NationStates

Buffett and Colbert wrote:As of now, I see no issues with it.

The WA is allowed to form agencies, but is not allowed to determine the agencies' members.

Stash Kroh wrote:

The WA is allowed to form agencies, but is not allowed to determine the agencies' members.

Hhhm... I believe that is specific members, what is being created is a consortium for nations to join not a bureau.

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

Congrats on having the proposal reaching Quorum.

Well done, honoured ambassador. Hopefully it will prevent man-made meteorites made out of junk, which sometimes poses a risk of a baaad collision.

Stash Kroh wrote:Though in all practicalness no-one is going to be flying out of the atmosphere of a star,

Stash Kroh wrote:OOC: New Rockport expressed concerns of the legality of the submitted issue,

So I silently filled out a Getting Help request, and I sort of knew he was right before I even filled it, I was just optimistic...

Its not the way I would have planned to have returned to the game after a fun weekend, having came back to a deletion notification of my first queued proposal, but eh, it gives me time to rewrite new material. This NS weekend has actually kind of sucked for me, but ah well, I still love NS .

Sydia wrote:One thing I would suggest is dropping the political overtones and focusing purely on the environmental effects of space exploration.

Stash Kroh wrote:Okay honorable ambassador, I've made some edits to the proposal from your suggestions to establish Draft 3.5 .

Please correct me if the additions were not were what you intended, or, pardon me, crap.

Sydia wrote:One thing I would suggest is dropping the political overtones and focusing purely on the environmental effects of space exploration.

Might I ask where the political overtones exist in the proposal? - do you by any chance mean the third preamble clause?

_____________________________

Any advice, comments or suggestions are always welcome.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Protection of Outer Space Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Author: Stash Kroh | Category: Environment | Strength: All Business

The World Assembly abroad,

ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of maintaining Outer Space as an environment for all nations to explore in the safest manner possible,

UNDERSTANDING that it is an area frequently used by space-voyaging nations, who in many cases leave behind a hazardous trail of space debris,

CONCERNED that nations may pollute this internationally encompassing environment, as space debris that is uncontrolled will not remain in one area forever and may even gravitate towards celestial bodies,

DEFINING “Outer Space” as the void which occupies the largely empty areas of the universe outside the atmosphere of any planet, star or other celestial body, where the edge of any celestial body’s atmosphere is understood to be the specific position where a craft would have to travel faster than orbital velocity in order to receive sufficient aerodynamic lift from the atmosphere to support itself.

HEREBY:
1) Prohibits space-voyaging nations from damaging or polluting Outer Space unnecessarily.

2) Further Prohibits any unnatural addition of hazardous debris near a frequented travel route or within dangerous proximity to a celestial body where nations reside.

3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry will endanger the health of any citizen of a nation.

4) Stipulates that all vessels, and residences in Outer Space recycle and reuse waste material to the best of their ability, and dispose of it in a manner that is least likely to cause unnecessary risk.

5) Mandates that nations bear international responsibility and liability for any objects launched from their territory into outer space.

6) Establishes the Coordination of Space Consortium (C.O.S.C), in order to:
I. Support peaceful scientific research carried out by member states regarding the environmental effects of interstellar travel and Outer Space in general.
II. Safely organize, and coordinate the trajectories and flight paths of space vessels and satellites belonging to nations that are willing to share such vital information.
III. Research and devise new technologies and methodologies to improve waste management systems in Outer Space as well as the longevity of satellites and other space equipment while minimalizng space travel's dependency on disposable space equipment such as rocket stages.

7) Encourages nations to adopt the C.O.S.C’s technological designs or environmental practices if applicable, or otherwise remain outside of Outer Space until their crafts and crew are compliant with its standards.

ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of maintaining Outer Space as an environment for all nations to explore in the safest manner possible,

ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of maintaining Outer Space as an environment for any nation to explore in the safest manner possible,

Stash Kroh wrote:Your minor reedits and reorganization look professional, and easy to comprehend. I appreciate the effort.

However, I've been debating with myself, and my other political advisers over the repercussions of Clause #5.

I merely do not want to prevent the commercialization of Outer Space, but looking back at the responsibilities that the Act entails - I do not believe it prevents commercialization.

I also want to make sure it does not prevent explorers from reentering other nation's atmosphere, refueling and leaving. The reason I bring this up is, what about the previous nation they left from ? - would they still have responsibility and legality over the ship? Or would it be the nation they more recently launched from? Or would they both be fully responsible? In which case if something happens, who takes the blame? Both of them equally?

I'm tentatively agreeing with the clause, and using your complete array of suggestions in Draft 4.

However I am leery of that clause in particular.

5) Mandates that the international responsibility and liability for any space-faring object be equally divided between all nations that have launched it into Outer Space.

3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry will endanger presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

New Rockport wrote:I'm not sure about Section 3. It seems to me that whenever a spacecraft lands, there's a chance that the re-entry or landing might kill or injure passengers, crew, or people on the ground. That chance is very small, but it's not zero. Therefore, Section 3, as currently written, could be read to forbid spacecraft from landing. I would suggest something like this instead:

3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry will endanger presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

Regarding Section 5, does it make sense to mandate international liability if there is no international court to adjudicate claims? It would seem to me that either a panel should be established to adjudicate international claims or that this should be a matter of domestic law.

Respectfully submitted,
David Corrigan, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Federal Republic of New Rockport