[DEFEATED] Removal of Space Debris

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: Likely to submit this in a few days.

Ic:

"Entirely opposed. If someone has the resources to cause a mess in space, they have the resources to clean up after themselves. Frittering away the workers' hard earned collective funds, IE the General Fund, on cleaning up after billionaire's vanity projects is obnoxious."

"What do you propose instead, ambassador? That member nations be harmed at the hands of one that decides it doesn't care about the environment?"

[Fhaengshia]

(all ooc)
I'm unsure why you use underscores when introducing both of your lists (the Identifying and Hereby clauses). Normally they are applied in place of a space, why not use a colon? (it appears you mentioned it being changed to semicolons, but the change has not been applied).

The definition in clause 1 includes the action of entering the atmosphere where a member nation has airspace. This has no size constraints, and would include objects that would have a minuscule effect on anything, eg. flecks of paint, or a stray bolt that would quickly vaporise when entering a habitable atmosphere. A size or environmental impact constraint would be logical and necessary.

The top-down approach introduced in clause 2, where a WA committee undertakes debris removal actions, feels like an over-reach of what the WA is tasked with. This is most striking in clause 5 where member nations must allow this committee access to their launch facilities to deploy whatever it is the committee has developed. Individual nations maintain launch facilities or even orbital assembly yards which are used by specifically designed vehicles. While I'm sure the committee would transport what they have developed to facilities that are not only suitable but well matched for the necessary capabilities required, such transportation would typically have larger environmental effects than a nation's own vehicles which are in most cases developed much closer. Additionally this process of using non-native infrastructure inevitably results in lower mission success rates, and therefore cost.

Clause 3 states that "any entities" shall receive pecuniary incentives from the General Fund for providing research that "may aid" the committee in its responsibilities. This would include non-member governments, corporations, cults, toddlers, etc. This seems far too generous, especially considering that these only need to express a possibility of being helpful to the committee.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

(all ooc)
I'm unsure why you use underscores when introducing both of your lists (the Identifying and Hereby clauses). Normally they are applied in place of a space, why not use a colon? (it appears you mentioned it being changed to semicolons, but the change has not been applied).

I had changed an earlier underscore to a semicolon in a sublist that has since been removed.

The definition in clause 1 includes the action of entering the atmosphere where a member nation has airspace. This has no size constraints, and would include objects that would have a minuscule effect on anything, eg. flecks of paint, or a stray bolt that would quickly vaporise when entering a habitable atmosphere. A size or environmental impact constraint would be logical and necessary.

I mean, I don't really see why this would be a problem? The resolution doesn't require all space debris to be de-orbited; just that the DISC work to develop and regularly deploy space debris removal technology. If removing small space debris -- which can still be harmful. Section 2's "otherwise as efficiently and speedily as possible" also exists for a reason -- focusing on removing flecks of paint while doing nothing about defunct satellites doesn't seem like a particularly efficient means of removing space debris. That said, to avoid cases where the debris will only pollute a minority of the atmosphere that happens to be a non-member that's fixed.

The top-down approach introduced in clause 2, where a WA committee undertakes debris removal actions, feels like an over-reach of what the WA is tasked with. This is most striking in clause 5 where member nations must allow this committee access to their launch facilities to deploy whatever it is the committee has developed. Individual nations maintain launch facilities or even orbital assembly yards which are used by specifically designed vehicles. While I'm sure the committee would transport what they have developed to facilities that are not only suitable but well matched for the necessary capabilities required, such transportation would typically have larger environmental effects than a nation's own vehicles which are in most cases developed much closer. Additionally this process of using non-native infrastructure inevitably results in lower mission success rates, and therefore cost.

Does Section 4 -- which allows the DISC to require a member nation to aid it in deploying space debris removal technology "where this aid is the least burdensome on that nation's finances for these efforts to proceed as efficiently and least damagingly as possible" -- not address this sufficiently, and if not, why? If it helps, I removed the most specific part of s 5 regarding free entry, as the rest of the mandate should suffice anyway.

Clause 3 states that "any entities" shall receive pecuniary incentives from the General Fund for providing research that "may aid" the committee in its responsibilities. This would include non-member governments, corporations, cults, toddlers, etc. This seems far too generous, especially considering that these only need to express a possibility of being helpful to the committee.

May aid is gone, and replaced with "would aid". I think compensating non-member nation entities would still work though? The more information that the DISC can access, the better -- even if a non-member is involved, it will work to the benefit of member nations.

[Fhaengshia]

I had changed an earlier underscore to a semicolon in a sublist that has since been removed.

Underscores still remain at the end of the identifying and hereby clauses:

Identifying the harm that space debris can cause to both member nations and the environment alike _

Hereby enacts as follows _

I mean, I don't really see why this would be a problem? The resolution doesn't require all space debris to be de-orbited; just that the DISC work to develop and regularly deploy space debris removal technology. If removing small space debris -- which can still be harmful. Section 2's "otherwise as efficiently and speedily as possible" also exists for a reason -- focusing on removing flecks of paint while doing nothing about defunct satellites doesn't seem like a particularly efficient means of removing space debris. That said, to avoid cases where the debris will only pollute a minority of the atmosphere that happens to be a non-member that's fixed.

The definition is improved by the changes made. On further observation it could be made more correct if "located in such a location" is changed to "on such a vector", as it is the future location that is relevant rather than the current location.
"that it poses" should be "that pose".
That "an atmosphere containing member nation airspace, so as to either directly enter some member nation, or pollute its airspace" be changed to something like "volumes of atmosphere controlled by a member nation, or polluting these atmospheres", as air is typical of the particular atmospheric gas mixture of Earth, and not, for example, Venus or Titan.
And lastly if "operating member nation spacecraft" is changed to "property belonging to or registered under a member nation", which should cover all assets a member nation is responsible for that may be outside of its controlled "airspace". Though this has implications for ships or other vehicles registered under a flag of convenience, it makes sense for this extension.
(sorry it's things like these that really bring the nerd out in me, but it's because the proposal has got a real solid base for a definition already).
Also there's a typo that should be atmospheric in "atmosopheric burn-up".

Does Section 4 -- which allows the DISC to require a member nation to aid it in deploying space debris removal technology "where this aid is the least burdensome on that nation's finances for these efforts to proceed as efficiently and least damagingly as possible" -- not address this sufficiently, and if not, why? If it helps, I removed the most specific part of s 5 regarding free entry, as the rest of the mandate should suffice anyway.

The removal of the entry part of Section 5 kind of just makes it more vague as to what constitutes aid in Section 4. The tasks given to DISC go beyond, in my mind, the scope of a committee and really are more in line with a larger body such as an agency (eg. ESA, the European Space Agency), (I may, however, be incorrect). If there is to be a WA space agency as this proposal sort of describes, I believe the title of the proposal should outline as much and the clauses within should provide a clear scope and mission for the agency (regardless of if this is a good idea or not).

More importantly, as others have indicated this centralised body has inefficiencies. The proposal would require all members to contribute funding for debris removal even if they have never sent anything into space, and then (partially) fund the space programs of members that have them from the general fund. Essentially it redirects funds from non-spacefaring nations towards those that already have the capabilities. GA595 and the draft replacement that I have much neglected rather focused on requiring (lol) the member nations with these capabilities to carry out debris removal (however flawed it was written).

May aid is gone, and replaced with "would aid". I think compensating non-member nation entities would still work though? The more information that the DISC can access, the better -- even if a non-member is involved, it will work to the benefit of member nations.

Also an improvement, but the funding for purchasing intellectual property (Section 3) that would aid DISC is another case of inefficiency in this proposal, as were member states tasked with the duties DISC is being given, they would be incentivised by their own budgets to find and negotiate licensing for the best and most efficient practices. This would be both more flexible and could also allow for DISC or WASP or whatever to perhaps have a part in arranging or potentially arbitrating these agreements.

Overall I still firmly believe this is better served as a duty for member nations with the capabilities, than creating or expanding a committee to undertake such a massive task.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

I had changed an earlier underscore to a semicolon in a sublist that has since been removed.

Underscores still remain at the end of the identifying and hereby clauses:

Identifying the harm that space debris can cause to both member nations and the environment alike _

Hereby enacts as follows _

May change.

I mean, I don't really see why this would be a problem? The resolution doesn't require all space debris to be de-orbited; just that the DISC work to develop and regularly deploy space debris removal technology. If removing small space debris -- which can still be harmful. Section 2's "otherwise as efficiently and speedily as possible" also exists for a reason -- focusing on removing flecks of paint while doing nothing about defunct satellites doesn't seem like a particularly efficient means of removing space debris. That said, to avoid cases where the debris will only pollute a minority of the atmosphere that happens to be a non-member that's fixed.

The definition is improved by the changes made. On further observation it could be made more correct if "located in such a location" is changed to "on such a vector", as it is the future location that is relevant rather than the current location.
"that it poses" should be "that pose".
That "an atmosphere containing member nation airspace, so as to either directly enter some member nation, or pollute its airspace" be changed to something like "volumes of atmosphere controlled by a member nation, or polluting these atmospheres", as air is typical of the particular atmospheric gas mixture of Earth, and not, for example, Venus or Titan.
And lastly if "operating member nation spacecraft" is changed to "property belonging to or registered under a member nation", which should cover all assets a member nation is responsible for that may be outside of its controlled "airspace". Though this has implications for ships or other vehicles registered under a flag of convenience, it makes sense for this extension.
(sorry it's things like these that really bring the nerd out in me, but it's because the proposal has got a real solid base for a definition already).
Also there's a typo that should be atmospheric in "atmosopheric burn-up".

Most of this is done.

Does Section 4 -- which allows the DISC to require a member nation to aid it in deploying space debris removal technology "where this aid is the least burdensome on that nation's finances for these efforts to proceed as efficiently and least damagingly as possible" -- not address this sufficiently, and if not, why? If it helps, I removed the most specific part of s 5 regarding free entry, as the rest of the mandate should suffice anyway.

The removal of the entry part of Section 5 kind of just makes it more vague as to what constitutes aid in Section 4. The tasks given to DISC go beyond, in my mind, the scope of a committee and really are more in line with a larger body such as an agency (eg. ESA, the European Space Agency), (I may, however, be incorrect). If there is to be a WA space agency as this proposal sort of describes, I believe the title of the proposal should outline as much and the clauses within should provide a clear scope and mission for the agency (regardless of if this is a good idea or not).

A committee really is just an official group of people tasked with performing some task -- in this case, removing space debris.

More importantly, as others have indicated this centralised body has inefficiencies. The proposal would require all members to contribute funding for debris removal even if they have never sent anything into space, and then (partially) fund the space programs of members that have them from the general fund. Essentially it redirects funds from non-spacefaring nations towards those that already have the capabilities. GA595 and the draft replacement that I have much neglected rather focused on requiring (lol) the member nations with these capabilities to carry out debris removal (however flawed it was written).

This makes sense though... I will change it so that member nations deploy space debris removal technology instead.

May aid is gone, and replaced with "would aid". I think compensating non-member nation entities would still work though? The more information that the DISC can access, the better -- even if a non-member is involved, it will work to the benefit of member nations.

Also an improvement, but the funding for purchasing intellectual property (Section 3) that would aid DISC is another case of inefficiency in this proposal, as were member states tasked with the duties DISC is being given, they would be incentivised by their own budgets to find and negotiate licensing for the best and most efficient practices. This would be both more flexible and could also allow for DISC or WASP or whatever to perhaps have a part in arranging or potentially arbitrating these agreements.[/quote]
I don't really agree with this. Where possible, I'd prefer to avoid draining member nation funds where the DISC can do it anyway, especially as I'm iffy on having member nations subsidise researchers in other non-member nations. But to add more of an incentive for the information to be more helpful, I've decided to add a mandate that the incentive be proportional to the information's utility.

Overall I still firmly believe this is better served as a duty for member nations with the capabilities, than creating or expanding a committee to undertake such a massive task.

As is now, the DISC only has to a) develop/index removal technologies, b) coordinate their deployment, c) compensate those who provide DISC information. Is this better?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Delegates may use this portal to register their approval of this now-submitted proposal."

[West Barack and East Obama]

"Entirely opposed. If someone has the resources to cause a mess in space, they have the resources to clean up after themselves. Frittering away the workers' hard earned collective funds, IE the General Fund, on cleaning up after billionaire's vanity projects is obnoxious."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: In full agreement with this. Opposed.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Al Waha, Araznan, Huron League, Morover, Hansdeltania, Angladen, Easthaven and Adjacent Isles, Josephtan, Celtic States, Tiber and Rione, Great Libertona, Definetly Not A Puppet State, Corresta, IDEVK, Aivintis, Arkkine, Glorious Wakanda, Leiustedec, Freed Penguins, Lbepmalognischtanscht, Free Capitalist Canada, Mlociniakik, New Amoni, Edmundian Pluto, Mikeswill, Chubboland, De Spe Flammis, Mendevia, Cosnicu, NightHawk, Bream, North West Mindoor, Lennonia, East Chimore, New Nationale Einheit, Nookville, Landfield, Imperial Loravia, New United Common-lands, Koranz, Not China, Chantayak, Thialrer, Patec, South Boston Irishmen, Shanlix, Silver-Tree, Pogaria, Veganan, Uponda, United States of Kuwait, San Lumen, The Onion Union, Roylaii, Timmy City, Plunderer Paradise, Battadia, The Terren Dominion, The Candy Of Bottles, Verlos, Robuxia, Xukong, Sorianora, Fachumonn, Solariia, Andripa

[Heavens Reach]

Heavens Reach has WITHDRAWN its YES vote in light of seemingly intentional oversight of editorial problems with the submission, and the truncated drafting period.

[Antipodea and Allies]

Antipodea and Allies has voted YES to this resolution, and hopes other nations will put aside differences and contribute to the removal, regardless of which nations have contributed to the debris in space.

[Bistritza]

SIC:
I'm not paying for it. Going to abuse 3-a and 3-b. See ya!

[Antes Eternum]

The Republic of Antes Eternum understands that not all nations contributed equally to the current pollution of our shared space, and acknowledges that there is some inequity in nations who practiced responsibility prior to the passing of "To Prevent Dangerous Debris" now being expected to pay for debris removal, either directly or via the General Fund.

However, given that the resolution "To Prevent Dangerous Debris" has been now longstanding international law, in the spirit of international cooperation, for the preservation and protection of our natural environment, and so that scientific advancement may continue through space exploration, Antes Eternum has voted YES.

[Elwher]

While Elwher approves of the concept, the definition of debris is too wide, making no sufficient distinction between functioning and non-functioning platforms.

[Zaroxa]

Let's say you have a household of four people, one of those people commits a crime. Surely they would be the only one punished? You seem to not agree with me on that matter, thousands of nations without space programs would be paying for this, some even have fragile economies. While with section 3a and 3b seem to consider this, all nations would still have to pay taxpayer dollars for an issue they did not contribute to. Thus, I am afraid I cannot support this resolution.

[Maurdea]

We have more problems down on Earth that we precisely need to deal with than up in space. Maybe in the future this would be a good idea.

[Heavens Reach]

We have more problems down on Earth that we precisely need to deal with than up in space. Maybe in the future this would be a good idea.

Ambassador, problems in space quickly become problems down on Earth

[Texicans]

It's no one's responsibility to clean up junk left in space but those who left it!
This is the modern "victim mentality" of "blame everyone but yourself" for the mess YOU caused.

There is no way 88% of this stuff ever falls out of orbit and doesn't completely burn up into nothing, not even slag before getting close to earth. I'm more concerned about the bullets and pot shots these despots are firing at my military who simply are standing guard on our borders. Especially compared to any junk falling on us from space. I'm willing to bet that's the sentiment of most here. Even the most iron fisted communistic among us have better sense than be forced into this overreaching proposal.

Tired of over zealous, tyrannical leaders trying to force their "proposals" on us all. We're more concerned about the wars we have to go thru with all the military industrial types (not that that's bad mind you but keep it in YOUR nation) because you can't keep your Edicts and Ideals and hands in your own land we'll take issue. Mind your own business. You'll stay healthier as a result. Much less stress and snipers involved...

No body's going to pay for your mess, you clean it up.

President of Texicans and the Banshee Disciples M.C.
Uncle Tedd "AR-Ten" Nuygent

[Greater Meradonia]

The World Assembly,

Heralding the efforts of "To Prevent Dangerous Debris" to prevent the creation of space debris,

Emphasising, however, that this remains silent on the active removal of space debris,

Identifying the harm that space debris can cause to both member nations and the environment alike _

• Making space travel and exploration more difficult due to the risk of spacecraft colliding with space debris;
• Greenhouse gases being created through atmospheric combustion of space debris;
• The falling of space debris into the ground, which can cause property damage and harm sapient life;
• Collisions between existing space debris generating further space debris;

Concerned by the ominous silence of World Assembly law in the topic of removal of space debris with the repeal of "Active Reduction of Space Debris", despite this topic necessitating a plan of action to protect member nations and their environments from space debris in collaboration between member nations and the World Assembly's institutions,

Enacts as follows _

1. Space debris, in this resolution, means disused sapient-made items or parts thereof in outer space posing a cognisable risk of: entering, in the foreseeable future, volumes of atmosphere controlled by a member nation, or polluting these atmospheres through atmospheric burn-up; colliding with operating member nation spacecraft; or generating further space debris;
   
2. The Debris In Space Committee (or DISC) of the WA Scientific Programme is to index -- in a manner accessible to member nations -- and work to develop technologies and strategies that remove space debris in such a manner minimising damage caused by use to the environment, property, and sapient populations but otherwise as efficiently and speedily as possible;
   
3. All member nations that, in the view of the DISC, have sufficiently developed technology to do so with or without Section 3a or 3b assistance, are to regularly deploy Section 2 techniques in a manner determined by the DISC to minimise damage caused by use to the environment, property, and sapient populations but otherwise function as efficiently and speedily as possible;
   
   
   1. The WA General Fund is to subsidise deployment of Section 2 techniques by a member nation, on request by that member nation, sufficiently to avoid severe burden on that member nation's finances posed by deployment of these techniques, where the need for funding did not arise due to deliberate diversion of existing funds by that nation;
      
   2. The DISC is to assist member nations in deploying Section 2 techniques, where such assistance is necessary for that member nation to be able to deploy space debris removal techniques so as to comply with Section 2;
4. The DISC is to provide pecuniary incentives through the WA General Fund to any entities that discover and provide to the DISC data, process, or research -- barring that classified for national security or personal privacy -- that would materially assist the DISC in developing, indexing, or coordinating Section 3 deployment of, Section 2 techniques; these incentives are to be proportionate to the utility of this information to the DISC, but sufficient to reasonably procure provision of such information in the view of the DISC;
   
5. Each member nation is to refrain from obstructing any Section 3 removal efforts, and is to penalise any legal entity under its jurisdiction that does so, so as to reasonably deter similar attempts to obstruct these space debris removal efforts;
   
6. Subject to Section 5, no part of this resolution is to be interpreted as regulating or restricting any space debris removal efforts conducted separately to Section 3 efforts.

"Discuss."

The People of Greater Meradoniafully support this measure. While her leader may be too lazy to read the resolution in full, the title alone makes it clear that this is a good idea.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

So, I wrote the analysis, or the opinion for The South Pacific on this proposal. Our final message, vote AGAINST.

Firstly, we applaud the authors of this resolution. We thank you for contributing to The World Assembly, though, here is the reason I voted against this measure.

Space debris, yeah, it needs to be removed, but some of the writing in here we are opposed to. Conservative member states would most likely be opposed to this resolution due to the fact that they are paying to clean up other, nonmember states' crap. I don't have any problem with this, but the majority of the members in The Office of World Legislation in TSP said otherwise.

We also applaud the writing of the resolution, though some of it is challenging to comprehend. The resolution also may seem wordy and lengthy.

(also: how much money does The World Assembly General Fund have?)

Anyways, it is a resolution with a good idea behind it, but the implementation and resolution may not be the best, in the opinion of The Office of World Assembly Legislation of TSP.

[Morover]

We have more problems down on Earth that we precisely need to deal with than up in space. Maybe in the future this would be a good idea.

"What the fuck is an 'Erth'? Did I hear that correctly?"

[Heavens Reach]

We have more problems down on Earth that we precisely need to deal with than up in space. Maybe in the future this would be a good idea.

"What the fuck is an 'Erth'? Did I hear that correctly?"

We just assumed it was what they called the land in their nation

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Space debris, yeah, it needs to be removed, but some of the writing in here we are opposed to. Conservative member states would most likely be opposed to this resolution due to the fact that they are paying to clean up other, nonmember states' crap. I don't have any problem with this, but the majority of the members in The Office of World Legislation in TSP said otherwise.

This is a non-issue: nations who don't contribute to the cost of cleaning up their space debris can look forward to having their active satellites and other space assets classified as debris in danger of colliding with member nations' spacecraft. The WA has no restrictions whatsoever on member nations - who are the ones doing the work here - acting in their interest against non-members. Pony up, bitches!

[Lile Ulie Islands]

Space debris, yeah, it needs to be removed, but some of the writing in here we are opposed to. Conservative member states would most likely be opposed to this resolution due to the fact that they are paying to clean up other, nonmember states' crap. I don't have any problem with this, but the majority of the members in The Office of World Legislation in TSP said otherwise.

This is a non-issue: nations who don't contribute to the cost of cleaning up their space debris can look forward to having their active satellites and other space assets classified as debris in danger of colliding with member nations' spacecraft. The WA has no restrictions whatsoever on member nations - who are the ones doing the work here - acting in their interest against non-members. Pony up, bitches!

Did you just call me a bitch?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

This is a non-issue: nations who don't contribute to the cost of cleaning up their space debris can look forward to having their active satellites and other space assets classified as debris in danger of colliding with member nations' spacecraft. The WA has no restrictions whatsoever on member nations - who are the ones doing the work here - acting in their interest against non-members. Pony up, bitches!

Did you just call me a bitch?

WA Member
Most World Assembly Endorsements: 795th
Most Influential: 5,299th
Most Pacifist: 8,558th
The ʻĀina o ka Maluhia of
Lile Ulie Islands
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise
"'Ōlelo lākou, hikiʻole i ka pono. 'Ōlelo wau ua hewa lā"

No.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

Did you just call me a bitch?

WA Member
Most World Assembly Endorsements: 795th
Most Influential: 5,299th
Most Pacifist: 8,558th
The ʻĀina o ka Maluhia of
Lile Ulie Islands
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise
"'Ōlelo lākou, hikiʻole i ka pono. 'Ōlelo wau ua hewa lā"

No.

I'm confused, your honor. What's with the "nation page" thing?