NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Enforcing Sterilisation Standards on Spacecraft

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Ignis Cinere
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Apr 03, 2019
New York Times Democracy

[DRAFT] Enforcing Sterilisation Standards on Spacecraft

Postby Ignis Cinere » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:41 am

Enforcing Sterilisation Standards on Earth-origin Manned Spacecraft

SHOCKED at the lack of legislation regarding the sterilisation of Earth-origin manned spacecraft,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many a WA nation has a space program,

WANTING to ensure public safety by sterilising returning spacecraft so as to remove all potentially harmful alien organism species that may or may not have arrived on Earth via spacecraft,

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,
a. Spacecraft as any sort of manned craft intentionally launched into space and has landed on or had contact with non-Earth objects, and successfully made reentry through the Earth’s atmosphere,
b. Sterilisation as the complete removal, containment, and/or disinfection of any foreign, non-Earth origin organisms found on the craft,

Hereby,
MANDATES that WA member nations with space programs

a. purchase at least basic sterilisation equipment on a scale suitable to that of their space program,
b. establish sterilisation procedures and protocol, and enforce them upon the relevant parties,
c. spread awareness about the danger of potentially harmful alien organisms on the ecosystem and/or the human race,
d. collectively create a committee, concerned with establishing and enforcing sterilisation standards of said returning spacecraft across all involved nations, to be named the Spacecraft Sterilisation Standard Organisation (S.S.S.O.)

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 19163
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:32 am

OOC
WA nations are not automatically on 'Earth', and precedent says that using the planet's name is therefore "illegal" under the rule against RL references.
And we're not all "human", neither...

But congratulations on having the sense to post your draft here, instead of just going straight to submitting it...
Last edited by Bears Armed on Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5585
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:36 am

(OOC: It is the WA that creates committees, not member states. Additionally, I recommend reusing the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) rather than making a new committee.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
BlackLight Covenant
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 116
Founded: Apr 24, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby BlackLight Covenant » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:20 pm

IC: "Besides the fact that this proposal is quite human- and Earth-centric, which could no doubt be taken as an insult by some, this proposal does appear to have some issues that require mending, ambassador...which, I do suppose, is the reason why we are all here at the moment. One of the main issues that I see right now legislation-wise is your definition of a spacecraft, as it requires a vessel to have been built on a planet's surface. How would this work for spacecraft that have been entirely constructed in space yet are fully capable of engaging in planetary landings, like the smaller vessels of our space fleet? Under the current definition, such vessels do not appear to count as spacecraft, meaning that they would be exempt from this legislation regardless of the fact that they are just as capable of spreading non-native organisms onto a planet."

"This also brings me to my next point, namely the fact that your proposal forces a space vessel to undergo sterilization to ensure that no foreign organisms are capable of latching on to the vessel before infesting whatever planet they land upon. Now, this is perfectly fine in theory, as interplanetary contagion is definitely not something one wants to see, but this is where the Earth-based focus of this proposal seems to become a proper issue. After all, your proposal currently aims to prevent alien organisms from contaminating Earth. What about inhabited planets that aren't Earth, however? Or non-inhabited planets that might still house their own ecosystem, regardless of how barren said planets might be? In its current form, this seems like something that will be quite easy to exploit for nations more willing to cut corners and costs when it comes to spaceflight; after all, they only have to make sure that their spacecraft are sterilized when attempting to land on Earth, not on a planet or other celestial body in general."

"Last but not least, you should probably reword the clause about spreading awareness of the dangers of interplanetary contamination, as this clause presents a loophole due to a blend of its current requirements and the human-centric writing that this proposal is currently filled with. After all, it forces nations to spread awareness about the dangers alien contamination presents towards a planet's ecosystem and/or towards human life. After all, if a species is not human, or alternatively, does not identify itself as human, then whatever government is in charge could exploit this current wording to educate only about the dangers for human life, whilst downplaying the threat it might pose to their own species, and completely ignoring the part about potential threats towards a native ecosystem due to the and/or part."

"So in short, modify your definition of what a spacecraft is, reword the clause about spreading awareness, get rid of the human- and Earth-centric writing that currently haunts your proposal, and then this concept of yours should be well on its way towards becoming a working version of itself, ambassador."

(OOC: might also wanna check whether this contradicts or duplicates any currently active resolution with regards to things such as the definition of a spacecraft, as I don't exactly know whether such a thing has already been defined in the past.)

Dietrich Latvala
- Primary Multiversal Ambassador
- 1st Corporate Representative to the World Assembly
- An actually mostly sane member of the Diplomatic Corps for a change

Ellen Lovik
- Secondary Multiversal Ambassador
- 2nd Corporate Representative to the World Assembly
- Mentally mildly stuck in the mindset from her time as riot officer

Nichlas Vilhelmson
- Tertiary Multiversal Ambassador
- Reserve Corporate Representative to the World Assembly
- Always carries a datapad with corporate advertisements on him



Currently the most general officer of generic things, common issues, and standard matters for The Glorious Nations of Iwaku!


User avatar
Ignis Cinere
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Apr 03, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Ignis Cinere » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:54 pm

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It is the WA that creates committees, not member states. Additionally, I recommend reusing the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) rather than making a new committee.)

OOC: Ah thanks! Could you possibly point out the resolution where the IASA first appeared?
Last edited by Ignis Cinere on Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ignis Cinere
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Apr 03, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Ignis Cinere » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:56 pm

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
WA nations are not automatically on 'Earth', and precedent says that using the planet's name is therefore "illegal" under the rule against RL references.
And we're not all "human", neither...

But congratulations on having the sense to post your draft here, instead of just going straight to submitting it...

OOC: Oh, I didn’t know that counted as a RL ref... thanks for pointing it out! Could you perhaps suggest a neutral way to refer to planets that this GA resolution is concerned with? And how should I rephrase the human part?
EDIT: would intelligent species work? Or is that still too specific?
Last edited by Ignis Cinere on Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5585
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:35 am

Ignis Cinere wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
WA nations are not automatically on 'Earth', and precedent says that using the planet's name is therefore "illegal" under the rule against RL references.
And we're not all "human", neither...

But congratulations on having the sense to post your draft here, instead of just going straight to submitting it...

OOC: Oh, I didn’t know that counted as a RL ref... thanks for pointing it out! Could you perhaps suggest a neutral way to refer to planets that this GA resolution is concerned with? And how should I rephrase the human part?
EDIT: would intelligent species work? Or is that still too specific?

(OOC: The convention is to use ‘sapient species’ to refer to humans or other intelligent alien species. You could mention ‘inhabited planets’, or just refer to those WA member states that have space programs, rather than planets that do.

Ignis Cinere wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It is the WA that creates committees, not member states. Additionally, I recommend reusing the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) rather than making a new committee.)

OOC: Ah thanks! Could you possibly point out the resolution where the IASA first appeared?


That was GA 451, International Aero-Space Administration.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14435
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:52 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Ignis Cinere wrote:OOC: Ah thanks! Could you possibly point out the resolution where the IASA first appeared?

That was GA 451, International Aero-Space Administration.)

OOC: If you're going to re-use the committee, don't refer to the resolution, though, just use the committee instead. Referring to the resolution that established it, would create a House of Cards violation (if the original resolution was repealed, your reference would be null). A committee, on the other hand, doesn't stop existing as long as ANY resolution uses it. (Of course it loses the tasks given to it by the repealed resolution, but it doesn't just vanish.)

Now, what exactly is this proposal trying to do?

Avoid invasive species being spread? There's a resolution or two on that topic already.

Prevent scientific samples from other biospheres being brought onto planets with their own biospheres? For the most part a useless worry, since something evolved to Environment A over billions of years, will overcome something evolved to Environment B so many times out of total that it's useless to apply numbers to it. You could always require proper quarantine regulations to be followed, to reduce the risk further.

Something else? What else?

This could also ban tansporting foodstuffs from planet to planet, as well as prevent terraforming process.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Excidium Planetis

Advertisement

Remove ads