[Challenge] International Aviation Act

[Christian Democrats]

Araraukar has challenged the International Aviation Act.

This proposal has already been submitted.

Proposal text:

International Aviation Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Ayeris Islands

Description: The World Assembly ,

Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms constitutes one of the largest threats to international peace, security and stability and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations,

Noting that the WA and member states are dedicated to fight this scourge on a global level, evident from the previous resolutions passed,

Recognizing the vital importance of the global aviation system for economic development and prosperity, and of all States strengthening aviation security measures to make a stable and peaceful global environment,

Expressing concern that terrorist groups continue to view civil aviation as an attractive target, with the aim to cause substantial loss of life, economic damage and disruption to connectivity between States, and that the risk of terrorist attacks against civil aviation may affect all regions and member states,

Hereby:

Reaffirms the WA's call upon all States to join the relevant international counter-terrorism conventions and protocols in their region if it has them as soon as possible, and to fully implement their obligations under those to which they have joint,

Affirms that all States have the responsibility to protect the security of citizens and nationals of all WA nations against terrorist attacks on air services operating within their territory, in a manner consistent with existing obligations under international law;

Affirms also that all States have an interest to protect the safety of their own citizens and nationals against terrorist attacks conducted against international civil aviation, wherever these may occur, in accordance with WA international law, including international human rights law and international criminal law;

Hence,

Advises States to ensure that effective measures are in place at the airports within their jurisdiction, including through enhancing screening, security checks, and facility security, to detect and deter terrorist attacks against civil aviation and to review and assess such measures regularly and thoroughly to ensure that they reflect the ever-evolving threat picture and are in accordance with international standards;

Advocates that all WA member nations take necessary steps to ensure that these measures are effectively implemented on a continuous and sustainable basis, including the provision of the required resources, use of quality control and oversight processes, and the promotion of an effective security culture within all organizations involved in civil aviation;

Enacts International Aviation Act (2016)

Resolution thread (posted after it was submitted): http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 9&t=394135

Rules violated:

• Meta-Gaming: using "all States" instead of "member states" is an attempt to legislate on non-member nations
• Strength: it has been submitted as "Strong", yet the active clauses are optional language, "Advises" and "Advocates", more suited for a Mild strength.

In my opinion, we don't need to resolve the Metagaming issue because it's clear that this proposal violates the Strength Rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

I say we decline this one. Its not going anywhere.

[Christian Democrats]

I say we decline this one. Its not going anywhere.

Yeah, we could do that too. Once the proposal expires, post that it's a moot issue.

[Separatist Peoples]

I say we decline this one. Its not going anywhere.

Yeah, we could do that too. Once the proposal expires, post that it's a moot issue.

And it has zero danger of making quorum. At least this time.

[Kryozerkia]

Yeah, we could do that too. Once the proposal expires, post that it's a moot issue.

And it has zero danger of making quorum. At least this time.

Even if it doesn't make quorum, it should still be given some consideration. It is no longer time sensitive. I'd only drop if the author has abandoned it or suspended drafting.

[Bears Armed]

Araraukar has challenged the International Aviation Act.

This proposal has already been submitted.

Proposal text:


Resolution thread (posted after it was submitted): http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 9&t=394135

Rules violated:

• Meta-Gaming: using "all States" instead of "member states" is an attempt to legislate on non-member nations
• Strength: it has been submitted as "Strong", yet the active clauses are optional language, "Advises" and "Advocates", more suited for a Mild strength.

In my opinion, we don't need to resolve the Metagaming issue because it's clear that this proposal violates the Strength Rule.

I agree about it being a clear violation of the Strength rule.
I would read it as trying to affect non-member nations (although that might or might not have been the author's intention: maybe it was just an unfortunate choice of wording...), and the mention of "regions" as possibly meaning NS 'regions' , so I'd support a ruling that it was illegal for 'Meta-gaming' as well.

[Christian Democrats]

I don't think it's necessary to reach the Metagaming issue when there's a clear Strength violation.

With the approval of the other councilors, I'm willing to write an opinion on the Strength issue.

[Sciongrad]

I don't think it's necessary to reach the Metagaming issue when there's a clear Strength violation.

With the approval of the other councilors, I'm willing to write an opinion on the Strength issue.

Seconded. We'll refuse to hear the other question for now.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Agreed with limiting our response to the strength question. Also agreed that it is a strength violation, given the lax wording.

[Christian Democrats]

Thoughts?

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***

Challenged Proposal: International Aviation Act
Date of Decision: __ November 2016
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 6-0
Rules Applied: Strength Rule

International Aviation Act
Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Ayeris Islands

The World Assembly,

Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms constitutes one of the largest threats to international peace, security and stability and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations,

Noting that the WA and member states are dedicated to fight this scourge on a global level, evident from the previous resolutions passed,

Recognizing the vital importance of the global aviation system for economic development and prosperity, and of all States strengthening aviation security measures to make a stable and peaceful global environment,

Expressing concern that terrorist groups continue to view civil aviation as an attractive target, with the aim to cause substantial loss of life, economic damage and disruption to connectivity between States, and that the risk of terrorist attacks against civil aviation may affect all regions and member states,

Hereby:

Reaffirms the WA's call upon all States to join the relevant international counter-terrorism conventions and protocols in their region if it has them as soon as possible, and to fully implement their obligations under those to which they have joint,

Affirms that all States have the responsibility to protect the security of citizens and nationals of all WA nations against terrorist attacks on air services operating within their territory, in a manner consistent with existing obligations under international law;

Affirms also that all States have an interest to protect the safety of their own citizens and nationals against terrorist attacks conducted against international civil aviation, wherever these may occur, in accordance with WA international law, including international human rights law and international criminal law;

Hence,

Advises States to ensure that effective measures are in place at the airports within their jurisdiction, including through enhancing screening, security checks, and facility security, to detect and deter terrorist attacks against civil aviation and to review and assess such measures regularly and thoroughly to ensure that they reflect the ever-evolving threat picture and are in accordance with international standards;

Advocates that all WA member nations take necessary steps to ensure that these measures are effectively implemented on a continuous and sustainable basis, including the provision of the required resources, use of quality control and oversight processes, and the promotion of an effective security culture within all organizations involved in civil aviation;

Enacts International Aviation Act (2016)

Majority Opinion (Christian Democrats)
Joined by Bears Armed, Glen-Rhodes, Sciongrad, Separatist Peoples, and Sierra Lyricalia.

We consider a challenge that raises two questions: (1) whether the International Aviation Act violates the Meta-Gaming Rule by attempting to legislate on non-member nations and (2) whether the International Aviation Act violates the Strength Rule. On the second question, we have determined that the proposal does, in fact, break the Strength Rule and, therefore, is illegal. Because the answer to the strength question is sufficient to strike down the proposal, it is unnecessary for us to decide the scope of the Meta-Gaming Rule at this time.

The Strength Rule states: "This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which [affects] a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant."

The proposal now before us is listed as Strong, and it has two operative clauses. The first operative clause "advises" nations to maintain "effective [security] measures . . . to detect and deter terrorist attacks against civil aviation." The second operative clause "advocates" that "necessary steps" be taken for implementing the first operative clause's advice. In short, the proposal does not set forth any mandates. It contains only suggestions, namely that nations should have effective security measures and should take the necessary steps to implement them.

It is impossible, in our opinion, for a proposal that merely gives advice or makes suggestions to affect policy "in a dramatic way." The statistical impact of a Strong resolution is to coerce national governments toward a given policy, severely constraining their discretion over one or more important matters. Since WA members are at liberty to reject GA suggestions after giving them due consideration, advisory proposals can never be Strong. In accordance with the text of the Strength Rule and long-standing GA norms, we hold today that Strong is always inappropriate for proposals whose operative clauses are only advisory or suggestive.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I agree to sign on to that.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I would add something to the effect that even takng everything after "Hereby" as an operative clause (interpreting the resolution in the most favorable possible light), that only adds affirmations of some things that are either already assumed, or not particularly controversial or surprising; and therefore it still doesn't count as Strong.

I can tap out a real paragraph on this, but not til tomorrow night when I'll have access to my computer again. If you want to add it on your own account sooner, I will happily sign the result.

[Sciongrad]

I'll join your opinion.

[Christian Democrats]

I would add something to the effect that even takng everything after "Hereby" as an operative clause (interpreting the resolution in the most favorable possible light), that only adds affirmations of some things that are either already assumed, or not particularly controversial or surprising; and therefore it still doesn't count as Strong.

I can tap out a real paragraph on this, but not til tomorrow night when I'll have access to my computer again. If you want to add it on your own account sooner, I will happily sign the result.

By all means, type something out. I'll try to work it in.

[Bears Armed]

I will sign to the opinion as currently written, and probably also to it with the planned modification.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

My suggested changes. Feel free to alter or abridge.

Edit: nevermind.



We consider a challenge that raises two questions: (1) whether the International Aviation Act violates the Meta-Gaming Rule by attempting to legislate on non-member nations and (2) whether the International Aviation Act violates the Strength Rule. On the second question, we have determined that the proposal does, in fact, break the Strength Rule and, therefore, is illegal. Because the answer to the strength question is sufficient to strike down the proposal, it is unnecessary for us to decide the scope of the Meta-Gaming Rule at this time.

The Strength Rule states: "This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which [affects] a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant."

The proposal now before us is listed as Strong, and it has two undeniably operative clauses. The first operative clause of these "advises" nations to maintain "effective [security] measures . . . to detect and deter terrorist attacks against civil aviation." The second operative clause "advocates" that "necessary steps" be taken for implementing the first operative clause's advice. In short, the proposal does not set forth any mandates. It contains only suggestions, namely that nations should have effective security measures and should take the necessary steps to implement them.

Reading the proposal in the most favorable light, it could be interpreted to have three additional operative clauses - the paragraphs situated between the conjunctions "hereby" and "hence." These clauses appear preambulatory, but coming as they do after the word "hereby," we may assume for a moment they are operative. If so, they act only to "affirm" or "reaffirm" uncontroversial or even obvious statements, and do not force the serious changes one expects from a resolution classed as Strong. The first "reaffirms" a generic statement of support for international counter-terrorism efforts; the second "affirms" a fact known to anyone who has read the corpus of international law; and the third "affirms" a factual statement about the already widely accepted responsibilities of states generally. None of these clauses lays any new obligation on member states, let alone a strenuous or surprising one.

It is impossible, in our opinion, for a proposal that merely gives advice, repeats facts, or makes suggestions to affect policy "in a dramatic way." The statistical impact of a Strong resolution is to coerce national governments toward a given policy, severely constraining their discretion over one or more important matters. Since WA members are at liberty to reject GA suggestions after giving them due consideration, advisory proposals can never be Strong. In accordance with the text of the Strength Rule and long-standing GA norms, we hold today that Strong is always inappropriate for proposals whose operative clauses are entirely advisory or suggestive.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'll sign to CD's. Very neatly done.

[Mousebumples]

I would suggest one minor edit in the last line. Means about the same thing, but I think only is clearer than entirely, personally.

In accordance with the text of the Strength Rule and long-standing GA norms, we hold today that Strong is always inappropriate for proposals whose operative clauses are entirelyonly advisory or suggestive.

Otherwise, I believe that ruling makes sense.

[Bears Armed]

My suggested changes. Feel free to alter or abridge.

We consider a challenge that raises two questions: (1) whether the International Aviation Act violates the Meta-Gaming Rule by attempting to legislate on non-member nations and (2) whether the International Aviation Act violates the Strength Rule. On the second question, we have determined that the proposal does, in fact, break the Strength Rule and, therefore, is illegal. Because the answer to the strength question is sufficient to strike down the proposal, it is unnecessary for us to decide the scope of the Meta-Gaming Rule at this time.

The Strength Rule states: "This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which [affects] a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant."

The proposal now before us is listed as Strong, and it has two undeniably operative clauses. The first operative clause of these "advises" nations to maintain "effective [security] measures . . . to detect and deter terrorist attacks against civil aviation." The second operative clause "advocates" that "necessary steps" be taken for implementing the first operative clause's advice. In short, the proposal does not set forth any mandates. It contains only suggestions, namely that nations should have effective security measures and should take the necessary steps to implement them.

Reading the proposal in the most favorable light, it could be interpreted to have three additional operative clauses - the paragraphs situated between the conjunctions "hereby" and "hence." These clauses appear preambulatory, but coming as they do after the word "hereby," we may assume for a moment they are operative. If so, they act only to "affirm" or "reaffirm" uncontroversial or even obvious statements, and do not force the serious changes one expects from a resolution classed as Strong. The first "reaffirms" a generic statement of support for international counter-terrorism efforts; the second "affirms" a fact known to anyone who has read the corpus of international law; and the third "affirms" a factual statement about the already widely accepted responsibilities of states generally. None of these clauses lays any new obligation on member states, let alone a strenuous or surprising one.

It is impossible, in our opinion, for a proposal that merely gives advice, repeats facts, or makes suggestions to affect policy "in a dramatic way." The statistical impact of a Strong resolution is to coerce national governments toward a given policy, severely constraining their discretion over one or more important matters. Since WA members are at liberty to reject GA suggestions after giving them due consideration, advisory proposals can never be Strong. In accordance with the text of the Strength Rule and long-standing GA norms, we hold today that Strong is always inappropriate for proposals whose operative clauses are entirely advisory or suggestive.

Yes, I'll agree to that.

[Christian Democrats]

I would suggest one minor edit in the last line. Means about the same thing, but I think only is clearer than entirely, personally.

In accordance with the text of the Strength Rule and long-standing GA norms, we hold today that Strong is always inappropriate for proposals whose operative clauses are entirelyonly advisory or suggestive.

Otherwise, I believe that ruling makes sense.

Change made.

My suggested changes. Feel free to alter or abridge.

Edit: nevermind.

Nevermind on your proposed changes?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I would suggest one minor edit in the last line. Means about the same thing, but I think only is clearer than entirely, personally.

Otherwise, I believe that ruling makes sense.

Change made.

My suggested changes. Feel free to alter or abridge.

Edit: nevermind.

Nevermind on your proposed changes?

Nevermind on the necessity of rendering any legal opinion on a proposal that failed to reach quorum. On reconsidering, however, we've done the work and precedent is a nice thing to have laying around, so go ahead. I stand by the additions.

[Christian Democrats]

Change made.


Nevermind on your proposed changes?

Nevermind on the necessity of rendering any legal opinion on a proposal that failed to reach quorum. On reconsidering, however, we've done the work and precedent is a nice thing to have laying around, so go ahead. I stand by the additions.

Do we want to make the additions, or would that paragraph be better just as a short concurrence?