[New Draft Inbound] International Air Travel Regulation

[Jarish Inyo]

That becomes a bit problematic as there is currently no international court. But a person wanted for an international crime would be arrested and detained until an international tribunal is convened. If one can not be convened, then the court system of Jarish Inyo would try them.

[Louisistan]

OOC: Oookay, we're getting a lilttle closer, but I'm still not convinced.

Billy Joe is a Lexicorian citizen, passport and all, flying from Lexicor to Louisistan, and is carrying illegal drugs in his suitcase on an airliner that has permission to land in Louisistan. If that airport is not extraterritorial, the moment that plane touches down in your airport he has for legal and extradition purposes entered Louisistan by crossing its internationally delineated [and assuming recognized] border. If Lexicor has no extradition treaty with Louisistan then it is your government that has to prosecute and convict Billy Joe of a crime if you want to enforce your own laws.

IC: "Indeed, once Mr. Joe lands on our soil he has committed a crime by carrying and trafficking illegal drugs. For that he will be tried and punished in Louisistan. Why the hell would we want to extradite someone who has committed a crime in our country? Extradition would only be a concern if Mr. Joe had committed a crime in Lexicor and was trying to avoid prosecution by coming to Louisistan. But even if our airport was extraterritorrial (a) we would probably not know that he is wanted in Lexicor and (b) he would have to have gone through checks in your airport first. So basically, if your guys didn't recognise that they were letting a wanted criminal go away, they deserve to fill out the paperwork to have him extradited."

[Bananaistan]

We hope to support this fantastic idea. Our government have no interest in locking up a foreign criminal who has landed at our transport hubs for years at our expense. We'd much rather pack him back onto the next flight home and leave them deal with him.

We shall try to come up with a few more arguments and examples in favour and will post same when we do so. Also, parts of the text are rather clunky and there are some grammatical errors, we will revert with recommendations. Last point, we hope that the author will allow this to slow boil. If this can properly parsed over the course of at least a few weeks, it could very well be turned into an excellent resolution.

A note to other ambassadors, particularly the hardline natsovs. The subject of this proposal clearly appears to an issue of true international concern. It only creates a legal fiction of extraterritoriality of a few parcels ground. De facto, it's still subject to your laws and taxation but it gives you the option to play the system a bit in regards to actions committed in those few parcels of ground.

[The Two Jerseys]

OOC: Oookay, we're getting a lilttle closer, but I'm still not convinced.

Billy Joe is a Lexicorian citizen, passport and all, flying from Lexicor to Louisistan, and is carrying illegal drugs in his suitcase on an airliner that has permission to land in Louisistan. If that airport is not extraterritorial, the moment that plane touches down in your airport he has for legal and extradition purposes entered Louisistan by crossing its internationally delineated [and assuming recognized] border. If Lexicor has no extradition treaty with Louisistan then it is your government that has to prosecute and convict Billy Joe of a crime if you want to enforce your own laws.

IC: "Indeed, once Mr. Joe lands on our soil he has committed a crime by carrying and trafficking illegal drugs. For that he will be tried and punished in Louisistan. Why the hell would we want to extradite someone who has committed a crime in our country? Extradition would only be a concern if Mr. Joe had committed a crime in Lexicor and was trying to avoid prosecution by coming to Louisistan. But even if our airport was extraterritorrial (a) we would probably not know that he is wanted in Lexicor and (b) he would have to have gone through checks in your airport first. So basically, if your guys didn't recognise that they were letting a wanted criminal go away, they deserve to fill out the paperwork to have him extradited."

And if Billy Joe is wanted in Lexicor but hasn't committed a crime in Louisistan, what the hell can Louisistan do about it if Billy Joe "hasn't entered the country" because the airport is extraterritorial?

[Jarish Inyo]

Bananaistan,

You wouldn't be locking up foreign criminals. They would not be criminals in your nation. This subject is not of international concern. It's only a matter of convenience for those nations that can't be bothered to file an extradition request. The author ha not proven that a nation keeping sovereignty over their airports creates a legal, bureaucratic and security nightmare. As the airport is built with our taxes, still subject to your laws and taxation, and protected by our security forces, we see no reason to create a legal fiction of extraterritoriality.

[Bananaistan]

And if Billy Joe is wanted in Lexicor but hasn't committed a crime in Louisistan, what the hell can Louisistan do about it if Billy Joe "hasn't entered the country" because the airport is extraterritorial?

That's the beauty of this proposal. If it's against the law to carry the big pile of drugs in Louisistan, they have the option to arrest and prosecute him as the airport is "under the jurisprudence" of Louisistan. Or they can send him packing as the legal fiction is that he hasn't yet entered Louisistan. Win win for Louisistan IMO. They can lock him up a great cost to them or tell him GTFO.

[Jarish Inyo]

And if Billy Joe is wanted in Lexicor but hasn't committed a crime in Louisistan, what the hell can Louisistan do about it if Billy Joe "hasn't entered the country" because the airport is extraterritorial?

That's the beauty of this proposal. If it's against the law to carry the big pile of drugs in Louisistan, they have the option to arrest and prosecute him as the airport is "under the jurisprudence" of Louisistan. Or they can send him packing as the legal fiction is that he hasn't yet entered Louisistan. Win win for Louisistan IMO. They can lock him up a great cost to them or tell him GTFO.

There is no beauty in this proposal. Basically, this proposal creates a lawless zone within nations? No nations law would actually be enforceable because airports are extraterritoriality.

[The Nox]

Okay, so, the gateroom in our secret military complex 2400 feet below Ch... er, below a certain mountain, is now an international airport?

OOC: Yes I know this is a bit of an RP-wank, but realistically your definition of international airport needs fine tuning.

OOC: Well military installations are exempt from this resolution entirely...

Missing the point. Our nation's stargate is out in the open forest, and we have no military to speak of (neither do the Wads, so I don't know what our friend Ambassador Ari was thinking). So, now, by your definition, the forest is an airport? Even though it has no runways, no air traffic control, indeed no air traffic at all save for the fenns, the birds and the bees and such, and, of course, no airplanes to speak of? See now, why your definition of "international airport" needs fixing?

Maybe one day you will learn, that your way is not the only way.

(OOC: Take out the references to space and it will work. A space port is not an airport.)

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

We have given this resolution considerable thought. (Far more thought than it deserved, but I felt like giving it some extra thought to be double sure.) In the end, we have come to the conclusion that it is intuitively obvious to a casual observer and we strongly support this resolution. We look forward to its submission and the inane debates of the opposition. (A stargate? Seriously?)

[Wrapper]

(A stargate? Seriously?)

OOC: It was used solely to illustrate a point. I mean, Holy Hand Grenade? Seriously?

[Ainocra]

Opposed

The Star Empire sees no need to make such a exemption for an airport. What's next, seaports? how about the local bus stop?

[The Two Jerseys]

And if Billy Joe is wanted in Lexicor but hasn't committed a crime in Louisistan, what the hell can Louisistan do about it if Billy Joe "hasn't entered the country" because the airport is extraterritorial?

That's the beauty of this proposal. If it's against the law to carry the big pile of drugs in Louisistan, they have the option to arrest and prosecute him as the airport is "under the jurisprudence" of Louisistan. Or they can send him packing as the legal fiction is that he hasn't yet entered Louisistan. Win win for Louisistan IMO. They can lock him up a great cost to them or tell him GTFO.

And how exactly are they going to make him leave when he hasn't "entered" the country?

[Lexicor]

Opposed

The Star Empire sees no need to make such a exemption for an airport. What's next, seaports? how about the local bus stop?

OOC: Slippery Slope Fallacy much

IC: "Ambassador, we do not have the legal expertise to or practical need to regulate roads, ports or spaceports. Those are matters that we are not well versed in and are different circumstantially (and legally) than international airports. Customary law tends to dictate laws pertaining to ports in the assembly, and space has not been discussed. As Lexicor is not a space-faring nation we do not feel comfortable or knowledgeable enough to legislate upon the topic of space. All references to space have been removed in a light redrafting."

-Remy Junket
Head Lemon Squeezer
Lexicorian WA Office, Left of the Lemonade Stand

[Ainocra]

ooc:
tis not a fallacy, just drawn to illustrate the point through humor.


IC:

We still see no reason to grant extra territorial status to a travel port.

[Lexicor]

ooc:
tis not a fallacy, just drawn to illustrate the point through humor.


IC:

We still see no reason to grant extra territorial status to a travel port.

"We don't grant extra anything. Its a legal technicality issue that has hid a hardline NatSov wall!"

[Ainocra]

I'm sorry could you yell a little louder?

*resumes laying bricks on the other side of the wall*

I can't quite hear you

[Frustrated Franciscans]

(A stargate? Seriously?)

OOC: It was used solely to illustrate a point. I mean, Holy Hand Grenade? Seriously?

It's actually a Demat Granade, a variation on the Demat Gun created by the Time Lords, but let's not pick nits.

OOC: OK Fine, whatever. The argument remains the same. An airport, Stargate, what have you, is an internal manifestation of the external national border. Border security occurs ... wait for it ... AT THE BORDER. Typically, one should have border security, although "open borders" is an option for the idiot nation that seeks its own self destruction. Sovereignty, such as it is, has to exist at the point of security. In the case of a stargate, if you leave one in your woods without any security, you are as stupid as the people who have no security on your borders and frankly the notion of legal jurisprudence between the point of the internal border and the lack of security is seriously moot.

OOC: For those who care about real security, enforcement has to exist at the point of security. So between the stargate (the internal manifestation of the external national border where on the other side security cannot be maintained) and the point of security (commonly known as customs and a really strong defense) would not be subject to "local" jurisdiction.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Star Empire sees no need to make such a exemption for an airport. What's next, seaports? how about the local bus stop?

The argument for a sea port can logically be made, although most sea ports are already on the border of a nation in the first place. Never the less, when I last visited a foreign nation via the use of a cruise ship, I wasn't really quite aware of the specific legal designations between the exact point of embarkation and the security / customs booth. One could not get to the island without having to go through the latter.

The local bus stop, does not go between your national territory and outside your national territory. So no, the local bus stop is right out.

[Wrapper]

So a land border is an airport? A sea border is an airport? No one's saying that it isn't a border, and no one's saying anything about security, all I'm saying is that IT'S NOT A FUCKING AIRPORT!

[Louisistan]

OOC: It was used solely to illustrate a point. I mean, Holy Hand Grenade? Seriously?

It's actually a Demat Granade, a variation on the Demat Gun created by the Time Lords, but let's not pick nits.

OOC: OK Fine, whatever. The argument remains the same. An airport, Stargate, what have you, is an internal manifestation of the external national border. Border security occurs ... wait for it ... AT THE BORDER. Typically, one should have border security, although "open borders" is an option for the idiot nation that seeks its own self destruction. Sovereignty, such as it is, has to exist at the point of security. In the case of a stargate, if you leave one in your woods without any security, you are as stupid as the people who have no security on your borders and frankly the notion of legal jurisprudence between the point of the internal border and the lack of security is seriously moot.

OOC: For those who care about real security, enforcement has to exist at the point of security. So between the stargate (the internal manifestation of the external national border where on the other side security cannot be maintained) and the point of security (commonly known as customs and a really strong defense) would not be subject to "local" jurisdiction.

OOC: Now if only somebody was able to make that argument IC. Because, as it turns out, my ambassadors don't exist in the magical meta world of OOC.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

OOC: Now if only somebody was able to make that argument IC. Because, as it turns out, my ambassadors don't exist in the magical meta world of OOC.

OOC: I really don't feel like switching to my advanced technological nation of Tzorsland and it's generally bad taste to have multiple nations post in the same thread anyway, so you won't get any IC discussion of stargates from the Franciscans. Besides, I don't think a nation of spindizzied cities should comment on this resolution in the first place. If you think stargates pose legal problems, imagine having an entire city land on your sovereign soil.

[Wrapper]

Whatever, dude. If I had said harbor, or border crossing, or hole in the fence, instead of stargate, it's still the same argument: The definition of "international airport" is not right. Do you understand now, or do I need to continue?

Hopefully the resolution author got the point long, long before you did.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Well, it seems to us that the main concerns of this propose were already taken care of in other legislations regarding free travel and free trading. We quite certainly dont see any legitimate reason why those Airports should be virtually separated from a nations sovereign ground.


- Charles G. Adams, Observer for the Opplandian Ministery of Foreign Affairs

This sums up what we think about the proposal pretty well.

~GRO~

[Lexicor]

Well, it seems to us that the main concerns of this propose were already taken care of in other legislations regarding free travel and free trading. We quite certainly dont see any legitimate reason why those Airports should be virtually separated from a nations sovereign ground.


- Charles G. Adams, Observer for the Opplandian Ministery of Foreign Affairs

This sums up what we think about the proposal pretty well.

~GRO~

"Except it entirely misrepresents what extraterritoriality is. Extraterritoriality leaves an airport under de facto control while make it legally and technically regulate airport to aircraft communications, enforce international law and circumvent the thorny issues surrounding extraditing criminals. Extraterritoriality is a win-win situation; if you're customs/immigration officials wish to detain and try a criminal for offenses in your own state this resolution allows it, and if you wish for the country of which the criminal is originating from to deport him, you can do so without an extradition treaty in place."

The same logic applies with cruise ships. You don't dock in a nations port until you clear its customs. The same principle applies to embassies. If you wish to argue that sovereignty is supreme please do me the pleasure of justifying having a piece of your land occupied by another. Sovereignty of airspace is imperative [and this resolutions blocks any infringement upon the sovereignty of a nations airspace] but this Assembly has demonstrated with other resolutions a willingness to sacrifice sovereignty in the face of legitimate international issues. Surely GAR #34 needs a more detailed follow-up. Surely Ambassadors can see where a universal standard for communication between air traffic and airport might just be an international issue. Surely every ambassador here wants to be able to prosecute violators of international and domestic law when they flee abroad without the thorniness of extradition processes.

If sovereignty is an issue; imagine your citizens arriving in another country and are [falsely] accused of committing a crime. Currently they can detain this citizen as soon as the plane lands and lock him up indefinitely without your state being able to do anything about it. Under current international law [Gar #34], nothing is said about when a person is officially crossing an international border; and nothing explicitly defines the point in which a person passes from border to border in an international flight. We aim to do this here, while guaranteeing airspace sovereignty, improving communications and expanding on the noble goals of the ITSC. For the betterment of all states, even those that oppose this resolution."

Head Ambassador to the WA
~Jean Luc Braussaurd
Lexicorian WA Office, Left of the Lemonade Stand.

OOC: IRL- ICAO stipulates that a person isn't legally in another country until he passes from extraterritorial ---> sovereign territory. If you have a system in place like that in your state; in which a person has to pass through your customs to enter your country then by definition it has to be extraterritorial. Extraterritoriality is basically a border crossing between all states at one particular point. When Aircraft from A lands in B; persons from C, D and A have to clear customs in B in order to enter B. If they fail to do so; they can be extracted by their home state without extradition treaties in place (if a crime has been committed) or tried in that country.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Allowing nations to extract citizens without extradition treaties? Good lord, why would we want that? Makes it harder to try them for violating our importation laws," Bell nods.