NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Protection of Airspace

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

[PASSED] Protection of Airspace

Postby East Meranopirus » Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:35 am

My first attempt at writing a WA Resolution. Feedback is welcome but please be constructive.

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation

The World Assembly,

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 and security of international airspace;

Noting the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace;

Fearing that

  • A lack of clearly defined sovereign air space can create dangerous diplomatic situations and cause preventable war;
  • A lack of clearly defined international airspace will destabilise commerce and security by allowing nations to exert undue influence in neutral territory;
  • A lack of clearly defined boundaries between space and atmosphere will create dangerous tensions between space powers;

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:

    1. An "aircraft" as an object capable of flight, controlled entirely by sapient beings;
    2. "Airspace" as the portion of the atmosphere above the land or water surface and below the height where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible;
    3. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation;
    4. "International airspace" as airspace not above any nation's land or water territory;

  2. Mandates that:

    1. 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;
    2. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace;

  3. Prohibits any member nation from exercising territorial control over international airspace, unless required by an existing World Assembly resolution.


Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation

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,

  1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
    1. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as the portion of the atmosphere above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation, with its lower limit set by the nation and its upper limit defined by the mandates in Clause 2.
    2. "International airspace" as any portions of the atmosphere not above a nation's sovereign territory, with its lower and upper limits defined by the mandates in Clause 2.
  2. Extends the mandate of the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) to:
    1. Determine the edge of space on a member nation by member nation basis based on where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible.
    2. Determine lower limit of international airspace based on stationary landmarks in the vicinity.
  3. Mandates that all member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace,with the exception of any control granted to the World Assembly.
  4. Clarifies that:
    1. All member nations shall have the right to restrict certain areas of its airspace for specific purposes or specific aircraft, including but not limited to military activity or commercial aircraft.
    2. Any aircraft must receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of a member nation before entering the territorial airspace of that nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally. Nations are exempted when sending military aircraft into another nation that they are currently at war with.
    3. A nation may take any action deemed appropriate in response to an aircraft entering its territorial airspace without authorisation.
    4. Nations must assist an aircraft in distress located in its territorial airspace regardless of any violations.
  5. Further mandates that:
    1. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace.
    2. Any member nation that does not define the height above the surface at which the territorial airspace of the nation begins will be considered to be using the limits set by international airspace. Any portions of the atmosphere below a nation's territorial airspace shall be considered land or water territory of the nation and will not be subject to airspace regulations.
  6. Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace.
- Read this as well: It's a longer version with a lot of (possibly excessive) clarifications.

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation

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,

  1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
    1. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as the portion of the atmosphere above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation, with its lower limit set by the nation and its upper limit being the defined edge of space for the planet.
    2. "International airspace" as any portions of the atmosphere not above a nation's sovereign territory, with its lower limit being the highest landmark on the planet and its upper limit being the defined edge of space for the planet.
  2. Mandates that:
    1. All member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace,with the exception of any control granted to the World Assembly.
    2. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace.
    3. All member nations shall have the right to restrict certain areas of its airspace for specific purposes or specific aircraft, including but not limited to military activity or commercial aircraft.
    4. Any member nation that does not define the height above the surface at which the territorial airspace of the nation begins will be considered to be using the limits set by international airspace. Any portions of the atmosphere below a nation's territorial airspace shall be considered land or water territory of the nation and will not be subject to airspace regulations.
  3. Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace.
  4. Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a member nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of that nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally.


Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation

Recognising every nation's right to protect sovereignty of its own territory

Believing airspace to be an integral part of a nation's territory

Noting the lack of legislation regarding airspace

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
    1. "Airspace" as the portion of atmosphere above the surface level of a planet and below the defined edge of space for the planet
    2. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation
    3. "International airspace" as any airspace not considered "territorial airspace" of a member nation.
  2. Mandates that:
    1. All member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace.
    2. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace.
    3. All member nations shall have the right to restrict certain areas of its airspace for specific purposes or specific aircraft, including but not limited to military activity or commercial aircraft.
    4. All member nations should define the height above the surface at which the territorial airspace of the nation begins. Any portions of the atmosphere below the airspace shall be considered land or water territory of the nation and will not be subject to airspace regulations.
  3. Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace.
  4. Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a member nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of that nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally.
Last edited by Ransium on Sat May 04, 2019 10:47 pm, edited 36 times in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:42 am

“A proposal in the category of regulation does not have a strength, only an area of effect.”

(OOC: Have you checked to see how this works with GA #451, International Aerospace Administration, and GA #342, Civilian Aircraft Accord? Also, just to clarify, there is no rule mandating American spellings, and lots of passed resolutions use the original British.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:30 am

Kenmoria wrote:“A proposal in the category of regulation does not have a strength, only an area of effect.”

(OOC: Have you checked to see how this works with GA #451, International Aerospace Administration, and GA #342, Civilian Aircraft Accord? Also, just to clarify, there is no rule mandating American spellings, and lots of passed resolutions use the original British.)

Thanks for the information on strength,I will remove it.

I've read the two resolutions you suggested, and I don't think there's any duplicate or contradictory information in there. GA #451 is mostly about space exploration and scientific cooperation, and GA #342 is mainly about safety. There is some mention of airspace in GA #342, but it's pretty broad, and I think my resolution better defines and regulates airspace.

The spelling thing is mostly intended as a joke, so no worries about that.

Thanks for the feedback.
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:44 am

“The current clause 4 is very easy to loophole, as it only requires authorisation to be sought, not to be accepted. If permission were to be denied, this would have no effect on the aircraft being compliant with this clause.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:03 am

Kenmoria wrote:“The current clause 4 is very easy to loophole, as it only requires authorisation to be sought, not to be accepted. If permission were to be denied, this would have no effect on the aircraft being compliant with this clause.”

Corrected: "Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of the nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally."
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Artsotska
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Apr 16, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Artsotska » Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:51 pm

East Meranopirus wrote:My first attempt at writing a WA Resolution. Feedback is welcome but please don't be unnecessarily harsh.

Also, I use British spelling. It's not a mistake. Unless NS has some specific rule on using American spelling that I'm not aware of.

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation

Recognising every nation's right to protect sovereignty of its own territory good start

Believing airspace to be an integral part of a nation's territory ok

Noting the lack of legislation regarding airspace true that I'm aware of

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
    1. "Airspace" as the portion of atmosphere above the surface level of a planet and below the defined edge of space for the planet
    2. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a nation
    3. "International airspace" as any airspace not considered "territorial airspace" of a nation.
  2. Mandates that:
    1. All nations {you cannot use the word "nation" or "region" as WA resolution states} shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace.
    2. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace.
    3. All nations shall have the right to restrict certain areas of its airspace for specific purposes or specific aircraft, including but not limited to military activity or commercial aircraft.
    4. All nations {again} should define the height above the surface at which the territorial airspace of the nation begins. Any portions of the atmosphere below the airspace shall be considered land or water territory of the "nation" and will not be subject to airspace regulations.
  3. Prohibits any nation from exercising control over international airspace.
  4. Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of the nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally.

I suggest replacing the word "nation" with "country" instead. Good luck with the resolution! This sounds like it isn't your first time writing a resolution! I'm eager to see this as an actual resolution.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12849
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:03 pm

Artsotska wrote:I suggest replacing the word "nation" with "country" instead.

OOC: Bad advice. Using nation is the normal way of referring to the nations, however I'd shy away from using "all nations", as that would look like trying to legislate for non-WA nations as well. The usual way to specify WA nations is "member nations".

I think Artsotska is confused about the "you can't use the name of a nation or region in a resolution proposal" anti-branding rule.
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:35 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Artsotska wrote:I suggest replacing the word "nation" with "country" instead.

OOC: Bad advice. Using nation is the normal way of referring to the nations, however I'd shy away from using "all nations", as that would look like trying to legislate for non-WA nations as well. The usual way to specify WA nations is "member nations".

I think Artsotska is confused about the "you can't use the name of a nation or region in a resolution proposal" anti-branding rule.

Thanks for the advice, I've added "member nations" to all mentions of nations.
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:14 am

“I’ve left some feedback in red pen on this proposal.”

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation

Recognising every nation's right to protect sovereignty of its own territory Using the word ‘own’ here is tautological, as all the territory a nation has must necessarily be its own. There should also be a ‘the’ before ‘sovereignty’. Finally, as with all of your clauses, it is preferred for there to be some sort of punctuation after every clause.

Believing airspace to be an integral part of a nation's territory

Noting the lack of legislation regarding airspace This isn’t quite true, as there is some of regulation around airspace, just not around the areas in which you wish to legislate. I suggest rewording this.

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
    1. "Airspace" as the portion of atmosphere above the surface level of a planet and below the defined edge of space for the planet What is the ‘edge of space’ for a planet? This seems very open to interpretation.
    2. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation
    3. "International airspace" as any airspace not considered "territorial airspace" of a member nation. There’s no need to use quotation marks around ‘territorial airspace’ since you have already defined it.
  2. Mandates that:
    1. All member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace. Consider using ‘primary’ instead of ‘sole’, since the World Assembly does have some degree of control over airspace.
    2. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace.
    3. All member nations shall have the right to restrict certain areas of its airspace for specific purposes or specific aircraft, including but not limited to military activity or commercial aircraft.
    4. All member nations should define the height above the surface at which the territorial airspace of the nation begins. Any portions of the atmosphere below the airspace shall be considered land or water territory of the nation and will not be subject to airspace regulations. This seems contrapository to your earlier definition of ‘airspace’.
  3. Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace.
  4. Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a member nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of that nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally. It is common for there to be a line break between active clauses, and I would recommend putting one between clauses 3 and 4.
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:03 am

Kenmoria wrote:“I’ve left some feedback in red pen on this proposal.”

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation

Recognising every nation's right to protect sovereignty of its own territory Using the word ‘own’ here is tautological, as all the territory a nation has must necessarily be its own. There should also be a ‘the’ before ‘sovereignty’. Finally, as with all of your clauses, it is preferred for there to be some sort of punctuation after every clause.

Believing airspace to be an integral part of a nation's territory

Noting the lack of legislation regarding airspace This isn’t quite true, as there is some of regulation around airspace, just not around the areas in which you wish to legislate. I suggest rewording this.

Hereby,

  1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
    1. "Airspace" as the portion of atmosphere above the surface level of a planet and below the defined edge of space for the planet What is the ‘edge of space’ for a planet? This seems very open to interpretation.
    2. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation
    3. "International airspace" as any airspace not considered "territorial airspace" of a member nation. There’s no need to use quotation marks around ‘territorial airspace’ since you have already defined it.
  2. Mandates that:
    1. All member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace. Consider using ‘primary’ instead of ‘sole’, since the World Assembly does have some degree of control over airspace.
    2. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace.
    3. All member nations shall have the right to restrict certain areas of its airspace for specific purposes or specific aircraft, including but not limited to military activity or commercial aircraft.
    4. All member nations should define the height above the surface at which the territorial airspace of the nation begins. Any portions of the atmosphere below the airspace shall be considered land or water territory of the nation and will not be subject to airspace regulations. This seems contrapository to your earlier definition of ‘airspace’.
  3. Prohibits any member nation from exercising control over international airspace.
  4. Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a member nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of that nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally. It is common for there to be a line break between active clauses, and I would recommend putting one between clauses 3 and 4.

I've used your feedback and made a second draft of the proposal.

In regards to some of the specific feedback:
The part about the "edge of space" I'm unsure about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe nations in NS don't have to be on Earth, so to cater for the different planets that the nation may exist on, I said "defined edge of space of the planet", leaving it up to the planet the nation is on.

With the WA control over airspace, I've changed the wording, but I'm unsure which parts the WA have control over, so it would be great if you could give me the specifics and I could incorporate it into the resolution.

That's all, thanks for the feedback.
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12849
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:36 am

OOC: The whole "edge of space" definition is going to be bitchy either way, so I suggest tacking on "as jointly defined by the nation or nations residing on the planet" to externalize that bickering to someplace else.

IC: "Does this allow a nation to close off the majority of its airspace? Currently the airspace over mainland Araraukar - not including our coastal waters and islands - is closed to all motorized air traffic, including our own. This is done because of environmental concerns."
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:09 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: The whole "edge of space" definition is going to be bitchy either way, so I suggest tacking on "as jointly defined by the nation or nations residing on the planet" to externalize that bickering to someplace else.

IC: "Does this allow a nation to close off the majority of its airspace? Currently the airspace over mainland Araraukar - not including our coastal waters and islands - is closed to all motorized air traffic, including our own. This is done because of environmental concerns."

Sounds like a good idea for tackle the space issue.

I believe the resolution allows airspace to be closed off, partially or completely, since it gives full control to the nations. But maybe I should put a clause in there just to make it clear.
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18126
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:45 am

OOC
As currently written, clause 4 means that member nations at war with each other can't send aircraft into each others' airspace: intentional?
^_^

(You're not the first author of a proposal on this theme to do that...)
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:16 pm

:idea:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
As currently written, clause 4 means that member nations at war with each other can't send aircraft into each others' airspace: intentional?
^_^

(You're not the first author of a proposal on this theme to do that...)

Well, if two nations are at war and one sends aircraft into the other, chances are it would get shot down. So yes, the clause makes it illegal, but that wouldn't stop nations at war from sending aircraft for combat, since they risk getting shot down anyway.
Last edited by East Meranopirus on Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:52 am

East Meranopirus wrote::idea:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
As currently written, clause 4 means that member nations at war with each other can't send aircraft into each others' airspace: intentional?
^_^

(You're not the first author of a proposal on this theme to do that...)

Well, if two nations are at war and one sends aircraft into the other, chances are it would get shot down. So yes, the clause makes it illegal, but that wouldn't stop nations at war from sending aircraft for combat, since they risk getting shot down anyway.

(OOC: Unfortunately, that’s not how GA compliance works. If nation A sends aeroplanes to attack nation B, in contravention of this proposal, the outcome will be fines for nation A according to the Administrative Compliance Act, regardless of whether the planes are shot down or not.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:17 am

Kenmoria wrote:
East Meranopirus wrote::idea:
Well, if two nations are at war and one sends aircraft into the other, chances are it would get shot down. So yes, the clause makes it illegal, but that wouldn't stop nations at war from sending aircraft for combat, since they risk getting shot down anyway.

(OOC: Unfortunately, that’s not how GA compliance works. If nation A sends aeroplanes to attack nation B, in contravention of this proposal, the outcome will be fines for nation A according to the Administrative Compliance Act, regardless of whether the planes are shot down or not.)

Thank you for the information. There's still a lot for me to learn. I guess the only way to fix it is to make an exemption for warring nations.
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:14 am

“Clause 1b worries me slightly because of the use of the phrase ‘highest landmark’. If, for example, there is a lone mountain several kilometres high, but everywhere else is only a few metres above sea level, it doesn’t make sense to arbitrarily restrict international airspace to only the air above that mountain.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:44 am

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 1b worries me slightly because of the use of the phrase ‘highest landmark’. If, for example, there is a lone mountain several kilometres high, but everywhere else is only a few metres above sea level, it doesn’t make sense to arbitrarily restrict international airspace to only the air above that mountain.”

I don't really see any other way to go about it. I can't arbitrarily define a height for different planets. Plus, if you are flying at a height where you can bump into something that extends from the ground, you're really not flying high enough.
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Giant Bats
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Dec 14, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Giant Bats » Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:07 am

"I am confused by this concept of setting the lower limit for territorial airspace," said Kistiri, a being that evolution had modified to remain airborne for over three thirds of his life. "Isn't that naturally defined by "where the land and water surfaces begin"?" He left it unsaid that the Tikrr did not in fact count their airspace to reach all the way down to the ground, as on their homeplanet those layers were uninhabitable for life requiring oxygen to breathe, and there were monsters in the depths. They didn't even count the planet's permanent day side as their sky, but being the only sapients on the planet, they still treated it and the solar system as theirs.

- Kistiri Tikilikrr, Assistant to the Head of the Diplomatic Wing, 10th generation male
Last edited by Giant Bats on Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Large, eyeless, carnivorous bat-like creatures with interstellar FTL capabilities. (See OOC addition here for size reference.)

Allies of Potted Plants United.

"We do not write because we want to. We write because we have to." - Somerset Maugham

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:57 am

East Meranopirus wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 1b worries me slightly because of the use of the phrase ‘highest landmark’. If, for example, there is a lone mountain several kilometres high, but everywhere else is only a few metres above sea level, it doesn’t make sense to arbitrarily restrict international airspace to only the air above that mountain.”

I don't really see any other way to go about it. I can't arbitrarily define a height for different planets. Plus, if you are flying at a height where you can bump into something that extends from the ground, you're really not flying high enough.

(OOC: To use an RL example, Mount Everest extends about 8000 metres above the ground, but light aircraft can only fly about 3500 metres above land. The problem comes due to the fact that this international airspace is being defined internationally. If an aircraft is flying over an ocean, there’s a very low chance that a Mount Everest will appear for a collision.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:00 am

Kenmoria wrote:
East Meranopirus wrote:I don't really see any other way to go about it. I can't arbitrarily define a height for different planets. Plus, if you are flying at a height where you can bump into something that extends from the ground, you're really not flying high enough.

(OOC: To use an RL example, Mount Everest extends about 8000 metres above the ground, but light aircraft can only fly about 3500 metres above land. The problem comes due to the fact that this international airspace is being defined internationally. If an aircraft is flying over an ocean, there’s a very low chance that a Mount Everest will appear for a collision.)

True, true. What do you suggest? Maybe the highest landmark in the nation or within a certain vicinity?
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3249
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:56 am

East Meranopirus wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: To use an RL example, Mount Everest extends about 8000 metres above the ground, but light aircraft can only fly about 3500 metres above land. The problem comes due to the fact that this international airspace is being defined internationally. If an aircraft is flying over an ocean, there’s a very low chance that a Mount Everest will appear for a collision.)

True, true. What do you suggest? Maybe the highest landmark in the nation or within a certain vicinity?


OOC: A small distance above the local planetary surface would be best, I think. E.g. "...whose lower limit shall be 250m above the nearby surface, which shall include buildings and other stationary constructs..." This way you can have boats and ships and ekranoplans on the oceans, and drones and hang gliders over land, however high or low the land is, without having to impose WA micromanagement for local use, while still keeping an altitude buffer for serious air traffic. Especially if you widen the margin beyond my suggested fudge factor there (though you don't want it too big for obvious reasons).
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
East Meranopirus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby East Meranopirus » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:02 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
East Meranopirus wrote:True, true. What do you suggest? Maybe the highest landmark in the nation or within a certain vicinity?


OOC: A small distance above the local planetary surface would be best, I think. E.g. "...whose lower limit shall be 250m above the nearby surface, which shall include buildings and other stationary constructs..." This way you can have boats and ships and ekranoplans on the oceans, and drones and hang gliders over land, however high or low the land is, without having to impose WA micromanagement for local use, while still keeping an altitude buffer for serious air traffic. Especially if you widen the margin beyond my suggested fudge factor there (though you don't want it too big for obvious reasons).

The definition sounds good, but does "nearby" need to be defined as well?

I think I'll keep this just on airspace, for now, but thanks for the suggestion.
All posts OOC unless otherwise stated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of an lifeless region? Tired of being ignored? Looking for an active region to settle? Join the Union of Allied States

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:05 am

East Meranopirus wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
OOC: A small distance above the local planetary surface would be best, I think. E.g. "...whose lower limit shall be 250m above the nearby surface, which shall include buildings and other stationary constructs..." This way you can have boats and ships and ekranoplans on the oceans, and drones and hang gliders over land, however high or low the land is, without having to impose WA micromanagement for local use, while still keeping an altitude buffer for serious air traffic. Especially if you widen the margin beyond my suggested fudge factor there (though you don't want it too big for obvious reasons).

The definition sounds good, but does "nearby" need to be defined as well?

I think I'll keep this just on airspace, for now, but thanks for the suggestion.

(OOC: Since a nation has nothing to gain by having a silly value for ‘nearby’, which doesn’t leave much room for leeway anyway, I don’t think defining that term will be necessary.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 3588
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:15 am

East Meranopirus wrote:Requires any aircraft using the territorial airspace of a member nation to receive authorisation from the relevant authorities of that nation, whether they are registered domestically or internationally.

This can be interpreted to mean that aircraft using a member nations airspace must receive authorization, rather then that aircraft need authorization to use a members airspace.
Last edited by Aclion on Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads