[RE-DRAFT] Aviation Regulation Charter

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Your numbering system mixes prefatory and operative clauses, which isn't actively harmful, but is not exactly standard. Typically, your Article IV would be where the numbering begins.

V. RESOLVES to establish the International Aviation Regulatory Board as an independent body responsible to the World Assembly

"Well, is it an independent body, or is it responsible to the WA? It doesn't make a lot of sense to call it both.

(i) All international airlines in operation should be registered with the relevant national authority

"Don't use 'should'; 'must' (to be consistent with the rest of your proposal).

(iii) All commercial pilots and flight engineers involved in international flights must possess qualifications compliant with international standards and regulations as detailed by this charter and other globally recognised standards of flight education and training.

"Change 'globally' to 'internationally'. The Secretariat are very insistent that we recognise multiple globes."

Daisy rolls her eyes so hard they get stuck at this point, giving her an awkward look for the remainder of her address.

(iv) Member states must ensure that copies of all such relevant documentation and data must be held by national aviation regulators and also transmitted to the International Aviation Regulatory Board.

"Your second 'must' is unnecessary', and can be removed (or 'must be' changed to 'are').

Such bodies should be independent of the International Aviation Regulatory Board

"Again, 'must', not 'should'."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: You're in a tough spot, I accept, because you've had no moderator feedback on your proposal. Ordinarily, I would challenge it, because I still don't think it's legal, but the moderators appear to have completely abandoned the WA at this stage, so it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to wait for a response as one may never be coming.

[Voltrovia]

"Your numbering system mixes prefatory and operative clauses, which isn't actively harmful, but is not exactly standard. Typically, your Article IV would be where the numbering begins.

V. RESOLVES to establish the International Aviation Regulatory Board as an independent body responsible to the World Assembly

"Well, is it an independent body, or is it responsible to the WA? It doesn't make a lot of sense to call it both.

(i) All international airlines in operation should be registered with the relevant national authority

"Don't use 'should'; 'must' (to be consistent with the rest of your proposal).

(iii) All commercial pilots and flight engineers involved in international flights must possess qualifications compliant with international standards and regulations as detailed by this charter and other globally recognised standards of flight education and training.

"Change 'globally' to 'internationally'. The Secretariat are very insistent that we recognise multiple globes."

Daisy rolls her eyes so hard they get stuck at this point, giving her an awkward look for the remainder of her address.

(iv) Member states must ensure that copies of all such relevant documentation and data must be held by national aviation regulators and also transmitted to the International Aviation Regulatory Board.

"Your second 'must' is unnecessary', and can be removed (or 'must be' changed to 'are').

Such bodies should be independent of the International Aviation Regulatory Board

"Again, 'must', not 'should'."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: You're in a tough spot, I accept, because you've had no moderator feedback on your proposal. Ordinarily, I would challenge it, because I still don't think it's legal, but the moderators appear to have completely abandoned the WA at this stage, so it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to wait for a response as one may never be coming.

Thanks for the structural advice - I'll add it to the draft. As far as legality is concerned I can assure you that this was never to designed to work in the same way as ITSC and I did actually end up turning myself in to the mods to end the legal ambiguity. Ard ruled on this earlier in the thread. As the proposal has changed so much since then I understand your view but I really am quite reluctant *to turn the proposal in again*. The fact is that if its illegal on those grounds it will end up being taken down when submitted. In the mean time making the proposal as fit as possible for submission is probably the best thing to do.

[Jutlogge]

Although the appraisal of the much overlooked international aeronautics constituent is favorable, this sounds more like a capitalist privatizing scheme rather than an innocuous regulator. With a few tweaks, however, this draft provides much potential, and I'm looking forward to following this draft for updates.

[Voltrovia]

[After a hiatus from the World Assembly, I've decided that I may try to put this resolution to vote soon.]

"Esteemed Ambassadors, my delegation is considering placing this motion on the floor. Have you any points to raise at this time?"

[Voltrovia]

Although the appraisal of the much overlooked international aeronautics constituent is favorable, this sounds more like a capitalist privatizing scheme rather than an innocuous regulator. With a few tweaks, however, this draft provides much potential, and I'm looking forward to following this draft for updates.

The draft has seen updates since November!

In any case, the resolution strongly prioritises the interests of nation-states (not least in retaining sovereign control of their individual aviation regulation body and, conversely, whether it is public, private, up or down) and there is no provision to induce any sort of privatisation. The resolution builds a structure with checks and balances to ensure that national interests can work in concert with the shared international impetus for a better organised aviation industry that can only bring benefits for commerce, travellers, nations and airlines.

Furthermore, military forces are explicitly excluded from the regulatory regime, which I hope resolves some of the concerns you had about the older version.

[Celsuis]

"The delegation of Celsuis finds that this resolution relies on the fallacy that lack of bureaucratic regulation will lead to poor standards in air safety and training. There is no reason to believe that private companies will fail to ensure the safety of their customers and maintain the high standards necessary to remain competitive on the free market, and we find that unnecessary national and international bureaucratic regulation can only serve to increase costs and lower standard of living of member nations, while simultaneously allowing actual standards to lower and lax competition. We also find that this resolution will unjustly burden small businesses and entrepreneurs. Noting that requiring licensing for any activity is also against the Constitution of the Republic of Celsuis, our delegation will strongly oppose this resolution."

[Jarish Inyo]

Not this again. This should just be allowed to die already.

[Kaboomlandia]

Not this again. This should just be allowed to die already.

Also, why am I being strongly reminded of my draft International Aircraft Safety?

[Jarish Inyo]

Not this again. This should just be allowed to die already.

Also, why am I being strongly reminded of my draft International Aircraft Safety?

This predates your proposal by almost a year. Looking at the this proposal and yours, I don't see any duplication between the two.

[Kaboomlandia]

Also, why am I being strongly reminded of my draft International Aircraft Safety?

This predates your proposal by almost a year. Looking at the this proposal and yours, I don't see any duplication between the two.

Eh, I'm probably just paranoid.
/nevermindthen

[Voltrovia]

Not this again. This should just be allowed to die already.

You have been especially keen to stress your absolute and unremitting opposition to this resolution from the very beginning. I would be rather interested to know whether you have anything else to contribute apart from dogged repetitions of just how much the charter deserves to fail. There are reasonable checks and balances and no part of the proposal is particularly aggressive or powerful. I find it difficult to believe that the Aviation Regulation Charter is somehow such a radical and trenchant attack on national interests that it must be abandoned lest civilisation collapses.

[Jarish Inyo]

Besides pointing out again that everything but the forced registration of pilots and aircraft in this proposal is already covered by international law? Something you dismiss or completely ignore.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Not this again. This should just be allowed to die already.

You have been especially keen to stress your absolute and unremitting opposition to this resolution. I would be rather interested to know whether you have anything to contribute apart from dogged repetitions of just how much the charter deserves to fail. There are reasonable checks and balances and no part of the proposal is particularly aggressive or powerful.

OOC: Just ignore them.

IC follows.

"We've previously commented on this draft and suggested changes that don't seem to have been implemented. The use of "should" still risks ambiguity.

"The military exemption is too broad. It should only apply when serving in a military capacity. If, for example, The Dark Star Republic requires that all civilian helicopters be registered with the military reserve in case of emergency but in practice never calls them up, that shouldn't create a blanket exemption.

"We don't really see the point of IV.iii. If International Transport Safety were ever repealed that clause would become meaningless, and if it were not repealed that clause would be redundant. It amounts to saying "you have to obey the law if the law exists", which is pointless.

"Overall, moderately supportive, and moderately embarrassed you haven't received more useful feedback."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Voltrovia]

You have been especially keen to stress your absolute and unremitting opposition to this resolution. I would be rather interested to know whether you have anything to contribute apart from dogged repetitions of just how much the charter deserves to fail. There are reasonable checks and balances and no part of the proposal is particularly aggressive or powerful.

OOC: Just ignore them.

IC follows.

"We've previously commented on this draft and suggested changes that don't seem to have been implemented. The use of "should" still risks ambiguity.

"The military exemption is too broad. It should only apply when serving in a military capacity. If, for example, The Dark Star Republic requires that all civilian helicopters be registered with the military reserve in case of emergency but in practice never calls them up, that shouldn't create a blanket exemption.

"We don't really see the point of IV.iii. If International Transport Safety were ever repealed that clause would become meaningless, and if it were not repealed that clause would be redundant. It amounts to saying "you have to obey the law if the law exists", which is pointless.

"Overall, moderately supportive, and moderately embarrassed you haven't received more useful feedback."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

I am planning to write an analysis of the charter and some of its exemptions, in a bid to better explain it when it goes to the floor and to have a platform to fix it with before that.

As far as the military exemption is concerned, it was brought in after the resolution was restructured and clauses requiring response to emergencies were removed (this was all about five months ago...). I am going to change the language to avoid an errant jurisdiction simply designating all airlines and pilots as in-hoc to the military and thereby avoiding the entirety of the proposal in one fell swoop! In fact, I may use the term 'acting in a military capacity' if you don't mind, although that may also be too open to legal abuse. I'll find something.

I'll also have to work through some of the clauses and wording as well. Thanks for the feedback.

[Voltrovia]

Besides pointing out again that everything but the forced registration of pilots and aircraft in this proposal is already covered by international law? Something you dismiss or completely ignore.

I will address this.

The basis for the argument that you have presented, while highly impassioned, is unfortunately lacking with regards to the facts. If I might analyse it, the argument rests on two pillars: one is a radical National Sovereigntism that opposes global intervention of almost any kind; the other is a specific interpretation of GAR#34 resolving that this resolution is little more than a like-for-like duplication of International Transport Safety.

With regards to the first pillar, I am afraid that I, and indeed most World Assembly members - and most National Sovereigntists, am very unlikely to agree with your near-absolute rejection of the World Assembly as a lawmaking organisation. Not only do we disagree on this difference but it is also not an acceptable rationale on which to advocate against this resolution, as while it is amenable to a small minority of World Assembly members, it neither presents any defining reason why the resolution is unfit to enter law nor serves as a convincing line of criticism for the vast majority who do not oppose proposals on the grounds that there might be any impetus on a national government from the WA. Most adherents to this view do not have delegates to the World Assembly at all, as they find that their governments cannot reconcile international influence with supreme national interest. Compliance is a critical tenet of World Assembly Membership - thus, opposition to the very idea of WA action does not align with a reasonable perspective on the responsibilities and realities of being a nation within the organisation.

As for the second pillar, I effected major changes to various elements of the text in response to your some of your criticisms and did so over a period of several months when you voiced useful objections. In that time the proposal to your appraisal and that of many other WA regulars and changed for the better accordingly. In that time it was conclusively established by most observers that the charter was in no way illegal nor was it a duplication of GAR#34. There were some questions of similarity concerning the technical effect of certain clauses, but these concerns were eventually allayed as I either removed or edited these sections in turn. There were some players who legitimately held that the aforementioned concerns rendered the resolution illegal and I even went as far as to report the charter to Moderation in order to examine any legal problems. It was then resolved on not one but two occasions that the resolution was not thieved from GAR#34, was not create-a-committee and was entirely within WA protocol. On account, I have to highlight the fact that your assertion of illegality contradicts official mod opinion - put simply, it is not illegal.

I don't think your argument stands up and I believe the resolution is neither punitive nor illegal. That is my take on it anyway. If you do still feel that it is illegal, please report it, as I am the last person who wants to see this proposal submitted and then struck down on technical grounds.

[Voltrovia]

I may revive this soon...

[Separatist Peoples]

"Without much digging, I did find this, which seems to cover the topic."

[Voltrovia]

"Without much digging, I did find this, which seems to cover the topic."

Now I remember. The above was proposed long after I had tabled this. I failed to submit the ARC for some months, by which time the resolution in question was ready. It went to vote and deservedly passed.

I'll see what I can salvage of this at some point in the future.