NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Removal of Space Debris

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

[DEFEATED] Removal of Space Debris

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:06 pm

The World Assembly,

Heralding the efforts of "To Prevent Dangerous Debris" to prevent the creation of space debris,

Emphasising, however, that this remains silent on the active removal of space debris,

Identifying the harm that space debris can cause to both member nations and the environment alike _
  • Making space travel and exploration more difficult due to the risk of spacecraft colliding with space debris;
  • Greenhouse gases being created through atmospheric combustion of space debris;
  • The falling of space debris into the ground, which can cause property damage and harm sapient life;
  • Collisions between existing space debris generating further space debris;

Concerned by the ominous silence of World Assembly law in the topic of removal of space debris with the repeal of "Active Reduction of Space Debris", despite this topic necessitating a plan of action to protect member nations and their environments from space debris in collaboration between member nations and the World Assembly's institutions,

Enacts as follows _

  1. Space debris, in this resolution, means disused sapient-made items or parts thereof in outer space posing a cognisable risk of: entering, in the foreseeable future, volumes of atmosphere controlled by a member nation, or polluting these atmospheres through atmospheric burn-up; colliding with operating member nation spacecraft; or generating further space debris;
  2. The Debris In Space Committee (or DISC) of the WA Scientific Programme is to index -- in a manner accessible to member nations -- and work to develop technologies and strategies that remove space debris in such a manner minimising damage caused by use to the environment, property, and sapient populations but otherwise as efficiently and speedily as possible;
  3. All member nations that, in the view of the DISC, have sufficiently developed technology to do so with or without Section 3a or 3b assistance, are to regularly deploy Section 2 techniques in a manner determined by the DISC to minimise damage caused by use to the environment, property, and sapient populations but otherwise function as efficiently and speedily as possible;

    1. The WA General Fund is to subsidise deployment of Section 2 techniques by a member nation, on request by that member nation, sufficiently to avoid severe burden on that member nation's finances posed by deployment of these techniques, where the need for funding did not arise due to deliberate diversion of existing funds by that nation;
    2. The DISC is to assist member nations in deploying Section 2 techniques, where such assistance is necessary for that member nation to be able to deploy space debris removal techniques so as to comply with Section 2;
  4. The DISC is to provide pecuniary incentives through the WA General Fund to any entities that discover and provide to the DISC data, process, or research -- barring that classified for national security or personal privacy -- that would materially assist the DISC in developing, indexing, or coordinating Section 3 deployment of, Section 2 techniques; these incentives are to be proportionate to the utility of this information to the DISC, but sufficient to reasonably procure provision of such information in the view of the DISC;
  5. Each member nation is to refrain from obstructing any Section 3 removal efforts, and is to penalise any legal entity under its jurisdiction that does so, so as to reasonably deter similar attempts to obstruct these space debris removal efforts;
  6. Subject to Section 5, no part of this resolution is to be interpreted as regulating or restricting any space debris removal efforts conducted separately to Section 3 efforts.


"Discuss."
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:05 pm, edited 115 times in total.
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11596
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:29 pm

OOC. Your section 2(c) relates to relocation of space debris for disposal. What if "disposal" is done by keeping it there indefinitely? (Nb disposal is undefined and implies something would no longer be debris; objects in graveyard orbits would still be "space debris" under the s 1 definition.)

Note on enforcement. In the World Assembly compliance enforcement system, the high contracting parties are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The Compliance Commission at large, who investigate crime, and the specialised Solicitors Office therein, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. Duhn dun! And the people who actually evaluate those prosecutions are the Independent Adjudicative Office.

Why would you use an underscore to introduce a sublist?

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:51 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. Your section 2(c) relates to relocation of space debris for disposal. What if "disposal" is done by keeping it there indefinitely? (Nb disposal is undefined and implies something would no longer be debris; objects in graveyard orbits would still be "space debris" under the s 1 definition.)

Ooc: Does removing the part about disposal and say that it just has to be (where possible) moved to a designated site address your concern re: disposal?

Does saying that it only counts as debris where it poses a cognisable risk of falling from orbit or to spacecraft address your concern re: graveyard orbit?
Note on enforcement. In the World Assembly compliance enforcement system, the high contracting parties are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The Compliance Commission at large, who investigate crime, and the specialised Solicitors Office therein, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. Duhn dun! And the people who actually evaluate those prosecutions are the Independent Adjudicative Office.

Changed to Independent Adjudicative Office then.
Why would you use an underscore to introduce a sublist?

Thanks, I've replaced it with a semicolon.
Last edited by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 on Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11596
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:11 pm

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Does saying that it only counts as debris where it poses a cognisable risk of falling from orbit or to spacecraft address your concern re: graveyard orbit?

OOC. Why is it a problem that some debris falls from orbit – note also that your definition implies that once something enters the atmosphere it ceases to be debris – due to drag?
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Simone Republic
Attaché
 
Posts: 66
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:42 pm

OOC: This goes back to a point I made somewhere in the TNP forums at least a couple of times - at the moment, in real life, other than gravity and letting the debris burn up in the atmosphere, there really isn't any way to actually remove the space debris. I mean, unless technologies significantly advance to the point where this is feasible, the point is moot. It's about as hard as trying to remove micro plastics from the ocean which is another intractable problem.

IC: I do actually like the noble aims to try to develop new technologies to remove space debris. It might simplify your resolution though if you simply state the fact that (1) space debris get in the way of other spacecraft (2) ask the General Fund to cough up some money for research into better ways to dispose of it.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Thu Jul 07, 2022 3:06 am, edited 8 times in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:11 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Does saying that it only counts as debris where it poses a cognisable risk of falling from orbit or to spacecraft address your concern re: graveyard orbit?

OOC. Why is it a problem that some debris falls from orbit – note also that your definition implies that once something enters the atmosphere it ceases to be debris – due to drag?

Ooc: When it falls from orbit is when it has the potential to crash into property or people, burn up in the atmosphere and contribute to pollution, thereof etc.

Simone Republic wrote:OOC: This goes back to a point I made somewhere in the TNP forums at least a couple of times - at the moment, in real life, other than gravity and letting the debris burn up in the atmosphere, there really isn't any way to actually remove the space debris. I mean, unless technologies significantly advance to the point where this is feasible, the point is moot. It's about as hard as trying to remove micro plastics from the ocean which is another intractable problem.

Ooc: Removing space debris by burning it up in the atmosphere or sending it to a graveyard orbit is allowed in this resolution... if the WASP can't develop more efficient and less harmful means. Especially as in NS, if one FT member nation develops such means and provides it to the WASP (section 3), that's information that the WASP can utilise.

IC: I do actually like the noble aims to try to develop new technologies to remove space debris. It might simplify your resolution though if you simply state the fact that (1) space debris get in the way of other spacecraft (2) ask the General Fund to cough up some money for research into better ways to dispose of it.

"With all due respect, ursine ambassador, I don't think receiving money for research is enough for the active mandates. Not only would it be beneficial, if not necessary, for member nations to provide their aid to WASP research, but there is no use in developing the technologies when they won't get deployed. Member nations could be expected to deploy them on the WASP's behalf, but not only would that make it already more complex, but it would run into a similar problem to 595 in nations technologically unable to deploy them (especially if the WASP technologies are the only legal means to remove space debris... then that would bar nations unable to deploy them from providing ANY help in removing space debris. :eyebrow:)."
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Cappedore
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 358
Founded: Dec 16, 2017
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cappedore » Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:14 pm

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:
The General Assembly,

Heralding the efforts of "To Prevent Dangerous Debris" to prevent the creation of space debris;

Observing that this remains silent on the active removal of space debris,

Noting, thus, that with the repeal of "Active Reduction of Space Debris", no resolution exists to actively reduce space debris,

Concerned by the harm that too much space debris can cause to both member nations and the environment alike _
  • Making space travel and exploration more difficult due to the risk of spacecraft colliding with space debris;
  • The burning of space debris in the atmosphere resulting in the creation of greenhouse gases;
  • The falling of space debris into the ground, which can cause property damage and harm sapient life;
  • Generating further space debris through collisions between existing space debris;

Enacts as follows _

  1. In this resolution, space debris means disused sapient-made items or parts thereof located in such a location in outer space that its presence poses a cognisable risk of collision with spacecraft or of falling from orbit;
  2. The WA Scientific Programme (hereinafter the WASP) is to develop and regularly deploy technologies and strategies that remove space debris, in a manner meeting the following criteria;
    1. Damage caused by use to the environment, property, and sapient populations must be minimal;
    2. They are to remove space debris as efficiently and speedily as possible while meeting the above criterion;
    3. Where possible, these processes are to remove the targetted space debris to a designated site;
  3. Any entities that discover any data, process, or research that may aid the WASP in developing these technologies and strategies, barring that classified for national security, personal privacy, or as a trade secret, are strongly urged to provide them to the WASP; the General Accounting Office is to provide pecuniary incentives to entities providing the same sufficient to reasonably procure the provision of this data, process, or research, but in no case more than 10% of the cost of development of the same;
  4. The WASP is to, when deploying section 2 technologies and strategies, focus on removing larger and closer space debris where possible; member nations may, at their discretion, aid the WASP in deploying these technologies and strategies;
  5. Member nations are to refrain from obstructing the active removal of space debris by the WASP, and must penalise anyone under their jurisdiction that does so, as determined by the Independent Adjudicative Office to be sufficient to deter similar attempts to obstruct WASP efforts to remove space debris;


"Discuss."

OOC: Could you please outline what this changes from the original resolution? I can't be arsed to go back and forth to check.
- 1st Secretary-General of Amaranth.
- Former Legislator, WA Ministry Member, and Ambassador from The East Pacific.
- Former President, Deputy Prime Minister, Senator, and socialite of the Union of Allied States.

- 17 year old Politics, History, and Philosophy student.
- Currently doing A-Levels, British.
- Member of the Labour Party.
- Democratic Socialist 'scum'.

The most democratic nation in the world™. Probably.

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:31 pm

Cappedore wrote:
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:LONG OP

OOC: Could you please outline what this changes from the original resolution? I can't be arsed to go back and forth to check.

Ooc: You don't need to quote the entire OP lol

Assuming you mean ARoSD/595 by "original resolution", differences are different definition of space debris (does not include graveyard orbits, does not limit itself to debris that de-orbiting is not "wasteful"), this, unlike 595, does not specify any specific means for removal of space debris, and instead sets genetic criteria, 595 required member nations to work with the WASP to develop removal techniques, while this only encourages member nations to provide information to the WASP (for which incentives are provided) and bans obstruction of WASP de-orbiting, and 595 did not mandate removal of space debris, just mandated means of doing so, while this makes the WASP deploy removal techniques.

User avatar
Cappedore
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 358
Founded: Dec 16, 2017
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cappedore » Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:37 pm

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:
Cappedore wrote:OOC: Could you please outline what this changes from the original resolution? I can't be arsed to go back and forth to check.

Assuming you mean ARoSD/595 by "original resolution", differences are different definition of space debris (does not include graveyard orbits, does not limit itself to debris that de-orbiting is not "wasteful"), this, unlike 595, does not specify any specific means for removal of space debris, and instead sets genetic criteria, 595 required member nations to work with the WASP to develop removal techniques, while this only encourages member nations to provide information to the WASP (for which incentives are provided) and bans obstruction of WASP de-orbiting, and 595 did not mandate removal of space debris, just mandated means of doing so, while this makes the WASP deploy removal techniques.

OOC: Makes sense ig. But if 595 'mandated means of' removing space debris, then surely that is generic criteria in its own fashion? Like, if it's still mandated then...

Honestly it just feels like you're bringing the old proposal back... but with a few tweaks so it seems more effective than the last.
- 1st Secretary-General of Amaranth.
- Former Legislator, WA Ministry Member, and Ambassador from The East Pacific.
- Former President, Deputy Prime Minister, Senator, and socialite of the Union of Allied States.

- 17 year old Politics, History, and Philosophy student.
- Currently doing A-Levels, British.
- Member of the Labour Party.
- Democratic Socialist 'scum'.

The most democratic nation in the world™. Probably.

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:45 pm

Cappedore wrote:
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Assuming you mean ARoSD/595 by "original resolution", differences are different definition of space debris (does not include graveyard orbits, does not limit itself to debris that de-orbiting is not "wasteful"), this, unlike 595, does not specify any specific means for removal of space debris, and instead sets genetic criteria, 595 required member nations to work with the WASP to develop removal techniques, while this only encourages member nations to provide information to the WASP (for which incentives are provided) and bans obstruction of WASP de-orbiting, and 595 did not mandate removal of space debris, just mandated means of doing so, while this makes the WASP deploy removal techniques.

OOC: Makes sense ig. But if 595 'mandated means of' removing space debris, then surely that is generic criteria in its own fashion? Like, if it's still mandated then...

Honestly it just feels like you're bringing the old proposal back... but with a few tweaks so it seems more effective than the last.

Ooc: No, 595 mandated specific means of removing space debris ("application of material to the target debris that shall expand upon or around it" and "a guided velocity change applied directly to the target debris by a powered system", both so that "the target will de-orbit within five years or less"). There are no specific means that this proposal mandates or attempts to mandate. While the means used are regulated and have to meet certain criteria, no specific method of removing space debris is mandated.
Last edited by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 on Thu Jul 07, 2022 3:20 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Thu Jul 07, 2022 5:59 pm

"On further consideration, we have removed 2C."
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:31 pm

"A new draft is up."
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:41 am

Bump.
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10770
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:51 am

Opposed to Article 5 as written. Member states should have reasonable leeway to punish those of their persons who violate WA law.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:55 am

Tinhampton wrote:Opposed to Article 5 as written. Member states should have reasonable leeway to punish those of their persons who violate WA law.

Could you please clarify? This explicitly mandates that member nations "punish those of their persons who violate WA law"...

If you mean DISC violating WA law, this doesn't ban member nations regulating the DISC's land use or passage, as long as they allow entry of the DISC and their regulations don't discriminate against the DISC (see "Freedom of Travel"). The WA gnomish staff will also likely have some kind of system to prevent committee staffers from violating the law of the body they are working for?
Last edited by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 on Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10770
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:58 am

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:Opposed to Article 5 as written. Member states should have reasonable leeway to punish those of their persons who violate WA law.

Could you please clarify? This explicitly mandates that member nations "punish those of their persons who violate WA law"...

Yes, but members must impose whatever punishments are "determined by the Independent Adjudicative Office to be sufficient to deter similar attempts." Many things are banned by WA law, but the punishments for none of those things are determined by the IAO (except for not paying IAO non-compliance fines, most infamously).
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:03 am

Tinhampton wrote:
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Could you please clarify? This explicitly mandates that member nations "punish those of their persons who violate WA law"...

Yes, but members must impose whatever punishments are "determined by the Independent Adjudicative Office to be sufficient to deter similar attempts." Many things are banned by WA law, but the punishments for none of those things are determined by the IAO (except for not paying IAO non-compliance fines, most infamously).

A quick search of "independent adjudicative office" in the passed resolutions thread says otherwise -- "the Independent Adjudicative Office may declare appropriate sanctions to be enforced by member nations against ... persons" -- but would it help if it was changed back to the Compliance Commission?

On second thought, I'll probably remove committee involvement in obstruction penalties altogether.
Last edited by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 on Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:06 am, edited 3 times in total.
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Ainocra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1397
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ainocra » Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:03 am

Supreme Marshal Enta studies this draft intently for several minutes before raising his objection. "In Article 5 you misspelled penalize, but that is not the basis for our objection."
Tapping a few keys he throws the clause in question up on the display.

Member nations are to refrain from obstructing the active removal of space debris by the DISC, and are to penalise anyone under their jurisdiction that does so, so as to reasonably deter similar attempts to obstruct DISC space debris removal efforts; accordingly, each member nation is to allow the DISC to enter its jurisdiction to deploy space debris removal efforts, without discriminating against the DISC in regulations regarding land use/passage, if the DISC believes space debris removal efforts can best be carried out in that nation;


"The Star Empire of Ainocra maintains a number of deep space storage depots, mostly used for old mothballed ships that could conceivably be caught up in this clause." "Leaning back in his chair he continues. "Due to the sensitive nature of some of these areas we cannot, in the interest of national security allow any outside access to them." Tapping a few more keys the displayed clause subtly changes.

Member nations are to refrain from obstructing the active removal of space debris by the DISC, and are to penalize anyone under their jurisdiction that does so, so as to reasonably deter similar attempts to obstruct DISC space debris removal efforts; accordingly, each member nation is to allow the DISC to enter its jurisdiction to deploy space debris removal efforts insofar as the objects being removed or their removal will not imperial a nations national security. Member states will not discriminate against the DISC in regulations regarding land use/passage, if the DISC believes space debris removal efforts can best be carried out in that nation;


"I suggest this exception to the clause in question, or something similar that accomplishes the same thing. After all we can't have the DISC given free transit over our entire space."
The Marshal takes a sip from his flask and falls silent.
Alcon Enta
Supreme Marshal of Ainocra

"From far, from eve and morning and yon twelve-winded sky, the stuff of life to knit blew hither: here am I. ...Now--for a breath I tarry nor yet disperse apart--take my hand quick and tell me, what have you in your heart." --Roger Zelazny

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:33 pm

Ainocra wrote:Supreme Marshal Enta studies this draft intently for several minutes before raising his objection. "In Article 5 you misspelled penalize, but that is not the basis for our objection."
Tapping a few keys he throws the clause in question up on the display.

Member nations are to refrain from obstructing the active removal of space debris by the DISC, and are to penalise anyone under their jurisdiction that does so, so as to reasonably deter similar attempts to obstruct DISC space debris removal efforts; accordingly, each member nation is to allow the DISC to enter its jurisdiction to deploy space debris removal efforts, without discriminating against the DISC in regulations regarding land use/passage, if the DISC believes space debris removal efforts can best be carried out in that nation;


"The Star Empire of Ainocra maintains a number of deep space storage depots, mostly used for old mothballed ships that could conceivably be caught up in this clause." "Leaning back in his chair he continues. "Due to the sensitive nature of some of these areas we cannot, in the interest of national security allow any outside access to them." Tapping a few more keys the displayed clause subtly changes.

Member nations are to refrain from obstructing the active removal of space debris by the DISC, and are to penalize anyone under their jurisdiction that does so, so as to reasonably deter similar attempts to obstruct DISC space debris removal efforts; accordingly, each member nation is to allow the DISC to enter its jurisdiction to deploy space debris removal efforts insofar as the objects being removed or their removal will not imperial a nations national security. Member states will not discriminate against the DISC in regulations regarding land use/passage, if the DISC believes space debris removal efforts can best be carried out in that nation;


"I suggest this exception to the clause in question, or something similar that accomplishes the same thing. After all we can't have the DISC given free transit over our entire space."
The Marshal takes a sip from his flask and falls silent.

"Similar wording has been used, but your nation will still must only obstruct removal efforts to the minimal extent necessary to protect your security. I hope that this addresses the concern of the Ainocran mission."

Ooc: Penalise is the British form of the American penalize... I'm not American so I won't be using American spelling.
Last edited by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 on Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1550
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:55 pm

"My nation disagrees with the definition of space debris. It is too vague, and would apply to any sapient-made object that has a danger of falling out of orbit of any body, not just inhabited ones. If my nation wants to shoot things into orbit around a far-off planet, there being a risk of that falling out of orbit and onto the uninhabited planet should not activate this resolution. Further, how do you expect DISC to remove space debris pumped into orbit by non-member states that exist solely on planets with other non-member states? DISC fulfilling its duties seems improbable here."

"Similarly, I am opposed to the use of the General Fund to clean up the mess of non-members. If non-members know that there is an international body that will readily clean up their mess if they just pump it into space, then there is nothing stopping them from doing so with little to no consequence to themselves. While they are currently partially held back by the environmental and infrastructure ramifications that such actions would incur, this proposal gets rid of that consequence."

"I believe that there could be a beneficial resolution to remove space debris, but this isn't it -- not yet. The first change can be turning this from a World Assembly agency that directly does the clean-ups to a mandate on members to perform the clean-ups."
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:05 pm

"The issue surrounding sapient-made object falling from orbit into an uninhabited planet and non-member nations has been resolved. Now, 'space debris' is limited to that that poses a risk of falling into a member nation."

"I am hesitant, however, to make member nations deploy space debris removal efforts. A committee can, in our opinion, do so more efficiently than a member nation, and this does not prevent member nations from helping remove space debris. Member nations being required to actively remove space debris can be burdensome to those member nations that are technologically unable to do so, or are technologically able but it would take a hell of a burden on their resources to do. Further, as there is now a mandate for the DISC to publish space debris removal technologies, member nations are provided more means to help the DISC at their discretion -- see also 4."
Last edited by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 on Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1550
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:12 pm

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"The issue surrounding sapient-made object falling from orbit into an uninhabited planet and non-member nations has been resolved. Now, 'space debris' is limited to that that poses a risk of falling into a member nation."

"I am hesitant, however, to make member nations deploy space debris removal efforts. A committee can, in our opinion, do so more efficiently than a member nation, and this does not prevent member nations from helping remove space debris. Member nations being required to actively remove space debris can be burdensome to those member nations that are technologically unable to do so, or are technologically able but it would take a hell of a burden on their resources to do. Further, as there is now a mandate for the DISC to publish space debris removal technologies, member nations are provided more means to help the DISC at their discretion -- see also 4."

"My suggestion is to keep the committee around, but as an organizational unit to decide which member-nations are most impacted by any particular space debris, have the technological prowess to remove it, and can do so without there being a burden, and weighing these factors may command any particular nation to execute its will. If it is impossible for a nation to remove debris without burden, there can be a clause to provide World Assembly funding then, but I think that this system would cause the financial impact on the World Assembly to go drastically down."
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:24 pm

Morover wrote:
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"The issue surrounding sapient-made object falling from orbit into an uninhabited planet and non-member nations has been resolved. Now, 'space debris' is limited to that that poses a risk of falling into a member nation."

"I am hesitant, however, to make member nations deploy space debris removal efforts. A committee can, in our opinion, do so more efficiently than a member nation, and this does not prevent member nations from helping remove space debris. Member nations being required to actively remove space debris can be burdensome to those member nations that are technologically unable to do so, or are technologically able but it would take a hell of a burden on their resources to do. Further, as there is now a mandate for the DISC to publish space debris removal technologies, member nations are provided more means to help the DISC at their discretion -- see also 4."

"My suggestion is to keep the committee around, but as an organizational unit to decide which member-nations are most impacted by any particular space debris, have the technological prowess to remove it, and can do so without there being a burden, and weighing these factors may command any particular nation to execute its will. If it is impossible for a nation to remove debris without burden, there can be a clause to provide World Assembly funding then, but I think that this system would cause the financial impact on the World Assembly to go drastically down."

"I have decided to add a compromise where the DISC may require a member nation to provide aid, and General Fund funds are to be provided to quell any severe burden on member nation's finances/resources."
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3369
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:52 pm

"Entirely opposed. If someone has the resources to cause a mess in space, they have the resources to clean up after themselves. Frittering away the workers' hard earned collective funds, IE the General Fund, on cleaning up after billionaire's vanity projects is obnoxious."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Ainocra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1397
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ainocra » Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:13 am

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:
Ainocra wrote:Supreme Marshal Enta studies this draft intently for several minutes before raising his objection. "In Article 5 you misspelled penalize, but that is not the basis for our objection."
Tapping a few keys he throws the clause in question up on the display.



"The Star Empire of Ainocra maintains a number of deep space storage depots, mostly used for old mothballed ships that could conceivably be caught up in this clause." "Leaning back in his chair he continues. "Due to the sensitive nature of some of these areas we cannot, in the interest of national security allow any outside access to them." Tapping a few more keys the displayed clause subtly changes.



"I suggest this exception to the clause in question, or something similar that accomplishes the same thing. After all we can't have the DISC given free transit over our entire space."
The Marshal takes a sip from his flask and falls silent.

"Similar wording has been used, but your nation will still must only obstruct removal efforts to the minimal extent necessary to protect your security. I hope that this addresses the concern of the Ainocran mission."

Ooc: Penalise is the British form of the American penalize... I'm not American so I won't be using American spelling.



The Marshal nods. "Yes your Excellency, that addresses our security concerns nicely, Thank you."
Alcon Enta
Supreme Marshal of Ainocra

"From far, from eve and morning and yon twelve-winded sky, the stuff of life to knit blew hither: here am I. ...Now--for a breath I tarry nor yet disperse apart--take my hand quick and tell me, what have you in your heart." --Roger Zelazny

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Norvarxilaland

Advertisement

Remove ads