[GA] At Vote: Debris Prevention [Complete]

---

Description: SEEKING to protect access to space for all nations

DISTRESSED by the rapidly increasing accumulation of debris in orbit

RECOGNIZING that prolonged accumulation of debris in orbit can impede space travel and orbital operations

RESOLVING to reduce the amount of debris in orbit

INSTRUCTS member nations to have systems in place to certify the compliance of objects planned to be launched into orbit with the guidelines of this resolution

REQUIRES member nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects from their territory into orbit that have not been certified as compliant with this resolution, allowing exceptions only when loss of life would occur as a result of such actions

In order to reduce the quantity of potentially harmful debris in orbit, all objects launched into space must have the following abilities and are required to take the following actions

A- To Deorbit in one of the following fashions prior to becoming nonfunctional:
1- Complete deterioration into non damaging remains during descent and prior to collision
2- Landing or collision in international waters, unclaimed undeveloped territory, or the territory of nations that consent to the collision or landing
3- Entering into a junk orbit assigned by WASP
4- Any method that removes the object from the vicinity of the body it previously orbited without harming other artificial objects in orbit

B- To Maneuver in order to avoid other objects in orbit in order to prevent damage of property

STATES that WASP will take into account the desires and needs of the relevant nations when assigning a junk orbit and will not contradict orbital classifications around a celestial body created by any entity representing, with consent of the governed, all nations on that body

CLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space so long as all damage done is part of a declared act of war against the owner of the object, the nation the object was launched from, or if the object services or benefits the enemy

---

Please vote: For | Against | Abstain | Present

"Abstain" means that you wish for the Delegate to not vote on the resolution at all.
"Present" means that you effectively choose not to participate in this vote. "Present" has no effect on how the Delegate votes.

Posts which do not include an explicit and unambiguous vote are not counted in the tally.

Ministry vote recommendation: For

Ministry Review
Written by HMS Unicorn

Prevention of debris around planets is a serious issue that can only trully be addressed through interregional cooperation. Therefore, it is a subject well-within the scope of the World Assembly. The resolution at vote takes some reasonable steps towards ensuring that member states do not recklessly increase debris in planetary orbits.

Most of the measures instructed by this resolution are straightforward for member states to enforce, and do not impose unreasonable restrictions on national sovereignty. We do have some reservations that the last clause of the proposal, despite its intentions, may be limiting nations' ability to conduct space warfare. For instance, it is unclear whether the clause permits destruction of objects for defensive purposes when an official war has not been declared.

Despite these concerns though, on the balance this is a satisfactory legislation. Therefore, we recommend a vote in support of this proposal.

This is two approvals away from quorum.

Withholding vote so far as I haven't had a chance to take a good look at the resolution.

Against.

I'm going to cast my own vote in the poll against. I have a few issues with the resolution:

1) It is not clear whether destruction of space objects is permitted for defensive purposes, especially in the event of unprovoked aggression (i.e., before war has been declared).
2) It is possible that, for the purposes of war, a nation may want to destroy space objects belonging to neutral states but heading towards an enemy nation. This could be, for example, to enforce a boycott, or as a counter-intelligence measure. Again, it is not clear whether the last clause permits this.
3) The writing leaves a lot to be desired. There is a change in the verb style from "resolving" to "instructs", with the subject of the verbs never being clarified. Then the style changes further as we move to the "In order to" clause. The last clause seems grammatically incorrect, and even if it is correct, it is structured in a very confusing way that makes it hard to parse. And finally, there is a serious lack of punctuation.

This is now at vote, and I have also lodged a vote against in-game.

EDIT: Noticed a rather bad typo that I had to correct...

For

tl;dr

Against

Defwa has some great ideas, but, regrettably, submitted this before it was ready, I think. She has something of a vendetta against players who use WA puppets, and tried to shoehorn it in there, as well. I've voted against.

Separatist Peoples:

She has something of a vendetta against players who use WA puppets, and tried to shoehorn it in there, as well.

Click to expand...

That was definitely a mistake, but they don't seem willing to argue the point.

r3naissanc3r:

It is not clear whether destruction of space objects is permitted for defensive purposes, especially in the event of unprovoked aggression (i.e., before war has been declared).

Click to expand...

Of course it is. The law means what the law says. As it does not make any prohibition against such an action, then it follows that such an action is not prohibited.

However, note that unprovoked aggression is probably impossible owing to the WA's conception of war as "consensual".

It is possible that, for the purposes of war, a nation may want to destroy space objects belonging to neutral states but heading towards an enemy nation. This could be, for example, to enforce a boycott, or as a counter-intelligence measure. Again, it is not clear whether the last clause permits this.

Click to expand...

This would not be a legal action irrespective of this proposal. From Rights of Neutral States:

Belligerents may not ... commit any acts of war against states neutral in the relevant wars, and no WA member may do so at all to states that follow ‘general neutrality’;
...
Belligerents must not interfere with neutrals’ international trade, except as any other WA law specifically allows;

Click to expand...

And, with amusement:

The writing leaves a lot to be desired. There is a change in the verb style from "resolving" to "instructs", with the subject of the verbs never being clarified. Then the style changes further as we move to the "In order to" clause. The last clause seems grammatically incorrect, and even if it is correct, it is structured in a very confusing way that makes it hard to parse. And finally, there is a serious lack of punctuation.

Click to expand...

I would be fascinated to see how your WA Minister takes the news that WA resolutions are now to be judged on their grammar and punctuation.

For

After receiving a formal invitation, I'm here to campaign for my proposal in hopes that some votes man be swayed.
I'm Angela Landfree, ambassador for Defwa.

Now I did address the concerns posted here in another forum and I am unable to perfect the formatting, but here goes:
From HMS Unicorn

1) It is not clear whether destruction of space objects is permitted for defensive purposes, especially in the event of unprovoked aggression (i.e., before war has been declared).

Click to expand...

One of the best and worst things about space is it's size. In most cases, prior to an object in space posing a danger to another object, plenty of time will be available to detect the object, plot its course, and carry out needed solutions.
Under the WA definition of war, this kind of unprovoked and unexpected aggression is already illegal, but I've never been a fan of that. Anyway, because "declared act of war" is intentionally not defined, it really just means you need to file some paperwork and notify the victim.
Even better, Debris Removal will actually pay you for your trouble considering if that object is not going to move like it's supposed to, WASP will charge the owner and pay you for your expenses.

2) It is possible that, for the purposes of war, a nation may want to destroy space objects belonging to neutral states but heading towards an enemy nation. This could be, for example, to enforce a boycott, or as a counter-intelligence measure. Again, it is not clear whether the last clause permits this.

Click to expand...

If you can prove the object is "servic[ing] or benefit[ing] the enemy", this resolution will not impede you. I'm not sure exactly how to apply your examples, however I believe that if the so called neutral vessel is carrying intelligence for your enemy or intending to break a blockade, it may not be considered neutral anymore so not even the Rights of Neutral States will stop you. Though I'm not an expert in that resolution.

3) The writing leaves a lot to be desired. There is a change in the verb style from "resolving" to "instructs", with the subject of the verbs never being clarified. Then the style changes further as we move to the "In order to" clause. The last clause seems grammatically incorrect, and even if it is correct, it is structured in a very confusing way that makes it hard to parse. And finally, there is a serious lack of punctuation.

Click to expand...

The difference between "RESOLVING" and "INSTRUCTS" is preamble vs active clause. Fluff vs meat and potatoes. Doesn't really mean anything vs means something. I do confess that the last clause is odd- I could not find a way to reform the language without wasting precious space on repeating sentences. As far as the punctuation goes, it is where it needs to be but I do keep it minimum. I try to keep a lot of things minimum- being rid of useless formatting that doesn't contribute to readability, and such because I do have a problem with doing too much otherwise. If that bothers any more people than it apparently has, I may consider using more in the future but I have so far left it out as more of a stylistic choice.

From Separatist Peoples

Defwa has some great ideas, but, regrettably, submitted this before it was ready, I think. She has something of a vendetta against players who use WA puppets, and tried to shoehorn it in there, as well. I've voted against.

Click to expand...

My issue really isn't with puppets. The issue is people who don't comply. Be they using embassy puppets to escape the gnomes or are just non WA nations. I want to try to add some benefit to membership in this organization. Directing social advancement is great but we really don't provide any motivation for people to join and comply when people can cherry pick. I'm hoping to add motivation (in Debris Removal) by making the WA a provider of services instead of just restrictions.

If anyone else has concerns, I look forward addressing them personally. And to discussing that follow proposal, debris removal.

Against.

I change my vote to Aye

I currently count 3-0-3, so I have withdrawn my in-game vote.

Thank you for coming here Defwa. I am typically busy on Tuesday evenings, so I can't properly read your post right now. I will do so later this morning and depending on your arguments I may reconsider my vote in the poll.

Luckily we were able to get on the same page with time to spare.

Aye

4-0-3, switched in favor.

Acoustic Siberia:

Of course it is. The law means what the law says. As it does not make any prohibition against such an action, then it follows that such an action is not prohibited.

However, note that unprovoked aggression is probably impossible owing to the WA's conception of war as "consensual".

Click to expand...

I am talking about what the law says. The way the last clause is written makes it appear as if "do[ing] battle in space" is permitted only if at least one of three conditions is satisfied: 1) there is a declared war against the owner of the object; or 2) there is a declared war against the nation the object was launched from; or 3) the object services or benefits the enemy.

A nation could launch some object as part of aggression against another nation, before a war has been declared. The second nation would need to respond in some defensive manner, but as war has not been declared yet, they would not be permitted to do so.

One could argue that the defending nation could first declare war and then respond, but in many nations declaring war is a complicated process that takes time. Defensive action may be necessary urgently, without the luxury of declaring war first.

This would not be a legal action irrespective of this proposal. From Rights of Neutral States:

Belligerents may not ... commit any acts of war against states neutral in the relevant wars, and no WA member may do so at all to states that follow ‘general neutrality’;
...
Belligerents must not interfere with neutrals’ international trade, except as any other WA law specifically allows;

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If a vessel is doing the actions I describe above, will it still be covered by "neutrality"?

I would be fascinated to see how your WA Minister takes the news that WA resolutions are now to be judged on their grammar and punctuation.

Click to expand...

Just because Aba may have passed some resolutions where the grammar and punctuation were not perfect does not mean that they should not be adequately proofread beforehand. These texts stay there for all nations to view them for long periods, they ought to be well-edited. And with regards to this resolution, it is not an isolated typo or missing comma, there are several instances.

AMB Landfree:

After receiving a formal invitation, I'm here to campaign for my proposal in hopes that some votes man be swayed.
I'm Angela Landfree, ambassador for Defwa.

Click to expand...

Thank you for coming over Defwa.

One of the best and worst things about space is it's size. In most cases, prior to an object in space posing a danger to another object, plenty of time will be available to detect the object, plot its course, and carry out needed solutions.
Under the WA definition of war, this kind of unprovoked and unexpected aggression is already illegal, but I've never been a fan of that. Anyway, because "declared act of war" is intentionally not defined, it really just means you need to file some paperwork and notify the victim.
Even better, Debris Removal will actually pay you for your trouble considering if that object is not going to move like it's supposed to, WASP will charge the owner and pay you for your expenses.

Click to expand...

Well, it is far more likely that a nation is patrolling the orbit zones around their planet than the entire vast universe. So, it is reasonable to expect that objects may not be detected before entering planetary orbits.

Regarding the declaration of war, I already addressed that above, when responding to Gruenberg.

If you can prove the object is "servic[ing] or benefit[ing] the enemy", this resolution will not impede you. I'm not sure exactly how to apply your examples, however I believe that if the so called neutral vessel is carrying intelligence for your enemy or intending to break a blockade, it may not be considered neutral anymore so not even the Rights of Neutral States will stop you. Though I'm not an expert in that resolution.

Click to expand...

According to Gruenberg above, the cases I mentioned would still be covered by Rights of Neutral States, though like you I am not convinced.

Additionally, even though it is correct that a nation could try to prove that a vessel is "servicing the enemy", that seems to me like an unreasonable burden to place on nations at a time of war. This is especially true in cases where quick response is needed, and proper investigation may not be feasible before a vessel is destroyed.

The difference between "RESOLVING" and "INSTRUCTS" is preamble vs active clause. Fluff vs meat and potatoes. Doesn't really mean anything vs means something. I do confess that the last clause is odd- I could not find a way to reform the language without wasting precious space on repeating sentences. As far as the punctuation goes, it is where it needs to be but I do keep it minimum. I try to keep a lot of things minimum- being rid of useless formatting that doesn't contribute to readability, and such because I do have a problem with doing too much otherwise. If that bothers any more people than it apparently has, I may consider using more in the future but I have so far left it out as more of a stylistic choice.

Click to expand...

I understand the distinction between preamble and active clauses. My point is that the transition in this draft is very awkwardly done and makes the text read very oddly. You could have inserted a simple "The World Assembly:" right after the preamble ends, to make it read smoother. As for punctuation, I think the lack of proper punctionation in this case is distracting and, if anything, reduces readability. I note that there are others in the NS forum who have complained about this.

r3naissanc3r:

Acoustic Siberia:

Of course it is. The law means what the law says. As it does not make any prohibition against such an action, then it follows that such an action is not prohibited.

However, note that unprovoked aggression is probably impossible owing to the WA's conception of war as "consensual".

Click to expand...

I am talking about what the law says. The way the last clause is written makes it appear as if "do[ing] battle in space" is permitted only if at least one of three conditions is satisfied: 1) there is a declared war against the owner of the object; or 2) there is a declared war against the nation the object was launched from; or 3) the object services or benefits the enemy.

A nation could launch some object as part of aggression against another nation, before a war has been declared. The second nation would need to respond in some defensive manner, but as war has not been declared yet, they would not be permitted to do so.

One could argue that the defending nation could first declare war and then respond, but in many nations declaring war is a complicated process that takes time. Defensive action may be necessary urgently, without the luxury of declaring war first.

Click to expand...

If a nation can not effectively react to an object with aggressive tendencies because of the density of their own bureaucracy, that seems like its more of a fault in them. In addition, the destruction of an object that cost millions to create and launch should not be taken lightly so the fact that at least some thought must be paid to the matter is part of the purpose of this proposal.

The process of changing an orbit for a rendezvous and collision is extremely difficult and takes lots of fuel. It's not going to be a common occurrence that someone would want to or even be able to reroute their satellite to hit one of yours. For those nations that have a superior mastery of space, where this could be a problem, they should already have readied defenses somewhere

This would not be a legal action irrespective of this proposal. From Rights of Neutral States:

Belligerents may not ... commit any acts of war against states neutral in the relevant wars, and no WA member may do so at all to states that follow ‘general neutrality’;
...
Belligerents must not interfere with neutrals’ international trade, except as any other WA law specifically allows;

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If a vessel is doing the actions I describe above, will it still be covered by "neutrality"?

Click to expand...

The following clauses would appear to be relevant.
"The [neutral] state may not perform any actions within or against belligerents that this resolution forbids belligerents to perform within or against neutrals, except that it may use reasonable force to repel belligerent forces that are violating its neutrality;"
So once the neutral object displays aggressive tendencies such as entering into a collision course, it loses its protected status.
"The state must not sell or otherwise supply war materiel to a belligerent, or allow anybody within its borders to do so, or allow its agencies or businesses to transport war materiel for belligerents, or (except as any other WA law specifies) allow war materiel for belligerents to cross its territories;"
Not only can a neutral nation not carry equipment for either warring party, it can't even stop at their starbases or they forfeit neutral status.
Once their neutrality is lost, you're free to retaliate as needed.

I would be fascinated to see how your WA Minister takes the news that WA resolutions are now to be judged on their grammar and punctuation.

Click to expand...

Just because Aba may have passed some resolutions where the grammar and punctuation were not perfect does not mean that they should not be adequately proofread beforehand. These texts stay there for all nations to view them for long periods, they ought to be well-edited. And with regards to this resolution, it is not an isolated typo or missing comma, there are several instances.

Click to expand...

I was not expecting the reaction and it didn't exist prior to the vote beginning. But all things considered, future writings will part from this minimalist style.

AMB Landfree:

After receiving a formal invitation, I'm here to campaign for my proposal in hopes that some votes man be swayed.
I'm Angela Landfree, ambassador for Defwa.

Click to expand...

Thank you for coming over Defwa.

One of the best and worst things about space is it's size. In most cases, prior to an object in space posing a danger to another object, plenty of time will be available to detect the object, plot its course, and carry out needed solutions.
Under the WA definition of war, this kind of unprovoked and unexpected aggression is already illegal, but I've never been a fan of that. Anyway, because "declared act of war" is intentionally not defined, it really just means you need to file some paperwork and notify the victim.
Even better, Debris Removal will actually pay you for your trouble considering if that object is not going to move like it's supposed to, WASP will charge the owner and pay you for your expenses.

Click to expand...

Well, it is far more likely that a nation is patrolling the orbit zones around their planet than the entire vast universe. So, it is reasonable to expect that objects may not be detected before entering planetary orbits.

Click to expand...

That is an issue up to the preparedness of the nation as well. Any competent nation even beginning to enter space should have tracking capability over at least those objects that pose a threat. Ground based radar can do this effectively. As far as objects further out go, if threats can come from further away, then nations should be monitoring further away. This resolution doesn't really touch on that subject. Without it, they'd still be in the same position- surprised and probably on fire.

If you can prove the object is "servic[ing] or benefit[ing] the enemy", this resolution will not impede you. I'm not sure exactly how to apply your examples, however I believe that if the so called neutral vessel is carrying intelligence for your enemy or intending to break a blockade, it may not be considered neutral anymore so not even the Rights of Neutral States will stop you. Though I'm not an expert in that resolution.

Click to expand...

According to Gruenberg above, the cases I mentioned would still be covered by Rights of Neutral States, though like you I am not convinced.

Additionally, even though it is correct that a nation could try to prove that a vessel is "servicing the enemy", that seems to me like an unreasonable burden to place on nations at a time of war. This is especially true in cases where quick response is needed, and proper investigation may not be feasible before a vessel is destroyed.

Click to expand...

That is, again, a problem with Rights of Neutral States already. But [refer to above], and I'm afraid this resolution just isn't able to really change that requirement. Its a bit of a reaffirmation, yes, but only so that the language would make sense.

The difference between "RESOLVING" and "INSTRUCTS" is preamble vs active clause. Fluff vs meat and potatoes. Doesn't really mean anything vs means something. I do confess that the last clause is odd- I could not find a way to reform the language without wasting precious space on repeating sentences. As far as the punctuation goes, it is where it needs to be but I do keep it minimum. I try to keep a lot of things minimum- being rid of useless formatting that doesn't contribute to readability, and such because I do have a problem with doing too much otherwise. If that bothers any more people than it apparently has, I may consider using more in the future but I have so far left it out as more of a stylistic choice.

Click to expand...

I understand the distinction between preamble and active clauses. My point is that the transition in this draft is very awkwardly done and makes the text read very oddly. You could have inserted a simple "The World Assembly:" right after the preamble ends, to make it read smoother. As for punctuation, I think the lack of proper punctionation in this case is distracting and, if anything, reduces readability. I note that there are others in the NS forum who have complained about this.

Click to expand...

[refer to above][/quote]

I am talking about what the law says. The way the last clause is written makes it appear as if "do[ing] battle in space" is permitted only if at least one of three conditions is satisfied: 1) there is a declared war against the owner of the object; or 2) there is a declared war against the nation the object was launched from; or 3) the object services or benefits the enemy.

A nation could launch some object as part of aggression against another nation, before a war has been declared. The second nation would need to respond in some defensive manner, but as war has not been declared yet, they would not be permitted to do so.

One could argue that the defending nation could first declare war and then respond, but in many nations declaring war is a complicated process that takes time. Defensive action may be necessary urgently, without the luxury of declaring war first.

Click to expand...

First, bear in mind that the WA defines "war" in an utterly terrible and unhelpful way. Only wars that are "consensual" are considered to be wars by the WA. So any legislation relating to war is always going to have problems when it comes to "aggression", because the WA doesn't really recognise that as being an act of war.

Still, though, I don't understand how the example you've given isn't covered by "allowing exceptions only when loss of life would occur as a result of such actions". If this hypothetical object's launch is going to cause loss of life unless arrested, then it still seems to me countermeasures are permitted.

If a vessel is doing the actions I describe above, will it still be covered by "neutrality"?

Click to expand...

Well, you're the one who used the word "neutral", so I assumed you meant nations that are neutral according to the WA.

Rights of Neutral States makes it clear that:

The [neutral] state must not sell or otherwise supply war materiel to a belligerent, or allow anybody within its borders to do so, or allow its agencies or businesses to transport war materiel for belligerents, or (except as any other WA law specifies) allow war materiel for belligerents to cross its territories;

Click to expand...

So, if the object in question is "war materiel"; if the object is something else, then "yes", but the neutrality of the state is no longer relevant anyway.

Furthermore, if there is a problem with legislation governing neutrality, then that still isn't germane to this proposal: only a repeal of Rights of Neutral States could fix it, so it's sort of a moot criticism.

Just because Aba may have passed some resolutions where the grammar and punctuation were not perfect does not mean that they should not be adequately proofread beforehand. These texts stay there for all nations to view them for long periods, they ought to be well-edited. And with regards to this resolution, it is not an isolated typo or missing comma, there are several instances.

Click to expand...

If you wish to proofread and edit proposals, then I would suggest going to the NS forum, where proposals are drafted. Signalling your unwillingness to do so yet insisting they meet your own arbitrary standards is inane.

Against.

I do wish I could attempt to address some of these issues. Would anyone care to state why they are against the proposal?

My votes tend to be very gameplay-focused these days: I'm not terribly interested in having more environmental regulation at the expense of industry. Absolutely nothing to do with the wording or the content of the proposal.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.