[PASSED] Protection of Airspace

[Ransium]

You misunderstand. I'm not insisting on making NS as a single planet, in fact, having your resolution explicitly state that the WA is on one planet is equally problematic. I'm saying don't explicitly state anything, and then you annoy no voters, as you've done now.

I don't think with the definitions you have now you need to explicitly tell IASA to measure anything. Just say territorial airspace ends where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible and be done with it.

Personally, I would delete everything in 4. 3 doesn't need clarification 4a/b) still clarifies nothing - that's what sovereignty means. You've already given nations control of their airspace, so let them have control. Once you've said nations have sovereignty over their own airspace the more you 'clarify' things the only thing you can possibly be doing is giving more control to the WA and the less to the nations. 4c is new and clearly illegal for the direct contradiction of Civilian Aircraft Accord, which you do have to actually read. 4d is not needed because it's already covered in CAA.

Moreover, if you just give nations control of their airspace (with the existing exceptions defined in CAA) you can also get rid of the confusing mess of 5b (I also have no idea why you'd pair it with 5A since they have nothing to do with each other). Who cares where airspace, the air above land that is not airspace for some reason, and actual land is. Their all the nation's territory that they can regulate as they please (subject to existing WA law).

Here's how I would organize things with a few grammatical corrections thrown in as well

1) Defines "Territorial airspace" of a nation as the portion of the atmosphere above the recognized land and water territories of a member nation, with the upper limit determined by where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible.

2) Mandates that all member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace, with the exception of any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections.

3) Defines "International airspace" as any portions of the atmosphere not above a nation's sovereign territory, with the lower limit determined by International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) based on stationary landmarks in the vicinity, and the upper limit determined by where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible.

5) Mandates that all aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace.

6) Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace.

[East Meranopirus]

I read the CAA before I wrote the proposal, but didn't go back to it as I kept changing things. Should've read it more carefully. My bad.

I suppose I always wanted details in there so there's no confusion whatsoever, but I guess in the GA it's better to leave things vague so everyone's happy. I'll change it to your version.

And last thing, to clear things up about the planets thing, what is the "powerful voting block" that you refer to? Are they a voting block that wants legislation to be as Earth-like as possible, or what?

[Ransium]

You have to take out my underlining for grammatical corrections

I don’t think 2 is quite phrased appropriately yet, let me give it a think.

[Kenmoria]

I read the CAA before I wrote the proposal, but didn't go back to it as I kept changing things. Should've read it more carefully. My bad.

I suppose I always wanted details in there so there's no confusion whatsoever, but I guess in the GA it's better to leave things vague so everyone's happy. I'll change it to your version.

And last thing, to clear things up about the planets thing, what is the "powerful voting block" that you refer to? Are they a voting block that wants legislation to be as Earth-like as possible, or what?

(OOC: I believe Ransium is referring to players who like to keep the World Assembly as MT as possible, ignoring any alien species or FT-focused pieces of legislation. This isn’t an organised bloc such as the North Pacific, but just a mindset that a lot of players have. Personally, I think that there are more players who would be annoyed by other planets being excluded than by non-MT proposals, but it is always a balancing act.)

[Ransium]

2) Mandates that all member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace, with the exception of any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections.

I would add something like "With regards to the egress and ingress of objects controlled by sapient beings," to the beginning of the clause, as the WA actually regulate the airspace in a ton of different ways from other perspectives.

And Kenmoria is correct. I'm just trying to get you to your goal while needlessly angering as few voters as possible.

[Araraukar]

(OOC: I believe Ransium is referring to players who like to keep the World Assembly as MT as possible, ignoring any alien species or FT-focused pieces of legislation.)

OOC: Mind you, many such things have been passed, but they need to be worded carefully. Both ignoring the multiverse as well as the problem of having everyone on the same planet are equally valid in RP, but many voters never actually come to the forums. I think I remember Fris or someone saying something about how 85% of people don't have forum accounts. Even if you take puppets out of the number, it might be as high as half. Those people will only see the proposal text, and they might not care about RP one way or another. Or they might. We don't know because they don't post here.

[East Meranopirus]

2) Mandates that all member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace, with the exception of any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections.

I would add something like "With regards to the egress and ingress of objects controlled by sapient beings," to the beginning of the clause, as the WA actually regulate the airspace in a ton of different ways from other perspectives.

And Kenmoria is correct. I'm just trying to get you to your goal while needlessly angering as few voters as possible.

So the voting block doesn't get triggered over using "sapient beings"? That's a relief. But can't I just say "aircraft" instead of "objects controlled by sapient beings"?

[Ransium]

Totally your call, I wrote it like that to prevent people trying to say “Oh so cruiser missles are fine?” Or “So my flying Pterdatcyl race can enter foreign airspace without objections?” But the degree you care these things is up to you.

Your title is also super general and should be made more descriptive. I’m not the greatest at titles but maybe something along the lines of “International Airspace Protection”

[East Meranopirus]

Totally your call, I wrote it like that to prevent people trying to say “Oh so cruiser missles are fine?” Or “So my flying Pterdatcyl race can enter foreign airspace without objections?” But the degree you care these things is up to you.

Your title is also super general and should be made more descriptive. I’m not the greatest at titles but maybe something along the lines of “International Airspace Protection”

For the title, I was thinking of something like "Sovereignty of Airspace".

Maybe I should add a definition for aircraft, since I used that word throughout the whole resolution, so I may as well define it to prevent those concerns of cruise missiles and pterodactyls.

[Kenmoria]

Totally your call, I wrote it like that to prevent people trying to say “Oh so cruiser missles are fine?” Or “So my flying Pterdatcyl race can enter foreign airspace without objections?” But the degree you care these things is up to you.

Your title is also super general and should be made more descriptive. I’m not the greatest at titles but maybe something along the lines of “International Airspace Protection”

For the title, I was thinking of something like "Sovereignty of Airspace".

(OOC: It’s generally a bad idea not to state what you’re going to do with the subject matter in a title, on a similar line of reasoning to how titles beginning with ‘on’ are bad. I suggest ‘Protecting the Sovereignty of Airspace’.)

[East Meranopirus]

Actually, on second thought, since this resolution deals with both sovereign and international airspace, I think Ransium's title is better: "International Airspace Protection", or maybe, "Protection of Airspace".

[Satuga]

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.

I think that may be a bad idea, the World Assembly is likely looking for ways to prevent wars, not start them, without regulations on the Resolution a country could have the potential to frame another country in order to have a clause to go to war with them. It will likely affect the Resolution vote greatly. And frankly if some type of restriction isn't added I don't believe I could support this Resolution.

[East Meranopirus]

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.

I think that may be a bad idea, the World Assembly is likely looking for ways to prevent wars, not start them, without regulations on the Resolution a country could have the potential to frame another country in order to have a clause to go to war with them. It will likely affect the Resolution vote greatly. And frankly if some type of restriction isn't added I don't believe I could support this Resolution.

I've changed the proposal a lot since you last commented on it. I suggest you read the current draft first. It includes the protections stated in past resolutions, but otherwise, I can't tell nations what to do because the whole concept of the resolution is based on sovereignty, and that would take away a great deal of their sovereignty.

Also, I think this proposal's now good to be submitted. Any last suggestions?

[Kelssek]

with regards to the egress and ingress of aircraft,

Why are these words better than plain simple "entry and exit"? And why limit it to entry and exit? Certainly we'd expect control over flights taking place within the country too. Or perhaps a while after an aircraft has entered the airspace, the state doesn't want it anymore?

Hence, I'm not sure the author realizes this proposal would actually reduce member nations' sovereign control over their airspace, since the status quo is that member states have control over all aspects of their airspace, not just entry and exit of aircraft. Sovereignty exists in the absence of WA resolutions.

Also, with regards to "stationary landmarks" - this is strange wording since presumably airspace's lower limit is the planet's surface and doesn't need any more definition, but going further, what's wrong with defining points according to latitude and longitude coordinates? Aircraft already use these for navigation, and when boundary limits are, for instance, 10 nautical miles out in the sea, this wouldn't be practical. Not to mention that stationary landmarks can collapse, erode, etc.

[East Meranopirus]

with regards to the egress and ingress of aircraft,

Why are these words better than plain simple "entry and exit"? And why limit it to entry and exit? Certainly we'd expect control over flights taking place within the country too. Or perhaps a while after an aircraft has entered the airspace, the state doesn't want it anymore?

Hence, I'm not sure the author realizes this proposal would actually reduce member nations' sovereign control over their airspace, since the status quo is that member states have control over all aspects of their airspace, not just entry and exit of aircraft. Sovereignty exists in the absence of WA resolutions.

Also, with regards to "stationary landmarks" - this is strange wording since presumably airspace's lower limit is the planet's surface and doesn't need any more definition, but going further, what's wrong with defining points according to latitude and longitude coordinates? Aircraft already use these for navigation, and when boundary limits are, for instance, 10 nautical miles out in the sea, this wouldn't be practical. Not to mention that stationary landmarks can collapse, erode, etc.

Ransium suggested the wording for "egress and ingress", and I read it as meaning the movement of aircraft. But you're right, it's confusing - I'll change it to "movement of aircraft".

As for the "stationary landmarks", I see it wrong to define the lower limit of airspace as the planet's surface, because that would mean everyone and everything is using the airspace because everyone is some height above the surface. As for your mention of coordinates and so forth, I believe that's already defined with this: "any portions of the atmosphere not above a nation's sovereign territory", which means anything not in a country's territory is international.

[Kelssek]

As for the "stationary landmarks", I see it wrong to define the lower limit of airspace as the planet's surface, because that would mean everyone and everything is using the airspace because everyone is some height above the surface.

...Yes, and?

National law differs, and would still differ even if this passed, but airspace isn't just about airplanes. In some nations, land comes with the airspace above it, and the owner can sell or lease the use of that airspace to someone else who wants to build something over their house, for instance.

It would be very strange if airspace was defined in such a way that states would expressly not have their sovereignty protected for some arbitrary layer between the ground and 100 metres (or other arbitrary height) above it.

As for your mention of coordinates and so forth, I believe that's already defined with this: "any portions of the atmosphere not above a nation's sovereign territory", which means anything not in a country's territory is international.

This isn't the issue, I'm saying that we should be able to define airspace limits by reference to something other than "stationary landmarks", which may also be impractical reference points.

[East Meranopirus]

National law differs, and would still differ even if this passed, but airspace isn't just about airplanes. In some nations, land comes with the airspace above it, and the owner can sell or lease the use of that airspace to someone else who wants to build something over their house, for instance.

It would be very strange if airspace was defined in such a way that states would expressly not have their sovereignty protected for some arbitrary layer between the ground and 100 metres (or other arbitrary height) above it.

The airspace you mentioned (that's sold with the land) is a different concept of airspace than the intended target of this proposal. This proposal is only talking about the airspace that planes fly in. Anything not within that definition would be considered just land/water area. That's why you can sell the airspace you referenced. I had a clause about that in a previous draft, but I removed it on Ransium's advice. Here it is:

"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."

This isn't the issue, I'm saying that we should be able to define airspace limits by reference to something other than "stationary landmarks", which may also be impractical reference points.

When you wrote this:
"Also, with regards to "stationary landmarks" - this is strange wording since presumably airspace's lower limit is the planet's surface and doesn't need any more definition, but going further, what's wrong with defining points according to latitude and longitude coordinates? Aircraft already use these for navigation, and when boundary limits are, for instance, 10 nautical miles out in the sea, this wouldn't be practical. Not to mention that stationary landmarks can collapse, erode, etc."
I wasn't sure of your meaning. You talked about "stationary landmarks", which is how height would be defined, and I get that you have some objections with that, but then you talked about defining points according to latitude and longitude, which is about horizontal/surface distance, which I believe was already covered by my definition of international airspace as "any portions of the atmosphere not above a nation's sovereign territory". As for "stationary landmarks" being an impractical reference point, I believe using any unit of measurement or latitudes and longitude is equally impractical and arbitrary.

Also, on an unrelated note, I realise you're the author of that GA guide, part of which I invoked while debating about my proposal to repeal "Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program". I'd really like your opinion on that.

[Quappe]

I saw this in the longer version of the proposal:

"A nation may take any action deemed appropriate in response to an aircraft entering its territorial airspace without authorisation."

This has got to be removed in my opinion. Really vague statement to make - "any action deemed appropriate" could mean anything from a soft warning to nuclear war given the diversity of nations in the WA.

Everything else seemed great to me, and I think you're right to define airspace better. But a new proposal should be made to cover "appropriate" responses to unauthorised aircrafts in airspaces with more detail.

[Satuga]

I've changed the proposal a lot since you last commented on it. I suggest you read the current draft first. It includes the protections stated in past resolutions, but otherwise, I can't tell nations what to do because the whole concept of the resolution is based on sovereignty, and that would take away a great deal of their sovereignty.

Also, I think this proposal's now good to be submitted. Any last suggestions?

As someone else addressed, the Nations response can react rather differently, from a warning to full on nuclear war, without some type of regulation on this it becomes a very strong platform for corruption and framing for nations. Once again I must suggest my reasoning and possibly even add for the offending Nation to release an apology to the offended Nation.

[East Meranopirus]

As someone else addressed, the Nations response can react rather differently, from a warning to full on nuclear war, without some type of regulation on this it becomes a very strong platform for corruption and framing for nations. Once again I must suggest my reasoning and possibly even add for the offending Nation to release an apology to the offended Nation.

That clause is removed from the current version of the proposal. Punishment clauses are usually not in GA resolutions as they are covered by the Compliance Act. Plus, deciding what to do is the nation's own responsibility, since the proposal has placed the sovereignty of the airspace into their hands.

[Kelssek]

National law differs, and would still differ even if this passed, but airspace isn't just about airplanes. In some nations, land comes with the airspace above it, and the owner can sell or lease the use of that airspace to someone else who wants to build something over their house, for instance.

It would be very strange if airspace was defined in such a way that states would expressly not have their sovereignty protected for some arbitrary layer between the ground and 100 metres (or other arbitrary height) above it.

The airspace you mentioned (that's sold with the land) is a different concept of airspace than the intended target of this proposal. This proposal is only talking about the airspace that planes fly in. Anything not within that definition would be considered just land/water area. That's why you can sell the airspace you referenced. I had a clause about that in a previous draft, but I removed it on Ransium's advice. Here it is:

"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."

You are thinking of airspace as necessarily linked only to aircraft and aviation, but the airspace that aircraft fly in is the very same airspace that buildings, people, and other things exist in. It makes no sense to limit the concept that way, and it's deeply illogical to legally define the air up to x height as part of the water or the land. The legal concept of airspace, after all, existed before there were aircraft to fly in it. Your proposal's effect is to rewrite these well-understood and longstanding concepts in a pretty strange way.

Let me point out one obvious problem for your purposes if airspace is defined as having a lower limit at any point higher than the surface. Does it make sense that an airplane taking off does not enter "airspace" at the point its landing gear leaves the ground? Also, a skilled helicopter pilot could possibly avoid entering "airspace" at all if it were defined as starting at any point above the height of her/his aircraft. So much for advancing the sovereignty of states.

I wasn't sure of your meaning. You talked about "stationary landmarks", which is how height would be defined, and I get that you have some objections with that, but then you talked about defining points according to latitude and longitude, which is about horizontal/surface distance, which I believe was already covered by my definition of international airspace as "any portions of the atmosphere not above a nation's sovereign territory". As for "stationary landmarks" being an impractical reference point, I believe using any unit of measurement or latitudes and longitude is equally impractical and arbitrary.

There are three dimensions in play when you are defining an airspace boundary. Two of them are on the surface, and lat-long is a very reasonable and practical reference point, perhaps preferable to "50 metres from the summit of that hill" or "that green buoy over there". The boundary between international and national airspace will need to be defined on the surface dimensions too.

Impractical and arbitrary are different issues. A week having seven days is arbitrary, but in no way impractical.

[Satuga]

As someone else addressed, the Nations response can react rather differently, from a warning to full on nuclear war, without some type of regulation on this it becomes a very strong platform for corruption and framing for nations. Once again I must suggest my reasoning and possibly even add for the offending Nation to release an apology to the offended Nation.

That clause is removed from the current version of the proposal. Punishment clauses are usually not in GA resolutions as they are covered by the Compliance Act. Plus, deciding what to do is the nation's own responsibility, since the proposal has placed the sovereignty of the airspace into their hands.

I still find that too dangerous to support, it allows for an incredibly corrupt future. I don't believe me and my people will be able to support this Resolution. I hope you are at least able to understand me and my people's reasoning for this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just to be clear, this:
[box]4) Defines "International airspace" as any portions of the atmosphere not above a nation's sovereign territory[/b]
does refer to all nations, right? Not just member nations? Because otherwise you're trying to make non-WA nations' airspace into international one (and then the bit about saying aircraft can fly there freely would likely make a lot of trouble as non-members tend not to be any happier about airspace incursions than member nations are).

Though I would suggest changing "Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace." in clause 6 to "Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace, unless required by an existing treaty." I mean, if we're treating NS as being real, it's reasonable to expect that non-WA nations and WA nations that exist on the same planet would have some kind of duties (air traffic control near their own airspace mostly) regarding international airspace, like they do in RL.

[East Meranopirus]

You are thinking of airspace as necessarily linked only to aircraft and aviation, but the airspace that aircraft fly in is the very same airspace that buildings, people, and other things exist in. It makes no sense to limit the concept that way, and it's deeply illogical to legally define the air up to x height as part of the water or the land. The legal concept of airspace, after all, existed before there were aircraft to fly in it. Your proposal's effect is to rewrite these well-understood and longstanding concepts in a pretty strange way.

Let me point out one obvious problem for your purposes if airspace is defined as having a lower limit at any point higher than the surface. Does it make sense that an airplane taking off does not enter "airspace" at the point its landing gear leaves the ground? Also, a skilled helicopter pilot could possibly avoid entering "airspace" at all if it were defined as starting at any point above the height of her/his aircraft. So much for advancing the sovereignty of states.

There are three dimensions in play when you are defining an airspace boundary. Two of them are on the surface, and lat-long is a very reasonable and practical reference point, perhaps preferable to "50 metres from the summit of that hill" or "that green buoy over there". The boundary between international and national airspace will need to be defined on the surface dimensions too.

Impractical and arbitrary are different issues. A week having seven days is arbitrary, but in no way impractical.

I'll say this: In the proposal the lower limit for territorial airspace is not defined, meaning it's left up to member nations to decide. They can make it however they want, it's their sovereign right and I don't intend on disrupting it.

As for the international airspace, I don't quite see the fuss with lat-long. On the surface level, it's simply defined anything that doesn't belong to a nation (WA or non-WA). I understand your concerns with the height definition, but you haven't given a solution. Maybe you've misinterpreted the proposal, I'm very confused what exactly you're referring to with the surface dimensions, since no one has had a problem with that and I see that as the least problematic part.

[Araraukar]

I'll say this: In the proposal the lower limit for territorial airspace is not defined

OOC: This is what I tried to ask before but apparently too subtly; how can you have a lower limit for national airspace? Doesn't it automatically start where the ground of water surface ends? Like, how can you have a "not-national" space between the ground and national airspace?