[Draft 3] - Aircraft Terrorism Prohibition

[Simone Republic]

Motivation
This effectively brings the 1970 Hague Convention (on hijackings) and the 2010 Beijing Protocol (in response to the 9/11 attacks) onto the GA. Yes, all the previous anti-terrorism laws have been repealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Hij ... Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Convention

Category: Regulation/Transportation

Draft 3

The World Assembly,

Condemning in the strongest possible terms the use of civilian airplanes as weapons of destruction, or other grotesque acts such as hijackings;

Desiring a common protocol among WA states to combat such acts;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Aircraft" means anything defined by WA organs as being able to travel in airspace relying on its own power, excluding any living flying creatures.
   2. "Aircraft" excludes flying object used for a non-civilian purpose as defined by national laws or extant WA resolutions. "Non-civilian" includes the use of aircraft designed for civilian use for non-civilian purposes, such as policing, customs, or warfare.
   3. An aircraft is deemed “in service” from the start of the preflight preparation of the aircraft for flight until all of the passengers and cargo have disembarked from the aircraft, including the time spent in flight.
   4. "Airport", for convenience, includes not just aerodromes but also heliports, spaceports, seaports serving flying boats, and analogous facilities. "Airport" excludes any facilities used for purely non-civilian purposes, but includes facilities with both civilian and non-civilian uses.
   5. "Offence" means a criminal offence.
   6. "WA organs" means any of the sub-committees of the WA.
   7. "WAJC" means the WA Judiciary Committee.
2. Destruction. An individual who deliberately, performs any of the following acts commits an offence:
   
   1. Destroying an aircraft in service; or
   2. Using an aircraft in service to cause death, bodily injury, or causing any significant damage to physical property or the environment;
   3. An act of force to attempt to or seize or otherwise take control of an aircraft in service; or
   4. Mutiny by any crew members in an aircraft in service.
3. Compromises on safety. An individual who deliberately performs any of the following acts commits an offence, if that act is likely to compromise the safety of that aircraft in service:
   
   1. An act of violence against anyone onboard an aircraft;
   2. An act of causing significant damage to an aircraft, or any of the equipment inside an aircraft;
   3. An act of communicating critical information that the individual knows to be materially false to anyone who has a responsibility to ensure the safety of any aircraft, such as to airport staff, pilots, and air traffic controllers;
   4. An act of causing damage to any equipment serving international aircraft traffic, such as navigation systems on the ground or any airport facilities; or
   5. An act of causing significant disruptions to the operations of an airport.
4. Aiding and abetting.
   
   1. An individual who deliberately aids, abets, induces, or counsels any other individual to commit any of the acts stated in clauses (2) and (3) commits an offence.
   2. An individual who deliberately threatens to commit any of the acts stated in clauses (2) and (3) in a manner that can be interpreted by a reasonable person as making a credible threat commits an offence.
5. Mitigating factors.
   
   1. Self-defense is a valid defense for anyone charged with an offence under clauses (2), (3) and (4).
   2. An individual misled into committing such acts is a mitigating factor for an offence under clauses (3) and (4).
   3. Inebriation, drug-induced effects, or a lack of mental capacity are mitigating factors for an offence under clauses (3) and (4).
   4. The lack of capability to carry out the said threats is not a mitigating factor for an offence under clause (3).
6. Jurisdiction.
   
   1. All WA states are required to criminalise all of the offences stated in this resolution.
   2. The principle of aut dedere aut judicare applies to anyone who commits an offence under clauses (2) to (4).
   3. The flag state of the aircraft (or the WA itself in cases involving aircraft operated by, for, or on behalf of a WA organ) has first claim on jurisdiction.
   4. This resolution does not govern any criminal charges exercised according to national laws.
7. WAJC roles. The WAJC shall have jurisdiction on:
   
   1. any disputes over jurisdiction between WA states (or between WA states vs the WA).
   2. any crimes committed against aircraft under the flag of the WA.

Char count: 4,334

[Fachumonn]

Bro how many drafts do you have...

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur supports this proposal. In particular, we suggest changing the title to 'Aircraft Safety Act' or something along those lines, considering the proposal certainly does not seek to endanger the safety of any aircraft. I am concerned, however, about staking jurisdiction on airspace, just given the fact that an aircraft, as part of its journey, can be expected to enter and leave the airspace of a large number of nations. Perhaps it would work better to provide that the nation in which an aircraft is registered has first claim on jurisdiction, to ensure that the laws and procedures governing an aircraft remain consistent throughout its flight."

[Simone Republic]

"Barfleur supports this proposal. In particular, we suggest changing the title to 'Aircraft Safety Act' or something along those lines, considering the proposal certainly does not seek to endanger the safety of any aircraft. I am concerned, however, about staking jurisdiction on airspace, just given the fact that an aircraft, as part of its journey, can be expected to enter and leave the airspace of a large number of nations. Perhaps it would work better to provide that the nation in which an aircraft is registered has first claim on jurisdiction, to ensure that the laws and procedures governing an aircraft remain consistent throughout its flight."

I changed the title to "Aircraft Misuse Prohibition" (I have other drafts regarding safety). D&B made a similar joke about that title.

The jurisdiction issue has been moved to the flag state. There's no word on what happens after the first claim - let the gnomes sort it out themselves.

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur supports this proposal. In particular, we suggest changing the title to 'Aircraft Safety Act' or something along those lines, considering the proposal certainly does not seek to endanger the safety of any aircraft. I am concerned, however, about staking jurisdiction on airspace, just given the fact that an aircraft, as part of its journey, can be expected to enter and leave the airspace of a large number of nations. Perhaps it would work better to provide that the nation in which an aircraft is registered has first claim on jurisdiction, to ensure that the laws and procedures governing an aircraft remain consistent throughout its flight."

I changed the title to "Aircraft Misuse Prohibition" (I have other drafts regarding safety). D&B made a similar joke about that title.

The jurisdiction issue has been moved to the flag state. There's no word on what happens after the first claim - let the gnomes sort it out themselves.

"That is good to hear. I imagine in cases where the violation entails a major loss of life, the flag nation would jump at the opportunity to try the offenders in its own courts."

[Lower Antegria]

"Barfleur supports this proposal. In particular, we suggest changing the title to 'Aircraft Safety Act' or something along those lines, considering the proposal certainly does not seek to endanger the safety of any aircraft. I am concerned, however, about staking jurisdiction on airspace, just given the fact that an aircraft, as part of its journey, can be expected to enter and leave the airspace of a large number of nations. Perhaps it would work better to provide that the nation in which an aircraft is registered has first claim on jurisdiction, to ensure that the laws and procedures governing an aircraft remain consistent throughout its flight."

I changed the title to "Aircraft Misuse Prohibition" (I have other drafts regarding safety). D&B made a similar joke about that title.

The jurisdiction issue has been moved to the flag state. There's no word on what happens after the first claim - let the gnomes sort it out themselves.

Hi, Lower Antegria here!

Just a few questions about this proposed resolution:
1. Does this include drones?
2. If so, then does this resolution prohibit use of drones for war or combat, i.e. deliverance of bombs, missiles, kamikaze drones etc.
3. Does this include drones and aircraft being used to transport drugs, weaponry, poisons and the like for later misuse (this is a persistent issue in my country).
4. Does false bombs threats and forcing a plane for land so foreign journalists can be removed contravene this resolution?



Thanks,
Lower Antegria Foreign Minister

[Simone Republic]

Hi, Lower Antegria here!

Just a few questions about this proposed resolution:
1. Does this include drones?
2. If so, then does this resolution prohibit use of drones for war or combat, i.e. deliverance of bombs, missiles, kamikaze drones etc.
3. Does this include drones and aircraft being used to transport drugs, weaponry, poisons and the like for later misuse (this is a persistent issue in my country).
4. Does false bombs threats and forcing a plane for land so foreign journalists can be removed contravene this resolution?

Thanks,
Lower Antegria Foreign Minister

1. I guess depends on the size of your drone. If you use your DJI Mini Pro 4 to take pictures, probably not (depends on local laws). If you use your DJI Mavic 3 Pro (or the new Mavic 3 Thermal) to drop grenades, that won't be counted as "cilivian use" I think so is not covered as a result of clause 7.

2. No, because this resolution is binding on civilian aircraft use only, again clause 7. The word civilian is left at "subject to extant WA resolutions" level.

3. Comes under "lawful" use so depends on the laws and local enforcement. We are a General Assembly, not your neighborhood cops/militia, I don't think we can pass laws that regulate down to that level.

4. That's under Aircraft Sovereignty Doctrine (another draft on this forum) not this one. A false threat is still a threat although I can make that clearer.

[Barfleur]

"Two minor nitpicks with regard to clause 9: on a substantive level, I think it should be that trial courts established by the WA Judiciary Committee (as is the case in GA#466) are responsible for performing trials, not the WAJC itself. On a technical note, clauses 10 and 11 should be subordinated as subclauses a and b."

[Goobergunchia]

Michael Evif taps his translator earpiece.

"Madame Secretary-General, on a point of personal privilege, I believe that my translator device is not correctly rendering clause 8a into a language intelligible to myself."

[Ignis Ferreus]

What is this WAJC you speak of?

[Meraud]

Isn't every single one of these offenses already criminalized under WA law?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Michael Evif taps his translator earpiece.

"Madame Secretary-General, on a point of personal privilege, I believe that my translator device is not correctly rendering clause 8a into a language intelligible to myself."

Iulia takes the microphone. "In Anglican it means 'either extradite or prosecute' which obligates a state to extradite a person who has committed such crimes to a state to prosecute said person, or to do so themselves if they prefer or no other state wishes to prosecute."

[Kenmoria]

Isn't every single one of these offenses already criminalized under WA law?

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “They are not, hence the justification for this proposal.”

What is this WAJC you speak of?

(OOC: I recommend consulting GA #466, World Assembly Justice Accord.)

[Ignis Ferreus]

Isn't every single one of these offenses already criminalized under WA law?

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “They are not, hence the justification for this proposal.”

What is this WAJC you speak of?

(OOC: I recommend consulting GA #466, World Assembly Justice Accord.)

Thanks, another reason to oppose WA Tyranny, and a repeal idea! I'm gonna probably use the Magecastle strategy to avoid complying with this and other resolutions.
This sort of international federation tyranny is so tyrannical in nature and transgresses the notion of national sovereignty so much I dare not say more as I believe anything further I have to say would result in possible warnings and mod action so Imma calm down first and listen to some anti-communist music to chill tf out so I can reply professionally.

[Meraud]

Isn't every single one of these offenses already criminalized under WA law?

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “They are not, hence the justification for this proposal.”

You are correct... I just reviewed all of the legislation and discovered that every relevant anti-terrorist act has been repealed.
I also noticed General Assembly Resolution # 691... the World Assembly has definitely changed... sheesh.

[Bananaistan]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “They are not, hence the justification for this proposal.”

You are correct... I just reviewed all of the legislation and discovered that every relevant anti-terrorist act has been repealed.
I also noticed General Assembly Resolution # 691... the World Assembly has definitely changed... sheesh.

"Try to avoid thinking about how the IntFed crowd prioritises issues. If you think about it too long, your head will explode."

[Simone Republic]

"Two minor nitpicks with regard to clause 9: on a substantive level, I think it should be that trial courts established by the WA Judiciary Committee (as is the case in GA#466) are responsible for performing trials, not the WAJC itself. On a technical note, clauses 10 and 11 should be subordinated as subclauses a and b."

The formatting bit has been fixed.

I didn't want to mention trial courts because 466 already establishes trial courts, and I am in the camp that "under this game's GA canon, gnomes are perfect and there's no particular need to state that trial courts are separate or independent" etc."

"Try to avoid thinking about how the IntFed crowd prioritises issues. If you think about it too long, your head will explode."

Well, I eventually got to it.

Michael Evif taps his translator earpiece.

"Madame Secretary-General, on a point of personal privilege, I believe that my translator device is not correctly rendering clause 8a into a language intelligible to myself."

Iulia takes the microphone. "In Anglican it means 'either extradite or prosecute' which obligates a state to extradite a person who has committed such crimes to a state to prosecute said person, or to do so themselves if they prefer or no other state wishes to prosecute."

Primarily as I can't be bothered to use IA's 500-character definition of that term in his replacement of the piracy law. His wording is:

Jurisdiction. Every member nation has universal jurisdiction – without regard to nationality of victims or perpetrators – to attack and capture pirates outside the effective territory of any nation (member or otherwise) as well as prosecute, sentence, and punish pirates in their custody or effective territory.

Using my wording is just 23 characters.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=543653

Draft 2 has been published.

Draft 1

The World Assembly,

Condemning in the strongest possible terms the use of airplanes as weapons, such as deliberately crashing planes into skyscrapers, or other grotesque acts such as hijackings;

Desiring a common protocol among WA states to combat such acts, especially over international airspace;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Aircraft" means anything defined by the International Aero-Space Administration as being able to travel in airspace relying on its own power, excluding any living flying creatures.
   2. An aircraft is deemed “in service” if it is (1) in flight, (2) taxiing at an airport, or (3) loading or unloading passengers or cargo.
   3. "Airport" for convenience, also includes spaceports, seaports serving flying boats, and analogous facilities.
   4. "WAJC" means the WA Judiciary Committee.
2. Destruction. An individual who, unlawfully and deliberately, performs any of the following acts commits an offence:
   
   1. Destroying an aircraft in service; or
   2. Using an aircraft in service to cause death, bodily injury, or causing any damage to physical property or the environment.
3. Compromises on safety. An individual who, unlawfully and deliberately, performs any of the following acts commits an offence, if that act is likely to compromise the safety of that aircraft in service:
   
   1. An act of violence against anyone else onboard an aircraft; or
   2. An act of causing damage to an aircraft, or any of the equipment inside an aircraft.
4. Airports, ground equipment, etc. An individual who, unlawfully and deliberately, performs any of the following acts commits an offence, if that act is likely to compromise the safety of any aircraft in service:
   
   1. An act of communicating critical information that the individual knows to be materially false to anyone who has a responsibility to ensure the safety of any aircraft, such as to airport staff, pilots, and air traffic controllers;
   2. An act of causing damage to any equipment serving air traffic, such as navigation systems on the ground or any airport facilities; or
   3. An act of causing significant disruptions to the operations of an airport.
5. Hijackings. An individual who, unlawfully and deliberately, performs any of the following acts commits an offence:
   
   1. An act of force to attempt to or seize or otherwise take control of an aircraft in service; or
   2. An act of mutiny by any crew members in an aircraft against the flag state.
6. Aiding and abetting, threats.
   
   1. An individual who, unlawfully and deliberately, aids, abets, induces, or counsels any other individual to commit any of the acts stated in clauses (2) to (6) commits an offence.
   2. Threats. An individual who, unlawfully and deliberately, threatens to commit any of the acts stated in clauses (2) to (6) in a manner that is deemed by a competent law enforcement, juridical, judicial or other administrative authority to be a credible threat commits an office.
7. Civilian use.
   
   1. Aircraft excludes flying object used for a non-civilian purpose as defined by national laws or extant WA resolutions.
   2. Sub-clauses (4)(b) and (4)(c) excludes any facilities used for purely non-civilian purposes, but includes facilities with both civilian and non-civilian uses.
8. Jurisdiction.
   
   1. The principle of aut dedere aut judicare applies to anyone who commits an offence under clauses (2) to (6), excluding sub-clause (6)(b).
   2. The flag state of the aircraft (if it is under the flag of a WA state, or the WA itself) has first claim on jurisdiction.
   3. This resolution does not preclude any criminal charges exercised according to national laws.
9. WA roles.
10. WAJC is responsible for adjudicating any disputes (including with the WA itself) over jurisdiction, including matters such as crimes committed against aircraft under the flag of a WA state in a non-WA state.
11. WAJC is also responsible for adjudicating any crimes committed against aircraft under the flag of the WA.

[Tigrisia]

If we read this correctly, the resolution lacks a clear obligation for member states to criminalize these actions. We therefore see the regulation as toothless and in its current state unnecessary. If that is changed, we support this resolution.

Apart from that, we would like to note that the definition of "in service" excludes certain time periods that are especially sensitive when it comes to compromises on safety, namely actions such as pre-flight checks or similar pre-flight tasks that are not loading or unloading passengers or cargo. Therefore, we would like to add that an aircraft "in service" includes all aircrafts that are undergoing immediate flight preparations.

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia
Junior Consular Secretary Thandi Enfantia

[Bananaistan]

If we read this correctly, the resolution lacks a clear obligation for member states to criminalize these actions. We therefore see the regulation as toothless and in its current state unnecessary. If that is changed, we support this resolution.

Apart from that, we would like to note that the definition of "in service" excludes certain time periods that are especially sensitive when it comes to compromises on safety, namely actions such as pre-flight checks or similar pre-flight tasks that are not loading or unloading passengers or cargo. Therefore, we would like to add that an aircraft "in service" includes all aircrafts that are undergoing immediate flight preparations.

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia
Junior Consular Secretary Thandi Enfantia

"The combination "commits an offence" occurs seven times in the proposal. These things are adequately criminalised. Adding in some formula to the effect that member states must criminalise X, Y & Z would only use up space unnecessarily."

[Wallenburg]

All this does is make illegal things illegal. Not particularly compelling.

[Simone Republic]

All this does is make illegal things illegal. Not particularly compelling.

But hopefully kind of necessary? "Not particularly compelling" can be used to describe everything from my life to my writing though, to be honest.

Apart from that, we would like to note that the definition of "in service" excludes certain time periods that are especially sensitive when it comes to compromises on safety, namely actions such as pre-flight checks or similar pre-flight tasks that are not loading or unloading passengers or cargo. Therefore, we would like to add that an aircraft "in service" includes all aircrafts that are undergoing immediate flight preparations.

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia
Junior Consular Secretary Thandi Enfantia

The Beijing Convention definition is quite long:

1. An aircraft is considered to be in flight at any time from the moment when all its external
doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened
for disembarkation; in the case of a forced landing, the flight shall be deemed to continue
until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the aircraft and for persons
and property on board;

2. An aircraft is considered to be in service from the beginning of the preflight preparation of
the aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until twenty-four
hours after any landing; the period of service shall, in any event, extend for the entire
period during which the aircraft is in flight as defined in paragraph (a) of this Article;

The definition has been changed now and it now reads:

An aircraft is deemed “in service” from the start of the preflight preparation of the aircraft for flight until all of the passengers and cargo have disembarked from the aircraft, including the time spent in flight.

[Gutachter]

Gutachter supports and hopes to help in the fight against terrorism.

[Mjau]

Some suggestions if you're accepting them:
"Aero-Space" is one word as "Aerospace", I would recommend changing airplanes and or planes in the introduction to aircraft, and also in the introduction, being specific about skyscrapers is kind of out of pocket (maybe say buildings instead?). Next, aircraft are defined as "as being able to travel in airspace relying on its own power,", whereas they are better described as a machine heavier than air capable of flight, or also lighter than air flight if you're thinking of including those types of air vehicles.

[Goobergunchia]

Michael Evif taps his translator earpiece.

"Madame Secretary-General, on a point of personal privilege, I believe that my translator device is not correctly rendering clause 8a into a language intelligible to myself."

Iulia takes the microphone. "In Anglican it means 'either extradite or prosecute' which obligates a state to extradite a person who has committed such crimes to a state to prosecute said person, or to do so themselves if they prefer or no other state wishes to prosecute."

We thank the ambassador from Desmosthenes and Burke for their clarification.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Simone Republic]

Some suggestions if you're accepting them:
"Aero-Space" is one word as "Aerospace", I would recommend changing airplanes and or planes in the introduction to aircraft, and also in the introduction, being specific about skyscrapers is kind of out of pocket (maybe say buildings instead?). Next, aircraft are defined as "as being able to travel in airspace relying on its own power,", whereas they are better described as a machine heavier than air capable of flight, or also lighter than air flight if you're thinking of including those types of air vehicles.

I am stuck with "Aero-space" as the spelling as that's how it's spelt in GA#451 and renaming committees in another resolution seems borderline countermanding a previous resolution. I suppose I could impose an "also known as" convention onto it without countermanding, kind of similar to GA#386.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

The word "skyscraper" has been changed to "buildings".

The air bit comes from Airspace Sovereignty Doctrine's draft that kind of avoids the subject of "what if my planet doesn't have air" and arguments over whether a space shuttle is an aircraft.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=542523