[PASSED] Repeal "Civilian Aircraft Accord"

[The Ice States]

This has now passed as GA #678!
-----
The replacement is here. The sole author is Tinhampton, so please direct any concerns to them.

Believing that, while the resolution is well-intentioned, it contains several fatal flaws which severely hinder its ability to carry out its goals,

Alarmed by the resolution's silence regarding the necessary extent of "assistance" to be provided to civilian aircraft in distress under Section 2c, allowing member nations to only provide minimal assistance to civilian aircraft in distress,

Saddened too that Section 4 permits member nations to render whatever "instructions" or "warning" they please, allowing a member nation to -- for example -- demand that a civilian aircraft surrender to military force as these "instructions", thus defeating much of the mandate's purpose,

Emphasising that, as resolutions cannot be amended, the only way to address these flaws is via repeal of the resolution, the World Assembly

Declares the "Civilian Aircraft Accord" to be repealed.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Bothered that the resolution obligates member nations to provide "Tracking...of any civilian aircraft within the detection and communication range of that nation", regardless of whether this aircraft is under the jurisdiction of that nation, thus potentially obligating member nations to monitor civilian aircraft in other, potentially hostile, neighbouring nations,

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This is a problem.... how? Considering that civilian aircraft flying over hostile territory are at a much bigger risk of crashing and burning, detection and communications would be especially paramount.

Alarmed that the resolution further obligates member nations to assist "any civilian aircraft that declares itself to be in distress within the communication range of that nation", while remaining entirely silent on what assistance is to be provided, opening the doors to member nations only providing minimal assistance to aircraft in distress,

What's your suggested wording then? Because knowing the people that debate in this assembly, itching for a repeal, would move straight towards saying that 'this clause doesn't mention this assistance' or 'this clause offers too much assistance to civilian aircraft from hostile nations' etc

Saddened too by the sheer ambiguity in Section 4, which "forbids member nations from taking military action against civilian aircraft without first warning that aircraft and permitting that aircraft to comply with instructions", without specifying what instructions, allowing for member nations to consider eg demands for surrender to be sufficient instructions to comply with this mandate,

This word salad is difficult to parse. But: the ambiguity is an advantage. You can't have a one size fits all 'instructions'. Plus, what reason would a nation have to force innocent civilian flights to 'surrender'?

To summarise: flimsy arguments to necessitate a repeal for the sake of repeal. Thus, opposed.

[Norvarxilaland]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This is a problem.... how? Considering that civilian aircraft flying over hostile territory are at a much bigger risk of crashing and burning, detection and communications would be especially paramount.

Overall, I think this clause is entirely backwards, and would be better used to ban aircraft from flying over hostile territory and perhaps delegate some international organisation to determining airspace closures. If aircraft flying over such territory is, as you put it, "at a much bigger risk of crashing and burning", surely the sensible move is to avoid that being the case in the first place? At the moment, the only two edge cases I can think of here are for aircraft that unknowingly stray into hostile territory (which is more nuanced, and ties better into the later clauses) and that of oceanic FIRs, which should really be handled by a different resolution (then again, this resolution has basically no need to exist). The more thought applied to it, the more it becomes useless.

What's your suggested wording then? Because knowing the people that debate in this assembly, itching for a repeal, would move straight towards saying that 'this clause doesn't mention this assistance' or 'this clause offers too much assistance to civilian aircraft from hostile nations' etc

I have no strong feeling either way in this case, since I would agree that requiring "assistance" is not ideal and the clause as a whole is problematic, but understand how the sentiment of wanting to require provision of assistance is difficult to tersely serialise.

This word salad is difficult to parse. But: the ambiguity is an advantage. You can't have a one size fits all 'instructions'. Plus, what reason would a nation have to force innocent civilian flights to 'surrender'?

Whilst I agree that some refinement of the resolution's text is necessary, this sentiment is nonsensical. Whilst many such cases may exist (and all of these cases should be addressed by WA law), the primary event under which intervention with a civilian aircraft may be required is in the case of extended lack of radio contact, or violation of airspace without communication. Should an aircraft become unresponsive for any reason, it is protocol for an interception to occur should it happen that the cause of the event is malicious; for example, a hijacking of an aircraft with the intent to use it as a weapon against ground targets. Interruption to communication may also result from benign issues, such as equipment failure, distraction, or navigational trouble, or from incapacitation of crew. My own suggestion for this clause would be requiring that positive identification be made, communication attempts be made on all standard channels (including emergency standby channels that could be delegated as mandatory for all aircraft to tune to), as well as guaranteed visual contact. It would also be sensible to require that interventions are only made where absolutely necessary, as determined by some set of defined conditions.

---

Norvarxilaland is in full support of an overhaul of the existing legislation regarding aviation and transport more generally, as much of it is old, flimsy and self-contradictory. We believe this repeal is sufficient to pass sometime in the near future, given some time to distil, and have already communicated some suggestions to its author.

[The Ice States]

Long post

"The ambassador from Norvaxilaland has adequately explained why your first argument is untrue. As to your second and third arguments, if the only way to legislate on a subject is to do nothing about it, then it may as well not be legislated on; so even if it was the case that one cannot adequately define 'assistance' or explain what 'instructions' should be provided, these are still flaws meriting repeal. Finally, if it was indeed true that member nations would have no reason not to take military action against civilian flights, then the target's mandate would, likewise, be redundant, and you should support repeal. However, nations would have many reasons for forcing civilian flights to surrender; for example, a warlike member nation may desire to suppress civilian aircraft originating from a warring nation."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Watermelon]

Removed.

[The Ice States]

OOC: What would be relevant arguments in a repeal to GA#23?

Ooc: This thread is titled "Repeal 'Civilian Aircraft Accord'", not "Ideas for General Assembly Proposals", for a reason.

[West Barack and East Obama]

"The ambassador from Norvaxilaland has adequately explained why your first argument is untrue.

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Not necessarily. While it is true that planes are unlikely to fly over 'hostile and dangerous' nations, some still do (OOC: like MH17). Anyways, you still have not explained in your proposal why it is undesirable to require nations to monitor flights beyond their jurisdiction, even in 'hostile' nations. Nations should actually be obligated to monitor the safety of as many flights as they can in order to prevent disasters.

As to your second and third arguments, if the only way to legislate on a subject is to do nothing about it, then it may as well not be legislated on; so even if it was the case that one cannot adequately define 'assistance' or explain what 'instructions' should be provided, these are still flaws meriting repeal.

What more needs to be said about instructions? Instructions are instructions. Limiting 'instructions' to a one size fits all definition will be dangerous. While 'assistance' being the bare minimum may be unfortunate, a repeal will not provide more assistance and the rest of the proposal's contents are worthy of being on the books.

Finally, if it was indeed true that member nations would have no reason not to take military action against civilian flights, then the target's mandate would, likewise, be redundant, and you should support repeal. However, nations would have many reasons for forcing civilian flights to surrender; for example, a warlike member nation may desire to suppress civilian aircraft originating from a warring nation.

There's no need to be deliberately obtuse. I said nations would have no reason to force flights to surrender, not take military action against them. The 'warlike' example isn't adequate enough to scrap the whole resolution, as any nation or airline company would be sensible enough to not fly a plane over a country they are literally at war with. Even with edge cases that is just absurd.

[The Ice States]

Snip

"Once again, if having a useless mandate is the only way to legislate on 'instructions', as 'limiting instructions to a one size fits all definition will be dangerous', then there might as well be no legislation on 'instructions'. A repeal will facilitate the passage of potential future legislation which does 'provide more assistance'."

"Your argument as to that 'any nation or airline company would be sensible enough to not fly a plane over a country they are literally at war with' is self-contradictory with your previous argument that some planes still fly over hostile nations. Further, can you provide an example where a nation would have an interest in firing upon a civilian aircraft, but would not have an interest in forcing that aircraft to surrender to military force?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Kenmoria]

“I regard the use of the abbreviation: ‘eg’ as somewhat aesthetically unpleasing, particularly in the form used in the text. Your delegation is far from short on characters, so ‘for example’ would be better. With regards to the actual content, I find myself unpersuaded by these arguments. That is not to say that I necessarily disagree with them. However, taking into account the comments of Ambassador Obama, I am not drawn to the arguments as powerful sources of persuasion.”

Lewitt checks his phone briefly, before speaking again. “Perhaps your delegation could clarify for me what negative circumstances could result from those clauses, in this debating chamber?”

[Norvarxilaland]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Not necessarily. While it is true that planes are unlikely to fly over 'hostile and dangerous' nations, some still do.

I am entirely dumbfounded by this statement. The fact that some action is taken is in no sensible way grounds to consider it a right; in fact, the example you quoted specifically had a negative outcome as a result, which is a strong motive to outlaw it if anything. The investigation resulting from that accident criticised authorities for not closing the airspace entirely. Many cases of harm caused to civilian aircraft overflying dangerous territory have all made this recommendation: the best course of action here is to just place a blanket ban on overflying hostile areas. Your final paragraph seems to conflict with what you seem to be arguing (even though I'm still not entirely clear on what that is):

There's no need to be deliberately obtuse. I said nations would have no reason to force flights to surrender, not take military action against them. The 'warlike' example isn't adequate enough to scrap the whole resolution, as any nation or airline company would be sensible enough to not fly a plane over a country they are literally at war with. Even with edge cases that is just absurd.

Anyways, you still have not explained in your proposal why it is undesirable to require nations to monitor flights beyond their jurisdiction, even in 'hostile' nations. Nations should actually be obligated to monitor the safety of as many flights as they can in order to prevent disasters.

I would suggest to the Deputy Minister to consider that this may, in fact, not be considered undesirable and so has not been criticised. At most I may suggest to the author that some acknowledgement of the parts of the resolution that will require re-enactment may be necessary to avoid this kind of misunderstanding.

---

My own suggestion for the text of the repeal would have been something along the lines of:

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the efforts of the Civilian Aircraft Accord in improving the safety of civilian aircraft,
Affirming the efficacy and importance of several clauses within the resolution, such as those guaranteeing tracking and assistance,
Observing, however, that the utility of these clauses is undermined by multiple severe flaws, including:

1. A lack of comment regarding the necessary extent of "assistance" to be provided;
2. No comment regarding the nature of "instructions" nor "warning" within clause 4;
3. No requirement regarding the usually-provided ground services where otherwise would be expected, thus hindering any later attempt to do so; and
4. A direct undermining by clauses 5 and 6 of clause 3 of the resolution on International Transport Safety; and also

Noting that, as amendment of the Accord is not possible under the rules of this Chamber, repeal is the only available resolution,

Hereby declares the Civilian Aircraft Accord void.

This is intended to demonstrate potentially-desirable amendments to the current text only.

[The Ice States]

"We have adapted wording provided by the Norvarxilalandian mission with their consent."

“I regard the use of the abbreviation: ‘eg’ as somewhat aesthetically unpleasing, particularly in the form used in the text. Your delegation is far from short on characters, so ‘for example’ would be better. With regards to the actual content, I find myself unpersuaded by these arguments. That is not to say that I necessarily disagree with them. However, taking into account the comments of Ambassador Obama, I am not drawn to the arguments as powerful sources of persuasion.”

Lewitt checks his phone briefly, before speaking again. “Perhaps your delegation could clarify for me what negative circumstances could result from those clauses, in this debating chamber?”

"Say a civilian aircraft from a hostile nation flies over another warlike member nation's airspace. The vagueness surrounding 'instructions' opens the doors to that nation merely demanding that the aircraft surrender to military force, prior to initiating hostilities. It is not a significant barrier to what the resolution seeks to prevent. Likewise, the ambiguity surrounding 'assistance' allows a member nation which already does not care much about the safety of civilian aircraft to only provide minimal assistance to aircraft in distress, further ultimately causing the mandate to do nigh-nothing in advancing its goals."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Comfed]

You shouldn't declare the resolution null and void because that's not really the same thing as repealing it.

It seems to me that s4 is mostly about prohibiting nations from shooting down civilian aircraft that goes into their airspace so directing the aircraft to "surrender to military forces" doesn't seem like it entirely defeats the purpose. That said, I do think your argument on s2c is stronger, so I can support this repeal.

[The Ice States]

You shouldn't declare the resolution null and void because that's not really the same thing as repealing it.

But then it's not BASED

It seems to me that s4 is mostly about prohibiting nations from shooting down civilian aircraft that goes into their airspace so directing the aircraft to "surrender to military forces" doesn't seem like it entirely defeats the purpose. That said, I do think your argument on s2c is stronger, so I can support this repeal.

I've edited the clause to take this into account.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Nouvel Empire]

I do not believe that your arguments are sufficient to repeal the resolution.
Just because "assistance" isn't defined at length doesn't mean it creates ambiguity in the resolution.
The same for "warnings" or "instructions".

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Macadia]

Ambassador Gretchen Harlemane: “I do not see why we need to repeal GAR #342, I see no true flaws within it, and I think that your attempts to point out flaws are weak and unconvincing. Opposed.”

[The Ice States]

This is still in drafting!

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Is a replacement for this proposal intended? If so, what provisions will it contain? Our concern is that this entire effort may be a smokescreen to allow the World Assembly to impose mandates on pilot training and safety equipment. We have no great attachment to the provisions of the target that relate to the treatment of foreign civilian aircraft, but we are hesitant to remove the blocker provisions.

[Andowood]

"We have adapted wording provided by the Norvarxilalandian mission with their consent."

“I regard the use of the abbreviation: ‘eg’ as somewhat aesthetically unpleasing, particularly in the form used in the text. Your delegation is far from short on characters, so ‘for example’ would be better. With regards to the actual content, I find myself unpersuaded by these arguments. That is not to say that I necessarily disagree with them. However, taking into account the comments of Ambassador Obama, I am not drawn to the arguments as powerful sources of persuasion.”

Lewitt checks his phone briefly, before speaking again. “Perhaps your delegation could clarify for me what negative circumstances could result from those clauses, in this debating chamber?”

"Say a civilian aircraft from a hostile nation flies over another warlike member nation's airspace. The vagueness surrounding 'instructions' opens the doors to that nation merely demanding that the aircraft surrender to military force, prior to initiating hostilities. It is not a significant barrier to what the resolution seeks to prevent. Likewise, the ambiguity surrounding 'assistance' allows a member nation which already does not care much about the safety of civilian aircraft to only provide minimal assistance to aircraft in distress, further ultimately causing the mandate to do nigh-nothing in advancing its goals."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

An civilian aircraft from a hostile nation should be handle within FAA standards and normal procedures. Telling them to surround without no cause should be looked down upon, unless you 100% have proof and evidence of hostile intentions.

[The Ice States]

An civilian aircraft from a hostile nation should be handle within FAA standards and normal procedures. Telling them to surround without no cause should be looked down upon, unless you 100% have proof and evidence of hostile intentions.

Ooc: Exactly. Hence the repeal.

Neville: Is a replacement for this proposal intended? If so, what provisions will it contain? Our concern is that this entire effort may be a smokescreen to allow the World Assembly to impose mandates on pilot training and safety equipment. We have no great attachment to the provisions of the target that relate to the treatment of foreign civilian aircraft, but we are hesitant to remove the blocker provisions.

"We are not drafting a replacement ourselves. However, the Tinhamptonian mission is, and we support it. If your mission has any concerns relating to that replacement, I would encourage you to direct them to the Tinhamptonian ambassador."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The People's Republic of Communist Oldwitch.

[The Ice States]

This is on last call now -- submission will happen later this week.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Looks pretty good!

[Apatosaurus]

This was submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1689367422.