[Draft 3] - Aircraft Terrorism Prohibition

[Simone Republic]

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."

Just in case, I added the line

"Offence" means a criminal offence. All WA states are required to criminalise all of the offences stated below.

That's addressed to Tigrisia not Bananaistan.

[The Ice States]

This seems to suffer from the "bans illegal murder" issue; are they not already committing an offence if the act is "unlawful"?

[Simone Republic]

This seems to suffer from the "bans illegal murder" issue; are they not already committing an offence if the act is "unlawful"?

I used it as short hand for "without a legally justified reason", like saying that "murder in self defence is not necessarily illegal". Will amend

[The Ice States]

This seems to suffer from the "bans illegal murder" issue; are they not already committing an offence if the act is "unlawful"?

I used it as short hand for "without a legally justified reason", like saying that "murder in self defence is not necessarily illegal". Will amend

I don't think this solves the issue; if a member nation isn't already enforcing these provisions, it will just argue that all aircraft terrorism is legally justified. (NB: The argument that RNT would mean that no rational nation would do this does not address the issue; if true, it would mean that every member nation is already enforcing this resolution.)

[Simone Republic]

Draft 2

Draft 2

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 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” 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.
   3. "Airport", for convenience, includes not just aerodromes but also heliports, spaceports, seaports serving flying boats, and analogous facilities.
   4. "Offence" means a criminal offence. All WA states are required to criminalise all of the offences stated in this resolution.
   5. "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 onboard an aircraft; or
   2. An act of causing significant 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 international aircraft 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 in service against the flag state.
6. Aiding and abetting.
   
   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 (5) commits an offence.
   2. The lack of intent or an individual misled into committing such acts is a mitigating factor for an offence under clause (6)(a).
7. Threats.
   
   1. An individual who, unlawfully and deliberately, threatens to commit any of the acts stated in clauses (2) to (6) in a manner that can be interpreted by a reasonable person as making a credible threat commits an offence.
   2. Inebriation, drug-induced effects, or a lack of mental capacity are mitigating factors for an offence under clause (7)(a).
   3. The lack of capability to carry out the said threats is not a mitigating factor for an offence under clause (7)(a).
8. Scope.
   
   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.
9. Jurisdiction.
   
   1. The principle of aut dedere aut judicare applies to anyone who commits an offence under clauses (2) to (6).
   2. 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.
   3. This resolution does not preclude any criminal charges exercised according to national laws.
10. 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.

I used it as short hand for "without a legally justified reason", like saying that "murder in self defence is not necessarily illegal". Will amend

I don't think this solves the issue; if a member nation isn't already enforcing these provisions, it will just argue that all aircraft terrorism is legally justified. (NB: The argument that RNT would mean that no rational nation would do this does not address the issue; if true, it would mean that every member nation is already enforcing this resolution.)

Clause 9(a) and clause 10(b) would not be under RNT, although I concede that this entire resolution is borderline hostis humani generis.

[The Ice States]

I don't think this solves the issue; if a member nation isn't already enforcing these provisions, it will just argue that all aircraft terrorism is legally justified. (NB: The argument that RNT would mean that no rational nation would do this does not address the issue; if true, it would mean that every member nation is already enforcing this resolution.)

Clause 9(a) and clause 10(b) would not be under RNT, although I concede that this entire resolution is borderline hostis humani generis.

You should focus on this; the rest of the provisions do nothing inasmuch as it's just banning acts which are already unlawful.

[Barfleur]

Clause 9(a) and clause 10(b) would not be under RNT, although I concede that this entire resolution is borderline hostis humani generis.

You should focus on this; the rest of the provisions do nothing inasmuch as it's just banning acts which are already unlawful.

OOC: That may not be a bad thing though. If your resolution bans some new things and also bans acts which ought to be illegal universally, I would consider both to be at least somewhat positive in effect. Of course the first would do more, but given the international nature of aviation and the obvious human losses caused by aircraft terrorism, there's no reason not to ban it.

[The Ice States]

You should focus on this; the rest of the provisions do nothing inasmuch as it's just banning acts which are already unlawful.

OOC: That may not be a bad thing though. If your resolution bans some new things and also bans acts which ought to be illegal universally, I would consider both to be at least somewhat positive in effect. Of course the first would do more, but given the international nature of aviation and the obvious human losses caused by aircraft terrorism, there's no reason not to ban it.

It's not just that they ought to be illegal, it's that it only bans them if they are already "unlawful". Otherwise I would agree.

[Simone Republic]

OOC: That may not be a bad thing though. If your resolution bans some new things and also bans acts which ought to be illegal universally, I would consider both to be at least somewhat positive in effect. Of course the first would do more, but given the international nature of aviation and the obvious human losses caused by aircraft terrorism, there's no reason not to ban it.

It's not just that they ought to be illegal, it's that it only bans them if they are already "unlawful". Otherwise I would agree.

The word "unlawful" is gone in Draft 3. Note that the clauses have been re-numbered.

[The Ice States]

That indeed addresses that issue; however, would this now ban all war involving aircraft, including self-defense?

[Bisofeyr]

That indeed addresses that issue; however, would this now ban all war involving aircraft, including self-defense?

This is an interesting question: specifically, pursuant to 2(b), would placing a machine-gun on the bottom of a plane and then firing upon soldiers be considered "Using an aircraft in service..." of death/bodily harm?

[Wallenburg]

That indeed addresses that issue; however, would this now ban all war involving aircraft, including self-defense?

This is an interesting question: specifically, pursuant to 2(b), would placing a machine-gun on the bottom of a plane and then firing upon soldiers be considered "Using an aircraft in service..." of death/bodily harm?

It seems a pretty unambiguous "yes" to that.

[Simone Republic]

This is an interesting question: specifically, pursuant to 2(b), would placing a machine-gun on the bottom of a plane and then firing upon soldiers be considered "Using an aircraft in service..." of death/bodily harm?

It seems a pretty unambiguous "yes" to that.

No. Clause 6(a) - ""Aircraft" excludes flying object used for a non-civilian purpose as defined by national laws or extant WA resolutions.“ Mounting a machine gun is obviously not a ”civilian purpose“ on a plain English reading, I can clarify that and move it to the definition section.

[The Ice States]

It seems a pretty unambiguous "yes" to that.

No. Clause 6(a) - ""Aircraft" excludes flying object used for a non-civilian purpose as defined by national laws or extant WA resolutions.“ Mounting a machine gun is obviously not a ”civilian purpose“ on a plain English reading, I can clarify that and move it to the definition section.

Indeed, I had not seen this before; I think it would be a good idea to include this in the definition. It would also be worth clarifying that policing and self-defense also do not fall under the bans.

[Simone Republic]

No. Clause 6(a) - ""Aircraft" excludes flying object used for a non-civilian purpose as defined by national laws or extant WA resolutions.“ Mounting a machine gun is obviously not a ”civilian purpose“ on a plain English reading, I can clarify that and move it to the definition section.

Indeed, I had not seen this before; I think it would be a good idea to include this in the definition. It would also be worth clarifying that policing and self-defense also do not fall under the bans.

Clause 6(a) is now in the definitions section.

"Self-defense" is now explicitly mentioned as a mitigating factor.

[Barfleur]

Indeed, I had not seen this before; I think it would be a good idea to include this in the definition. It would also be worth clarifying that policing and self-defense also do not fall under the bans.

Clause 6(a) is now in the definitions section.

"Self-defense" is now explicitly mentioned as a mitigating factor.

"That it's a 'mitigating factor' only means that when a person commits the crime and is convicted, the punishment is lessened. It would be better to provide that self-defense is a complete defense to a criminal prosecution for that crime."

[Simone Republic]

Clause 6(a) is now in the definitions section.

"Self-defense" is now explicitly mentioned as a mitigating factor.

"That it's a 'mitigating factor' only means that when a person commits the crime and is convicted, the punishment is lessened. It would be better to provide that self-defense is a complete defense to a criminal prosecution for that crime."

I changed it to "valid defense". I wouldn't say "complete defense" in case of excessive use of violence - it's a bit more debatable. I'd leave the discretion to the judges.