[New Draft Inbound] International Air Travel Regulation

[Lexicor]

"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.

"It allows us other states to try their own citizens, and also allows you to charge them with violating your import laws. Win-win,"

[Jarish Inyo]

It's not a win-win situation. This creates an area that any nations laws can be enforced as no laws can be enforced until a person reaches the customs point.

Lexicor hasn't proven that there are any issues surrounding extraditing criminals. Who pays for the deportations?

[Lexicor]

It's not a win-win situation. This creates an area that any nations laws can be enforced as no laws can be enforced until a person reaches the customs point.

Lexicor hasn't proven that there are any issues surrounding extraditing criminals. Who pays for the deportations?

Prove it. Because the resolution explicitly states that the member state to which the surrounding airspace belongs is under that states legal jurisdiction. The state that wants to extract it citizen normally takes on the burden of the expense.

[Jarish Inyo]

Under this proposal, the area between the gate and the customs check point is international territory. Only international law would be enforceable. No nations laws would be enforceable. A criminal could stay within the international zone as long as they like unless they are not wanted for an international crime. This doesn't help with extradition.

Lexicor, you have not made a case that this is an international concern. You have not made an argument that this will help with extradition. In fact, you've tried two different arguments that this would be useful for extradition without success. Every other reason you have trued is already covered by other resolutions.

[Lexicor]

Under this proposal, the area between the gate and the customs check point is international territory. Only international law would be enforceable. No nations laws would be enforceable. A criminal could stay within the international zone as long as they like unless they are not wanted for an international crime. This doesn't help with extradition.

Lexicor, you have not made a case that this is an international concern. You have not made an argument that this will help with extradition. In fact, you've tried two different arguments that this would be useful for extradition without success. Every other reason you have trued is already covered by other resolutions.

Except that you can apply a legal principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction universally. Which this resolution does. Which would allow you to enforce your nations own laws as well as your own.

I am getting tired of trying to explain this to you Ambassador Nameless. You maintain de facto control over the airport and how it functions, it just technically becomes international for regulatory purposes. If you oppose extraterritoriality I would assume JI has no embassies.

[Jarish Inyo]

Extraterritorial doesn't allow one to apply your laws to international zones. One can not enforce local laws on a foreign embassy.

An airport would not technically be under my nations control if it does not follow my nations regulations. You have not made a case that this is needed for even regulatory reasons.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Extraterritorial doesn't allow one to apply your laws to international zones. One can not enforce local laws on a foreign embassy.

That's a common misconception, but it's not really true. The only reason why it seems that way in practice is because of diplomatic immunity. But the Vienna Convention still says that missions have to respect local laws. And in terms of NS, neither Diplomat Protection Act or Consular Rights explicitly concerns themselves with extraterritoriality.

[Jarish Inyo]

Extraterritoriality is the state of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law. Meaning if an airport is made extraterritorial, a nations laws and regulations would not be enforceable within the airport. Why would a nation willingly give up their territory and right to enforce on an entry point to their nation?

While diplomatic missions have to respect local laws, they are in fact exempt from local judicial process, police interference, and other measures of constraint in RL.

Lexicor has tried to argue making airports extraterritorial for extradition and regulatory purposes. He has not made a convincing argument that making airports extraterritorial is needed for either. The proposal doesn't cover anything about extradition. Other then creating an other committee, does not regulate anything that is not already covered by other resolutions.

[The Dark Star Republic]

While diplomatic missions have to respect local laws, they are in fact exempt from local judicial process, police interference, and other measures of constraint in RL.

Again, the only reason why this this is the case is that everyone involved has diplomatic immunity. In the case of airports, that's obviously not true, which is why in practice local law is enforced on the international zones of airports.

You are also creating issues for yourself with regards to legal responsibility with regards to refusing to create extraterritorial zones at airports, for example: asylum - but, let me guess. Jarish Inyo doesn't recognise a right of asylum?

[Jarish Inyo]

From my end, I'm not creating any issues in refusing to create extraterritorial zones at airports. One enters our nation, you follow our laws. Another nation wants us to detain a person of interest, then they send us a request. Communications between international forms of transport are already regulated by international law. There has not been a good argument for making airports extraterritorial.

We don't recognize a right of asylum.

[Separatist Peoples]

We don't recognize a right of asylum.

"Funny, that seems to be in direct violation of Refugee Protection, which requires you recognize it at least as much as it takes to send refugees to a nation willing to accept them. Not a good attempt at all."

[Jarish Inyo]

The Refugee Act doesn't actually require anyone to recognize the right of asylum. The right of asylum is not even mentioned in the Act. As such, I'm not in violation of the Refugee Act. All it requires is that I don't deport them back to their country of origin and send them on to the next nation if they . Assuming that I let refugees into my nation to begin with. We do not let refugees cross our territorial boarders.

[Lexicor]

OOC: (Bump)

[Jarish Inyo]

Lexicor,

You have not made a compelling argument for nations to grant extraterritoriality to airports. Or why this is an international issue. What you want this proposal to regulate is already regulated by another resolution.

[Lexicor]

Lexicor,

You have not made a compelling argument for nations to grant extraterritoriality to airports. Or why this is an international issue. What you want this proposal to regulate is already regulated by another resolution.

"That we intend to repeal and replace."

"Regulating communications between international flights and aircraft, coordinating and revising flight paths over conflict zones, granting national sovereignty over a nations airspace (GAR 34 doesn't grant it) are not international issues? Do you not see how regulating international airports; might just be an international issue worthy of this Assembly's consideration in a more detailed manner than GAR #34?

The amount of mental gymnastics it takes to hold this as a non-international issue is astounding."

[Jarish Inyo]

No, I do not see this as an international issue or worth the Assembly's consideration. There is no mental gymnastics in nations maintaining control of airports. GAR#34 grants nations the right to turn away aircraft from entering their airspace. In fact, it doesn't force any nation to open its airspace to anyone. It already regulates communications on an international level. Airports, airlines and pilots are already capable to revise flight planes to avoid conflict zones. There is nothing in this proposal that isn't or can't be done without making airports extraterritorial.

Again, you have made no compelling argument for this being an international issue or reasons why airports should be extrerritorial.

[Railana]

I'm not sure I see why this proposal is necessary. Could the author explain why it is necessary to guarantee the extraterritoriality of airports?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Lexicor]

I'm not sure I see why this proposal is necessary. Could the author explain why it is necessary to guarantee the extraterritoriality of airports?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

That a person does not enter your country until they pass your customs in international law, something that has already been extended to international waters, salvage laws and foreign embassies."

Essentially extraterritoriality changes when a person has legally entered your country. If the airport is sovereign; then people enter (for legal purposes and not de facto purposes) your country as soon as the plane lands. If you have a fugitive from another state that has no extradition treaty with yours; an international criminal or an asylum seeker then you have certain legal and financial issues that arise. By changing the technical definition from "airport landing" to "clearing customs" it improves international security and makes it easier to regulate airport standards and the like.

If your country claims that a person has not entered your state until they clear customs; then the airport cannot formally be retained as your own territory [OOC: Common Law definition of crossing a border] without creating a contradiction. That is all extraterritoriality does in essence. The same principle applies to an embassy or a WA Building. A foreign/international group takes territory that is within a nations borders and is subject to legal obligations of the state.

Extraterritoriality does not mean that EVERY state can enforce their laws/customs at an airport that the resolution explicitly states is under the legal jurisdiction in which the airport lies. It also does not mean that the WA will be conducting security or that you will have gnomes up your ass telling you what is legal or not (though international law is enforced at airports.).

This is a latter half of a repeal and replace of GAR #34.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'm not sure I see why this proposal is necessary. Could the author explain why it is necessary to guarantee the extraterritoriality of airports?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

That a person does not enter your country until they pass your customs in international law, something that has already been extended to international waters, salvage laws and foreign embassies."

Essentially extraterritoriality changes when a person has legally entered your country. If the airport is sovereign; then people enter (for legal purposes and not de facto purposes) your country as soon as the plane lands. If you have a fugitive from another state that has no extradition treaty with yours; an international criminal or an asylum seeker then you have certain legal and financial issues that arise. By changing the technical definition from "airport landing" to "clearing customs" it improves international security and makes it easier to regulate airport standards and the like.

If your country claims that a person has not entered your state until they clear customs; then the airport cannot formally be retained as your own territory [OOC: Common Law definition of crossing a border] without creating a contradiction. That is all extraterritoriality does in essence. The same principle applies to an embassy or a WA Building. A foreign/international group takes territory that is within a nations borders and is subject to legal obligations of the state.

Extraterritoriality does not mean that EVERY state can enforce their laws/customs at an airport that the resolution explicitly states is under the legal jurisdiction in which the airport lies. It also does not mean that the WA will be conducting security or that you will have gnomes up your ass telling you what is legal or not (though international law is enforced at airports.).

This is a latter half of a repeal and replace of GAR #34.

And if said fugitive doesn't clear customs, we still have no power to make him get on another plane and leave, so what does this really accomplish?

[Lexicor]

That a person does not enter your country until they pass your customs in international law, something that has already been extended to international waters, salvage laws and foreign embassies."

Essentially extraterritoriality changes when a person has legally entered your country. If the airport is sovereign; then people enter (for legal purposes and not de facto purposes) your country as soon as the plane lands. If you have a fugitive from another state that has no extradition treaty with yours; an international criminal or an asylum seeker then you have certain legal and financial issues that arise. By changing the technical definition from "airport landing" to "clearing customs" it improves international security and makes it easier to regulate airport standards and the like.

If your country claims that a person has not entered your state until they clear customs; then the airport cannot formally be retained as your own territory [OOC: Common Law definition of crossing a border] without creating a contradiction. That is all extraterritoriality does in essence. The same principle applies to an embassy or a WA Building. A foreign/international group takes territory that is within a nations borders and is subject to legal obligations of the state.

Extraterritoriality does not mean that EVERY state can enforce their laws/customs at an airport that the resolution explicitly states is under the legal jurisdiction in which the airport lies. It also does not mean that the WA will be conducting security or that you will have gnomes up your ass telling you what is legal or not (though international law is enforced at airports.).

This is a latter half of a repeal and replace of GAR #34.

And if said fugitive doesn't clear customs, we still have no power to make him get on another plane and leave, so what does this really accomplish?

Then he can be detained by your Ministry of Immigration and either tried for breaking your laws or picked up by his own state and tried there. Its a win-win. This accomplishes you not needing an extradition treaty to deport someone back to their own country. It also can be used as a free trade zone to get you more $$$ for your economy and makes it easier for planes not to crash.

[Jarish Inyo]

Lexicor's has proven false. First the proposal doesn't cover extradition in any form. This proposal doesn't even a repeal and replace of GAR #34.

All WA nations are required to arrest and prosecute international criminal. A fugitive from another state that has no extradition treaty with yours has creates no legal and financial issues for your nation. It does for the nation that wishes extradition. But, as with nationjs that do have extradition treaties, your nation can grant or deny the extradition request.

The only legal and financial issues that arise from asylum seeker is if you do not grant their request of asylum is that you can not send them back to their country of origin and that you have to transport them to another country.

It also creates an area that only international law can be enforced. As stated many times, if someone doesn't clear customs, security is powerless to force a person to board and leave the country. This does not improve international security.

As for the regulatory argument that Lexicor has tried, this proposal only allows it to regulate international communications and flight plans. International communications is already regulated by GAR#34. GAR#34 also regulates markings & signals, distress signals, loading limits, emergency protocols, the provision of life saving equipment, mechanical inspection protocol, standards of accident investigation and set training standards.

[The Two Jerseys]

And if said fugitive doesn't clear customs, we still have no power to make him get on another plane and leave, so what does this really accomplish?

Then he can be detained by your Ministry of Immigration and either tried for breaking your laws or picked up by his own state and tried there. Its a win-win. This accomplishes you not needing an extradition treaty to deport someone back to their own country. It also can be used as a free trade zone to get you more $$$ for your economy and makes it easier for planes not to crash.

How can we arrest him? He hasn't entered the country yet.
How can the other country arrest him at the airport? He's not on their soil either.
How can we deport someone if they haven't even entered the country?
How is a free trade zone going to benefit our economy? We can't tax the goods.
How is this going to make planes not crash?

[Jarish Inyo]

And if said fugitive doesn't clear customs, we still have no power to make him get on another plane and leave, so what does this really accomplish?

Then he can be detained by your Ministry of Immigration and either tried for breaking your laws or picked up by his own state and tried there. Its a win-win. This accomplishes you not needing an extradition treaty to deport someone back to their own country. It also can be used as a free trade zone to get you more $$$ for your economy and makes it easier for planes not to crash.

How can someone be arrest by immigration if that person has not entered the country. You don't need an extradition treaty to deport someone back to their own country. There is no win-win here.

It also doesn't put more money into the economy. Free trade zones are exempt from taxes. Items still have to clear customs before they can be sold. I see nothing that in your arguments that makes airport extraterritorial an appealing proposal.

[Lexicor]

Then he can be detained by your Ministry of Immigration and either tried for breaking your laws or picked up by his own state and tried there. Its a win-win. This accomplishes you not needing an extradition treaty to deport someone back to their own country. It also can be used as a free trade zone to get you more $$$ for your economy and makes it easier for planes not to crash.

How can we arrest him? He hasn't entered the country yet.
How can the other country arrest him at the airport? He's not on their soil either.
How can we deport someone if they haven't even entered the country?
How is a free trade zone going to benefit our economy? We can't tax the goods.
How is this going to make planes not crash?

1. You have legal jurisdiction over the airport. The principle is called extraterritorial jurisdiction.
2. Its extraterritorial territory; you have legal jurisdiction and can arrest him if you choose. International laws are enforceable and its your states choice what you do with them.
3. You have legal jurisdiction over the airport.
4. Nobody is forcing you to establish a free trade zone.
5. If all airports are extraterritorial; the WA can adopt legislation to regulate all international airports uniformly; instead of the mired mess of different codes at the moment.
6. If WAITA can divert flights and assess flight paths you will see less plane crashes.

[Lexicor]

"Nothing in this resolution is forcing you to establish a free trade zone."