[3rd redraft, last call] - Airspace Sovereignty Doctrine

[Simone Republic]

TG text introduction for this resolution
This is the proposed (part) replacement for the failed resolution Aerospace Sovereignty Act which in turn was supposed to replace GA#342/GA#464.

This resolution defines what "airspace" is within the parameters of the GA. Airspace is now defined as up to the end of the "exobase" where barometric conditions do not apply (ie there is no air pressure), and anything beneath is established as the sovereign territory of a WA state. It also establishes that the WA has the right to further regulate jurisdiction matters concerning aircraft safety and operation.


Motivation
This is the proposed (part) replacement for the failed resolution Aerospace Sovereignty Act which in turn was supposed to replace GA#342/GA#464.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=537267

Please note that:

1. The replacement is much more detailed than the resolutions previously proposed/repealed.
2. This takes care of RP, because the border is not drawn at the Earth's distance (100km, the Karman line). (GA168 sets EEZ at 200nm which does not account for RP).
3. There is actually no universally accepted definition (before we get to RP) on what constitutes the end of the atmosphere and the beginning of outer-space.

Instead, this resolution adopts the following process:

1. Airspace is now defined as up to the end of the "exobase" where barometric conditions do not apply (ie there is no air pressure). This has the convenience of not having to conflict with past resolutions on satellites and space debris etc.
2. Also, according to Randall Munroe, anything which only has an exosphere but not a proper atmosphere beneath can't fly a plane. Note that the UN (the Outer Space Treaty) also dodges the definition of what constitutes outer space.
3. The resolution uses the common law doctrine of "ad coelum" (although it's not mentioned), modified to the extent that sovereignty applies up to exobase but not beyond. It also means that conveniently, the sky above "WA waters" is considered sovereign airspace of the WA state, but not beyond.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est ... ad_inferos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby

All of the civilian travel, safety, air traffic control protocols etc., into a separate resolution. However, I establish the principle that the WA is able to regulate domestic airspace to the extent necessary for the "safety, security and collective benefits of all WA member states". So domestic regulations such as "air rights" for property developers (such as in New York etc) are not in this category since buildings can't fly, but it gives the WA authority to assert broad jurisdiction.

Note that I spell it as "outer space" throughout to conform to the UN style
https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/index.html

Category: Regulation/Transportation (this is really the only suitable category)

Third re-draft, second version and last call

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the repeals of resolutions concerning aircraft and airspace, such as GARs 342 and 464, and the legislative lacuna resultant therefrom;

Acknowledging the WA's long interest in outer space (via GARs 349, 451, 460, and 615) and travels therein; and

Desiring a common approach to defining what constitutes "airspace" and "outer space", in order to facilitate trade and travel between WA states;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Flying object" means anything defined by the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) as (i) able to travel in "airspace" (defined below) and (ii) relying on its own power, but excludes any living flying creature.
   2. "WA organs" means the WA’s sub-committees.
2. Sovereignty.
   
   1. Each WA state has and shall be deemed to have sovereignty over its own airspace.
   2. "Airspace" is hereby defined as the atmosphere vertically over any land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims sovereignty, up to the boundary where the exobase ends and barometric conditions no longer apply, and where outer space thereafter begins.
   3. For WA states in celestial bodies with physical features (such as the lack of an atmosphere) that render the definition in subclause 2(b) inapplicable, the airspace of the said WA state is that space (which, for convenience, shall also be referred to herein as a WA state's "airspace") vertically over any land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims sovereignty, either (whichever is lower):
      
      1. Up to the point that allows the said WA state a height of airspace as enables it to conduct those activities that a technologically similar terrestrial WA state would be able to conduct, or
      2. Up to the point where the gravitational pull of the celestial body on which that WA state resides becomes negligible for the domestic purposes of that WA state.
   4. "Outer space" is hereby defined as any space (excluding airspace) between celestial bodies.
   5. Airspace that is vertically over terra nullius, or that is over international waters where no state has asserted sovereignty, is hereby declared to be international airspace.
   6. No WA state may assert sovereignty over outer space or international airspace, nor assist any state or non-state actor in asserting sovereignty over outer space or international airspace.
   7. The extent of airspace as defined in subclauses 2(b) and 2(c) can be varied by valid treaties signed and ratified by all WA states that possess airspace affected by the said treaty.
3. Jurisdiction.
   
   1. A flying object registered to the competent authorities of a WA state is deemed to be under that WA state's jurisdiction, and that WA state is deemed the "flag state" of that flying object.
   2. A flying object operated by, for, or on behalf of a WA organ is subject to the jurisdiction of the WA, and the WA itself is deemed the flag state of that flying object.
4. Non-interference of WA flying objects.
   
   1. A WA state must not impede the normal operations of any flying objects under the jurisdiction of the WA itself, except strictly for the purpose of:
      
      1. capacity management if it is traveling within the WA state's airspace; and/or
      2. quarantines, except if the said flying object's operation within that airspace only involves traveling through it without disembarking.
   2. Subclause 4(a) excludes cases where the flying object has been hijacked by rogue actors, or by those that have mutinied against the WA or the said WA state, and other analogous circumstances of loss of control.
5. Jurisdiction.
   
   1. The WA reserves the right to regulate the use and jurisdiction of each WA state's airspace as well as the operation of all flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA state (or WA organs) for the safety, security and collective benefits of all WA member states, subject to extant resolutions.
   2. The IASA is responsible for implementing and enforcing this resolution.

Co-author: Kenmoria

Char count: 4,034

[The Ice States]

The definition is hugely complicated due to the WA assumption (which I am aware is not fully enforced nowdays) about having to cater to the asexual blobs from Uranus being a gaseous planet and black holes and what not.

I don't think many people (read: anyone bar you) seriously believe that you have to make this assumption.

In case of airspace over terra nullis or over international waters where no WA state has asserted jurisdiction, such airspace is declared international airspace and no WA state may assert jurisdiction over such airspace;

Opposed due to this clause.

[Alto Mare]

The proposal could begin by establishing the two areas that will fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution, for member states that are located in the form of countries and nation states that are located in the form of planets, since our universe is an multiverse.

[Simone Republic]

Draft 1

I've saved it just in case since I am quite tardy about saving drafts.

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the repeals of GA342 and GA464 concerning aircraft and airspace;

Noting the WA's long interest in this matter as well as in outer-space such as via GARs 349, 451, 460, and 615;

Acknowledging that differences in physical, geological and other features between WA states (and galaxies, planets) across the multi-verse require a tailored approach on defining airspace across the multi-verse;

Desiring at least a common approach towards regulating international airspace and its relations to outer-space across the multi-verse; hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   
   1. "IAO" to mean the Independent Adjudicative Office;
      
   2. "IASA" to mean the International Aero-Space Administration;
      
   3. "WASP" to mean the WA Scientific Programme;
      
   4. References to "such as" are merely as examples only;
2. Declares:
   
   
   1. The doctrine of ad coleum (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos) applies to airspace rights across the multiverse, and that each WA state is assumed to have sovereignty over its “airspace”, which is defined as:
      
      
      1. The atmosphere over its land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims jurisdiction, up to the boundary where the airspace ends and where outer-space begins; and
         
      2. For WA states in varying circumstances (such as the lack of an atmosphere, or that a WA state is established on different types of cosmos bodies, or in different dimensions), the WASP and IASA shall determine the definition of what constitutes airspace to the maximum extent possible, and define the boundary between airspace and outer-space in consultation with the said WA state;
   2. In case of airspace over terra nullis or over international waters where no WA state has asserted jurisdiction, such airspace is declared international airspace and no WA state may assert jurisdiction over such airspace;
      
   3. In case of disputes between WA states over boundaries related to airspace or outer-space, or disputes between WA states and WASP or IASA, the determination of IAO shall prevail;
      
   4. In case of disputes between a WA state and a non-WA state over the said boundaries, the WA state is required to seek a peaceful settlement in good faith before resorting to other means of resolution, such as nuclear war;
3. Requires that:
   
   
   1. No WA state may legally prohibit the entry of any objects belonging to another WA state from entering the said WA state’s airspace, unless either:
      
      
      1. the WA state is in a declared of war and has imposed a blanket ban on such entry; or
         
      2. the WA state also prohibits objects belonging to the said WA state or its own inhabitants from entering the said WA state’s airspace.
   2. No WA state may assert sovereignty over outer-space, except for objects it has placed itself or acquired in outer-space, such as space stations and restaurants with no tea, for which the WA state can plausibly assert jurisdiction;
      
   3. No WA state may interfere with objects in the airspace of another WA state unless a declared state of war exists between the two said WA states;
4. Clarifies that:
   
   
   1. this resolution does not regulate other matters such as air rights for properties constructed on land or aircraft and spacecraft transit rights;
      
   2. the IAO shall have jurisdiction over this resolution.

The definition is hugely complicated due to the WA assumption (which I am aware is not fully enforced nowdays) about having to cater to the asexual blobs from Uranus being a gaseous planet and black holes and what not.

I don't think many people (read: anyone bar you) seriously believe that you have to make this assumption.

Kinda sorta will see. Ideally this can be dropped. The only clause where this applies is (2)(a)(ii).

In case of airspace over terra nullis or over international waters where no WA state has asserted jurisdiction, such airspace is declared international airspace and no WA state may assert jurisdiction over such airspace;

Opposed due to this clause.

Then who has jurisdiction on such airspace?

Actually I still need to check on things like humanitarian transport and the like, the wording is already quite complicated. It's easier to write about feeding babies or Mariah Carey.

[The Ice States]

Opposed due to this clause.

Then who has jurisdiction on such airspace?

Sorry, it appears I misread the clause -- somehow I read it as saying that the WA cannot assert jurisdiction over international airspace.

[Tinhampton]

The proposal could begin by establishing the two areas that will fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution, for member states that are located in the form of countries and nation states that are located in the form of planets, since our universe is an multiverse.

The principles outlined in this proposal are the same regardless of how big your nation is. If your nation spans an entire planet, then you control the entire airspace on it and any concerns vis-a-vis international airspace, borders, etc. become irrelevant unless you are entering space itself along the way.

[Waffia]

Annotated.

Motivation
Draft 1.1

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the repeals of GAs 342 and 464 concerning aircraft and airspace;

Noting the WA's long interest in related matters, such as the outer-space such as via GARs 349, 451, 460, and 615, and humanitarian aid via GARs 51, 340 and 570;

Noting that differences in physical features between WA states (and galaxies) across the multi-verse may necessitate tailored definitions on what constitutes airspace (and where it ends and outer-space begins), but desiring at least a common approach; hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   
   1. "Flying object" to mean anything defined by the ITSC [You define plenty of abbreviations below, but don't explain ITSC.] as able to travel in airspace relying on its own power such as aircraft, spacecraft, seaplanes, drones, helicopters, balloons [Hot-air balloons or balloons?], and other similar objects, and specifically excluding anything directly connected to land or waters, such as kites;
      
   2. "IAO" to mean the Independent Adjudicative Office of the WA;
      
   3. "IASA" to mean the International Aero-Space Administration of the WA;
      
   4. "IHACC" to mean the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee of the WA;
      
   5. "WASP" to mean the WA Scientific Programme; [Relying on four other resolutions? This is starting to feel like a house of cards.]
      
   6. References to "such as" are merely as examples only; [Quite redundant.]
2. Declares:
   
   
   1. The doctrine of ad coleum (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos [What? I don't know Latin. I think you should add a translation, definition, and explanation. And avoid parentheses.]) applies to airspace rights across the multiverse, and that each WA state is assumed [Your sentence is now "Declares [...] that each WA state is assumed", which just means "Assumes", which means nothing.] to have sovereignty over its “airspace”, which is defined as: [Why is this not under "Definitions"?]
      
      
      1. The atmosphere vertically over its land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims jurisdiction, up to the boundary where the airspace ends ["Airspace starts at (undefined) and ends where it ends" is very unclear.] and where outer-space begins; and
         
      2. For WA states with varied physical features and spatial dimensions (such as the lack of an atmosphere), the WASP and IASA shall define the boundary between airspace and outer-space in consultation with the said WA state;
   2. In case of airspace vertically over terra nullis or over international waters where no WA state has asserted jurisdiction, such airspace is declared international airspace and no WA state may assert jurisdiction over such airspace [So: "So can only claim jurisdiction on airspace if you also claim jurisdiction on the non-airspace below it." Why?];
      
   3. In case of disputes between WA states over boundaries related to airspace or outer-space, or disputes between WA states and WASP or IASA, the determination of IAO shall prevail;
      
   4. In case of disputes between a WA state and a non-WA state over the said boundaries, the WA state is required to seek a peaceful settlement in good faith before resorting to other means of resolution, such as nuclear war; [ ]
3. Requires that:
   
   
   1. A WA state may not legally impose a general [Ambiguous. Explain how general you mean.] ban on the entry of flying objects belonging [Only state-owned flying objects?] to another WA state from entering the said WA state’s airspace, unless: [This is partial duplication of GAR#34, Article 7; and your second exception even contradicts that article.]
      
      
      1. the WA state [Which WA state? The one imposing the ban, or the one whose flying object is entering a foreign state?] is in a declared of war; or
         
      2. the WA state also prohibits its own inhabitants from using [Using as in controlling, or as in being aboard?] flying objects;
   2. Notwithstanding clause 3(a), a WA state may not impede, other than subject to reasonable air traffic control measures adopted by that WA state for the general purpose of traffic management, any flying objects associated with missions of the IHACC or any other organs, bodies and committees of the WA (collectively "organs of the WA"), from:
      
      
      1. travelling into, out of, or through that WA state's airspace; or [So what you're saying is that you're giving diplomatic immunity to all WA-associated flying objects? If there is ever a WA army, this clause would make it illegal to shoot down incoming rockets.]
      2. landing on and departing from airports (or waters) of the said WA state, or [Comma should be semi-colon.]
      3. loading and unloading passengers and cargos necessary for the conduct of missions of organs of the WA, such as evacuations;
      4. conducting air-drops of supplies (such as humanitarian or disaster relief supplies) from airspace to landed areas [What is a landed area?], provided that such air-drops are verified to be safe by organs of the WA;
      
      
   3. A WA state may not interfere [A pilot "interferes" with an airplane. This article forbids state-employed pilots from flying airplanes abroad (unless there's war).] with flying objects in the airspace of another WA state unless a declared state of war exists between the two said WA states;
4. Clarifies that:
   
   
   1. this resolution does not regulate any fees and charges that a WA state may impose for a flying object entering its airspace, other than that a WA state may not impose a fee for flying objects of organs of the WA in undertaking missions stated in clause 3(b) of this resolution;
   2. clause 3a does not regulate entry due to circumstances regulated in, or pursuant to, extant resolutions such as humanitarian transport or emergency circumstances ["extant resolutions such as humanitarian transport". But "humanitarian transport" is not a resolution.] [Please list this as an exception in Clause 3a.];
   3. the IAO shall have jurisdiction over the interpretation of resolution. [No.]

Char count: 4,207

[Simone Republic]

My comments in red against your comments in black, I find that easier to read.

All answers OOC except for one bit below.

[*]"Flying object" to mean anything defined by the ITSC [You define plenty of abbreviations below, but don't explain ITSC.]

Will fix on the next iteration.

[Hot-air balloons or balloons?]

Or weather balloons powered by whatever, it doesn't really matter, see below.

[Relying on four other resolutions? This is starting to feel like a house of cards.]

Adding more duties to existing committees is not a violation of the House of Cards rule. But I know some people don't like this.

[*]References to "such as" are merely as examples only; [Quite redundant.][/list]

This is deliberate not redundant - it's to accommodate the possibility of a legality challenge that the mere fact that I have given examples on certain things do not imply that the particular thing is defined as such - it dates from one of Wally's comments on Gensec awhile ago.

[*]Declares:

It's now "mandates".

[*]The doctrine of ad coleum (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos [What? I don't know Latin. I think you should add a translation, definition, and explanation.

I'll see if I can explain it in the next draft. As to ad coleum, see below.

[*]The atmosphere vertically over its land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims jurisdiction, up to the boundary where the airspace ends ["Airspace starts at (undefined) and ends where it ends" is very unclear.] and where outer-space begins; and

That's deliberately dumped to the said state if it has an atmosphere, and WASP/IASA if it does not, since the real life definition of space can vary from 100km above the Earth's surface (Karman line) up to about 800km above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

[*]In case of airspace vertically over terra nullis or over international waters where no WA state has asserted jurisdiction, such airspace is declared international airspace and no WA state may assert jurisdiction over such airspace [So: "So can only claim jurisdiction on airspace if you also claim jurisdiction on the non-airspace below it." Why?];

That's exactly what the Latin means: "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" - Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est ... ad_inferos

[*]In case of disputes between a WA state and a non-WA state over the said boundaries, the WA state is required to seek a peaceful settlement in good faith before resorting to other means of resolution, such as nuclear war; [ ][/list]

(IC) Simone Republic has zero conventional army, but maintains (i) Acme weapons nullifiers and (ii) plenty of nuclear bombs. So it's either no war, or annihilation. (End-IC)

belonging [Only state-owned flying objects?]

Might change to "under the jurisdiction" but I am still thinking about that line, complications regarding military planes.

GAR#34, Article 7; and your second exception even contradicts that article.][/b]

[*]the WA state [Which WA state? The one imposing the ban, or the one whose flying object is entering a foreign state?] is in a declared of war; or

[*]conducting air-drops of supplies (such as humanitarian or disaster relief supplies) from airspace to landed areas [What is a landed area?]

[*]A WA state may not interfere [b][A pilot "interferes" with an airplane. This article forbids state-employed pilots from flying airplanes abroad (unless there's war).] with flying objects in the airspace of another WA state unless a declared state of war exists between the two said WA states;[/list]

Re-worded

[*]the WA state also prohibits its own inhabitants from using [Using as in controlling, or as in being aboard?] flying objects;[/list]

It's to accommodate WA states that ban airplanes but I might just scrap it. Writing for RP is really annoying so I might just shove it.

[*]clause 3a does not regulate entry due to circumstances regulated in, or pursuant to, extant resolutions such as humanitarian transport or emergency circumstances ["extant resolutions such as humanitarian transport". But "humanitarian transport" is not a resolution.] [Please list this as an exception in Clause 3a.];

This has been changed into an outright ban on interfering with WA aircraft altogether. I assume there's no WA Army, and if there's an actual invasion, then this resolution isn't something they'd worry about.

[Simone Republic]

The proposal could begin by establishing the two areas that will fall under the jurisdiction of this resolution, for member states that are located in the form of countries and nation states that are located in the form of planets, since our universe is an multiverse.

The principles outlined in this proposal are the same regardless of how big your nation is. If your nation spans an entire planet, then you control the entire airspace on it and any concerns vis-a-vis international airspace, borders, etc. become irrelevant unless you are entering space itself along the way.

The proposal is now quite different from yours and Mage's in that I am talking more about outer space sovereignty as well, not just airspace.

This draft is quite comprehensively re-written from draft 1, and most of the issues of the previous draft have been removed.

Some of the discussions above this reply may no longer be relevant given the re-write.

[Simone Republic]

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging the repeals of GARs 342 and 464 concerning aircraft and airspace;

Noting the WA's long interest in related matters, such as outer space (via GARs 349, 451, 460, and 615);

Desiring a common approach to defining what constitutes airspace and what constitutes outer space in order to facilitate trade and communications between WA states; hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   1. "Civilian flying object" to mean any "flying object" that is operated by, or on behalf of, or under the jurisdiction of, any WA state for fully civilian purposes, as defined by the said WA state, the International Transport Safety Committee(ITSC) and/or the International Aero-Space Administration(IASA);
   2. "Flying object" to mean anything defined by the ITSC as able to travel in "airspace" (defined below) and relying on its own power, such as aircraft, spacecraft, seaplanes, drones, helicopters, airships, and other similar objects, specifically excluding anything not relying on its own power
2. Declares that:
   
   1. Each WA state is assumed to have sovereignty over its own airspace, which is defined as the atmosphere vertically over any land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims sovereignty, up to the boundary where the exobase ends and barometric conditions no longer apply, and where outer space begins;
   2. For WA states in celestial bodies with varied physical features (such as the lack of an atmosphere), the said WA state may assert sovereignty in such proximate space as those strictly necessary for its domestic affairs, subject to recognition as such by IASA;
   3. Outer space, defined herein as any space (excluding airspace) between celestial bodies, is international in nature, and no WA state may assert sovereignty over outer space, or assist a non-WA state in asserting sovereignty over outer space;
   4. In case of airspace vertically over terra nullis, or over international waters where no WA state has asserted sovereignty, such airspace is declared international airspace and no WA state may assert sovereignty over such airspace;
3. Affirms that:
   
   1. A WA state may not impede the operation of any flying objects under the jurisdiction of the WA or any of its organs, except strictly for the purpose of management of capacity constraints and quarantines;
   2. A WA state may not disrupt the normal operation of flying objects in the airspace of another WA state, or in outer space, unless a declared state of war exists between the two said WA states;
   3. The WA explicitly reserves the right to regulate the use and jurisdiction of national airspace and flying objects for the safety, security and collective benefits of all WA member states;
4. Clarifies that:
   
   1. A sapient species that can fly is not considered a flying object for the purpose of this resolution;
   2. In case of disputes between WA states over boundaries related to airspace or outer-space, the determination of IASA shall prevail;
   3. The IASA shall be responsible for the implementation and interpretation of this resolution;
   4. This resolution does not interfere with the powers of the ITSC.

*Bump* on a Simone Republic drone, which promptly crashed after its use as a bump.

"Darn it," said the bear.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC:

I know you like to put your definitions clauses in alphabetical order, but you should not use an acronym before it has been defined. To that end consider the following alternative:

1. Defines:
   
   1. "Civilian flying object" to mean any "flying object" that is not operated by, or on behalf of, or under the jurisdiction of, any WA state for (partly or fully) non-civilian purposes, as defined by the said WA state, the International Transport Safety Committee(ITSC) and/or the International Aero-Space Administration(IASA);
   2. "Flying object" to mean anything defined by the ITSC as able to travel in "airspace" (defined below) and relying on its own power, such as aircraft, spacecraft, seaplanes, drones, helicopters, airships, and other similar objects, specifically excluding anything not relying on its power, such as kites and paragliders;
   3. "IASA" to mean the International Aero-Space Administration;
   4. "ITSC" to mean the International Transport Safety Committee;

[Simone Republic]

OOC:

I know you like to put your definitions clauses in alphabetical order, but you should not use an acronym before it has been defined. To that end consider the following alternative:

1. Defines:
   
   1. "Civilian flying object" to mean any "flying object" that is not operated by, or on behalf of, or under the jurisdiction of, any WA state for (partly or fully) non-civilian purposes, as defined by the said WA state, the International Transport Safety Committee(ITSC) and/or the International Aero-Space Administration(IASA);
   2. "Flying object" to mean anything defined by the ITSC as able to travel in "airspace" (defined below) and relying on its own power, such as aircraft, spacecraft, seaplanes, drones, helicopters, airships, and other similar objects, specifically excluding anything not relying on its power, such as kites and paragliders;
   3. "IASA" to mean the International Aero-Space Administration;
   4. "ITSC" to mean the International Transport Safety Committee;

Changed. This has also been made to be more "IA style" (for lack of a better word), with headings and sentences rather than run on paragraphs.

[Simone Republic]

Mentioning both IASA and ITSC is a necessity because whether a space shuttle is under ITSC or IASA jurisdiction ends up depending on where it is flying (due to the confusion from past resolutions), so this resolution simply claims "it flies and therefore is a flying object".

The "quarantine" bit has been tightened so that fuel stops don't really count towards quarantine restrictions.

[Simone Republic]

*Bump*

[Razmanya]

who called me here

[Simone Republic]

This has been pulled and is pending a re-draft due to the typo in clause 2f (as Kenmoria noticed):

"In case of airspace vertically over terra nullis, or over international waters where no WA state has asserted sovereignty", which should have read "where no state has asserted sovereignty" as that should have been regardless of whether it is a WA state or not, otherwise airspace over non-WA states would also not be sovereign to anyone (including that non-WA state).

[Isabella van der Feltz]

3. Jurisdiction.

1. A flying object registered to the competent authorities of a WA state is deemed to be under that WA state's jurisdiction, and that WA state is deemed the "flag state" of that flying object.

Red missing from the proposal

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: It is infrequent that I annotate a draft entirely OOC, yet here we are.)

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging the repeals of GARs 342 and 464 concerning aircraft and airspace;

Noting the WA's long interest in outer space (via GARs 349, 451, 460, and 615) and travels therein;

Desiring a common approach to defining what constitutes "airspace" and "outer space" in order to facilitate trade and travel between WA states;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Flying object" means anything defined by the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) or the International Transport Safety Committee as able to travel in "airspace" (defined below) and relying on its own power, such as aircraft, spacecraft, seaplanes, drones, helicopters, and other similar objects, but excluding: This shouldn’t be two different bodies, because that creates confusion. Though my interpretation of committees is that they would work flawlessly together, this is controversial enough that there is no reason to rely on it. The IASA makes more sense to me.
      
      1. anything not relying on its own power, such as kites; or This is already mentioned in the main clause, so I don’t think that this is necessary. I also mention that military gliders exist, which certainly can violate airspace. Perhaps it would be useful, therefore, to put more weight on the determination of the IASA by removing this exclusion. The IASA would ensure that kites are not included, while gliders that constitute real aircraft would be included.
      2. any sapient species that can fly. This, on the other hand, is reasonable, though, with my proposed change, it could be placed into the main clause.
   2. "WA organs" means the WA itself and all of its committees.
2. Sovereignty.
   
   1. Each WA state is deemed to have sovereignty over its own airspace. I’m possibly being overly cautious here, but I think that it would be stronger to have the following: “Each WA state has and shall be deemed to have sovereignty over its own airspace. This changes the clause from a mere recognition to an active mandate. At present, the clause can be read as the WA simply noting that many scholars consider a state to have sovereignty over its airspace.
   2. "Airspace" is hereby defined as the atmosphere vertically over any land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims sovereignty, up to the boundary where the exobase ends and barometric conditions no longer apply, and where outer space thereafter begins.
   3. For WA states in celestial bodies with differing physical features (such as the lack of an atmosphere), the said WA state may assert sovereignty in such proximate space as those strictly necessary for its domestic affairs, subject to recognition as such by IASA. For convenience, such proximate space shall also be referred to herein as a WA state's "airspace". There is no requirement in the definition of airspace for terrestrial nations that the airspace be strictly necessary to conduct domestic affairs, so this punishes non-terrestrial nations. I propose the following: “For WA states in celestial bodies with differing physical features (such as the lack of an atmosphere), the said WA state has and shall be deemed to have sovereignty over the space vertically over any land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims sovereignty, either
      
      1. Up to the point that allows the said WA state a height of airspace as enables it to conduct those activities that a technologically similar terrestrial WA state would be able to conduct, or
      2. Up to the point where the gravitational pull of the celestial body on which that WA state resides becomes negligible,
      Whichever is lower.
   4. "Outer space" is hereby defined as any space (excluding airspace) between celestial bodies. This would be conceptually fine, but for my feedback on the next subclause.
   5. Outer space is international in nature, and no WA state may assert sovereignty over outer space, or assist anyone else in asserting sovereignty over outer space. I have a really annoying point to raise here. There might exist member-nations whose domains span multiple solar systems, for example, where the void between planets forms part of the contiguous space of that member-nation. This is where FT concerns will become really annoying. The way to solve this, I think, is to make an allowance that, where a member-nation has sovereignty over multiple celestial bodies, an imaginary polyhedron can be drawn using those celestial bodies as points. Then, generate the smallest ellipsis that fully encompasses the entirety of that polyhedron. This area can be conceived as the “internal interstellar space” of a member-nation. HOWEVER, if this would render another member-nation space-landlocked, insofar as that other would be completely enveloped by this internal interstellar space, then negotiations must be conducted by all relevant parties, including the IASA, to avoid such a possibility, unless that other receives appropriate compensation.
   6. In case of airspace vertically over terra nullis, or over international waters where no WA state has asserted sovereignty, such airspace is declared international airspace and no WA state may assert sovereignty over such airspace. I mentioned in the TNP server how this clause has some extremely unfortunate consequences for non-member-nations. No “WA State” should be no “state”.
   A general problem that I foresee here is that there could be a situation where a member-nation has made provision by treaty with other member-nations to acquire some of those others’ airspace. This entire clause should have an exception for the mutual agreement of states.
   
3. Jurisdiction.
   
   1. A flying object registered to the competent authorities of a WA state is deemed to be under that WA state's jurisdiction, and that WA is deemed the "flag state" of that flying object.
   2. A flying object operated by, for, or on behalf of a WA organ is subject to the jurisdiction of that organ, regardless of the flag state of that flying object. Should not the flying object treat the WA as a whole as the flag state, rather than the organ?
4. Non-interference.
   
   1. A WA state may not impede the normal operations of any flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA organ, except strictly for the purpose of:
      
      1. capacity management if it is traveling within the WA state's airspace; and/or
      2. quarantines, except if the said flying object's operation within that airspace only involves traveling through it without landing or disembarking.
   2. A WA state may not disrupt the normal operations of flying objects traveling under the flag of another WA state, or that of flying objects in the airspace of another WA state, or attack such flying objects, unless a declared state of war exists between the relevant states. The exceptions given for flying objects of WA organs should also apply to this clause, at least for the first part. I would also recommend including an exception for situations where the flying object has been hijacked by rogue actors.
5. Clarifications.
   
   1. The WA reserves the absolute right to regulate the use and jurisdiction of national airspace as well as the operation of all flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA state (or WA organs) for the safety, security and collective benefits of all WA member states.
   2. The IASA is responsible for interpretation of this resolution and to adjudicate any disputes between WA states. For being buried under a subclause, this is quite monumental, since normally member-nations have the power of interpretation. I would at least grant some recourse to the IAO or WACC in case of the IASA making an interpretation contrary to the interpretation of a member-nation.

[Simone Republic]

Second previous draft from Kenmoria

Re-draft

Blue parts include wordings largely from Kenmoria.


[box]The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the repeals of GARs 342 and 464 concerning aircraft and airspace;

Noting the WA's long interest in outer space (via GARs 349, 451, 460, and 615) and travels therein;

Desiring a common approach to defining what constitutes "airspace" and "outer space" in order to facilitate trade and travel between WA states;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Flying object" means anything defined by the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) as (i) able to travel in "airspace" (defined below) and (ii) relying on its own power, but excluding any sapient species that can fly.
   2. "WA organs" means the WA itself and all of its committees.
2. Sovereignty.
   
   1. Each WA state has and shall be deemed to have sovereignty over its own airspace.
   2. "Airspace" is hereby defined as the atmosphere vertically over any land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims sovereignty, up to the boundary where the exobase ends and barometric conditions no longer apply, and where outer space thereafter begins.
   3. For WA states in celestial bodies with differing physical features (such as the lack of an atmosphere), the said WA state has and shall be deemed to have sovereignty over the space (which, for convenience, shall also be referred to herein as a WA state's "airspace") vertically over any land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims sovereignty, either (whichever is lower):
      
      1. Up to the point that allows the said WA state a height of airspace as enables it to conduct those activities that a technologically similar terrestrial WA state would be able to conduct, or
      2. Up to the point where the gravitational pull of the celestial body on which that WA state resides becomes negligible.
   4. "Outer space" is hereby defined as any space (excluding airspace) between celestial bodies.
   5. In case of airspace vertically over terra nullis, or over international waters where no state has asserted sovereignty, such airspace is declared international airspace.
   6. No WA state may assert sovereignty over outer space or international airspace, or assist anyone else in asserting sovereignty over outer space or international airspace.
3. Jurisdiction.
   
   1. A flying object registered to the competent authorities of a WA state is deemed to be under that WA state's jurisdiction, and that WA is deemed the "flag state" of that flying object.
   2. A flying object operated by, for, or on behalf of a WA organ is subject to the jurisdiction of the WA, regardless of the flag state of that flying object.
4. Non-interference.
   
   1. A WA state may not impede the normal operations of any flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA organ, except strictly for the purpose of:
      
      1. capacity management if it is traveling within the WA state's airspace; and/or
      2. quarantines, except if the said flying object's operation within that airspace only involves traveling through it without landing or disembarking.
   2. A WA state may not disrupt the normal operations of flying objects:
      
      1. Traveling under the flag of the WA, or
      2. Traveling under the flag of another WA state, or that of flying objects in the airspace of another WA state, or attack such flying objects, unless a declared state of war exists between the relevant states.
   3. Sub-clause 4(b) excludes cases where the flying object has been hijacked by rogue actors, those that have mutinied against the WA or the said WA state, and other analogous circumstances.
   
   
5. Clarifications.
   
   1. The WA reserves the right to regulate the use and jurisdiction of national airspace as well as the operation of all flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA state (or WA organs) for the safety, security and collective benefits of all WA member states, subject to extant resolutions.
   2. The IASA is responsible for implementing this resolution.
   3. The Independent Adjudicative Office shall adjudicate any disputes between different WA states, and between the IASA and WA states.

Previous draft

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging the repeals of GARs 342 and 464 concerning aircraft and airspace;

Noting the WA's long interest in outer space (via GARs 349, 451, 460, and 615) and travels therein;

Desiring a common approach to defining what constitutes "airspace" and "outer space" in order to facilitate trade and travel between WA states;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

Definitions.
"Flying object" means anything defined by the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) or the International Transport Safety Committee as able to travel in "airspace" (defined below) and relying on its own power, such as aircraft, spacecraft, seaplanes, drones, helicopters, and other similar objects, but excluding:
anything not relying on its own power, such as kites; or
any sapient species that can fly.
"WA organs" means the WA itself and all of its committees.
Sovereignty.
Each WA state is deemed to have sovereignty over its own airspace.
"Airspace" is hereby defined as the atmosphere vertically over any land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims sovereignty, up to the boundary where the exobase ends and barometric conditions no longer apply, and where outer space thereafter begins.
For WA states in celestial bodies with differing physical features (such as the lack of an atmosphere), the said WA state may assert sovereignty in such proximate space as those strictly necessary for its domestic affairs, subject to recognition as such by IASA. For convenience, such proximate space shall also be referred to herein as a WA state's "airspace".
"Outer space" is hereby defined as any space (excluding airspace) between celestial bodies.
Outer space is international in nature, and no WA state may assert sovereignty over outer space, or assist anyone else in asserting sovereignty over outer space.
In case of airspace vertically over terra nullis, or over international waters where no WA state has asserted sovereignty, such airspace is declared international airspace and no WA state may assert sovereignty over such airspace.
Jurisdiction.
A flying object registered to the competent authorities of a WA state is deemed to be under that WA state's jurisdiction, and that WA is deemed the "flag state" of that flying object.
A flying object operated by, for, or on behalf of a WA organ is subject to the jurisdiction of that organ, regardless of the flag state of that flying object.
Non-interference.
A WA state may not impede the normal operations of any flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA organ, except strictly for the purpose of:
capacity management if it is traveling within the WA state's airspace; and/or
quarantines, except if the said flying object's operation within that airspace only involves traveling through it without landing or disembarking.
A WA state may not disrupt the normal operations of flying objects traveling under the flag of another WA state, or that of flying objects in the airspace of another WA state, or attack such flying objects, unless a declared state of war exists between the relevant states.
Clarifications.
The WA reserves the absolute right to regulate the use and jurisdiction of national airspace as well as the operation of all flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA state (or WA organs) for the safety, security and collective benefits of all WA member states.
The IASA is responsible for interpretation of this resolution and to adjudicate any disputes between WA states.

This has seen significant re-writes incorporating Kenmoria's comments. I expect another round of comments from him.

Kenmoria is now credited as a co-author. And actually Kenmoria re-drafted this twice, so there are quite substantial changes.

Whether 5(a) carries "subject to extant resolutions" depends on whether the repeal of 34 goes through or not.

[Simone Republic]

Last call.

[Lost Diadem of Ravenclaw]

"Terra nullius", not "nullis"

[Simone Republic]

"Terra nullius", not "nullis"

Shoot. Thanks

I realized that clause 2c(ii) talking about gravitational pull being negligible actually has issues (since anything has a gravitational pull) but I'd leave that to the sci-fi folks.

[Lost Diadem of Ravenclaw]

Shoot. Thanks

Yw bear. Looking good, support ahaha

[Simone Republic]

Shoot. Thanks

Yw bear. Looking good, support ahaha

Submitted.

[The Ice States]

Wallenburg gave a compelling argument privately which has led me to mark this proposal illegal on Metagaming grounds. My reasoning is explained in the CP ruling, but quoted here for posterity and convenience,

Under Section 2d, if a member nation exists on multiple bodies, any non-member on a body that passes between them suddenly has their airspace under WA jurisdiction. (NB: Section 2e implies that non-member airspace between celestial bodies is still "space", just not "outer space"; 2b uses just "space"). Thanks to Wallenburg for noticing this.

Do the authors have a defense?