International Space Accord

[Cardoness]

Category: Political Stability, Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the varied levels of technology of member states;

OBSERVING the lack of law defining national and international space, causing some level of uncertainty regarding the rights of nations in space;

CONCERNED that such uncertainty could elevate the tensions between states;

DESIRING to alleviate those tensions and bring peace and stability to the void;

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, a celestial object as any object in space with a mean radius of 300km or more;

FURTHER DEFINES a solar system as the space and objects within twice the distance from the primary star to the aphelion of the farthest celestial object in orbit around that star;

ESTABLISHES that in solar systems which have multiple, national jurisdictions, international space shall begin at 100km beyond the highest point of any celestial object;

ALLOWS for such boundary to be adjusted upon the consent of all parties which have an established jurisdictional claim in that system;

ESTABLISHES that in solar systems which have a single jurisdiction, international space shall begin at the outer edge of that system.

ESTABLISHES that member states which exercise exclusive control over multiple solar systems, may lay claim to the space between those systems;

ESTABLISHES that member states which claim rough celestial objects, or beings which do not live on or in a celestial object, be allowed to claim a reasonable sphere of space as their territory;

ESTABLISHES that where multiple claims of member states overlap, the boundary shall be midway between the claims;

ALLOWS for member states to request a free transit corridor through the claimed, extra-system space of another member state, which upon receiving such request the WA shall, if the request is deemed warranted, establish such corridor;

REQUIRES all free transit corridors be only as large as needed to provide safe navigation through territorial space, be as straight as possible while maintaining a reasonable distance from the claimed solar systems, and may not enter any solar system or other notable, claimed area;

ALLOWS member states to inspect any ships using a free transit corridor which runs through their territory, but unless such ship is found to be in violation of WA law, neither the ship, the crew, or the cargo may be seized, though they may be turned back if found in violation of national law;

DECLARES that international space shall be open to all nations, no state may subject any part of it to its control;

DECLARES that all states shall have the freedom of access, navigation, development, and scientific research of international space;

ESTABLISHES the International Space Council to oversee the enforcement of this resolution, survey and establish free transit zones, mediate disputes regarding such zones, and, upon the request of the affected parties, survey the boundary of international and national space and mediate disputes of overlapping claims.

Giving this another go after major reworking.

[Cardoness]

I would like to address the questions that are sure to arise concerning the free transit corridors. I idea is already established and in use by general airspace rules. There are 5 general classes of airspace. The first is free and open airspace; anyone may freely use this space to do whatever they want so long as it is safe. Next there are small pockets of slightly more restrictive airspace around small but regularly used airports or traffic areas. Next are larger pockets of restricted airspace around busy airports which have general rules, but may be entered freely by declaring oneself, aircraft, and position. Next you come to very large very restrictive airspace around huge transit centers. You may not enter this airspace without permission and special aircraft. However, through some of these restrictive airspace there are corridors that allow free transit from one side to the other without having to meet the requirements set for the rest of the airspace. These are basically tunnels through the restrictive airspace established due to the inconvenience of having to go all the way around these massive areas. The last class of airspace is restricted to government aircraft only. This is so a state that would otherwise have to travel halfway around the galaxy to get around another state or for states that are completely surrounded by another state so that they can have access to the other side. I hope this clears up the reasoning behind this section. As always, I welcome any questions, comments, corrections, and constructive criticisms.

[Embolalia]

I know it's minor, but could I ask for double spacing? It's a really thick wall of text... I also wonder about your definitive distance for "space". It might work on your planet, but a hypothetical, much larger planet might have enough gravity that 100km is well below, say, geosynchronous orbit at the equator (which I believe is how some others have defined it)

[Darenjo]

The only issue i foresee is that your definition of solar system will cause problems - especially for nations that inhabit galactic centers.

I'd change it to end at the aphelion of the furthest orbiting object.

[Mallorea and Riva]

ESTABLISHES that states which exercise exclusive control over multiple solar systems, may lay claim to the space between those systems;
ESTABLISHES that states which claim rough celestial objects, or beings which do not live on or in a celestial object, be allowed to claim a reasonable sphere of space as their territory;
ESTABLISHES that where multiple claims overlap, the boundary shall be midway between the claims;

My nation's main concern in this matter lie within these clauses.
1 If states exercise exclusive control over multiple systems, but these systems "between space" overlap then is this international space?
2 Is this up to the discretion of the organization you created?
3 I'm not sure that's how you'd want to resolve these claims. If I claim three quarters of a system then I'm not necessarily entitle to half, especially with other nations rising in their space programs.

Otherwise an interesting subject, if these three issues were cleared up you would receive Rivan support (barring any revelations or further flaws).

[Cardoness]

I know it's minor, but could I ask for double spacing? It's a really thick wall of text... I also wonder about your definitive distance for "space". It might work on your planet, but a hypothetical, much larger planet might have enough gravity that 100km is well below, say, geosynchronous orbit at the equator (which I believe is how some others have defined it)

Double spacing granted! As to the definition, to use an occ reference, geosynchronous orbit for earth is well beyond this limit and in international space. If you had territorial space up to or beyond geosynchronous orbit then satellites, space stations, space craft, and other such devices would have to be placed in odd positions. This would only apply to those systems which have more then one state within it.

The only issue i foresee is that your definition of solar system will cause problems - especially for nations that inhabit galactic centers.

I'd change it to end at the aphelion of the furthest orbiting object.

Even at the galactic core the distance between most stars will be large enough that this definition will work. It may seem like a tremendous distance until you compare it to the distance between the stars themselves. On the flip side, some states which inhabit or otherwise make use of that farthest object, which could also be artificially constructed, would not want international space to come right to their doorstep. Otherwise, this resolution provides for those rare cases where solar systems overlap.

My nation's main concern in this matter lie within these clauses.
1 If states exercise exclusive control over multiple systems, but these systems "between space" overlap then is this international space?
2 Is this up to the discretion of the organization you created?
3 I'm not sure that's how you'd want to resolve these claims. If I claim three quarters of a system then I'm not necessarily entitle to half, especially with other nations rising in their space programs.

Otherwise an interesting subject, if these three issues were cleared up you would receive Rivan support (barring any revelations or further flaws).

I had thought of that. For example, if you have 4 systems which form a sort of square, and one state controls two across from each other and another state controls the other two, how do they control the space in between? The short answer is that I don't know, but how do they solve it now? I suppose that the two states may establish guidelines by treaty, otherwise, yes, the ISC would be able to step in and mediate. As to your third point, that is why I set out separate guidelines for multi-jurisdictional systems. IF you developed your space program and got out into your solar system first, then you would have the right to claim anything and everything you want. But what you cannot do is box in another state which is less developed and prevent them from reaching international space.

[Rutianas]

ALLOWS for States to request a free transit corridor through the claimed, extra-system space of another state, which upon receiving such request the WA shall, if the request is deemed warranted, establish such corridor;

Not that I would support such a resolution, but this particular clause bothers me a great deal. I think you need to make it very clear that the WA can only establish such a corridor through space only belonging to another WA nation. Simple enough. The way it reads now, the WA could theoretically attempt to force a free transit corridor through Rutian space. As the Imperial Republic is not a WA member, we would, of course, laugh at the attempt and ignore it.

On a completely unrelated note, why are some ambassadors dead set on regulating space? This isn't the first I've seen and it certainly won't be the last. Those of us who live in space faring nations find our interests are often shoved to the side. This is one of the reasons we left the WA and also one of the reasons why we have not returned. I might add that this attitude is not just limited to proposals regarding space.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

[Cardoness]

ALLOWS for States to request a free transit corridor through the claimed, extra-system space of another state, which upon receiving such request the WA shall, if the request is deemed warranted, establish such corridor;

Not that I would support such a resolution, but this particular clause bothers me a great deal. I think you need to make it very clear that the WA can only establish such a corridor through space only belonging to another WA nation. Simple enough. The way it reads now, the WA could theoretically attempt to force a free transit corridor through Rutian space. As the Imperial Republic is not a WA member, we would, of course, laugh at the attempt and ignore it.

On a completely unrelated note, why are some ambassadors dead set on regulating space? This isn't the first I've seen and it certainly won't be the last. Those of us who live in space faring nations find our interests are often shoved to the side. This is one of the reasons we left the WA and also one of the reasons why we have not returned. I might add that this attitude is not just limited to proposals regarding space.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

You are right, it was an easy fix. With members from many different worlds space is the most international thing there is.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I know it's minor, but could I ask for double spacing? It's a really thick wall of text... I also wonder about your definitive distance for "space". It might work on your planet, but a hypothetical, much larger planet might have enough gravity that 100km is well below, say, geosynchronous orbit at the equator (which I believe is how some others have defined it)

Double spacing granted! As to the definition, to use an occ reference, geosynchronous orbit for earth is well beyond this limit and in international space. If you had territorial space up to or beyond geosynchronous orbit then satellites, space stations, space craft, and other such devices would have to be placed in odd positions. This would only apply to those systems which have more then one state within it.

The only issue i foresee is that your definition of solar system will cause problems - especially for nations that inhabit galactic centers.

I'd change it to end at the aphelion of the furthest orbiting object.

Even at the galactic core the distance between most stars will be large enough that this definition will work. It may seem like a tremendous distance until you compare it to the distance between the stars themselves. On the flip side, some states which inhabit or otherwise make use of that farthest object, which could also be artificially constructed, would not want international space to come right to their doorstep. Otherwise, this resolution provides for those rare cases where solar systems overlap.

My nation's main concern in this matter lie within these clauses.
1 If states exercise exclusive control over multiple systems, but these systems "between space" overlap then is this international space?
2 Is this up to the discretion of the organization you created?
3 I'm not sure that's how you'd want to resolve these claims. If I claim three quarters of a system then I'm not necessarily entitle to half, especially with other nations rising in their space programs.

Otherwise an interesting subject, if these three issues were cleared up you would receive Rivan support (barring any revelations or further flaws).

I had thought of that. For example, if you have 4 systems which form a sort of square, and one state controls two across from each other and another state controls the other two, how do they control the space in between? The short answer is that I don't know, but how do they solve it now? I suppose that the two states may establish guidelines by treaty, otherwise, yes, the ISC would be able to step in and mediate. As to your third point, that is why I set out separate guidelines for multi-jurisdictional systems. IF you developed your space program and got out into your solar system first, then you would have the right to claim anything and everything you want. But what you cannot do is box in another state which is less developed and prevent them from reaching international space.

Ok, good answers. The first point is the most serious, but if you clear it up like you stated then there shouldn't be a problem.

[Fascist Fae Elves]

ESTABLISHES that where multiple claims of member states overlap, the boundary shall be midway between the claims;

Translation: make those claims exaggerated or don't make them at all. Conflict is promoted over reasonable claims.

ALLOWS member states to inspect any ships using a free transit corridor which runs through their territory, but unless such ship is found to be in violation of WA law, neither the ship, the crew, or the cargo may be seized, though they may be turned back if found in violation of national law;

So no right to innocent passage?

...

We believe that any resolution dealing with territorial claims in space should be modeled after Resolution #47 Law of the Sea... if it is to be created at all. We agree with the delegate from Rutianas in that regulating space is a silly idea.

[Cardoness]

ESTABLISHES that where multiple claims of member states overlap, the boundary shall be midway between the claims;

Translation: make those claims exaggerated or don't make them at all. Conflict is promoted over reasonable claims.

I believe a "claim" would be the reverse of international space, which is already established. However, I would be willing to work in a definition if the honored ambassador feels it is needed.

ALLOWS member states to inspect any ships using a free transit corridor which runs through their territory, but unless such ship is found to be in violation of WA law, neither the ship, the crew, or the cargo may be seized, though they may be turned back if found in violation of national law;

So no right to innocent passage?

I did not want to give foreign ships unmonitored passage through another States territory.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper believes that not all member states are space capable (we may be, but not all are). Considering the scope of the resolution we feel that the strength is better suited as "mild" because although the draft applies to all nations in principle, the impact of the draft on a nation is actually conditional on whether they have the technology to send rockets into space. Given the nature of the NS multi-verse, technology levels may vary significantly between country to country. While Example Nation A might have an active network of space trade routes, Example Nation B might have not even conquered the seas yet.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: The boundaries that starfaring nations consider reasonable may be influenced by the natures of their FTL drives. If they use one that involves "jumps" between specific points in space (as quite a few SF canons do), for example, they'd probably want control over the points of entry/exit for their home systems no matter how far outwards those are... but then, if they use a drive like that, the space in between stellar systems would effectively be meaningless to them...

[Darenjo]

OOC: The boundaries that starfaring nations consider reasonable may be influenced by the natures of their FTL drives. If they use one that involves "jumps" between specific points in space (as quite a few SF canons do), for example, they'd probably want control over the points of entry/exit for their home systems no matter how far outwards those are... but then, if they use a drive like that, the space in between stellar systems would effectively be meaningless to them...

Quite true. Although, for our own space travel, we use tachyons. However, if some nation wanted to visit Darenjo and needed to use space travel, we would want to control the point where said nation enters the system where Darenjo is located.

[Cardoness]

OOC: The boundaries that starfaring nations consider reasonable may be influenced by the natures of their FTL drives. If they use one that involves "jumps" between specific points in space (as quite a few SF canons do), for example, they'd probably want control over the points of entry/exit for their home systems no matter how far outwards those are... but then, if they use a drive like that, the space in between stellar systems would effectively be meaningless to them...

Quite true. Although, for our own space travel, we use tachyons. However, if some nation wanted to visit Darenjo and needed to use space travel, we would want to control the point where said nation enters the system where Darenjo is located.

To answer both: Naturally you would want to control the point of entry, but what if the point of entry is in Cardoness space? And we would want to control the point of entry into our territory which is in Darenjo space. I am thinking more and more that I need to define what constitutes a claim.

[Cardoness]

*Double Post*