Advertisement
by Kenmoria » Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:36 am
by East Meranopirus » Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:38 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Your definition of ‘aircraft’ excludes anything with an autopilot feature or any computer doing pretty much anything for the ship, since then it would be controlled partly by something other than a sapient being.”
by Kenmoria » Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:43 am
(OOC: How about ‘defines ‘aircraft’ as a large object capable of airfoil-powered flight, controlled by sapient beings’? The last part is optional, and it might be a good idea to leave it off, to avoid a member nation just sticking a plane on autopilot and ignoring this proposal entirely.)East Meranopirus wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“Your definition of ‘aircraft’ excludes anything with an autopilot feature or any computer doing pretty much anything for the ship, since then it would be controlled partly by something other than a sapient being.”
What do you suggest then? I've tried my best to come up with an accurate definition, though I would argue since the sapient beings would have made the autopilot and can take over anytime, it's still controlled by the sapient being.
by East Meranopirus » Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:55 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: How about ‘defines ‘aircraft’ as a large object capable of airfoil-powered flight, controlled by sapient beings’? The last part is optional, and it might be a good idea to leave it off, to avoid a member nation just sticking a plane on autopilot and ignoring this proposal entirely.)
by Araraukar » Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:16 am
East Meranopirus wrote:1) I've stated repeatedly if it's not airspace it just counts as land/water.
It's up to nations whether they want to govern it as air or as ground.
As for the rest of the concerns about international airspace, I've basically completely left it up to the IASA at this point. Logically, most of the unclaimed territory should be ocean anyway, so in practice, most of it will probably extend to the surface.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by East Meranopirus » Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:22 am
by Araraukar » Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:27 am
East Meranopirus wrote:I can't leave out the lower limit because then everyone will be like, "so does an underground shaft count as airspace"?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by East Meranopirus » Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:29 am
by Araraukar » Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:31 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by East Meranopirus » Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:52 am
by Kenmoria » Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:20 am
East Meranopirus wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: How about ‘defines ‘aircraft’ as a large object capable of airfoil-powered flight, controlled by sapient beings’? The last part is optional, and it might be a good idea to leave it off, to avoid a member nation just sticking a plane on autopilot and ignoring this proposal entirely.)
But then, what's defined as large? Drones can be as small as paper planes. I think autopilot could still count as controlled by sapient beings, since the system is made by them and they have override authority.
by East Meranopirus » Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:34 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: To me, ‘control’ implies direct manipulation of the aircraft, not having the ability to override or ultimate responsibility. ‘Large’ was chosen to avoid having the WA regulate things like paper aeroplanes, frisbees or tiny devices sold for a few pounds in shops. Ultimately, the definition will always be under or over inclusive, so you have to rely on member nations interpreting this in good faith.)
by Araraukar » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:41 pm
East Meranopirus wrote:I mean, it was a fair interpretation, isn't it?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by East Meranopirus » Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:37 pm
Araraukar wrote:OOC: You mean classifying underground tunnels as airspace in legislation involving aerial craft? No, it's not.
by Marxist Germany » Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:21 pm
The World Assembly,
Recognising every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory;
Believing airspace to be an integral part of a nation's territory;
Noting the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace;
Hereby,
- Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
- An "aircraft" as an object capable of flight, controlled entirely by sapient beings;
- "Airspace" as the portion of the atmosphere above the land or water surface and below the height where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible;
- "Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation;
- "International airspace" as airspace not above any nation's land or water territory;
- Mandates that:
- Member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace with regards to the movement of aircraft, except in the case of any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections;
- All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace;
- Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace, unless required by an existing World Assembly resolution.
[box]The World Assembly,
[b]Recognising[/b] every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory;
[b]Believing[/b] airspace to be an integral part of a nation's territory;
[b]Noting[/b] the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace;
Hereby,
[list=1]
[*]Defines for the purpose of this resolution:[list=a]
[*]An "aircraft" as an object capable of flight, controlled entirely by sapient beings;
[*]"Airspace" as the portion of the atmosphere above the land or water surface and below the height where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible;
[*]"Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation;
[*]"International airspace" as airspace not above any nation's land or water territory;[/list]
[*]Mandates that:[list=a]
[*]Member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace with regards to the movement of aircraft, except in the case of any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections;
[*]All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace;[/list]
[*]Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace, unless required by an existing World Assembly resolution.[/list][/box]
by East Meranopirus » Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:41 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Improved your formatting a bit.
by Ransium » Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:18 pm
by East Meranopirus » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:01 pm
Ransium wrote:The preamble is obviously not a hugely important part of the resolution, but I think a more inspiring preamble would help.
by Kenmoria » Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:42 am
(OOC: Currently, all of your clauses are quite bland in the preamble. How about adding some that show the negative consequences of airspace, and the neutrality thereof, not being protected?)
by East Meranopirus » Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:11 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Currently, all of your clauses are quite bland in the preamble. How about adding some that show the negative consequences of airspace, and the neutrality thereof, not being protected?)
by Kenmoria » Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:49 am
East Meranopirus wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Currently, all of your clauses are quite bland in the preamble. How about adding some that show the negative consequences of airspace, and the neutrality thereof, not being protected?)
Added some more based on your advice. Hopefully that's more inspiring now.
by East Meranopirus » Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:36 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I feel inspired already.)
“With the current draft, I can firmly say that this mission supports this proposal. I like the idea and the execution, though do wonder how this will apply to the airspace of non-member nations.”
by Ransium » Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:31 am
Recognising every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory and convinced airspace is an integral part of this territory;
Aware of the importance of international air transport for trade and desiring to protect the neutrality of international airspace;
Noting the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace, and fearing that a lack of clearly defined sovereign air space can cause dangerous diplomatic and preventable war, while a lack of clearly defined international airspace will destabilise commerce and security and allow nations to exert undue influence in neutral territory;
by East Meranopirus » Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:55 am
Ransium wrote:The many very short clauses make it feel super long and choppy now, and there isn't a clear clause to clause flow. I put these thoughts together in a more organized manner and tweaked them a bit.Recognising every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory and convinced airspace is an integral part of this territory;
Aware of the importance of international air transport for trade and desiring to protect the neutrality of international airspace;
Noting the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace, and fearing that a lack of clearly defined sovereign air space can cause dangerous diplomatic and preventable war, while a lack of clearly defined international airspace will destabilise commerce and security and allow nations to exert undue influence in neutral territory;
I tried to change a minimum number of words to achieve my objectives. Some of the within sentence word choice is a bit redundant now so you might consider tweaking things for reduced redundancy.
by Ransium » Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:22 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement