoint in my opinion). Certainly, that means that using jurisdiction as a point of ascertaining is by no means ideal, but yet I can't think of a decent new definition offhand. For example, while using "under de facto control of the state" - it might bring the point across, but unfortunately is quite a circular definition in nature.

Certainly, this is an important question, and one which is essential to be fixed. I do hope my brains do come out with something soon - or well at least - one of our brains does.

Bears Armed: Ookay, no problems! We do hope to get an extensive response from the urrsish delegate.

All in all, thank you to all of you for your support - especially Chester and Ainocra. The support of the both of yours are a rare commodity, and having it certainly is a heartening thing.

Regards,

[Bears Armed]

(OOC; Sorry about the delay; busy week at work left me unable to concentrate enough before now to do this justice...)

RECOGNISING that member states have the right to claim jurisdiction over the airspace of the said member states' territorial lands and its adjacent seas, yet,

UNDERSTANDING that individual state claims may conflict with that of another state, member and non-member alike,

You're currently mixing singular & plural forms here: It should be either "that an individual state's claim may conflict with that of another state" or "that an individual state's claims may conflict with those of another state" or "that individual states' claims may conflict with those of another state"... and, depending on how you alter this, you might also need to pluralise "member" and "non-member".
"Also, maybeso "other states" would be better than "another state" here?"

RESOLVING to harmonise these differences peacefully whilst acknowledging and considering the individual interests of all states,

The World Assembly,

1. DEFINES the term 'border' as the point where the jurisdiction of the state ends;

"I see that there's already been discussion about this point, but would prefer the insertion of either "legal" or "internationally recognised" before "jurisdiction" anyhows."

2. FURTHER DEFINES the term 'edge of space line' as the point where the atmosphere of the terrestrial object becomes too thin to support any form of aeronautical flight;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES that,

a) all airspace within a member state's border, shall be considered that member state's 'Controlled Airspace', which the said member state shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all of its own laws;

"Unless you change this to "and, subject to any limits set by other WA resolutions, may enforce" you're blocking any further legislation on such matters... Is this your Intention?"

b) all airspace that are not within the borders of any state, shall be considered “International Airspace” and will not be subjected to any control unless dictated otherwise by this Assembly;

"Hokay".

4. MANDATES all member states to recognise that all airspace belonging to respective non-member states are accorded the same rights as delineated in clause 3;

"Clumsy wording: it isn't the airspace that has rights, it's the nations... I suggest changing this to something along the lines of

4. MANDATES that member nations must recognise non-member nations as possessing the same rights to Controlled Airspace of their own"

instead.

5. ENCOURAGES any member state with conflicting and clashing claims with any non-member state to resolve their differences through peaceful and cordial means;

"I suggest replacing "with conflicting and clashing claims with" with "whose claims conflict with those of" here."

6. FURTHER EXTENDS the mandate of the World Assembly Nautical Commission (WANC) to determine and define the edge of space line for every terrestrial object where respective member states are located on;

7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution applies to outer space, extrasolar space or extragalactic space, and any jurisdiction granted to member states are limited to the altitude where the edge of space line is, as determined by the WANC in the previous clause, and;

8. FURTHER CLARIFIES that vehicles using 'ground-effect' systems to hover just above the surface of water or land count as water or land vehicles rather than as aircraft for the purpose of this resolution.

"Hokay."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Elke and Elba]

(OOC: As for the other points - taken and all accepted - time to meditate and think of changes to be made before I reply...)

"Hrrrarooom, my dear urrsish delegate, whilst myself and the team here needs to take a bit of time to mull over the content of the edits that has been provided - and at first glance, quite substantial, we can answer to some of your questions here.

2. FURTHER DEFINES the term 'edge of space line' as the point where the atmosphere of the terrestrial object becomes too thin to support any form of aeronautical flight;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES that,

a) all airspace within a member state's border, shall be considered that member state's 'Controlled Airspace', which the said member state shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all of its own laws;

"Unless you change this to "and, subject to any limits set by other WA resolutions, may enforce" you're blocking any further legislation on such matters... Is this your Intention?"

Another astute observation! Given that the focus of this proposal has changed to one that wants to solely dictate on control - again, not the best word to be used - over airspace, rather than mull over jurisdiction-like sorts of things, Clause 3 (alongside Clause 1) would require further introspection to come up with a viable solution in order to delineate between jurisdiction (not that good) vs control (good for this draft).

As Ambassador Parsons as well as Ambassdor... Bell? said before - that jurisdiction is quite encompassing in its power; and as we have spoken before, that would open a can of worms such as passengers on a plane and having to dress and undress as according to local laws, as well as civilian fly-through rights amongst others, I myself would wish to obtain a tighter definition that could avoid these problems, and allow legislating on further laws, or keep it ambiguous were the World Assembly to decide so.

Unfortunately, the Elke and Elba WA Mission is a bit short-staffed as of late - I've to shuttle back here and Nobreloen too - (OOC: I need time to read through and having long spans of time isn't what I have, unfortunately) we have to do this slowly.

But yet, again, we thank the urrsish ambassador for his help. I hope I can give you a satisfactory answer on Clause 1 and 3, and hopefully manage to get the proposal edited to incorporate your thoughtful changes on the other Clauses."

the Hon. Alethea Norrland
Commissioner of Foreign Affairs for Yggdrasil
Chief Ambassador and Ambassador to the World Assembly for Elke and Elba
Foreign Minister of Nobreloen

[Elke and Elba]

"Hmm, it seems Alethea left this somewhere. Hopefully we'll get the wording done before she comesback for submission."

the Hon. Benjamin Olafsen
Commissioner of Foreign Affairs for Yggdrasil
Ambassador to the World Assembly for Elke and Elba

[Elke and Elba]

I'm bumping this to try to get some comments - but more importantly, to remind myself I still have unfinished business in these Chambers.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Rob Shoreham, as Assistant Ambassador Pro Tem, clears his throat and glances at the notes from the Ambassador -- that is, from the "office" -- before speaking.

"Uh, hello, ambassador. Uh, our office recommends limiting the terrestrial bodies named in Clause 6 to those on which multiple WA states have territorial claims. This reduces the WA Nautical Commission's extra workload, and closes off the accusations of micromanagement or overreach from one-world-government or multiplanetary nations. Uh, thank you."

He takes his seat once again.

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium is opposed.
Due to the failures of General Assembly Resolution #168 to account for Member States that control the entirety of a World's surface when forcibly redrawing National Borders, this legislation would require that the Imperium cede its own, wholly sovereign and entirely uncontested territory to an international body. This is unacceptable, and we cannot be convinced to support this legislation without the repeal, of Resolution #168."

[Kilimantonian]

"The Imperium is opposed.
Due to the failures of General Assembly Resolution #168 to account for Member States that control the entirety of a World's surface when forcibly redrawing National Borders, this legislation would require that the Imperium cede its own, wholly sovereign and entirely uncontested territory to an international body. This is unacceptable, and we cannot be convinced to support this legislation without the repeal, of Resolution #168."

Ambassador Franklin stands up and clears his throat.

The noble Ambassador Markhov does make some interesting points, all of which are relevant to us, as we also have sovereignty over our planet. Yet I do believe that by taking your grievance to the committee founded in GAR 168, the World Assembly Nautical Commission, they would resolve that error and give you complete control over your planetary waters.

That said, nothing in this draft would give any nation full control over planetary airspace, or discourse to obtain it. With this change made, I believe we could offer a measure of support.

[Araraukar]

But if one nation controls the entire planet, doesn't that just mean that every square kilometre of the surface is controlled by that one nation, or, to fit this proposal, "within its jurisdiction" and "within its borders", as the planet would in effect be without a border that would define anything to be outside the nation that controls it?

[Tinfect]

The noble Ambassador Markhov does make some interesting points, all of which are relevant to us, as we also have sovereignty over our planet. Yet I do believe that by taking your grievance to the committee founded in GAR 168, the World Assembly Nautical Commission, they would resolve that error and give you complete control over your planetary waters.

"This is not the case, the World Assembly Nautical Commission has only the authority to arbitrate the interpretation of the Resolution, between Member States, in the event of conflicting interpretations. They do not have the authority to alter Resolution 168's mandates on International Waters."

But if one nation controls the entire planet, doesn't that just mean that every square kilometre of the surface is controlled by that one nation, or, to fit this proposal, "within its jurisdiction" and "within its borders", as the planet would in effect be without a border that would define anything to be outside the nation that controls it?

"No, this is, unfortunately, not the case. Resolution 168 Mandates the creation of 'International Waters' without regard to the status of a Member State that may render such things pointless, at best, and actively damaging, at worst. This Proposal, with Resolution 168 active, would require that the airspace above International Waters, be also considered International Territory, which poses an unacceptable threat to the National Security of Nations that maintain control over the whole of their planet's surface."

[Kilimantonian]

OOC: Yeah, I guess you're right on both counts... this ought to be rectified.

On a side note, how many of you realized what the World Assembly Nautical Commision abbreviation (WANC) sounded like out loud?