DRAFT: Space Neutrality Act

[Gaytania]

World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the rapid advancements of technology in the aerospace industry and the increasing exploration of space by WA member nations

OBSERVING the need for securing the space exploration efforts of WA member nations

DECLARING that military conflicts inhibit the further exploration of the solar system, our galaxy, and the universe

HEREBY:

1)DECLARES that the aerospace that is 100km above our planets surface is a military and trade neutral zone and is not subject to any nation's, regions, or international entity's trade restrictions

2)DECLARING that WA nations may use defensive measures in the event of an military aerospace attack by a foreign or domestic entity occurring 100 km above their nations surface

3)ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Space Council which will function to monitor the safety and security of member nations space programs

Category:Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

My apologies to everyone if I got the category wrong. I would appreciate your comments on my proposal.

[Malikov]

What i'm getting from this is that you're trying to make space a nuetral territory, like international waters? I am concerned at the lack of usefulness this draft seems to inact. Why, at our current time, would anyone be trying to blow up billion dollar spacecraft. In my knowledge, no one has even invented a targeting system that would enable the user to launch a missle of some sort along a trajectory path, while taking into consideration the Earths gravitational pull. This draft seems pretty useless, at least until space warfare becomes a possible threat. Maybe propose it in a few hundred years, and see where you get.

Malikov, Jordia

[Bavin]

What i'm getting from this is that you're trying to make space a nuetral territory, like international waters? I am concerned at the lack of usefulness this draft seems to inact. Why, at our current time, would anyone be trying to blow up billion dollar spacecraft. In my knowledge, no one has even invented a targeting system that would enable the user to launch a missle of some sort along a trajectory path, while taking into consideration the Earths gravitational pull. This draft seems pretty useless, at least until space warfare becomes a possible threat. Maybe propose it in a few hundred years, and see where you get.

Malikov, Jordia

What about killersats? They are just a basic satellite with a motor and radar system. They find the target and go kamikaze. And you probably could use a fighter to loft a missile at a sat in LEO.

I am surprised there is not already a resolution about this...

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Just wait until the players who roleplay their nations as 'Future-Tech' & space-based see this...

[Meekinos]

Why are you using metric? Not everyone uses metric. We, for example, use a hybrid system of metric and imperial.

[Absolvability]

Why are you using metric? Not everyone uses metric. We, for example, use a hybrid system of metric and imperial.

Metric is just fine. Not everyone uses anything. I think we can all scrounge a calculator and do some conversions if necessary though.

I would appreciate your comments on my proposal.

Well, for one thing, I think you mean to say that neutral territory exists BEYOND 100km above a planet's surface. If you examine the wording of your proposal I think you'll find the problem that I see. Similar problems exist in the other clauses as well.

On a more general note... if this resolution is going to address such a vast issue, it really needs more content. I hesitate to say what should be added, but something must. Well, actually, one thing that comes to mind is space colonies. If we arrive at a moon or whatever that has yet to be inhabited and decide to establish a colony, are we seriously not allowed to impose restrictions upon it?

You're making this issue seem really simple and it is not. In fact, I think you've bitten off more than you wanted to chew.

[Rutianas]

OOC: Just wait until the players who roleplay their nations as 'Future-Tech' & space-based see this...

OOC: I have seen it. Been contemplating whether or not to even acknowledge it. I suppose I should.


IC: This is insane. We have nine planetary systems in the Republic. Am I really to understand that the space between those systems would now be considered neutral space rather than Rutianas space? I repeat, this is just insane.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Ruana]

OOC: Just wait until the players who roleplay their nations as 'Future-Tech' & space-based see this...

OOC: I have seen it. Been contemplating whether or not to even acknowledge it. I suppose I should.


IC: This is insane. We have nine planetary systems in the Republic. Am I really to understand that the space between those systems would now be considered neutral space rather than Rutianas space? I repeat, this is just insane.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

And yes I am also seeing this now. Gaytania you are asking me to neutralise my Warships, so you can go about your everyday life, and I wont go guns a blazing .
I am jesting here.
Expand your bill a little bit more. I am willing to listen. However other hard core Tech's might not warm to your bill.

[The Emmerian Unions]

OOC: I hate to say it, but Gaytania submitted this proposal, which WILL kill any FT WA nation's military.

[Gaytania]

World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the rapid advancements of technology in the aerospace industry and the increasing exploration of space by WA member nations

OBSERVING the need for securing the space exploration efforts of WA member nations

DECLARING that extraplanetary military conflicts inhibit the further exploration of the solar system, our galaxy, and the universe

HEREBY:

1)DECLARES that the aerospace that is 100km beyond your planets surface is a military and trade neutral zone and is not subject to any nation's, regions, or international entity's trade restrictions

2)DECLARING that WA nations may use defensive measures in the event of an military aerospace attack by a foreign or domestic entity occurring 100 km beyond their nations planetary surface

3)ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Space Council which will function to monitor the safety and security of member nations space programs

4) EMPHASIZING the right of WA member nations to claim, govern, and defend territory on uninhabited celestial bodies through the traditional international processes used to declare such claims on a member nations planetary territory

I present to you a revised version of my proposal, I hope it addresses some of your concerns with my first draft.

[Rutianas]

World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the rapid advancements of technology in the aerospace industry and the increasing exploration of space by WA member nations

OBSERVING the need for securing the space exploration efforts of WA member nations

DECLARING that extraplanetary military conflicts inhibit the further exploration of the solar system, our galaxy, and the universe

HEREBY:

1)DECLARES that the aerospace that is 100km beyond your planets surface is a military and trade neutral zone and is not subject to any nation's, regions, or international entity's trade restrictions

2)DECLARING that WA nations may use defensive measures in the event of an military aerospace attack by a foreign or domestic entity occurring 100 km beyond their nations planetary surface

3)ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Space Council which will function to monitor the safety and security of member nations space programs

4) EMPHASIZING the right of WA member nations to claim, govern, and defend territory on uninhabited celestial bodies through the traditional international processes used to declare such claims on a member nations planetary territory

I present to you a revised version of my proposal, I hope it addresses some of your concerns with my first draft.

Same problems. Neutral space between our systems. Killing our military.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

OOC: It would seem to me that banning something that allows a tech level to function should be considered illegal.

[Absolvability]

Clause 2 actually allows for defensive measures to be taken in neutral territory. And the final clause of this proposal allows for nations to colonize celestial bodies. This is slowly getting better, if you ask me. I encourage the Ambassadors with more vested in space than my own nation to contribute to this.

At first this proposal looked very much like the International Waters proposal... which was a little silly, because most planets have been all but completely explored, and space will forever hold mystery to all.

My next immediate concern is that Clause 1 should better mirror Clause 4. If we may inhabit and claim celestial bodies... then Clause 1 should define possession of space to be within 100km of all of these possibly inhabited bodies, not just planets.

Also, considering that space is so very large, perhaps we should consider making the "100km" much, much larger? And then lay down some rules for inhabited celestial bodies that exist fairly close to eachother. Possibly draw the line right down the middle, I suppose.

Furthermore, what about planets with more than one sentient species?

[Meekinos]

Firstly, we do not feel it is productive to take out our calculators to ensure that we don't violate the rules of this resolution. It would cut into trade productivity in a very significant way. Also, your 100km limit is far too low, especially for nations who aren't confined to a tiny little planet like 'Earth'.

The points made by the Absolvability ambassador are echoed by the Meekinosian delegation as well. We feel these are points that should be addressed.

[Absolvability]

Firstly, we do not feel it is productive to take out our calculators to ensure that we don't violate the rules of this resolution.

Productive? No. Necessary? Yes. I am not aware of any international system of measurement. But, if this concern needs satisfaction, I'd think it would be extremely easy to say something like, "a distance, measured in each nation's appropriate units, to be highly comprable to 100km (and/or the new distance specified,) as regulated by an international body."

The points made by the Absolvability ambassador are echoed by the Meekinosian delegation as well.

I'm not used to being agreed with, Ambassador. You're going to spoil my reputation. -jests.-

[Gaytania]

World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the rapid advancements of technology in the aerospace industry and the increasing exploration of space by WA member nations

OBSERVING the need for securing the space exploration efforts of WA member nations

DECLARING that extraplanetary military conflicts inhibit the further exploration of the solar system, our galaxy, and the universe

HEREBY:

1)DECLARES that the aerospace that is a distance, measured in each nations appropriate units, to be highly comparable to that of 1,000km beyond an inhabited planets surface is a military and trade neutral zone and is not subject to any nation's, regions, or international entity's trade restrictions

2)DECLARING that WA nations may use defensive measures in the event of an military aerospace attack by a foreign or domestic entity occurring at a distance, measured in each nations appropriate units to be comparable to that of 1,000km beyond a member nations planetary surface

3)ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Space Council which will function to monitor the safety and security of member nations space programs

4) EMPHASIZING the right of WA member nations to claim, govern, and defend territory on uninhabited celestial bodies through the traditional international processes used to declare such claims on a member nations planetary territory

This is a slight edit of my drafted proposal, I hope it addresses some of your concerns regarding my previous draft.
I would appreciate your comments on this new draft.

[Aegara]

Whilst I feel that this proposal is made with the best intententions and very commendable reasoning, however what is to compel a nation to desist and vacate "neutral space" if my nation was so inclined we could easily launch nuclear weapons into orbit but not fire them at anybody, but I could fire them anywhere anywhere *insert manic laughter here* even though I would be in breach of neutrality no one will act defensively because I have not voilated any boundaries and not delclared war or attacked anyone.

[Maerngau]

Firstly, we do not feel it is productive to take out our calculators to ensure that we don't violate the rules of this resolution.

Productive? No. Necessary? Yes. I am not aware of any international system of measurement. But, if this concern needs satisfaction, I'd think it would be extremely easy to say something like, "a distance, measured in each nation's appropriate units, to be highly comprable to 100km (and/or the new distance specified,) as regulated by an international body."

The points made by the Absolvability ambassador are echoed by the Meekinosian delegation as well.

I'm not used to being agreed with, Ambassador. You're going to spoil my reputation. -jests.-

How could any nation that balks at doing unit conversions even have a technology level at the point where this resolution would have any impact?

If you can master rocket science, you can master imperial to metric.

[Absolvability]

How could any nation that balks at doing unit conversions even have a technology level at the point where this resolution would have any impact?

Well, technologies progress. Presumably nations will reach a level of technological advancement where this resolution will apply to them as well. Presuming, of course, that no repeal were to take place. I think it's unwise to operate under any other assumption.

Of course, I only bring that up so I can go on to say that I wish the more immediately impacted nations would add more constructive to this discussion. Surely they don't wish to see this proposal scrapped completely so much as they wish to not be unreasonably confined. This proposal will be beneficial to all if we can have specific matters brought to light that will then be addressed.

[Rutianas]

Of course, I only bring that up so I can go on to say that I wish the more immediately impacted nations would add more constructive to this discussion. Surely they don't wish to see this proposal scrapped completely so much as they wish to not be unreasonably confined. This proposal will be beneficial to all if we can have specific matters brought to light that will then be addressed.

As a 'more immediately impacted nation, the Imperial Republic, for one, would like to see this scrapped and never brought up again.

The part I take offense to is the neutrality of space. The concept will effectively destroy all space bound civilizations from holding and maintaining control over an area of space. That is essentially what we are. Anything which declares international space boundaries will destroy our civilizations.

Not wishing to speak for the author, but I don't believe this was intended. Though I may be gravely mistaken in that assumption.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Absolvability]

I think the author was wise to phrase it so... "neutrality of space," seems much more... uh, neutral, than "International Space," does. This, as most resolutions do, is protecting nations from eachother to a certain extent. To declare a very small sphere surrounding a sentiently inhabited celestial body (or so I wish it would be phrased,) to be their own personal property. To say that... for example... if Nation B did not have space technology until such time as Nation A visited Nation B's world (or orbited it, anyway,) then Nation B has not had their right to a certain amount of space forfeited for them.

And to say that space itself... the medium through which we travel to new places... is neutral and subject laws against violence, doesn't seem very unreasonable to me. It needs some polishing.

[Rutianas]

I think the author was wise to phrase it so... "neutrality of space," seems much more... uh, neutral, than "International Space," does. This, as most resolutions do, is protecting nations from eachother to a certain extent. To declare a very small sphere surrounding a sentiently inhabited celestial body (or so I wish it would be phrased,) to be their own personal property. To say that... for example... if Nation B did not have space technology until such time as Nation A visited Nation B's world (or orbited it, anyway,) then Nation B has not had their right to a certain amount of space forfeited for them.

And to say that space itself... the medium through which we travel to new places... is neutral and subject laws against violence, doesn't seem very unreasonable to me. It needs some polishing.

Which is the problem. Neutrality or international. It's the same thing to us. We cannot defend our space against those non-WA nations we believe to be hostile unless they shoot first should this pass. Why is that? Why can't we defend what we perceive to be our space against invaders? Why should we have to wait for them to shoot first? It could lead to lives lost that may have been saved had we not had to wait and see the intentions of what we perceive hostile.

It's the same concept with some law that says you have to wait until you're fired on by a warship sitting outside your harbors before you can fire back. It may be your waters, but someone has said that's a no-no and you have to wait until attacked before you can defend yourself.

1)DECLARES that the aerospace that is 100km above our planets surface is a military and trade neutral zone and is not subject to any nation's, regions, or international entity's trade restrictions

2)DECLARING that WA nations may use defensive measures in the event of an military aerospace attack by a foreign or domestic entity occurring 100 km above their nations surface

Because all our trade is done in space, this is severely limiting our ability to even protect our trade vessels. Even if we see a non-WA space raider or pirate coming in, we'd have to wait until attacked before we could fire according to this proposal.

Very clearly, I'm asking why?? Why should space faring nations be left defenseless just because some people think space should be considered neutral territory? It's not neutral when you have space faring nations. Let us define our own borders the way that land based nations define theirs. The WA should not be able to have the power to define national borders. Period.

Do you understand now why space faring nations take issue with this proposal?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Absolvability]

We cannot defend our space against those non-WA nations we believe to be hostile unless they shoot first should this pass.

Yes you can. The very definition of 'defend' is pretty much to say that you get shot at first. You don't shoot them... they don't shoot you... and if somebody messes up, then it's ass kick time. We're not imagining a perfect scenario here, Ambassador, we're just making laws.

That being said... I think a clause should be included in here prohibitting nations from "intimidating or otherwise encroaching upon another nation's pre-established practices," or something like that. Protecting against pirates messing with merchant vessels, and such.

[Rutianas]

Yes you can. The very definition of 'defend' is pretty much to say that you get shot at first. You don't shoot them... they don't shoot you... and if somebody messes up, then it's ass kick time. We're not imagining a perfect scenario here, Ambassador, we're just making laws.

That being said... I think a clause should be included in here prohibitting nations from "intimidating or otherwise encroaching upon another nation's pre-established practices," or something like that. Protecting against pirates messing with merchant vessels, and such.

Oh, that clause is really going to help against piracy and raiders who don't belong to the WA. Pirates and raiders don't give a damned about borders. At least not the ones that don't belong to the WA. They're going to intimidate and encroach all they want to. And according to this, we have to let them! The one question that's remained unanswered is WHY? Why should we allow them entry and not be able to blast them out of space when we spot them? Why should we allow them to cripple or destroy our ships because they would be allowed to get in the first shot?

This is opening the door for multiple trade losses because of this. We cannot adequately protect our trade ships with this proposal. All WA space based civilizations would be an instant target for non-WA raiders and pirates.

Also, the WA should not get in the habit of defining another nation's borders. I hear people screaming NatSov violations over small things, but this is truly a NatSov violation.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

(OOC: For Gaytania: I'm also of the mind that it's a category violation. There is no category for this. It's global disarmament and trade. Write the proposal to fit the category. As it is, this doesn't fit a single category.)

[Bears Armed]

Because all our trade is done in space, this is severely limiting our ability to even protect our trade vessels. Even if we see a non-WA space raider or pirate coming in, we'd have to wait until attacked before we could fire according to this proposal.

OOC: I haven't been following this debate closely, but if that situation would be the case then this proposal's current draft would be illegal for contradiction of Resolution #20: 'Suppress International Piracy'...

[Absolvability]

Oh, that clause is really going to help against piracy and raiders who don't belong to the WA. Pirates and raiders don't give a damned about borders. At least not the ones that don't belong to the WA. They're going to intimidate and encroach all they want to.

I mean to say that it should be added to an existing clause... something like this...

"2)DECLARING that WA nations may use defensive measures in the event of an military aerospace attack by a foreign or domestic entity occurring at a distance, measured in each nations appropriate units to be comparable to that of 1,000km beyond a member nations planetary surface... furthermore, that "intimidating or otherwise encroaching upon another nation's pre-established practices," hereby constitutes an attack."

I don't think it was ever an intention of the author to take away one's right to defend themselves AND their way of life. Way of life, in this instance, pointing at trade and safety.