NationStates

Original is here.

The World Assembly,

Applauding efforts to reduce the number of hazardous objects in the orbit of celestial bodies which either do support or may support life,

Understanding, however, that "Protection of Outer Space Act,"(GA#63) contains a number of flaws in its text including, but not limited to:

* Treating outer space as an "environment" to be "polluted," rather than protecting habitats from space borne debris,

* Failing to account for the fact that problems during recycling may be "unnecessary" while also being unintentional and unavoidable,

* Requiring recycling efforts to use methods that are "least likely to cause unnecessary risk" without expanding upon what unnecessary risks it is meant to reduce,

* Urging nations to "remain outside of Outer Space until their crafts and crew are compliant with its(COSC's) standards" without any regard for the fact that development of such technologies is often achieved during the early stages of space exploration,

* Restricting protections to planets that contain nations only, rather than those containing life or life supporting environments,

* Defining the term "outer space" in such a way as to include the space occupied by orbital habitats(while not necessarily protecting their surrounding area from space borne debris) and preventing any future resolution on that topic,

* Further defining the term "outer space" in such a way as to require the "Coordination of Space Consortium(COSC)" to be responsible for most of the observable universe(or approximately 4.077 times 10 to the 32nd power, cubic light-years of space),

Believing that, while the immediate area surrounding habitats and heavily traveled routes deserve some protection, it is lunacy to attempt protection of all of space and ultimately unneeded,

Hereby repeals "Protection of Outer Space Act"(GA#63).

I've been drafting this with a couple of folks from AO for a couple of days(I still need to work out co-author credits though, since I'm only allowed one), and I thought I'd post it here for more general input. It's a fairly early draft, but I think it's a decent one to start with.

Input is welcome.

full support

We have taken a look and added queries under every single reason given for repealing. We do apologize if that seems like a combative stance, but in general we aren't particularly concerned with the concerns raised in this proposal. Perhaps it would be useful if you please give an example of what you would consider a better Protection of Outer Space Act to be?

Believing, however, that the "Protection of Outer Space Act"(GA#63) unnecessarily ties the hands of nations in the efficient and safe disposal of waste,

How so?

The Dourian Embassy wrote:* Treating outer space as an "environment" to be "polluted,"

What would you have it treat outer space as?

* Failing to account for the fact that such "pollution" may be "unnecessary" while also being unintentional and unavoidable,

Surely it is convenient and obvious to presume that pollution is defined to be necessary when it unavoidable and is unintentional?

* Requiring recycling efforts to use methods that are "least likely to cause unnecessary risk" without expanding upon what risks it is meant to reduce,

Surely that is obvious to a reasonable nation?

* Defining the term "outer space" in such a way as to require the "Coordination of Space Consortium" to be responsible for most of the observable universe,

Surely most WA regulations are responsible for WA member activity in all of the observable universe?

Cognizant that GA#63 fails to account for protection of orbital habitats in its text,

Cannot that be done better by another resolution on the subject of protection of habitats?

Noting that planets supporting life, but not containing nations, are left unprotected by GA#63,

Why should GA#63 protect what isn't, by definition, outer space?

Regretting that many of the requirements and suggestion present in GA#63 actively discourage space exploration and stifle innovation in nations with primitive space programs,

Can you give some examples, please?

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:*snip*

Lets examine the fundamental flaw of the Outer Space Protection Act. It treats outer space as an environment in need of protection, when in reality the main thrust of it should be protecting habitats(orbital or otherwise).

The sheer scale of outer space is unimaginable in magnitude. The resolution should only concern itself with the area immediately surrounding habitats(at best). Any attempt to protect the rest of outer space from "pollution" is science fiction at work in the head of the author. A "frequented(or often traveled) route" isn't really at risk, but a "heavily traveled(subject to much travel)" one might be. That's a key difference, and a nuance the resolution in question doesn't delve into.

Beyond that, you ask that we adopt a new definition for necessary which is currently something that is essential, or needed. You'd like us to expand our own definitions to fill in the gaps of the resolution and include things that are unnecessary, unavoidable and unintentional? The text of the document is clear on the word it uses there: unnecessary.

And lets examine that whole clause:

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.

You're asking in your reply for us to allow reasonable nations to define "unnecessary risk". I'm perfectly alright with that, but unnecessary risk of what?

Let me make my point clear. Outer space does not need protecting, the way to come at this problem(and I'll agree it is a problem) is by protecting life from spaceborne debris. This resolution attempts that and fails because it is preoccupied with space as an environment.

And to add another nail to the coffin: We cannot legislate on the topic of orbital habitats(or any habitats with contained atmospheres), because this resolution already defines them as "Outer Space", and thus any further piece on that topic would conflict with this one.

It fails to define the necessary terms required to give certain clauses the teeth they need to do anything meaningful, it uses terms like "necessary", "frequented", and "substantial" that are fine to use in conversation but impossible to enforce in a legal sense, it make it impossible to protect a whole category of habitats, and it gives a committee the responsibility to reduce pollution in the entire observable universe.

For reference, if every nation in the world assembly occupied it's own planet the size of earth, the most expansive of resolution would govern 10,202,000,000,000 square kilometers(rounding up). A resolution that governs the entire visible universe on the other hand would cover 40,770,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic lightyears.

And that is why considering all of space(rather than key points) an environment that can be damaged or polluted to be unusable is lunacy.

This resolution urges nations to avoid building space programs until they are advanced enough to do so without causing damage to the "environment of outer space" without any regard for the fact that developing those technologies is often done during such undertakings. Sure it's an urging clause, but resolutions should not urge things that are so incredibly incorrect.

It takes a frankly wrongheaded view of the idea of disposable rockets, and just assumes that future technological advances will move us out of an age where they are useful.

I cannot abide this piece, and hopefully neither will the World Assembly for much longer.

OOC: *cough* Might I just say that that last post of yours, Douria, is a hell of a lot more convincing than the Repeal, as is? Not that you can use that, verbatim, but I think that explaining a lot of your rationale in the repeal text will go a long way to win over voters who go "But ... but ... why don't we want to protect outer space?" while petting a furry bunny.

Mousebumples wrote:OOC: *cough* Might I just say that that last post of yours, Douria, is a hell of a lot more convincing than the Repeal, as is? Not that you can use that, verbatim, but I think that explaining a lot of your rationale in the repeal text will go a long way to win over voters who go "But ... but ... why don't we want to protect outer space?" while petting a furry bunny.

OOC: Couldn't agree more. This

Outer space does not need protecting, the way to come at this problem...is by protecting life from spaceborne debris. This resolution attempts that and fails because it is preoccupied with space as an environment.

is particularly striking.

OOC: I would like to third that.

IC: The Farengeto delegation announces its full support of the repeal of this legislation. The fact this even passed amazes me, for it highlights the ignorance of our ambassadors. The text of this proposal, depending of the definition of "damaging or polluting Outer Space unnecessarily", could have forbidden the usage of any form of space travel which produces any sort of waste, which even in the most advanced interstellar empires would be nearly any form of propulsion. Even in a less strict form it makes space travel nearly impractical, and even more bureaucracy choked than it already was.

Indeed, The government of Norden shall fourth this repeal.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:Original is here.

The World Assembly,

Applauding efforts to reduce the number of hazardous objects in the orbit of celestial bodies,

Believing, however, that the "Protection of Outer Space Act"(GA#63) unnecessarily ties the hands of nations in the efficient and safe disposal of waste,

Understanding that GA#63 contains a number of flaws in its text, including but not limited to:

* Treating outer space as an "environment" to be "polluted,"

* Failing to account for the fact that problems during recycling may be "unnecessary" while also being unintentional and unavoidable,

* Requiring recycling efforts to use methods that are "least likely to cause unnecessary risk" without expanding upon what risks it is meant to reduce,

* Defining the term "outer space" in such a way as to require the "Coordination of Space Consortium" to be responsible for most of the observable universe,

Cognizant that GA#63 fails to account for protection of orbital habitats in its text,

Noting that planets supporting life, but not containing nations, are left unprotected by GA#63,

Regretting that many of the requirements and suggestion present in GA#63 actively discourage space exploration and stifle innovation in nations with primitive space programs,

Hereby repeals "Protection of Outer Space Act,"(GA#63).

I've been drafting this with a couple of folks from AO for a couple of days(I still need to work out co-author credits though, since I'm only allowed one), and I thought I'd post it here for more general input. It's a fairly early draft, but I think it's a decent one to start with.

Input is welcome.

Can resolutions be amended?
In amy case, I oppose this.

Mousebumples wrote:OOC: *cough* Might I just say that that last post of yours, Douria, is a hell of a lot more convincing than the Repeal, as is? Not that you can use that, verbatim, but I think that explaining a lot of your rationale in the repeal text will go a long way to win over voters who go "But ... but ... why don't we want to protect outer space?" while petting a furry bunny.

Absolutely. Fourthed.

The United Colonies of Earth wrote:Can resolutions be amended?

No, they cannot.

Two different modly posts on the subject for your perusal: Why Amendments are Illegal by Fris & another by Ard.

This is now much longer than I prefer my repeals to be, but contains much more detail.

What do the rest of you folks think? I HUNGER! For input.

I would approve this proposal if you introduced it.

I don't think it could be accused of not being thorough. I'm willing to support this.

Since I have received nothing but positive feedback, I've decided to run with this. I won't TG for it until a day or two from now(and won't at all if I get some input on problems with the text).

In addition to the previous arguments,

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

Since rockets operate by jettisoning rocket fuel behind itself, and therefore this would be hazardous debris. I therefore find that this would ban something like the Apollo Program in RealWorld.

I feel like that's splitting hairs on the term "hazardous"(but that's a valid reading, it's just one of two). Either way, I covered other possibilities by using the phrase "including but not limited to", so unless it's something major, I can probably leave it out.

The Empire of Alotopia will fully support this repeal. It is absurd to make us treat space as an environment, but rather looking at the big picture of the universe, Earth would be an environment. Approved

The Dourian Embassy wrote:Since I have received nothing but positive feedback, I've decided to run with this. I won't TG for it until a day or two from now(and won't at all if I get some input on problems with the text).

I still haven't TG'd for this, but it's only about 23 or so away from quorum. I think the international arms trade thing got TG'd for and I'm picking up some endorsements from that.

It's also about to go to the top of the list, which means it'll get more visibility as well. I probably won't have to TG for this to get it into quorum. We'll see.

OOC: Well, if it doesn't make quorum, I hope you'll cut the ridiculous bit approximating how big the universe is.

I'm also tempted to abstain on all your repeals from now on until you insert a damned space before the bracket. :) But good luck anyway.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: Well, if it doesn't make quorum, I hope you'll cut the ridiculous bit approximating how big the universe is.

NOOO!!!!! Please leave that bit about how big the universe is please? It will make repealing "On Nuclear Testing" way easier.

This reached quorum without my having to do a damn thing except submit it. That bodes well.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:This reached quorum without my having to do a damn thing except submit it. That bodes well.

I think that mentioning the size of the observable universe helped.

The Akashic Records wrote:

The Dourian Embassy wrote:This reached quorum without my having to do a damn thing except submit it. That bodes well.

I think that mentioning the size of the observable universe helped.

I was mostly just hoping to use the term "Celestial Bodies"(wink wink, nudge nudge) in a resolution. Putting in the volume of the observable universe was a small plus(for me anyway).

Gonna go ahead and bump this to the first page since it's about to come to vote.