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

[Elke and Elba]

Bump, seeing how crowded first page is.

We do hope to hear more comments. Honest.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...
b) Airspace that are not controlled by member states, due to such airspace being beyond 24 nautical miles of a member state's border shall be considered "International Airspace", and will not be subjected to any control unless stated in sub-clause c), where;
c) A member state's airspace jurisdiction also extends over airlines and aircraft, fixed or non-fixed wing, registered in that nation while those are in International Airspace;
...

This seems to indicate that non-WA members' airspace will be classified as International Airspace for all members' intents and purposes. Which seems counterproductive (and definitely disrespectful, and arguably even aggressive, perhaps). I think all that's needed to fix that is to simply replace any reference to member state(s) in b) with a reference to any state(s). More legalistic minds than my own might wish to weigh in on that.

[Elke and Elba]

To Sierra: Indeed, I should change the wording.

Might add in a clause that forces member states to recognize the boundaries and another to refrain member states from intruding where the boundaries are contested between member and non-member state.

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: Read, comments to follow in a day or two...)

[Wrapper]

Aside from our previous qualms, most of which were addressed (you still refer to a couple of clauses by number, but have no numbered clauses), just a note that "airspace zone" is redundant. Airspace is a zone.

[Elke and Elba]

Aside from our previous qualms, most of which were addressed (you still refer to a couple of clauses by number, but have no numbered clauses), just a note that "airspace zone" is redundant. Airspace is a zone.

Thank you. Tentative name change done.

As for the urrsish delegate(s), we thank you in advance for your comments.

[Wrapper]

Okay, you're still referring to "clause 3" and "clause 4" in the text but nothing is numbered. If you don't want to number anything you'll need to refer to these clauses in another way (e.g. "the preceding clause" or "the above limits" or "the aforementioned permitted... something or other").

Also, typo, UNDERSTANDING clause, "...as space does not have...."

[Elke and Elba]

Okay, you're still referring to "clause 3" and "clause 4" in the text but nothing is numbered. If you don't want to number anything you'll need to refer to these clauses in another way (e.g. "the preceding clause" or "the above limits" or "the aforementioned permitted... something or other").

Also, typo, UNDERSTANDING clause, "...as space does not have...."

It is indeed a problem. While there have indeed have been repeals which refer to clauses with numbers but do not have them (Repeal Int'l Radio Act, was it), I don't think it's the best way to go about doing so.

Leaving this unsolved for the time being.

[Bears Armed]

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

I think that something along the lines of “Acknowledging” or “Recognising” would be more suitable than “Noting”.

UNDERSTANDING that as space do not have any identifiable marker, unlike that of the sea or of land, and thus nations have the capability to claim jurisdiction without any form of substantiation, however,

However as the first clause specifically mentions the airspace over the nations’ own lands & territorial waters I think that simply defining nations' rights (and other member nations’ responsibilities to respect those rights) in respect to that airspace should be enough, and so in my opinion this clause isn’t really necessary.

WORRYING that if such claims are conducted excessively, they have the potential to destabilise international security,

And if we drop the preceding clause then we don’t need this one, neither. In fact, bearing in mind that claims for jurisdiction over airspace without claims over the underlying land/sea areas as well are probably likely to be relatively uncommon, is ‘Global Disarmament’ even the best category to use in this case? I’d be inclined to place the emphasis on balancing national rights against a ‘right of innocent passage’ for foreign ‘civil’ aircraft in peacetime, for ‘Free Trade (Mild? Significant?)’ instead… and consequently would replace this clause with one about the potential importance of the latter right to international trade.

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account nations’ legitimate interests,

If you keep to your current draft’s basic structure & intentions, then this clause is okay, but if you shift the emphasis as I’ve just suggested then obviously it will need a slight re-write.

The World Assembly,

No problem, of course.

1. DEFINES the term ‘border’ as the point where waters meet the land at mean low tide, or where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations;

2. ACKNOWLEDGES that, subject to any limits that WA law places on national rights and unless these terms would create conflicting claims,
a) Airspace within 24 nautical miles of a member state's border, shall be considered that nation’s 'Controlled Airspace' over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all of its own laws;
b) Airspace that are not controlled by member states, due to such airspace being beyond 24 nautical miles of a member state's border shall be considered "International Airspace"

Oops! You’re acting as though all borders are maritime ones, and ignoring the possibility of land borders, which is obviously a major flaw in the proposal. Personally I’d suggest dropping the actual numbers from this proposal, and simply defining a [member] nation’s “Controlled Airspace” or “Territorial Airspace” or whatever this ends up being called as the airspace above the lands that the nation owns and those waters that it claims ("subject to any limits on such claims that are set by WA law or other international agreements") as its ‘territorial’ ones. That way, if LotS is ever repealed then the WA won’t be recognising jurisdiction to airspace without jurisdiction over the waters below and if a replacement is then passed the boundaries of territorial airspace would automatically match the new borders of territorial waters.

, and will not be subjected to any control unless stated in sub-clause c), where;
c) A member state's airspace jurisdiction also extends over airlines and aircraft, fixed wing or non-fixed wing, registered in that nation while those are in International Airspace;

I’ll cover this point in my closing comments.

3. STATES that in the case of conflicting claims between member nations, any airspace where the claims of two or more member states overlap, such airspace shall be divided along lines mid-way between those nations’ sea borders, unless those nations freely agree on an alternative partition instead;

If you adopt my suggestion about defining the borders then this point would automatically be covered by the agreement about territorial waters anyway and so this clause would be unnecessary.

4. URGES any member nations whose claims conflict with those of any non-members to seek peaceful agreement on basis of these same rules with those other nations;

Okay.

5. EXTENDS the mandate to the World Assembly Nautical Commission (or ‘WANC’), where the WANC has the ultimate right and duty to enforcing binding arbitration in any disputes about this resolution’s interpretation that might arise between WA member nations, and also permits WANC to provide arbitration in relevant disputes involving any non-member nations who actually volunteer to accept this service;

Probably not needed if you peg the borders of territorial airspace directly to those of territorial waters, because in that case any arbitration about the waters’ boundaries would automatically cover the airspace as well.

A significant portion of this resolution's text is provided with the permission of Bears Armed Mission, which this author wishes to thank.

This may “need” a re-write, of course, depending on how many of my suggested changes you adopt and how much of LotS’s text actually gets left in the final draft. (And even if you don’t make any major changes I think that the phrasing could be improved…)

However I would insert two or three more clauses before reaching the ‘Credits’ section, anyhows…

Firstly, you need to define the upper limit for territorial airspace.

Secondly, you need to define the extent to which national jurisdiction can be applied to foreign aircraft within that space and insert a legal requirement for member nations to respect that jurisdiction when dealing with each other (and when dealing with any non-members who notify the relevant WA agency [which we’ll need to identify] of their intention to comply voluntarily with these rules and who do thus comply, too?)… but, of course, with an exemption in cases where the nations involved are in a state of declared war against each other.
Simply stating that national jurisdiction & therefore laws apply within territorial airspace runs into the problems that (a) this could be used to hinder the innocent passage of foreign ‘civil’ aircraft, to the detriment of international trade; (b) it would generally be rather difficult for the authorities to board aircraft in flight to check whether their laws are being obeyed and to enforce those laws; (c) the quick passage of aircraft across borders might make the laws applicable aboard change rather quickly & maybeso confusingly; and (d) that if the exemption for wartime gets forgotten (as was almost the case for one ‘historical’ proposal on this subject whose drafting I [OOC] remember…) then nations could simply say “no foreign warplanes in our airspace” and have that legally binding on other member nations even during wartime…


What I suggest, not yet broken up into clauses, is: Foreign warplanes and military transports can only use a nation’s territorial airspace if they have prior consent from that nation’s government, unless their owner is actually at war with that nation.
Other foreign aircraft can pass through a nation’s territorial airspace and civilian airports, if they meet that nation’s standards for safety and for environmental matters, on the same basis as aircraft from those nations themselves do so, again with the wartime exemption. Those safety & environmental standards must be set in general terms, rather than specifying nationalities of aircraft/aircrew or actual makes of aircraft or where aircrew were trained, or featuring other ways of indirectly discriminating against foreigners.
Foreign aircraft must comply with the nation’s routing requirements and air traffic control instructions, which again must be administered on a non-discriminatory basis (We may need to consider how quotas are set for routes where traffic would potentially be at higher-than-desirable levels… Also, give the relevant WA agency the right & duty of binding arbitration upon request from any nation involved in a relevant dispute that has proven imposible to settle within a reasonable time?), but the “host” nation’s laws otherwise only apply aboard them when they are on the ground: While aircraft are in the air it is the laws of their home nations that apply to people aboard them, instead.
Possibly something limiting espionage?

Oh, and "Clarifies that vehicles using 'ground-effect' systems to "fly" just above the surface of water or land count as water or land vehicles rather than as aircraft for the purpose of this resolution"?

[Elke and Elba]

For EnE's use to cover each specific portion and strike out when done.

EDIT: Strike got broken.

WORRYING that if such claims are conducted excessively, they have the potential to destabilise international security,

And if we drop the preceding clause then we don’t need this one, neither. In fact, bearing in mind that claims for jurisdiction over airspace without claims over the underlying land/sea areas as well are probably likely to be relatively uncommon, is ‘Global Disarmament’ even the best category to use in this case? I’d be inclined to place the emphasis on balancing national rights against a ‘right of innocent passage’ for foreign ‘civil’ aircraft in peacetime, for ‘Free Trade (Mild? Significant?)’ instead… and consequently would replace this clause with one about the potential importance of the latter right to international trade.

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account nations’ legitimate interests,

If you keep to your current draft’s basic structure & intentions, then this clause is okay, but if you shift the emphasis as I’ve just suggested then obviously it will need a slight re-write.

, and will not be subjected to any control unless stated in sub-clause c), where;
c) A member state's airspace jurisdiction also extends over airlines and aircraft, fixed wing or non-fixed wing, registered in that nation while those are in International Airspace;

I’ll cover this point in my closing comments.

A significant portion of this resolution's text is provided with the permission of Bears Armed Mission, which this author wishes to thank.

This may “need” a re-write, of course, depending on how many of my suggested changes you adopt and how much of LotS’s text actually gets left in the final draft. (And even if you don’t make any major changes I think that the phrasing could be improved…)

However I would insert two or three more clauses before reaching the ‘Credits’ section, anyhows…

Secondly, you need to define the extent to which national jurisdiction can be applied to foreign aircraft within that space and insert a legal requirement for member nations to respect that jurisdiction when dealing with each other (and when dealing with any non-members who notify the relevant WA agency [which we’ll need to identify] of their intention to comply voluntarily with these rules and who do thus comply, too?)… but, of course, with an exemption in cases where the nations involved are in a state of declared war against each other.
Simply stating that national jurisdiction & therefore laws apply within territorial airspace runs into the problems that (a) this could be used to hinder the innocent passage of foreign ‘civil’ aircraft, to the detriment of international trade; (b) it would generally be rather difficult for the authorities to board aircraft in flight to check whether their laws are being obeyed and to enforce those laws; (c) the quick passage of aircraft across borders might make the laws applicable aboard change rather quickly & maybeso confusingly; and (d) that if the exemption for wartime gets forgotten (as was almost the case for one ‘historical’ proposal on this subject whose drafting I [OOC] remember…) then nations could simply say “no foreign warplanes in our airspace” and have that legally binding on other member nations even during wartime…


What I suggest, not yet broken up into clauses, is: Foreign warplanes and military transports can only use a nation’s territorial airspace if they have prior consent from that nation’s government, unless their owner is actually at war with that nation.
Other foreign aircraft can pass through a nation’s territorial airspace and civilian airports, if they meet that nation’s standards for safety and for environmental matters, on the same basis as aircraft from those nations themselves do so, again with the wartime exemption. Those safety & environmental standards must be set in general terms, rather than specifying nationalities of aircraft/aircrew or actual makes of aircraft or where aircrew were trained, or featuring other ways of indirectly discriminating against foreigners.
Foreign aircraft must comply with the nation’s routing requirements and air traffic control instructions, which again must be administered on a non-discriminatory basis (We may need to consider how quotas are set for routes where traffic would potentially be at higher-than-desirable levels… Also, give the relevant WA agency the right & duty of binding arbitration upon request from any nation involved in a relevant dispute that has proven imposible to settle within a reasonable time?), but the “host” nation’s laws otherwise only apply aboard them when they are on the ground: While aircraft are in the air it is the laws of their home nations that apply to people aboard them, instead.
Possibly something limiting espionage?

[Elke and Elba]

Good day to the urrsish delegate, we believe we have did some changes in the meantime and thus those considerations can be put to rest.


Firstly, you need to define the upper limit for territorial airspace.

FURTHER EXTENDS the mandate of the WANC to determine and define the edge of space line for every terrestrial object where the respective member states are located on, and;

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

As for the others:

Oh, and "Clarifies that vehicles using 'ground-effect' systems to "fly" just above the surface of water or land count as water or land vehicles rather than as aircraft for the purpose of this resolution"?

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.

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

I think that something along the lines of “Acknowledging” or “Recognising” would be more suitable than “Noting”.
Duly noted & changed.

1. DEFINES the term ‘border’ as the point where waters meet the land at mean low tide, or where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations;

2. ACKNOWLEDGES that, subject to any limits that WA law places on national rights and unless these terms would create conflicting claims,
a) Airspace within 24 nautical miles of a member state's border, shall be considered that nation’s 'Controlled Airspace' over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all of its own laws;
b) Airspace that are not controlled by member states, due to such airspace being beyond 24 nautical miles of a member state's border shall be considered "International Airspace"

Oops! You’re acting as though all borders are maritime ones, and ignoring the possibility of land borders, which is obviously a major flaw in the proposal. Personally I’d suggest dropping the actual numbers from this proposal, and simply defining a [member] nation’s “Controlled Airspace” or “Territorial Airspace” or whatever this ends up being called as the airspace above the lands that the nation owns and those waters that it claims ("subject to any limits on such claims that are set by WA law or other international agreements") as its ‘territorial’ ones. That way, if LotS is ever repealed then the WA won’t be recognising jurisdiction to airspace without jurisdiction over the waters below and if a replacement is then passed the boundaries of territorial airspace would automatically match the new borders of territorial waters.

Simple change to definition of border: might need tweaks to it, though! It ensures that as LoTS changes, this will change accordingly too.

3. STATES that in the case of conflicting claims between member nations, any airspace where the claims of two or more member states overlap, such airspace shall be divided along lines mid-way between those nations’ sea borders, unless those nations freely agree on an alternative partition instead;

If you adopt my suggestion about defining the borders then this point would automatically be covered by the agreement about territorial waters anyway and so this clause would be unnecessary.
Done!

5. EXTENDS the mandate to the World Assembly Nautical Commission (or ‘WANC’), where the WANC has the ultimate right and duty to enforcing binding arbitration in any disputes about this resolution’s interpretation that might arise between WA member nations, and also permits WANC to provide arbitration in relevant disputes involving any non-member nations who actually volunteer to accept this service;

Probably not needed if you peg the borders of territorial airspace directly to those of territorial waters, because in that case any arbitration about the waters’ boundaries would automatically cover the airspace as well.
Done!

[Elke and Elba]

Continued:

UNDERSTANDING that as space do not have any identifiable marker, unlike that of the sea or of land, and thus nations have the capability to claim jurisdiction without any form of substantiation, however,[/quote]However as the first clause specifically mentions the airspace over the nations’ own lands & territorial waters I think that simply defining nations' rights (and other member nations’ responsibilities to respect those rights) in respect to that airspace should be enough, and so in my opinion this clause isn’t really necessary.

Done!

[Elke and Elba]

To the urrsish delegate: given the complexity and sheer magnitude of what the urrsish delegate wants to cover, I propose having it in another resolution, something akin to aviation law.

Would that be alright with you? That can indeed be very free-trade based.

[Bears Armed]

To the urrsish delegate: given the complexity and sheer magnitude of what the urrsish delegate wants to cover, I propose having it in another resolution, something akin to aviation law.

Would that be alright with you? That can indeed be very free-trade based.

I could separate the explicitly ‘Free Trade’ provisions out, yes (using either my recent notes for a draft on the right of “innocent passage” or a modified version of an old St Edmundan proposal on the subject, either of which would cover transit by land or water as well as by air…), unless the wording of whatever draft you might get passed in the meanwhile blocked that…), but then we’d be back to the problem of justifying a category for this proposal… and I think that at least some of the points that I’ve already raised during this discussion, such as the practical limits to applying national laws to aircraft that are just flying overhead, really do need to be addressed here.

[Elke and Elba]

Alethea pulls the draft up

Given that we have recently just submitted Ban of Perfidy in Warfare, we are inclined to work with this again. Meanwhile, we will try to address the urrsish delegation's concerns while we wait for Ban of Perfidy in Warfare to reach quorum and hopefully pass (I do intend to resubmit it if it doesn't pass - I understand the misunderstanding that might persist within the WA delegations, which can be solved properly with time allowing it to mellow.)

[Ainocra]

Given that our concerns regarding our borders has been addressed we can offer our support for this proposal at this time.

[Elke and Elba]

Thanks.

There are a few changes we need to put due to Bears Armed's suggestions.

[Metox]

The only thing we take issue with is that all national laws can be enforced in the airspace of that nation.

OOC: I can't describe myself very will without real-world examples. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for women to drive, much less fly aircraft. If the pilot is a woman, she can be fined or arrested by flying into their airspace?

[Araraukar]

OOC: I can't describe myself very will without real-world examples. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for women to drive, much less fly aircraft. If the pilot is a woman, she can be fined or arrested by flying into their airspace?

OOC: I think the anti-discrimination clauses of CoCR would prevent women being denied right to do anything just based on their gender.

[Metox]

OOC: I can't describe myself very will without real-world examples. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for women to drive, much less fly aircraft. If the pilot is a woman, she can be fined or arrested by flying into their airspace?

OOC: I think the anti-discrimination clauses of CoCR would prevent women being denied right to do anything just based on their gender.

Okay, bad example. Say alcohol is outlawed or the drinking age is greater in one country than another.

Country A has a drinking age of 16.
Country B has a drinking age of 21.
Joe Smith, 19, of Country A is flying NS airlines, based in Country A, to family in Country B.
He orders a glass of wine on the plane. As soon as he enters Country B airspace, he's breaking the law?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I think the anti-discrimination clauses of CoCR would prevent women being denied right to do anything just based on their gender.

Okay, bad example. Say alcohol is outlawed or the drinking age is greater in one country than another.

Country A has a drinking age of 16.
Country B has a drinking age of 21.
Joe Smith, 19, of Country A is flying NS airlines, based in Country A, to family in Country B.
He orders a glass of wine on the plane. As soon as he enters Country B airspace, he's breaking the law?

OOC: Can't tell if this is still OOC...

If you were over the C.D.S.P., yes. If you're in another nation's territory, you're subject to their laws, ideally. It seems something that any reasonable nation would consider as "extenuating circumstances", and not waste their time with. That, or, to avoid liability, the airline wouldn't serve alcohol.

[Cardoness]

Actually, while an aircraft is immediately subject to air traffic laws upon entering another countries airspace, generally the people on board are considered to be under the jurisdiction of the state they departed from until the aircraft lands, at which time the jurisdiction changes. Many states though have laws allowing them to prosecute crimes committed on board a flight which terminated in their country. So, say a murder happens mid-flight, either the state of departure, or the state of arrival may detain and prosecute the suspect. However, people are never under the jurisdiction of the countries they fly over.

[Separatist Peoples]

Actually, while an aircraft is immediately subject to air traffic laws upon entering another countries airspace, generally the people on board are considered to be under the jurisdiction of the state they departed from until the aircraft lands, at which time the jurisdiction changes. Many states though have laws allowing them to prosecute crimes committed on board a flight which terminated in their country. So, say a murder happens mid-flight, either the state of departure, or the state of arrival may detain and prosecute the suspect. However, people are never under the jurisdiction of the countries they fly over.

"Different nations, different rules, I suppose..."

[Metox]

Actually, while an aircraft is immediately subject to air traffic laws upon entering another countries airspace, generally the people on board are considered to be under the jurisdiction of the state they departed from until the aircraft lands, at which time the jurisdiction changes. Many states though have laws allowing them to prosecute crimes committed on board a flight which terminated in their country. So, say a murder happens mid-flight, either the state of departure, or the state of arrival may detain and prosecute the suspect. However, people are never under the jurisdiction of the countries they fly over.

Which is specifically NOT what this resolution says, which is my point.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I think the anti-discrimination clauses of CoCR would prevent women being denied right to do anything just based on their gender.

Okay, bad example. Say alcohol is outlawed or the drinking age is greater in one country than another.

Country A has a drinking age of 16.
Country B has a drinking age of 21.
Joe Smith, 19, of Country A is flying NS airlines, based in Country A, to family in Country B.
He orders a glass of wine on the plane. As soon as he enters Country B airspace, he's breaking the law?

More fun: A passenger airplane passes from the airspace of a nation within which public nudity is forbidden into the airspace of a nation where it's compulsory, or vice versa... possibly with several such changes during a single long-range flight...