Advertisement
by Jarish Inyo » Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:24 pm
by Louisistan » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:12 am
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.
by Bananaistan » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:03 am
by The Two Jerseys » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:29 am
Louisistan wrote: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."
by Jarish Inyo » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:34 am
by Bananaistan » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:35 am
The Two Jerseys wrote: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?
by Jarish Inyo » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:39 am
Bananaistan wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote: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.
by The Nox » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:28 am
Lexicor wrote:Wrapper wrote: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...
by Frustrated Franciscans » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:17 am
by Wrapper » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:23 am
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:(A stargate? Seriously?)
by Ainocra » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:56 pm
by The Two Jerseys » Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:52 pm
Bananaistan wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote: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.
by Lexicor » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:31 pm
Ainocra wrote: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?
by Ainocra » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:02 pm
by Lexicor » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:33 pm
Ainocra wrote: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.
by Ainocra » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:08 pm
by Frustrated Franciscans » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:15 pm
by Frustrated Franciscans » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:20 pm
Ainocra wrote:The Star Empire sees no need to make such a exemption for an airport. What's next, seaports? how about the local bus stop?
by Wrapper » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:22 pm
by Louisistan » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:23 pm
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:Wrapper wrote: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.
by Frustrated Franciscans » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:35 pm
Louisistan wrote: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.
by Wrapper » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:41 pm
by Goddess Relief Office » Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:57 am
Opplandia wrote: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
by Lexicor » Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:39 pm
Goddess Relief Office wrote:Opplandia wrote: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.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:04 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Simone Republic
Advertisement