[PASSED] Protection of Airspace

[East Meranopirus]

Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a member nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of that nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally.[/list][/box][/spoiler]

This can be interpreted to mean that aircraft using a member nations airspace must receive authorization, rather then that aircraft need authorization to use a members airspace. Passive language is fun

There's a difference between the two. Damn, I thought I knew a lot about grammar already...

[The First German Order]

Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a member nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of that nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally.

This can be interpreted to mean that aircraft using a member nations airspace must receive authorization, rather then that aircraft need authorization to use a members airspace.

OOC: What’s the difference?

[Maowi]

This can be interpreted to mean that aircraft using a member nations airspace must receive authorization, rather then that aircraft need authorization to use a members airspace.

OOC: What’s the difference?

OOC: The first one says that aircraft already in a member nation's airspace will unconditionally be given authorisation by the government to keep using the airspace. The second says that in order to use the airspace, aircraft must first receive authorisation. Clearly the second is the intended meaning.

[Araraukar]

IC: "Does this allow a nation to close off the majority of its airspace? Currently the airspace over mainland Araraukar - not including our coastal waters and islands - is closed to all motorized air traffic, including our own. This is done because of environmental concerns."

I believe the resolution allows airspace to be closed off, partially or completely, since it gives full control to the nations. But maybe I should put a clause in there just to make it clear.

"Thank you," Johan said and then glanced at his mobile phone as it beeped. "And that looks like that's that." He gathered his notes and stood up, looking around the debate chamber with a slightly sad smile. "I know I'm going to miss this mad place. Goodbye, everyone, and please be nice to whoever takes my place." He then walked away.

[East Meranopirus]

Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a member nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of that nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally.

This can be interpreted to mean that aircraft using a member nations airspace must receive authorization, rather then that aircraft need authorization to use a members airspace.

OOC: What’s the difference?

OOC: The first one says that aircraft already in a member nation's airspace will unconditionally be given authorisation by the government to keep using the airspace. The second says that in order to use the airspace, aircraft must first receive authorisation. Clearly the second is the intended meaning.

Alright, alright, I've changed the wording of that clause. Hope you're happy now.

[The First German Order]

OOC: What’s the difference?

OOC: The first one says that aircraft already in a member nation's airspace will unconditionally be given authorisation by the government to keep using the airspace. The second says that in order to use the airspace, aircraft must first receive authorisation. Clearly the second is the intended meaning.

OOC: [visible confusion]
I kind of see it in the first one now but it seems that the first one can be interpreted in the same way as the second one.

[East Meranopirus]

Anyone has any more suggestions, feedback or criticism? If not I think I'll submit it soon.

[Kenmoria]

“There should be a line break between clauses 3 and 4, as there is one between all of the other clauses.”

[The New Nordic Union]

its upper limit as jointly defined by the nation or nations residing on the planet

OOC: This does not make sense; if the nation is acting alone, it cannot jointly make a decision. Maybe: '...defined by the nation or jointly by the nations...'

[Satuga]

The resolution does not seem to clarify what were to happen to a member nation who were to disobey this, it would probably be a wise idea to do so. Also If you do plan on it what actions is resolution going to allow against the offending nation? Will it be an immediate escort of said plane/boat, or will it be termination or a casus belli on said nation for violating said resolution? I feel like it may need to be carefully thought about if you wanted to get this resolution passed. You also need to pay attention to any possible violations of other resolutions that may already exist on airspace travel. One more thing, many nations claim to have technologically advanced space war crafts, if so how would this resolution deal with them as it is still possible for them to fire upon a nation from the distance you have set.

[Kenmoria]

The resolution does not seem to clarify what were to happen to a member nation who were to disobey this, it would probably be a wise idea to do so. Also If you do plan on it what actions is resolution going to allow against the offending nation? Will it be an immediate escort of said plane/boat, or will it be termination or a casus belli on said nation for violating said resolution? I feel like it may need to be carefully thought about if you wanted to get this resolution passed. You also need to pay attention to any possible violations of other resolutions that may already exist on airspace travel. One more thing, many nations claim to have technologically advanced space war crafts, if so how would this resolution deal with them as it is still possible for them to fire upon a nation from the distance you have set.

(OOC: Any resolution that is noncomplied with by a member state, according to the Administrative Compliance Act, will result in heavy fines for the noncompliant nation. If these are not paid, then sanctions will be levied. It is not the place of this proposal to dictate additional punishments.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

its upper limit as jointly defined by the nation or nations residing on the planet

OOC: This does not make sense; if the nation is acting alone, it cannot jointly make a decision. Maybe: '...defined by the nation or jointly by the nations...'

OOC: It's actually quite a bad concept inherently. Nothing prevents a nation from saying "Our airspace extends ten thousand kilometers above our territorial footprint, so those orbiting satellites that sometimes pass over us are committing several acts of war per day..."

I would leave the upper limit in the hands of WASP (which presumably will define the upper limit according to where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible) or just specify that same standard in this text.

[East Meranopirus]

The resolution does not seem to clarify what were to happen to a member nation who were to disobey this, it would probably be a wise idea to do so. Also If you do plan on it what actions is resolution going to allow against the offending nation? Will it be an immediate escort of said plane/boat, or will it be termination or a casus belli on said nation for violating said resolution? I feel like it may need to be carefully thought about if you wanted to get this resolution passed. You also need to pay attention to any possible violations of other resolutions that may already exist on airspace travel. One more thing, many nations claim to have technologically advanced space war crafts, if so how would this resolution deal with them as it is still possible for them to fire upon a nation from the distance you have set.

Even though punishments should be already taken care of by the Compliance Commission and the Administrative Compliance Act, I might consider giving nations additional powers when an aircraft violates their airspace.

As for space, it's not within the scope of this resolution, that's an entirely different matter.

OOC: This does not make sense; if the nation is acting alone, it cannot jointly make a decision. Maybe: '...defined by the nation or jointly by the nations...'

OOC: It's actually quite a bad concept inherently. Nothing prevents a nation from saying "Our airspace extends ten thousand kilometers above our territorial footprint, so those orbiting satellites that sometimes pass over us are committing several acts of war per day..."

I would leave the upper limit in the hands of WASP (which presumably will define the upper limit according to where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible) or just specify that same standard in this text.

Thanks for the suggestion. Of course I should have thought of delegating it to an independent WA agency...Though I think it's more appropriate to delegate it to the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA)

[Satuga]

(OOC: Any resolution that is noncomplied with by a member state, according to the Administrative Compliance Act, will result in heavy fines for the noncompliant nation. If these are not paid, then sanctions will be levied. It is not the place of this proposal to dictate additional punishments.)

Ah I see thank you for clarifying

[Satuga]

Even though punishments should be already taken care of by the Compliance Commission and the Administrative Compliance Act, I might consider giving nations additional powers when an aircraft violates their airspace.

As for space, it's not within the scope of this resolution, that's an entirely different matter.

I see, honestly I say that the safest bet for adding an additional power is the immediate escort of said aircraft and if not obeying the escort immediate termination of said craft. It isnt enough to prompt a full war which would lead into many problems, and it gives the aircraft ample time to obey orders and exit the restricted airspace. Though this is just my take on it.

[East Meranopirus]

Even though punishments should be already taken care of by the Compliance Commission and the Administrative Compliance Act, I might consider giving nations additional powers when an aircraft violates their airspace.

As for space, it's not within the scope of this resolution, that's an entirely different matter.

I see, honestly I say that the safest bet for adding an additional power is the immediate escort of said aircraft and if not obeying the escort immediate termination of said craft. It isnt enough to prompt a full war which would lead into many problems, and it gives the aircraft ample time to obey orders and exit the restricted airspace. Though this is just my take on it.

I think I'm just going to leave a broad clause letting nations do whatever they want if an aircraft violates their airspace. This resolution isn't there to prevent war or anything.

[East Meranopirus]

No more feedback? I think I'm going to submit this then. Probably will campaign to all the delegates.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Absolutely do not rush to submission. People have different schedules. Calm down.

[East Meranopirus]

OOC:
Absolutely do not rush to submission. People have different schedules. Calm down.

I mean, it seems to me what there is to say has already been said. There's not a lot of reasons to oppose it. The best thing to do now, it seems to me, is to bring it to more people's attention and shore up delegate support and make sure it gets in the voting queue when I submit it.

[Kenmoria]

“There should be ‘the’s added before ‘sovereignty’ in the ‘noting’ clause and before ‘International Transport Safety Committee’ in clause 3b.”

[Ransium]

1) In 1b referencing specific measurement units often irks some. Your definition also seems to indicate that if I erected a tall wind farm in international waters I'd change international airspace's location WRT to the lower limit. Would a tall oil tanker also change airspace even though it's mobile? From a regulatory perspective, what is the zone 250 m to surface?

2) I'm not trying to bring in the debate from another thread, but seriously the reference to "every planet" in 2 will lose you powerful voting blocks and isn't necessary. You can make it clear that IASA makes determination's of space boundary on a member nation by member nation basis and "every planet" would be clearly implied.

3) Organizationally, it's awkward that 1a) describes a mandate that isn't defined until 2.

4) It's not clear what are the different points you're trying to make in 3a, 3c, and 5. 3a gives nations sovereignty over their airspace except for any restrictions the WA may place on that sovereignty. The first half of 3c is what sovereignty over airspace means, the second half is a needless clarification. Again, 5 seems to be what having sovereignty over airspace means. Civilian Aircraft Accord (GA 342) IMO requires letting civilian aircraft in distress over sovereign aircraft space and I believe even land on airports (in 2C). While 3a is clearly compliant with CAA, 3c and 5 are less clearly complaint. I would recommend you bundle up everything your trying to say about national sovereignty of airspace and place it in a single separate clause that ends with "with the exception of any control granted to the World Assembly."

5) I don't understand the point you are trying to make in 3d with "Any portions of the atmosphere below a nation's territorial airspace shall be considered land or water territory of the nation and will not be subject to airspace regulations." WRT sovereign airspace you've already given sole power to the member nations, so what regulations is the air below territorial airspace not subject to the territorial airspace is?

6) While not always followed, most authors make their proposals into a single sentence. As a first time author, following this style is one nice way of making clear that you're familiar with the WA and have read other passed WA resolutions and this isn't some BS you just put together in 5 minutes.

[Araraukar]

2) I'm not trying to bring in the debate from another thread, but seriously the reference to "every planet" in 2 will lose you powerful voting blocks

OOC: It's funny how resolutions that don't talk about the WA being confined to a single planet have still passed and even gotten the support of said powerful voting blocks...

EDIT: Other points you brought up are completely valid issues and save me the trouble shredding the draft.

[Ransium]

2) I'm not trying to bring in the debate from another thread, but seriously the reference to "every planet" in 2 will lose you powerful voting blocks

OOC: It's funny how resolutions that don't talk about the WA being confined to a single planet have still passed and even gotten the support of said powerful voting blocks...

I agree that this wording isn't the kiss of death, but why poke the bear? Topography alone accounts for huge international and intranational differences distances between the ground and the start of space since atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially as distance from sea level increases. If you just say that you're evaluating the distance locally than there's no importance to what planet(s) the atmosphere in question is on. Mentioning multiple planets plugs no holes.

[Araraukar]

why poke the bear?

OOC: ...on the GA forum I 100% associate any mention of bears with Bears Armed... and I'm sure their representative would be annoyed by any pokes! Tired brain is easily amused. I'll crawl to bed now...

[East Meranopirus]

1) In 1b referencing specific measurement units often irks some. Your definition also seems to indicate that if I erected a tall wind farm in international waters I'd change international airspace's location WRT to the lower limit. Would a tall oil tanker also change airspace even though it's mobile? From a regulatory perspective, what is the zone 250 m to surface?

2) I'm not trying to bring in the debate from another thread, but seriously the reference to "every planet" in 2 will lose you powerful voting blocks and isn't necessary. You can make it clear that IASA makes determination's of space boundary on a member nation by member nation basis and "every planet" would be clearly implied.

3) Organizationally, it's awkward that 1a) describes a mandate that isn't defined until 2.

4) It's not clear what are the different points you're trying to make in 3a, 3c, and 5. 3a gives nations sovereignty over their airspace except for any restrictions the WA may place on that sovereignty. The first half of 3c is what sovereignty over airspace means, the second half is a needless clarification. Again, 5 seems to be what having sovereignty over airspace means. Civilian Aircraft Accord (GA 342) IMO requires letting civilian aircraft in distress over sovereign aircraft space and I believe even land on airports (in 2C). While 3a is clearly compliant with CAA, 3c and 5 are less clearly complaint. I would recommend you bundle up everything your trying to say about national sovereignty of airspace and place it in a single separate clause that ends with "with the exception of any control granted to the World Assembly."

5) I don't understand the point you are trying to make in 3d with "Any portions of the atmosphere below a nation's territorial airspace shall be considered land or water territory of the nation and will not be subject to airspace regulations." WRT sovereign airspace you've already given sole power to the member nations, so what regulations is the air below territorial airspace not subject to the territorial airspace is?

6) While not always followed, most authors make their proposals into a single sentence. As a first time author, following this style is one nice way of making clear that you're familiar with the WA and have read other passed WA resolutions and this isn't some BS you just put together in 5 minutes.

1) The specific 250m is suggested by a GenSec member, so I took it because...GenSec should always know what's best right? But I think I'll change it. The definition of heights has been very annoying. Looks like the only way is probably just to delegate the responsibility to the IASA again

2) Noted and I'll change it, but just like others have said, I don't get their insistence on making the whole NS world seem like a single planet. In fact, I read one of the recommended guides to the GA and it specifically said this:

1. This isn't Earth
This means that, for example, proposing greenhouse gas emissions caps isn't likely to get you anywhere because there is no assumption that all of NationStates is located on a single planet which has the same atmospheric characteristics as Earth. Proposals declaring the Moon or Antarctica to be neutral territory will be dead on arrival; someone will pop up to ask "which moon?" or to object because their territory is entirely located on the Moon or Antarctica. And don't even try to ban weapons in outer space or the interstellar empires will come get you. Likewise, setting up an international space station is an endeavour best left to other RP forums.

Link here btw: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=133554
(Look, it even mentions greenhouse gas caps, but look where we are now...)

3) I get it's awkward, but what should I do? Switch it around or just delete it entirely since it's already mentioned in the definitions section

4) I'll try doing what you said, and add a subclause about aircraft in distress.

5) That just means it doesn't count as airspace and you don't need authorisation or anything to fly under that level.

6) I thought I already follow the format pretty closely. It's not a single sentence, but it's structured pretty similarly. I would say it's pretty clearly not something that's BS put together in 5 minutes.