NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Drone Regulation Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Youssath
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

[DRAFT] Drone Regulation Act

Postby Youssath » Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:41 am

Was inspired to make this resolution since I do own drones along with a Mavic Pro myself, so why not?

Feedbacks are greatly appreciated, and this is my first GA resolution (other than repeals!), so shoot away!
Drone Regulation Act
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety | Proposed by: Youssath

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the developments on UAVs as a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation;

NOTING the accessibility of UAVs to the general population, and the lack of any legislation to regulate this market;

EXPRESSING concerns over the usage of UAVs for malicious intent such as terrorist operations or compromising key installations;

FEARING that inadequate training or preparations by UAV pilots can pose serious risks during operation;

HOPING to ensure that all parties using UAVs are accountable for their UAVs while remaining compliant to national law;

CALLING for more legislation on this market in order to establish a solid precedent for future resolutions;

HEREBY,
1. Defines the following terminologies with regards to this resolution:
  1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft without a sapient pilot onboard, and that requires a consistent input by a UAV pilot or is run autonomously by algorithms.
  2. An UAV pilot is an individual who demonstrates a reasonable expertise on flight operations of UAVs for any purposes.
  3. A no-fly zone is an area where civilian UAVs are not permitted to fly, subjective to national law and WA directives.
2. Mandates for:
  1. Introducing mandatory registration on all UAVs heavier than 300 grams in member nations upon its sale or assembly to the civilian population to ensure accountability on all UAV activities,
  2. All open civilian and military airports and heliports must set up a 5km no-fly zone on all UAVs along with geo-fencing to prevent the flight of UAVs near larger aircraft,
  3. Any key installations or government buildings, by each nation's own laws, are encouraged to set up no-fly zones, to the nation's authority, along with geofencing to ensure national security,
  4. All civilian UAVs must comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations on air safety;
3. Orders that:
  1. Self-assembled UAVs should only be encouraged to fly in good weather conditions such that safe flight can be maintained within the UAV's capacity,
  2. UAVs are discouraged from flying over crowds or key events in order to ensure public safety unless for journalistic purposes,
  3. UAVs are not allowed to discharge, drop or suspend any item or substance from the aircraft at any time,
  4. UAVs are also discouraged from carrying any items on the aircraft unless relevant permits have been granted and the UAV is manufactured to hold items;
4. Suggests that if a civilian UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones:
  1. Member nations must ask for official documentation about the UAV and its flight, including but not limited to: detailed flight plan, time and date of flight, UAV specifications and model, UAV customizations, UAV pilot(s) documentations, safety measures and any relevant flight permits,
  2. Member nations must reject any official application to fly over no-fly zones if the UAV poses a detrimental risk to either sapients or aircraft due to major UAV customization or that the UAV is deemed unairworthy,
  3. Flight plans should be approved only after compliance with the criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones as stipulated under the nation's laws;
5. Recommends for all member nations to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand in taking down errant UAVs or its pilots by any means necessary, especially if the violating UAV transpasses national boundaries or is compromising national security or public safety;

6. Requires all member nations to properly define zones for safe UAV usage within its own airspace such that it does not violate ITSC regulations or endangers sapients or aircraft alike;

7. Also requires all member nations to start commencing legislation on UAV laws and its interpretations, so that there will not be any legal issues within the developing topic of UAVs;

8. Bans the sale of military-purpose UAVs or any military-grade part thereof relevant to its construction to the civilian population to ensure public safety and national security;

9. Recommends that all businesses in the manufacturing, distribution, selling or usage of all UAVs to take reasonable steps to ensure the reliability of civilian UAVs and that it must remain compliant to all ITSC regulations;

10. Clarifies that military-purpose UAVs possessed specifically by the military do not have to comply with the compulsory registration of its UAVs or the UAV regulations and its no-fly zones since this resolution is aimed towards the civilian population and that sensitive information such as UAV specifications and flight plan must be protected in order not to compromise national security.

Co-authored by Kenmoria


CHANGELOG AND DRAFTS
30 August 2019
  • Draft 3 in effect: Previous draft corrected upon Kenmoria's recommendations and suggestions.
  • Removed Clause 2B altogether that requires the mandatory mental assessment + educational workshop due to contradictory nature of definitions.
    27 August 2019
    • Amended Clause 2C - 2E: Reworded clauses in order to make the resolution more coherent and flowing. Thanks, Kenmoria!
    26 August 2019
    • Amended Clause 4C: Clause is wholly amended due to the incoherent flow of argument from "to leave up to individual member nations all authority regarding the approval or maintenance of the official criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones;" to "Flight plans should be approved only after compliance with the criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones as stipulated under the nation's laws;". Thanks, Kenmoria!
    • Resolution draft is in due for some corrections soon, since the flow of argument can be seen as "incoherent" due to pauses and mistakes.
    • Amended Clause 3B: To include the exception of journalistic purposes for flying UAVs over large crowds. Thanks Dreadton!
    25 August 2019
    • Amended Clause 1A: the definition of UAV will be defined such that it requires a "sapient" input rather than a human input. Thanks Kenmoria and East Meranopirus!
    • Amended Clause 5: changed the wording and tone of the statement to a more appropriate and reasonable tone such that member nations should take up every appropriate effort relating to the incident instead of "taking every effort possible" to combat errant UAVs and its pilots. Thanks Kenmoria!
    • Amended Clause 2A: Added in the scenario where constructed UAVs must also be declared for mandatory registration since it exposes a loophole where only retail UAVs must only be declared for mandatory registration.
    • Amended Clause 2A: Upon East Meranopirus's recommendation, the introduction of mandatory registration for all UAVs greater than 300 grams is required.
    • Amended Drone Regulation Act: exceeded 5000 character count. Statements have been reworded or reduced to fit into the General Assembly admission.
Drone Regulation Act
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety | Proposed by: Youssath

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the breakthrough developments on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation;

NOTING of the accessibility of UAVs to the general population, and the lack thereof of any legislation to regulate this developing market;

EXPRESSING concerns over the increased usage of UAVs for malicious intent such as terrorist operations or compromising key military installations;

FEARING that the inadequate training or preparations by UAV pilots can pose a serious risk to both sapients and aircraft during flight;

ENSURING that all individuals and businesses that use UAVs are fully accountable for their UAVs and its actions while remaining compliant to all national laws;

CALLING for greater legislation to be introduced to this developing market in order to establish a solid precedent for future resolutions to come;

HEREBY,
1. Defines the following terminologies with regards to this resolution:
  1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is defined as an aircraft without a sapient pilot on board, and that it requires a consistent input by a sapient operator or is run autonomously by computers or algorithms.
  2. An UAV pilot is defined as an individual who possesses and can demonstrate a reasonable expertise on the flight and operations of UAVs, either for recreational, research or business purposes.
  3. A no-fly zone is defined to be an area over which UAVs are not permitted to fly, subject to an individual nation's regulations.
2. Mandates that:
  1. Every member nation must introduce compulsory registration and keep a national registry on all UAVs heavier than 300 grams upon its sale or construction to the civilian population in order to ensure accountability on all UAV activities,
  2. The introduction of a one-time compulsory training workshop and mental assessment for all current UAV pilots within the nation, where the financial costs shall be paid privately or by the state, in order to ensure that all UAV pilots are properly trained on the correct usage and safety protocols on UAVs,
  3. All civilian and military airports, heliports and runways must set up a 5km no-fly zone on all civilian UAVs along with geo-fencing in order to prevent UAVs from flying near large commercial aircraft to ensure its safety,
  4. Any key military installations or sensitive government buildings are encouraged to set up no-fly zones along with geofencing to ensure national security within each member nation,
  5. Every member nation must ensure that all civilian UAVs comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards so that it remains compliant on air safety and navigation;
3. Orders that:
  1. UAVs should only be encouraged to fly in good weather conditions such that safe flight can be maintained within the UAV's capacity,
  2. UAVs are discouraged from flying over massive crowds or key events such as concerts and light shows, in order to ensure public safety,
  3. UAVs are not allowed to discharge, drop, suspend any item or substance from the aircraft at all times,
  4. UAVs are also discouraged from carrying any items on the aircraft unless relevant permits have been granted and the UAV is manufactured to hold the item;
4. Suggests that if a UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones:
  1. Member nations must ask for official documentation about the UAV and its flight, including but not limited to: detailed flight plan, time and date of flight, UAV specifications and model, UAV customizations, UAV pilot(s) documentations, safety measures and any relevant flight permits,
  2. Member nations must reject any official application to fly over no-fly zones if the UAV poses a detrimental risk to both sapients or aircraft due to major UAV customization or that the UAV is deemed unairworthy,
  3. To leave up to individual member nations all authority regarding the approval or maintenance of the official criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones;
5. Calls for all member nations to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand in taking down errant UAVs or its pilots by any means necessary, especially if the violating UAV transpasses national boundaries or is compromising national security or public safety;

6. Requires all member nations to properly define zones for safe UAV usage within its own airspace such that it does not violate ITSC regulations or endangers sapients or aircraft alike;

7. Also requires all member nations to start commencing legislation on UAV laws and its interpretations, so that there will not be any legal issues within the developing topic of UAVs;

8. Bans the sale of military-purpose UAVs or any part thereof relevant to its construction to the civilian population to ensure public safety and national security;

9. Recommends that all businesses in the manufacturing, distribution, selling or usage of all UAVs to take reasonable steps to ensure the reliability of civilian UAVs and that it must remain compliant to all ITSC regulations;

10. Clarifies that military-purpose UAVs possessed specifically by the military do not have to comply with the compulsory registration of its UAVs or the UAV regulations and its no-fly zones since this resolution is aimed towards the civilian population and that sensitive information such as UAV specifications and flight plan must be protected in order not to compromise national security;
Drone Regulation Act
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety | Proposed by: Youssath

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the developments on UAVs as a reliable medium for deliveries and transportation;

NOTING the accessibility of UAVs to the general population, and the lack of any legislation to regulate this market;

EXPRESSING concerns over the usage of UAVs for malicious intent such as terrorist operations or compromising key installations;

FEARING that inadequate training or preparations by UAV pilots can pose serious risks during flight;

ENSURING that all parties using UAVs are accountable for their UAVs while remaining compliant to national law;

CALLING for more legislation on this market in order to establish a solid precedent for future resolutions;

HEREBY,
1. Defines the following terminologies with regards to this resolution:
  1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft without a sapient pilot onboard, and it requires a consistent input by a UAV pilot or is run autonomously by algorithms.
  2. An UAV pilot is an individual who demonstrates a reasonable expertise on flight operations of UAVs for recreational, research or business purposes.
  3. A no-fly zone is an area where UAVs are not permitted to fly, subject to national law.
2. Mandates for:
  1. Introducing compulsory registration on all UAVs heavier than 300 grams upon its sale or construction to the civilian population to ensure accountability on all UAV activities,
  2. Introduction of a one-time compulsory training workshop and mental assessment for all current UAV pilots, where the costs shall be paid privately or by the state, to ensure proper training on the usage and safety protocols on UAVs,
  3. All civilian and military airports and heliports must set up a 5km no-fly zone on all UAVs along with geo-fencing to prevent the flight of UAVs near larger aircraft,
  4. Any key installations or government buildings, by each nation's own laws, are encouraged to set up no-fly zones, to the nation's authority, along with geofencing to ensure national security,
  5. All civilian UAVs must comply with International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) standards and regulations such that it remains compliant on air safety;
3. Orders that:
  1. UAVs should only be encouraged to fly in good weather conditions such that safe flight can be maintained within the UAV's capacity,
  2. UAVs are discouraged from flying over crowds or key events in order to ensure public safety unless for journalistic purposes,
  3. UAVs are not allowed to discharge, drop, suspend any item or substance from the aircraft at all times,
  4. UAVs are also discouraged from carrying any items on the aircraft unless relevant permits have been granted and the UAV is manufactured to hold the item;
4. Suggests that if a UAV's flight plan involves flying over no-fly zones:
  1. Member nations must ask for official documentation about the UAV and its flight, including but not limited to: detailed flight plan, time and date of flight, UAV specifications and model, UAV customizations, UAV pilot(s) documentations, safety measures and any relevant flight permits,
  2. Member nations must reject any official application to fly over no-fly zones if the UAV poses a detrimental risk to both sapients or aircraft due to major UAV customization or that the UAV is deemed unairworthy,
  3. Flight plans should be approved only after compliance with the criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones as stipulated under the nation's laws;
5. Calls for all member nations to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand in taking down errant UAVs or its pilots by any means necessary, especially if the violating UAV transpasses national boundaries or is compromising national security or public safety;

6. Requires all member nations to properly define zones for safe UAV usage within its own airspace such that it does not violate ITSC regulations or endangers sapients or aircraft alike;

7. Also requires all member nations to start commencing legislation on UAV laws and its interpretations, so that there will not be any legal issues within the developing topic of UAVs;

8. Bans the sale of military-purpose UAVs or any part thereof relevant to its construction to the civilian population to ensure public safety and national security;

9. Recommends that all businesses in the manufacturing, distribution, selling or usage of all UAVs to take reasonable steps to ensure the reliability of civilian UAVs and that it must remain compliant to all ITSC regulations;

10. Clarifies that military-purpose UAVs possessed specifically by the military do not have to comply with the compulsory registration of its UAVs or the UAV regulations and its no-fly zones since this resolution is aimed towards the civilian population and that sensitive information such as UAV specifications and flight plan must be protected in order not to compromise national security;

Contributions by Kenmoria
Last edited by Youssath on Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:41 am, edited 17 times in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5091
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:44 am

“Clause 1a might annoy a few of the non-human nations here, as the WA covers thousands of different species whom are often angered by anthropocentrism. Also, clause 5 seems rather excessive, as ‘every effort possible’ appears disproportionate to what could be a drone going a few metres into an uninhabited field.”
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
Youssath
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Youssath » Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:53 am

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 1a might annoy a few of the non-human nations here, as the WA covers thousands of different species whom are often angered by anthropocentrism. Also, clause 5 seems rather excessive, as ‘every effort possible’ appears disproportionate to what could be a drone going a few metres into an uninhabited field.”

"Unfortunately, ambassador, the times that we live in must include all different interpretations of a UAV. The recent developments of AI technology have allowed for UAVs to operate without the use of human input. I fear that if I were to exclude this out, it would pave the way for a "legal loophole" within the resolution for many nations to exploit on. As we are establishing the precedent here, I cannot allow this to happen sadly."

"As for Clause 5, you are correct that the terminology 'every effort possible' is a bit excessive here. However, there are instances where UAVs can greatly compromise national security and public safety since it is difficult to track them down along with its pilots. I will consider changing the wording of Clause 5 such that it calls for 'all member nations to take every appropriate effort pertaining to the situation at hand in taking down errant UAVs' if that is alright with you."

User avatar
East Meranopirus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 394
Founded: Jul 28, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby East Meranopirus » Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:04 am

A few obvious things:

Clause 2a - Requiring nations to keep registration of all their drones seem a bit excessive. Even those small ones that people fly for fun?
Clause 2b - That's a pretty heavy burden on the state. Small recreational drones aren't that hard to fly.
Clause 2c - Why aren't spaceports included there?
Clause 3c - I don't know why you're banning one of the best uses of a drone. Search up drone blood delivery in Rwanda
Clause 3d - Again, I don't know why you're discouraging drone delivery, one of the best uses of a drone.
Youssath wrote:"Unfortunately, ambassador, the times that we live in must include all different interpretations of a UAV. The recent developments of AI technology have allowed for UAVs to operate without the use of human input. I fear that if I were to exclude this out, it would pave the way for a "legal loophole" within the resolution for many nations to exploit on. As we are establishing the precedent here, I cannot allow this to happen sadly."

IC: "I believe you have misunderstood the Kenmorian Ambassador. What the Ambassador was referring to was the fact that not all sapient beings residing in the member states of this World Assembly are of human species, and that there are in fact many sapient non-human species represented in our diverse Assembly. I'd imagine they would be annoyed that they are not deemed intelligent enough to fly a UAV."
Last edited by East Meranopirus on Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Elusively never IC in the WA forums. Also author of (probably soon to be repealed) GA Resolution #464

Co-Founder of The Democratic Union

Representing the Social Democratic Party as Albin Lundberg in NS Parliament. Fight for freedom, equality, and prosperity for the people!

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5091
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:14 am

East Meranopirus wrote:"I believe you have misunderstood the Kenmorian Ambassador. What the Ambassador was referring to was the fact that not all sapient beings residing in the member states of this World Assembly are of human species, and that there are in fact many sapient non-human species represented in our diverse Assembly. I'd imagine they would be annoyed that they are not deemed intelligent enough to fly a UAV."

“You are correct in your interpretation; I was arguing for the many non-human species that are prevalent within the WA. For example, the sapient Ursines of Bears Armed, or the Tikrr of Giant Bats. The simple solution is to have ‘sapient’ in place of ‘human’, and ‘sapients’ in place of ‘humans’.”
Last edited by Kenmoria on Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Youssath
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Youssath » Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:38 am

East Meranopirus wrote:A few obvious things:

Clause 2a - Requiring nations to keep registration of all their drones seem a bit excessive. Even those small ones that people fly for fun?
Clause 2b - That's a pretty heavy burden on the state. Small recreational drones aren't that hard to fly.
Clause 2c - Why aren't spaceports included there?
Clause 3c - I don't know why you're banning one of the best uses of a drone. Search up drone blood delivery in Rwanda
Clause 3d - Again, I don't know why you're discouraging drone delivery, one of the best uses of a drone.

With regards to your concerns, I will address your concerns correspondingly:
  • Good point. I don't wish to impose an international weight class where mandatory registration is required, since drones - even small ones - can still pose a great danger to smaller aircraft if used improperly (although the consequences won't be dire, but we should look towards defeating the culture of errant drone usage).
  • You will be surprised at what people are ignorant about if you do not inform them about drone laws. Many will simply claim "they do not know anything" about such laws. This clause ensures the full accountability and responsibility of all UAV pilots. Also, the costs for a medical screening and a mandatory workshop can be paid fully by the UAV pilot if he / she desperately wants to fly a UAV. If they want to do it, they should be alright with bearing the costs.
  • UAVs often do not have a propellant or use liquid fuel to fly around - having UAVs fly in space is quite useless, don't you think?
  • I think you have misinterpreted this subclause. This clause prohibits UAVs from dropping items from air or carrying suspended items (held together by cable or rope) with a drone (since it greatly affects the flight stability of the drone). If they want to drop blood supplies, land first. UAVs are compact enough to allow for a convenient landing.
  • Drone deliveries are allowed only if the drone can sustain the load and is manufactured to do so. This subclause ensures the flight safety and airworthiness of such UAVs before their usages on delivery missions.
East Meranopirus wrote:IC: "I believe you have misunderstood the Kenmorian Ambassador. What the Ambassador was referring to was the fact that not all sapient beings residing in the member states of this World Assembly are of human species, and that there are in fact many sapient non-human species represented in our diverse Assembly. I'd imagine they would be annoyed that they are not deemed intelligent enough to fly a UAV."

"Oh. I apologize if I have offended any non-human ambassadors in here. We are new to the legislation of GA proposals and hence our wording can sometimes have unintended... discriminatory effects if worded poorly. I apologize once again and will make the following amendments from "human" to "sapient" as soon as my typewriter is fixed."
Last edited by Youssath on Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:23 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18091
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:45 am

Are you trying to kill off the RC aircraft hobby? Because that is precisely what this will do with the one-size-fits-all definitions and government mandates.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Youssath
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Youssath » Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:30 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:Are you trying to kill off the RC aircraft hobby? Because that is precisely what this will do with the one-size-fits-all definitions and government mandates.

"I apologize, ambassador, but how is asking for the mandatory registration for UAVs above 300 grams, the setting up of no-fly zones and one-time mental screening and educational workshop exactly killing off the hobby? If anything, this resolution is trying to make sure that people are accountable and responsible for their UAV actions. Notice that other than Clause 1 and 2, weak choice of wording in Clause 3 (encouraged, discouraged etc) are used, with the exception of Clause 3c, to provide some leeway towards its interpretations. Ambassador, you are free to fly your customized UAV in bad weather, but as long as you meet the bare minimum of acknowledging the UAV laws in each nation, I don't exactly see how this resolution is damaging towards the hobby, especially given the dire consequences if we leave UAVs to the hands of the uneducated and the mischievous."

"Furthermore, we are establishing the precedent here. Make it good and right on the first try instead of having to waste ambassadors' time legislating on future UAV resolutions down the road debating about little matters."
Last edited by Youssath on Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14398
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:41 pm

"This isn't an international issue. This regulates an entirely domestic activity, and does so with little regard for particular national needs. This should be rewritten to accommodate purely international operation or abandoned."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Youssath
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Youssath » Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:11 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"This isn't an international issue. This regulates an entirely domestic activity, and does so with little regard for particular national needs. This should be rewritten to accommodate purely international operation or abandoned."

"When the day comes where planes come crashing down and diplomatic flights get delayed thanks to errant UAV pilots because of the lack of legislation on this field, will you suddenly realize that this is more than just an international issue. Prevention is better than cure, GA secretariat, and I must absolutely disagree with you that UAV regulation is not an international issue to begin with."

"If you feel that there is too much regulation on UAVs, please kindly raise it up specifically which clauses trouble you the most. It's extremely upsetting to hear that this resolution does nothing than simply "regulation", and that as a result, it warrants the abandonment of such a proposal. I would ask that you elaborate more on what is troubling you the most with this proposal, and if justified (as I have always done, I edited my resolution when I received feedback earlier that it is too restrictive - check my changelogs) I will amend the resolution accordingly, instead of dismissing this resolution as a non-international issue that shouldn't be brought up to the General Assembly."

"What I am trying to achieve here is to set an international uniform standard on UAVs in general, so that countries all have at least, the bare minimum regulations towards UAVs instead of having different laws. This is the precedent I am trying to set in stone here, and I sincerely hope that you can look at this resolution more closely and provide constructive feedback."
Last edited by Youssath on Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5091
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:24 pm

“Some of your clauses don’t flow when taken with their first part. For example, 4e: ‘Suggests that if a UAV’s flight plan involves flying over no fly zones: to leave up to individuals member nations all authority regarding...’ doesn’t work.”
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
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18091
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:35 pm

Youssath wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Are you trying to kill off the RC aircraft hobby? Because that is precisely what this will do with the one-size-fits-all definitions and government mandates.

"I apologize, ambassador, but how is asking for the mandatory registration for UAVs above 300 grams, the setting up of no-fly zones and one-time mental screening and educational workshop exactly killing off the hobby? If anything, this resolution is trying to make sure that people are accountable and responsible for their UAV actions. Notice that other than Clause 1 and 2, weak choice of wording in Clause 3 (encouraged, discouraged etc) are used, with the exception of Clause 3c, to provide some leeway towards its interpretations. Ambassador, you are free to fly your customized UAV in bad weather, but as long as you meet the bare minimum of acknowledging the UAV laws in each nation, I don't exactly see how this resolution is damaging towards the hobby, especially given the dire consequences if we leave UAVs to the hands of the uneducated and the mischievous."

"Furthermore, we are establishing the precedent here. Make it good and right on the first try instead of having to waste ambassadors' time legislating on future UAV resolutions down the road debating about little matters."

Do you have any idea how insufferably elitist the portion I have highlighted sounds?
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Youssath
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Youssath » Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:49 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“Some of your clauses don’t flow when taken with their first part. For example, 4e: ‘Suggests that if a UAV’s flight plan involves flying over no fly zones: to leave up to individuals member nations all authority regarding...’ doesn’t work.”

I am going to have to agree with you here. The flow is incoherent at best and it is difficult to get through the flow of argument with this statement. I was thinking of going with a more approachable clause, such as for the example of 4e:

‘Suggests that if a UAV’s flight plan involves flying over no fly zones: flight plans should be approved only after compliance with the criteria for UAVs to fly within its no-fly zones as stipulated under the nation's laws;'

Perhaps this might bring clarity towards the topic at hand here? I will likely have to reword the draft given how inconsistent the flow of argument is. Thanks a lot in advance!

Grays Harbor wrote:Do you have any idea how insufferably elitist the portion I have highlighted sounds?

"I do apologize if the wording to describe the consequences of having UAVs seem harsh for you. If you like, I can tone down the language for you, but my point still stands and that this 'elitist' statement is not part of the proposal draft at hand here. Also, I'm still here to address any issues that you may have with the draft."

OOC: Hmm, this is the first time someone called my writing elitist. Maybe it's just my bad of writing, but from where I come from (Asian society here), elitism is not something frowned upon in my society. Still, I do apologize if this statement offends you in any way as it is not my intentions to do so. Also, it's RP statements too, so please don't take them too harshly.
Last edited by Youssath on Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14398
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:30 pm

Youssath wrote:"When the day comes where planes come crashing down and diplomatic flights get delayed thanks to errant UAV pilots because of the lack of legislation on this field, will you suddenly realize that this is more than just an international issue.

"Almost certainly not, ambassador, since domesticndrones flying in domestic airspace interfering with domestic landing procedures is a domestic issue, even if matters of international state are inconvenienced. That you deem local air traffic control too complicated an endeavor for national governments goes beyond mere oddity and enters the realm of indefensible."

Prevention is better than cure, GA secretariat, and I must absolutely disagree with you that UAV regulation is not an international issue to begin with."

"You've a right to disagree. You've a right to be blithely incorrect. There is no inherent transboundary effect inherent in domestic drone regulations, nor either a matter interfering with an individual right remotely considered fundamental."

"If you feel that there is too much regulation on UAVs, please kindly raise it up specifically which clauses trouble you the most. It's extremely upsetting to hear that this resolution does nothing than simply "regulation", and that as a result, it warrants the abandonment of such a proposal.

"I'd hate to upset you, but I'd rather see you in hysterics than tolerate an idea incompatible with basic tenants of effective subsidiarism. Policy issues should be addressed by the lowest level of government that can effectively address the issue, so as to permit flexibility for local issues and provide the local populace with a greater deal of input, as they are the ones suffering the burden of such regulations. Control of domestic airspace is eminently one belonging, at highest, to national governments, who have the strongest interests in regulating their own territory to meet their particular needs.

"And rather than allow you to point out the needs of international commerce and transit to have a predictable pattern of regulation in nations they frequent, allow me to note that every nation has particular regulations for all manner of transit, transaction, and interaction with domestic and international entities of all kinds. We presume that businesses are perfectly capable of managing sophisticated regulations and taking adequate steps to remain compliant with the laws of those jurisdiction in which they operate. Air transit is no different."

I would ask that you elaborate more on what is troubling you the most with this proposal, and if justified (as I have always done, I edited my resolution when I received feedback earlier that it is too restrictive - check my changelogs) I will amend the resolution accordingly, instead of dismissing this resolution as a non-international issue that shouldn't be brought up to the General Assembly."

"There is no change that you can make that would make international regulation of domestic airspace against domestic concerns beyond the existing requirements promulgated by the ITSC palatable. I do not object to specific clauses, I object to the underlying assumption that the World Assembly has a greater interest in regulating local affairs than the localities themselves."
"What I am trying to achieve here is to set an international uniform standard on UAVs in general, so that countries all have at least, the bare minimum regulations towards UAVs instead of having different laws. This is the precedent I am trying to set in stone here, and I sincerely hope that you can look at this resolution more closely and provide constructive feedback."


"Bully for you, ambassador. What you're trying to achieve does little more than what a colleague here as already pointed out: enforce an inflexible, one-size-fits-none regulation on entities otherwise better informed, qualified, and practically able to create and enforce regulations that match domestic needs. If you would like to tailor this to exclusively apply to international airspace, you would have assuaged our issues surrounding subsidiarism. Otherwise, the best we can offer is a rubbish bin."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Liberimery
Envoy
 
Posts: 318
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:52 pm

A question on that matter, but if this is limited to International Airspace, who will enforce it?

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14398
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:06 pm

Liberimery wrote:A question on that matter, but if this is limited to International Airspace, who will enforce it?

"The World Assembly, as the lowest level of government who has reasonable authority over international airspace."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Dreadton
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 18
Founded: Dec 04, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Dreadton » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:39 pm

I object to clause 3b. Drones are often used to record protest and are useful tools to track police and government misbehavior within a nation
Honorable Associate Justice of The North Pacific.

All post are representations of the policy and opinions of the nation of Dreadton and not official TNP policy.

User avatar
Youssath
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Youssath » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:21 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Almost certainly not, ambassador, since domesticndrones flying in domestic airspace interfering with domestic landing procedures is a domestic issue, even if matters of international state are inconvenienced. That you deem local air traffic control too complicated an endeavor for national governments goes beyond mere oddity and enters the realm of indefensible."

"And when those aircraft are filled with foreigners and international expats? How about the scenario where the UAV pilot, in particular, is not of domestic nationality? I'm sorry, GA secretariat, but the moment you have said that airspace and landing procedures are all domestic to begin with without considering the fact that international flights do exist, you have effectively broken your own back for this. All landing procedures on the use of international (not domestic) airspace are effectively governed by the ITSC, and it effectively becomes the ITSC and the world's problem if international flights run at risk of experiencing an engine failure or fire if errant UAVs are allowed to do as they please. This resolution seeks to ensure the safety of these flights in particular, and I think that a 5km no-fly zone for all civilian and military airports is perfectly reasonable to begin with."

The Youssathian Ambassador takes a sip of coffee before continuing, "Or perhaps you build airports solely for domestic flights, in which case, I must applaud you for your inefficient wastage of resources. God, and people thought I was mad for trying to repeal the Wasting Food Act!"

Separatist Peoples wrote:"You've a right to disagree. You've a right to be blithely incorrect. There is no inherent transboundary effect inherent in domestic drone regulations, nor either a matter interfering with an individual right remotely considered fundamental."

"There is, GA secretariat. By ensuring a uniform code of laws that will remain similar and familiar to all UAV pilots, regardless of their nationality, we can help promote an international culture on the subject of UAVs. You are correct that these drone regulations are mostly domestically regulated (mandatory registration, workshops, mental screenings), but so have been for many other GA resolutions by calling for member nations to literally conduct domestic regulations in order to promote an international cause. The cause for this resolution? It's to simply promote air safety and UAV flight at all times."

"Furthermore, when an individual's rights begin to trample over others (flying over airports, endangering others), it is no longer a subject of whether their rights are fundamental to begin with. We need to protect these people by taking safety precautions in order to promote safer air travel given the ambiguity of UAVs in international aviation law. GA secretariat, I sincerely hope that you are not advocating for the status quo for UAVs here, because right now that is unsustainable by itself."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'd hate to upset you, but I'd rather see you in hysterics than tolerate an idea incompatible with basic tenants of effective subsidiarism. Policy issues should be addressed by the lowest level of government that can effectively address the issue, so as to permit flexibility for local issues and provide the local populace with a greater deal of input, as they are the ones suffering the burden of such regulations. Control of domestic airspace is eminently one belonging, at highest, to national governments, who have the strongest interests in regulating their own territory to meet their particular needs.

"And rather than allow you to point out the needs of international commerce and transit to have a predictable pattern of regulation in nations they frequent, allow me to note that every nation has particular regulations for all manner of transit, transaction, and interaction with domestic and international entities of all kinds. We presume that businesses are perfectly capable of managing sophisticated regulations and taking adequate steps to remain compliant with the laws of those jurisdiction in which they operate. Air transit is no different."

"If it helps, GA secretariat, I can amend the resolution once more to only recommend mandatory registration of UAVs above 300 grams, keep educational workshops and mental screening fully optional and reduce the number of regulations on drone specifications to all member nations if it helps to address your issue of 'permit(ting) flexibility for local issues and provide the local populace with a greater deal of input, as they are the ones suffering the burden of such regulations'. The 5km no-fly zones on all airports, however, will be maintained, simply because I think there are better places to fly in your country than to fly in an airport, and we don't need distressed foreign tourists hurling up in these airports and causing an international incident just because some bugger said that today is flight day at the airport."

"Other than that, please do let me know if these adjustments can at least ease your mind on any "encroachment" of international bodies on each member's national law.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"There is no change that you can make that would make international regulation of domestic airspace against domestic concerns beyond the existing requirements promulgated by the ITSC palatable. I do not object to specific clauses, I object to the underlying assumption that the World Assembly has a greater interest in regulating local affairs than the localities themselves."

The Youssathian Ambassador heaves a heavy sigh, before continuing his address to the GA secretariat, "GA Secretariat. It's these types of statements that are not contributing to the subject at hand here, and it ends the discussion as just that. The capabilities of UAVs will only grow exponentially by the next decade, and that GAR #34 fully mandates that in Clause 2, the "safety ... for international shipping, aviation, and railways" is the responsibility of the ITSC, and even though how you want to maintain or land your aircrafts in some fashionable way is completely up to your interpretation and jurisdiction based on this resolution, I think it suffices to say that whatever sets off in the air, should get back safely to the ground in one piece. If anything, this resolution serves as an addition to GAR #34 and GAR #342.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Bully for you, ambassador. What you're trying to achieve does little more than what a colleague here as already pointed out: enforce an inflexible, one-size-fits-none regulation on entities otherwise better informed, qualified, and practically able to create and enforce regulations that match domestic needs. If you would like to tailor this to exclusively apply to international airspace, you would have assuaged our issues surrounding subsidiarism. Otherwise, the best we can offer is a rubbish bin."


"As stated earlier, if these regulations are troubling to you, I can reduce or even make it optional to conduct these measures for you and your colleague. However, to tailor UAVs to exclusively apply to international airspace is an impossibility - since international waters and airspace, by right, should only require sapients to follow basic conventional laws as interpreted in the General Assembly, and come on, do you really think a UAV can fly that high - when civilian UAVs can only fly up to 5km in altitude and conventional aircraft can fly way higher than that to effectively create an international issue? Furthermore, you stated that the World Assembly will enforce UAV laws on international airspace. How effectively can the World Assembly patrol the vast skies given how small and compact UAVs can be and that it is a near-impossibility for the World Assembly to enforce such legislation?"



Dreadton wrote:I object to clause 3b. Drones are often used to record protest and are useful tools to track police and government misbehavior within a nation

"Understandable, ambassador. The rights of freedom to assembly and to distribute speech is of paramount importance, even though my nation prohibits such gatherings. However, we do want to emphasize on the word "discourage" - stating that we do not recommend flying over crowds - and that we do not mean that the flight of UAVs over crowds is not allowed under any circumstances. Like I have told the GA Secretariat, you are free to fly over crowds as you wish since it is up to your national laws."

"If it pleases you, perhaps I can amend Clause 3 starting statements that read, "Recommends that:" instead of "Orders that:" in order to provide more leeway for interpretation. However, I think that Clause 3b should still be kept since we are talking about the expertise skill of the UAV pilot in particular, and it is incredibly upsetting should there be a fatality over this matter. Do let me know what you think and what are your suggestions for this!"
Last edited by Youssath on Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:29 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5091
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:15 am

“Clauses 2c to 2e still don’t flow correctly. Is 4b optional or mandatory? Clause 4 proper contains ‘suggests that’, but subclause ‘b’ has ‘must’.”
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
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13737
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:24 am

Youssath wrote:"And when those aircraft are filled with foreigners and international expats? How about the scenario where the UAV pilot, in particular, is not of domestic nationality?"

"If there are people onboard, it's not an unmanned airplane, now is it? Additionally, if they're in a nation, they live by the laws and rules of the nation. The laws are the same for everyone."

GA secretariat

OOC: GenSec is an OOC system, use "ambassador" for IC.

"I think that a 5km no-fly zone for all civilian and military airports is perfectly reasonable to begin with."

"Where would you then go to train UAV pilots?"

"God, and people thought I was mad for trying to repeal the Wasting Food Act!"

"Believing in gods is enough to make people think you are mad."

"You are correct that these drone regulations are mostly domestically regulated (mandatory registration, workshops, mental screenings), but so have been for many other GA resolutions by calling for member nations to literally conduct domestic regulations in order to promote an international cause."

"Such as?"

"Furthermore, when an individual's rights begin to trample over others (flying over airports, endangering others), it is no longer a subject of whether their rights are fundamental to begin with."

"Given that there is no inelienable right to do anything in public, there's no individual right to fly a drone either, that could be trampled one way or another."

We need to protect these people

OOC: What people? The drone fliers?

"I sincerely hope that you are not advocating for the status quo for UAVs here, because right now that is unsustainable by itself."

"Exactly what do you think is unsustainable about letting every nation set their own laws and rules on the matter? If you want to fly a drone in Araraukar, you need to find out the rules and regulations concerning drone flying in Araraukar, and obtain the necessary permits. Simple as that."

I can amend the resolution once more to only recommend

OOC: Making it toothless in addition to unnecessary, would be doing the opposite of helping.

and we don't need distressed foreign tourists hurling up in these airports and causing an international incident just because some bugger said that today is flight day at the airport."

OOC: ...why would tourists be vomiting in airports because someone said it's "flight day" (whatever the hell that is)?

I think it suffices to say that whatever sets off in the air, should get back safely to the ground in one piece.

OOC: Not always...

and come on, do you really think a UAV can fly that high - when civilian UAVs can only fly up to 5km in altitude and conventional aircraft can fly way higher than that to effectively create an international issue?

OOC: International airspace exists between national airspaces. Like out on the sea.

"How effectively can the World Assembly patrol the vast skies given how small and compact UAVs can be and that it is a near-impossibility for the World Assembly to enforce such legislation?"

"This works as an argument against this proposal, too..."
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Youssath
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Youssath » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:00 am

Kenmoria wrote:“Clauses 2c to 2e still don’t flow correctly. Is 4b optional or mandatory? Clause 4 proper contains ‘suggests that’, but subclause ‘b’ has ‘must’.”

I will fix Clause 2c to 2e accordingly soon! Clause 4b is optional. Like you said, Clause 4 proper contains 'suggest that', so I will leave it up to the nation's interpretation to see how they wish to decline applications (although I have named a few, such as major UAV customization or unairworthiness, since those are typically huge no-noes in aviation law).

I will reply to Araraukar's reply soon, after I am also done sorting out my IRL mess.

User avatar
The Islands of Tonga
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Oct 17, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Islands of Tonga » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:47 am

To be fair my country is a no drone area

User avatar
Youssath
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Youssath » Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:56 am

Araraukar wrote:"If there are people onboard, it's not an unmanned airplane, now is it? Additionally, if they're in a nation, they live by the laws and rules of the nation. The laws are the same for everyone."

"Ambassador, as much as I agree with you that national laws do apply in different nations (which is still explicitly stated), I'm sure you can agree to some international standards to limit... preventable disasters.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: GenSec is an OOC system, use "ambassador" for IC.

OOC: Got it, thanks! Apologies if that was awkward.

Araraukar wrote:"Where would you then go to train UAV pilots?"

The Youssathian Ambassador sighs, before murmuring to his assistant,

"You know, sometimes, these ambassadors really ask for too much. When I left that portion out to leave it up to them to interpret as they wish, they complain that we are not specific enough and that they want more answers. However, when I do mention places of proper training grounds, they complain that we are violating their national sovereignty, and it is up to them to decide what they want! It's ridiculous, really!"

The assistant guffaws lightly, until he realized that it just made the whole situation even more awkward.

The Youssthian Ambassador returns to speak to the Araraukarian Ambassador, "Ambassador, I'm sure your own national laws can interpret as how you wish to train your UAV pilots. That is, after all, not my responsibility."

Araraukar wrote:"Believing in gods is enough to make people think you are mad."

"For a country that calls for the freedom to practice your religion as long as it doesn't violate Araraukarian laws, you sure are giving me quite the impression here!"

Araraukar wrote:"Such as?"

The Youssathian Ambassador pulls out a thick book, "Such as all, if not most, of these resolutions here."

Araraukar wrote:"Given that there is no inelienable right to do anything in public, there's no individual right to fly a drone either, that could be trampled one way or another."

"Hm. Let's just agree to disagree here, ambassador."

Araraukar wrote:OOC: What people? The drone fliers?

OOC: The civilian population in general.

Araraukar wrote:"Exactly what do you think is unsustainable about letting every nation set their own laws and rules on the matter? If you want to fly a drone in Araraukar, you need to find out the rules and regulations concerning drone flying in Araraukar, and obtain the necessary permits. Simple as that."

"I am sure you do realize that official documents need to be written in their own national language, ambassador, and sometimes the requirement of several different types of permits in a language foreign to tourists will only make things harder and will encourage illicit UAV activities. What I am proposing here is to at least have a general set of guidelines for everyone to follow through, so that it remains familiar to both domestic and foreign people, while allowing for additional regulations on UAV activities subject to each nation's law."

"Or this resolution can simply call for everything to be listed in English, and I will be absolutely sure to have offended two-thirds of the WA assembly here."

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Making it toothless in addition to unnecessary, would be doing the opposite of helping.

OOC: Well, some people don't like hearing the word "must" or "mandates".

Araraukar wrote:OOC: ...why would tourists be vomiting in airports because someone said it's "flight day" (whatever the hell that is)?

OOC: Doesn't getting stuck in an airport for several hours give you distress? I would if I have tons of appointments that I will be missing as a result of this. And oh, when I meant flight day in RP, I meant basically flying a drone.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Not always...

OOC: Okay... remind me to wear my seatbelt at all times.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: International airspace exists between national airspaces. Like out on the sea.

OOC: Agreed, but I will be surprised myself if I see a drone flying in the altitude of a commercial plane.

Araraukar wrote:"This works as an argument against this proposal, too..."

"This resolution didn't really state how to catch errant UAVs... I won't give any ideas here."

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13737
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:07 am

Youssath wrote:I am sure you do realize that official documents need to be written in their own national language

OOC: I'll get back to you on rest of it later, but is ^that enforced by a resolution?
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5091
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:13 am

Araraukar wrote:
Youssath wrote:I am sure you do realize that official documents need to be written in their own national language

OOC: I'll get back to you on rest of it later, but is ^that enforced by a resolution?

(OOC: No, there’s no GA resolution covering that.)
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.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Duminep

Advertisement

Remove ads