[PASSED] Protection of Airspace

[Kenmoria]

“Your definition of ‘aircraft’ excludes anything with an autopilot feature or any computer doing pretty much anything for the ship, since then it would be controlled partly by something other than a sapient being.”

[East Meranopirus]

“Your definition of ‘aircraft’ excludes anything with an autopilot feature or any computer doing pretty much anything for the ship, since then it would be controlled partly by something other than a sapient being.”

What do you suggest then? I've tried my best to come up with an accurate definition, though I would argue since the sapient beings would have made the autopilot and can take over anytime, it's still controlled by the sapient being.

[Kenmoria]

“Your definition of ‘aircraft’ excludes anything with an autopilot feature or any computer doing pretty much anything for the ship, since then it would be controlled partly by something other than a sapient being.”

What do you suggest then? I've tried my best to come up with an accurate definition, though I would argue since the sapient beings would have made the autopilot and can take over anytime, it's still controlled by the sapient being.

(OOC: How about ‘defines ‘aircraft’ as a large object capable of airfoil-powered flight, controlled by sapient beings’? The last part is optional, and it might be a good idea to leave it off, to avoid a member nation just sticking a plane on autopilot and ignoring this proposal entirely.)

[East Meranopirus]

(OOC: How about ‘defines ‘aircraft’ as a large object capable of airfoil-powered flight, controlled by sapient beings’? The last part is optional, and it might be a good idea to leave it off, to avoid a member nation just sticking a plane on autopilot and ignoring this proposal entirely.)

But then, what's defined as large? Drones can be as small as paper planes. I think autopilot could still count as controlled by sapient beings, since the system is made by them and they have override authority.

[Araraukar]

1) I've stated repeatedly if it's not airspace it just counts as land/water.

OOC: If I stand on the ground, is what I then breathe "land/water"????

It's up to nations whether they want to govern it as air or as ground.

Just leave out any mention of a lower limit instead? Because excluding something just creates the need for further resolutions on a pointless thing.

As for the rest of the concerns about international airspace, I've basically completely left it up to the IASA at this point. Logically, most of the unclaimed territory should be ocean anyway, so in practice, most of it will probably extend to the surface.

You're missing out the point of "WA can't directly control non-WA nations' areas". It doesn't matter if it's a WA committee, it can't do that either.

[East Meranopirus]

Ugh...Fine. Since everyone says so, I'm just going to change the lower limit of airspace to the surface. There. Everyone should be happy now.

I can't leave out the lower limit because then everyone will be like, "so does an underground shaft count as airspace"?

[Araraukar]

I can't leave out the lower limit because then everyone will be like, "so does an underground shaft count as airspace"?

OOC: No, just IA.

[East Meranopirus]

I can't leave out the lower limit because then everyone will be like, "so does an underground shaft count as airspace"?

OOC: No, just IA.

Apparently one person is all it takes...especially when it's him.

[Araraukar]

OOC: No, just IA.

Apparently one person is all it takes...especially when it's him.

OOC: He was just trying to ridicule me with the comment, though.

[East Meranopirus]

Apparently one person is all it takes...especially when it's him.

OOC: He was just trying to ridicule me with the comment, though.

I mean, it was a fair interpretation, isn't it?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: How about ‘defines ‘aircraft’ as a large object capable of airfoil-powered flight, controlled by sapient beings’? The last part is optional, and it might be a good idea to leave it off, to avoid a member nation just sticking a plane on autopilot and ignoring this proposal entirely.)

But then, what's defined as large? Drones can be as small as paper planes. I think autopilot could still count as controlled by sapient beings, since the system is made by them and they have override authority.

(OOC: To me, ‘control’ implies direct manipulation of the aircraft, not having the ability to override or ultimate responsibility. ‘Large’ was chosen to avoid having the WA regulate things like paper aeroplanes, frisbees or tiny devices sold for a few pounds in shops. Ultimately, the definition will always be under or over inclusive, so you have to rely on member nations interpreting this in good faith.)

[East Meranopirus]

(OOC: To me, ‘control’ implies direct manipulation of the aircraft, not having the ability to override or ultimate responsibility. ‘Large’ was chosen to avoid having the WA regulate things like paper aeroplanes, frisbees or tiny devices sold for a few pounds in shops. Ultimately, the definition will always be under or over inclusive, so you have to rely on member nations interpreting this in good faith.)

Ah, the good faith clause. Maybe then I should just leave it like that. I feel like using the word "large" will have more problems

[Araraukar]

I mean, it was a fair interpretation, isn't it?

OOC: You mean classifying underground tunnels as airspace in legislation involving aerial craft? No, it's not.

[East Meranopirus]

OOC: You mean classifying underground tunnels as airspace in legislation involving aerial craft? No, it's not.

Ok, anyway, is the proposal good now? I think I've taken care of everyone's problems, which is really one problem repeated multiple times in different forms.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Improved your formatting a bit.

The World Assembly,

Recognising every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory;

Believing airspace to be an integral part of a nation's territory;

Noting the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace;

Hereby,

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
   
   
   1. An "aircraft" as an object capable of flight, controlled entirely by sapient beings;
   2. "Airspace" as the portion of the atmosphere above the land or water surface and below the height where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible;
   3. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation;
   4. "International airspace" as airspace not above any nation's land or water territory;
   
   
2. Mandates that:
   
   
   1. Member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace with regards to the movement of aircraft, except in the case of any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections;
   2. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace;
   
   
3. Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace, unless required by an existing World Assembly resolution.

Here's the code for it, just copy and paste:

Code: Select all

[box]The World Assembly,

[b]Recognising[/b] every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory;

[b]Believing[/b] airspace to be an integral part of a nation's territory;

[b]Noting[/b] the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace;

Hereby,

[list=1]
[*]Defines for the purpose of this resolution:[list=a]
[*]An "aircraft" as an object capable of flight, controlled entirely by sapient beings;
[*]"Airspace" as the portion of the atmosphere above the land or water surface and below the height where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible;
[*]"Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation;
[*]"International airspace" as airspace not above any nation's land or water territory;[/list]

[*]Mandates that:[list=a]
[*]Member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace with regards to the movement of aircraft, except in the case of any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections;
[*]All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace;[/list]

[*]Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace, unless required by an existing World Assembly resolution.[/list][/box]

[East Meranopirus]

OOC:Improved your formatting a bit.

Thanks. I originally formatted it that way, then it got cut down a lot and became unnecessary, then I complicated it a bit again and now it's necessary again.

[Ransium]

The preamble is obviously not a hugely important part of the resolution, but I think a more inspiring preamble would help.

[East Meranopirus]

The preamble is obviously not a hugely important part of the resolution, but I think a more inspiring preamble would help.

Added some more stuff to the preamble. Not sure how much more inspiring it is though

[Kenmoria]

The preamble is obviously not a hugely important part of the resolution, but I think a more inspiring preamble would help.

Added some more stuff to the preamble. Not sure how much more inspiring it is though

(OOC: Currently, all of your clauses are quite bland in the preamble. How about adding some that show the negative consequences of airspace, and the neutrality thereof, not being protected?)

[East Meranopirus]

(OOC: Currently, all of your clauses are quite bland in the preamble. How about adding some that show the negative consequences of airspace, and the neutrality thereof, not being protected?)

Added some more based on your advice. Hopefully that's more inspiring now.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Currently, all of your clauses are quite bland in the preamble. How about adding some that show the negative consequences of airspace, and the neutrality thereof, not being protected?)

Added some more based on your advice. Hopefully that's more inspiring now.

(OOC: I feel inspired already.)

“With the current draft, I can firmly say that this mission supports this proposal. I like the idea and the execution, though do wonder how this will apply to the airspace of non-member nations.”

[East Meranopirus]

(OOC: I feel inspired already.)

“With the current draft, I can firmly say that this mission supports this proposal. I like the idea and the execution, though do wonder how this will apply to the airspace of non-member nations.”

Thanks for the suppport! I hope to submit this soon.

[Ransium]

The many very short clauses make it feel super long and choppy now, and there isn't a clear clause to clause flow. I put these thoughts together in a more organized manner and tweaked them a bit.

Recognising every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory and convinced airspace is an integral part of this territory;

Aware of the importance of international air transport for trade and desiring to protect the neutrality of international airspace;

Noting the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace, and fearing that a lack of clearly defined sovereign air space can cause dangerous diplomatic and preventable war, while a lack of clearly defined international airspace will destabilise commerce and security and allow nations to exert undue influence in neutral territory;

I tried to change a minimum number of words to achieve my objectives. Some of the within sentence word choice is a bit redundant now so you might consider tweaking things for reduced redundancy.

[East Meranopirus]

The many very short clauses make it feel super long and choppy now, and there isn't a clear clause to clause flow. I put these thoughts together in a more organized manner and tweaked them a bit.

Recognising every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory and convinced airspace is an integral part of this territory;

Aware of the importance of international air transport for trade and desiring to protect the neutrality of international airspace;

Noting the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace, and fearing that a lack of clearly defined sovereign air space can cause dangerous diplomatic and preventable war, while a lack of clearly defined international airspace will destabilise commerce and security and allow nations to exert undue influence in neutral territory;

I tried to change a minimum number of words to achieve my objectives. Some of the within sentence word choice is a bit redundant now so you might consider tweaking things for reduced redundancy.

Changed this a bit, mainly adding a clause to do with space.

[Ransium]

The bolding in the preamblitory clauses and lack of bolding in the action clauses is odd. I'd suggest ditching all bolding. It's not how I would have written the preamble, but I think my complaints are subjective now. I think it lacks glaring weakness now overall. My concern, not being all the informed about international airspace regulation, is there may be some aspect of what you're doing is going to block legitimate national or international interests in a way I'm not thinking about. If possible, I would seek the opinion of more people with more interest in the topic before submitting. Considering you've made major changes over these past few days, I'd suggest holding of submission for at least another week or two so that other people can chew over the new draft. The more prospectives you can get the better. Just try not to overcomplicate things again in the way you address folks concerns.