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

[Elke and Elba]

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...

Hilariously relevant points indeed.

I would presume making only the rules and regulations of the departing, arriving and transit countries relevant but we'd have people protesting

I'm not sure mhmm. I'm presuming people which haven't got their passport stamped are in international territory. (oh gosh, opening cans of worms)

[Elke and Elba]

To anyone it may concern:

I hereby allow Bears Armed (and his constituent nations) to take charge of this draft, and edit as he please if he so wish to do so.

I may or may not carry out with this draft due to its complexities and RL commitments that may not see me in NS past 28 July.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Thank you. I do hhave a couple of other projects already on my list as well, but will see what I can do with this concept too... and really hope that RL will let you stay here. Best wishes, anyhows.

[Elke and Elba]

Seeing how dead this thing is (although with potential), I'm going to try to jumpstart this while I have the time to laze in front of a screen doing nothing.

I probably will be looking back the past three pages to read again so as to make the needed changes, but of course - I will be very happy to receive constructive comments on the draft.

(Hoping for the urrsish delegate to save me from drowning too... )

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

The Federation is prepared to support this at this time.

Regards,

[Elke and Elba]

The Federation is prepared to support this at this time.

Regards,

(Image)

Thank you very much!

---

I went back to look at comments and the like with regards to this National Airspace Act draft and identified seven areas for changes - but there are two (actually, one) in particular that are more major and would like to discuss over here.

1. It is written that all member states "may enforce any and all of its own laws". I know this is kind of controversial, but should I leave this specific wording out so as to deliberately create a loophole to have someone write the specific rules with regards to laws in the sky? I understand that laws applied in the sky are quite different as mentioned over here, and definitely in real life (pretty sure you could have alcohol overflying Saudi Arabia or any of the GCC states).

I will probably look through what international law have to say about this matter before definitively writing something down, but I would be really glad if suggestions on how to solve this (damned if I do this way, damned if I do another way) without getting damned.

2. It was written somewhere else about airspace that is "not controlled by any state". I'm thinking over here that the wording is a bit ambiguous, since you can technically and linguistically pedantically control an area in the sky by sending some fighter jets. Should the wording be rephrased along the lines of "falling outside the borders of all states/ not within the borders of any state" work better?

EnE

[Separatist Peoples]

"In regards to the second concern, I believe that change would be beneficial. The only area I can see as a significant issue are areas contested between two military forces actively fighting, but I can't imagine the kind of fool that would fly a civilian aircraft through that."

[Grays Harbor]

"In regards to the second concern, I believe that change would be beneficial. The only area I can see as a significant issue are areas contested between two military forces actively fighting, but I can't imagine the kind of fool that would fly a civilian aircraft through that."

Naive peace protesters, idiotic newsies, moronic sightseers, among a few other common sense challeged morons, i would imagine.

[Separatist Peoples]

"In regards to the second concern, I believe that change would be beneficial. The only area I can see as a significant issue are areas contested between two military forces actively fighting, but I can't imagine the kind of fool that would fly a civilian aircraft through that."

Naive peace protesters, idiotic newsies, moronic sightseers, among a few other common sense challeged morons, i would imagine.

"Sounds like no great loss, then."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Is it just me or is there a word or two here and there, and a couple of full lines of text, totally missing? Also you reference a Clause 3, yet there are no numbered clauses herein.

With where it appears you're going, we have no problems; but would have to see the actual complete draft to be sure.

"In regards to the second concern, I believe that change would be beneficial. The only area I can see as a significant issue are areas contested between two military forces actively fighting, but I can't imagine the kind of fool that would fly a civilian aircraft through that."

Naive peace protesters, idiotic newsies, moronic sightseers, among a few other common sense challeged morons, i would imagine.

OOC: Or pilots following what appear to be legal orders from their corporate HQ / international air traffic controllers?

[Elke and Elba]

Is it just me or is there a word or two here and there, and a couple of full lines of text, totally missing? Also you reference a Clause 3, yet there are no numbered clauses herein.

With where it appears you're going, we have no problems; but would have to see the actual complete draft to be sure.

Unfortunately, the answers to the previous questions were yes. There are incomplete sentences and a reference to a ghost Clause 3, which are part of the seven (five minor + two major; three of which has to do with 'the') changes I was supposed to have done previously as mentioned, but have unfortunately delayed until now.

Draft 3

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 such (filler)

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the legitimate interests of each and every state,

The World Assembly,

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

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;
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 stated otherwise;

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;

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

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;

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, and;

______________

A significant portion of this resolution's text is provided with the permission of Bears Armed Mission, with thanks.

There's still the concern from the first question, as well as an empty "UNDERSTANDING" clause to fill up, and the EnE delegation is pretty much done with the draft - subject to changes due to concerns voiced out by the other delegations.

I will upload the draft shortly to the OP when my lazybones dissolve.

Naive peace protesters, idiotic newsies, moronic sightseers, among a few other common sense challeged morons, i would imagine.

OOC: Or pilots following what appear to be legal orders from their corporate HQ / international air traffic controllers?

A very unfortunate case indeed.

---

I would be quite happy to hear opinions about the first question : should "may enforce any and all of its own laws" be omitted as a deliberate loophole, be changed, or? I am of the bias of taking the first option to localise the controversy of the issue to another resolution, and instead limiting National Airspace Act (or whatever name it is called subsequently) to forming a framework with regards to airspace, which is now totally unregulated.

[Elke and Elba]

*pulls this up from page 2*

"It's odd. I haven't seen so much activity on the other chambers like lately."

OOC: Suggestions?

[Elke and Elba]

8 days without comment... Odd.

Please comment, because this is almost nearing completion - sans the Second introductory clause (comment not really needed but appreciated), and the first question over jurisdiction vs creating deliberate loopholes (really need help).

Comments?

[Imperium Anglorum]

b) all airspace that are not controlled by any state, shall be considered “International Airspace” and will not be subjected to any control unless stated otherwise;

By whom?

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

This stuff is why I always number my clauses. Plus, when you have the nested lists (e.g. something like [3].a or [1].b.i, with lists inside of lists), I personally think it looks much better

Also, why can't you just say that the WA mandates that all member states recognise airspace belonging to all states given [restrictions]? You aren't legislating on non-member states, but legislating on how member states may treat non-member states.

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 the respective member states are located on;

Why is that power given to a Nautical Commission? Why not the General Assembly Border Demarcation Organisation? (Resolution 117 established it, but just because a committee's duties are repealed does not mean that it CTEd)

Otherwise, I'm fine with the resolution, since it doesn't much infringe on national sovereignties.

[Elke and Elba]

b) all airspace that are not controlled by any state, shall be considered “International Airspace” and will not be subjected to any control unless stated otherwise;

By whom?

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

This stuff is why I always number my clauses. Plus, when you have the nested lists (e.g. something like [3].a or [1].b.i, with lists inside of lists), I personally think it looks much better

Also, why can't you just say that the WA mandates that all member states recognise airspace belonging to all states given [restrictions]? You aren't legislating on non-member states, but legislating on how member states may treat non-member states.

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 the respective member states are located on;

Why is that power given to a Nautical Commission? Why not the General Assembly Border Demarcation Organisation? (Resolution 117 established it, but just because a committee's duties are repealed does not mean that it CTEd)

Otherwise, I'm fine with the resolution, since it doesn't much infringe on national sovereignties.

asdfghjkl I just realised that my lazybones didn't dissolve and I didn't upload the latest copy (in the post two posts above yours) to the OP. Which is no wonder you mentioned about the numbering thing.

WANC makes more sense because it deals currently with the Law of the Seas, and therefore the exact nautical boundaries of non-landlocked nations. This delegating them this job means less bureaucracy too and makes more sense. I rather be adding more jobs to a currently existing committee (GABDO CTEd with the repeal of GAR#117 because it doesn't exist in any other resolution), and I can't be arsed to restart that organisation with such a clunky name (I'd rather be starting a new one, which I once did). I believe this current arrangement came about with a tacit agreement and discussion to do so earlier in this thread.

The "unless stated otherwise", if I remember correctly at the start of drafting, was meant to leave International Airspace outside the jurisdiction of this Act, which means that if other later resolution comes in dictating about International Airspace, this Act would not interfere with it. Without the "unless stated otherwise" it meant that no other resolution can deal with anything regarding International Airspace with regards to control. It's definitely not a must to keep "unless stated otherwise", but I don't see how detrimental it is to keep these three words there.

EnE

[Bears Armed Mission]

but just because a committee's duties are repealed does not mean that it CTEd

Actually, if all of a committee's duties are repealed then it does CTE. You could still re-establish it for use in a subsequent proposal, but if so then you would have to say that you were doing that instead of just presuming its continued existence from earlier.

[Imperium Anglorum]

By whom?


This stuff is why I always number my clauses. Plus, when you have the nested lists (e.g. something like [3].a or [1].b.i, with lists inside of lists), I personally think it looks much better

Also, why can't you just say that the WA mandates that all member states recognise airspace belonging to all states given [restrictions]? You aren't legislating on non-member states, but legislating on how member states may treat non-member states.


Why is that power given to a Nautical Commission? Why not the General Assembly Border Demarcation Organisation? (Resolution 117 established it, but just because a committee's duties are repealed does not mean that it CTEd)

Otherwise, I'm fine with the resolution, since it doesn't much infringe on national sovereignties.

asdfghjkl I just realised that my lazybones didn't dissolve and I didn't upload the latest copy (in the post two posts above yours) to the OP. Which is no wonder you mentioned about the numbering thing.

WANC makes more sense because it deals currently with the Law of the Seas, and therefore the exact nautical boundaries of non-landlocked nations. This delegating them this job means less bureaucracy too and makes more sense. I rather be adding more jobs to a currently existing committee (GABDO CTEd with the repeal of GAR#117 because it doesn't exist in any other resolution), and I can't be arsed to restart that organisation with such a clunky name (I'd rather be starting a new one, which I once did). I believe this current arrangement came about with a tacit agreement and discussion to do so earlier in this thread.

The "unless stated otherwise", if I remember correctly at the start of drafting, was meant to leave International Airspace outside the jurisdiction of this Act, which means that if other later resolution comes in dictating about International Airspace, this Act would not interfere with it. Without the "unless stated otherwise" it meant that no other resolution can deal with anything regarding International Airspace with regards to control. It's definitely not a must to keep "unless stated otherwise", but I don't see how detrimental it is to keep these three words there.

EnE

'"I administer all international airspace". Ambassador, I just stated otherwise. Can I have administer all of it now? I'm just asking for a qualifier there which states that only the WA can state otherwise in this case".

[Elke and Elba]

asdfghjkl I just realised that my lazybones didn't dissolve and I didn't upload the latest copy (in the post two posts above yours) to the OP. Which is no wonder you mentioned about the numbering thing.

WANC makes more sense because it deals currently with the Law of the Seas, and therefore the exact nautical boundaries of non-landlocked nations. This delegating them this job means less bureaucracy too and makes more sense. I rather be adding more jobs to a currently existing committee (GABDO CTEd with the repeal of GAR#117 because it doesn't exist in any other resolution), and I can't be arsed to restart that organisation with such a clunky name (I'd rather be starting a new one, which I once did). I believe this current arrangement came about with a tacit agreement and discussion to do so earlier in this thread.

The "unless stated otherwise", if I remember correctly at the start of drafting, was meant to leave International Airspace outside the jurisdiction of this Act, which means that if other later resolution comes in dictating about International Airspace, this Act would not interfere with it. Without the "unless stated otherwise" it meant that no other resolution can deal with anything regarding International Airspace with regards to control. It's definitely not a must to keep "unless stated otherwise", but I don't see how detrimental it is to keep these three words there.

EnE

'"I administer all international airspace". Ambassador, I just stated otherwise. Can I have administer all of it now? I'm just asking for a qualifier there which states that only the WA can state otherwise in this case".

*rolls eyes*

"Would "as dictated otherwise by this Assembly" be a better alternative?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

'"I administer all international airspace". Ambassador, I just stated otherwise. Can I have administer all of it now? I'm just asking for a qualifier there which states that only the WA can state otherwise in this case".

*rolls eyes*

"Would "as dictated otherwise by this Assembly" be a better alternative?"

[Elke and Elba]

*gently nudges*

The fundamental question as to whether to keep a very simple but far-reaching clause still needs to be answered.

Do not worry about the change in wording for the "unless otherwise stated" or the lack of wording in the preambulatory clauses.

[Elke and Elba]

This is about good to go except for the need for inclusion of what I said to IA. Of course, there is the preambulatory clause to fill up and the very important problem of dealing with whether to deal with jurisdiction or intentionally leave that out (read previous replies) for another resolution to fill it up.

Certainly, comments very much welcomed to plus these remaining gaps.

[Harmia]

The Republic of Harmia supports this resolution

[Elke and Elba]

I, uh, put this proposal back into the 'slow-cooker' rather than letting it turn cold.

That means I'm still intending to work on this, albeit quiiiittteee slowly, but I do wish to finish this up. And pass this. My time at 'flambe-ing' proposals are over and I'm relegated to the crock pot.

[Etruscan Federation]

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.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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."