[GA—UP NEXT—AGAINST] Airspace Sovereignty Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jinkies

Jinkies

Minister
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Vapid
Discord
solringen
ga.jpg

Airspace Sovereignty Doctrine
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation
Proposed by: Simone Republic, Co-author: Kenmoria | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the repeals of resolutions concerning aircraft and airspace, such as GARs 34, 342 and 464, and the legislative lacuna resultant therefrom;

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

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

  1. Definitions.
    • "Flying object" means anything defined by the International Aero-Space Administration as (i) able to travel in "airspace" (defined below) and (ii) relying on its own power, but excludes any living flying creature.
    • "WA organs" means the WA and any of its sub-committees.
  2. Sovereignty.
    • Each WA state has and shall be 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 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 asserts sovereignty, either (whichever is lower):
      • 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
      • Up to the point where the gravitational pull of the celestial body on which that WA state asserts sovereignty becomes negligible for the domestic purposes of that WA state.
    • Airspace that is vertically over terra nullius, or that is over international waters where no WA state has asserted sovereignty, is hereby declared to be international airspace.
    • The extent of airspace as defined in subclause 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.
    • A WA state may assert jurisdiction over (1) any flying object registered to the competent authorities of the said WA state, or (2) any flying object traveling under the flag of that WA state, such as military aircraft belonging to that WA state.
    • The WA may assert jurisdiction over any flying object operated by, for, or on behalf of a WA organ. Such objects shall be known as "WA aircraft" for the remainder of this resolution.
  4. Non-interference of WA aircraft.
    • A WA state must not impede the normal operations of any flying objects under the jurisdiction of the WA itself, except, subject to resolutions existing prior to the passing of this resolution, strictly for the purposes of:
      • capacity management if it is traveling within the WA state's airspace; or
      • quarantines.
    • Subclause 4(a) excludes cases where the WA aircraft has been hijacked by rogue actors, or by those that have mutinied against the WA, and other analogous circumstances of loss of control.
Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
ForAgainstAbstainPresent
3700
 
Last edited:
[Non-WA]

My first instinct is to be concerned that WA member states are not allowed to impede flying objects in (4) for reasons other than quarantine or capacity reasons. For example, imagine there's a safety issue with the plane, or there's reason to believe it's travelling with enough cargo to be over the weight limit, or there's a medical emergency onboard that has to be dealt with by member state law.
 
For as author. The impeding is only of WA flying objects (ie operated by gnomes) so there should be nothing onboard that can go wrong
 
Why are the gnomes flying aircraft in my airspace? And where can I get their perfect piloting skills and engineering and invincible perfect aircraft that have no problems?

I recall the definitions of airspace to be the most problematic in the past, these definitions read a bit better because they don’t seem to be asserting the opposite. That being said, as far as I can tell, this resolution is granting nations the rights they already have, describing them exactly the way they work, including that they have jurisdiction over WA craft, but then forbids them from messing with the WA craft. So in essence, the only new thing it does is stop us from messing with WA craft, which certainly weren’t even on my radar (no pun intended). I’m not a nat sov guy, honestly, but who is even thinking about gnome-flown aircraft and letting them flit around unimpeded? What new or crucial distinctive thing is this resolution actually doing? Explain it to me because surely I missed it.

Against
 
Last edited:
Pallaith:
Why are the gnomes flying aircraft in my airspace? And where can I get their perfect piloting skills and engineering and invincible perfect aircraft that have no problems?

I recall the definitions of airspace to be the most problematic in the past, these definitions read a bit better because they don’t seem to be asserting the opposite. That being said, as far as I can tell, this resolution is granting nations the rights they already have, describing them exactly the way they work, including that they have jurisdiction over WA craft, but then forbids them from messing with the WA craft. So in essence, the only new thing it does is stop us from messing with WA craft, which certainly weren’t even on my radar (no pun intended). I’m not a nat sov guy, honestly, but who is even thinking about gnome-flown aircraft and letting them flit around unimpeded? What new or crucial distinctive thing is this resolution actually doing? Explain it to me because surely I missed it.

Against
Click to expand...

Gnomes flying planes in your airspace came from [2024] GAS 6. To quote, "[t]he why emerges from the gnome convention: the staff are "mystical beings [gnomes] that instantly spring into existence and live only to serve on [that] committee". The Most Glorious Hack, supra (quotation cleaned up). In effect, we have an exclusive story as to how committees are staffed; contradicting it by throwing in non-mystical beings is not permitted."


It doesn't really do anything too new. Just that every single other airspace sovereignty resolution on airspace has turned out to be (as you recall correctly) hideously problematic, so this was heavily watered down to what it is, and to take into account both [2024] GAS 4 and [2024] GAS 9. (Now that Jinkies is on Gensec, their problem now).

You are entirely free to blame both @Tinhampton and @Magecastle (I do, I know none of them are your friends IC) for repealing the previously (problematic) airspace resolutions and then failing to properly draft anything remotely sensible. (Note that the new one wasn't written by me either, Kenmoria wrote that part.)
 
Last edited:
Simone:
It doesn't really do anything too new. Just that every single other sovereignty resolution on airspace has turned out to be (as you recall correctly) hideously problematic, so this was heavily watered down to what it is, and to take into account both [2024] GAS 4 and [2024] GAS 9. (Now that Jinkies is on Gensec, their problem now).
Click to expand...
So because this topic was attempted multiple times before, we’re just shooting for something on this topic even if it’s this limited in scope? I hope it’s not controversial to suggest that sometimes you can just let some ideas go.
 
Against

I'll give up on commenting fully on these and just accept "capacity management" to mean anything. I still think the WA can (and should) effectively assert the jurisdiction of member nations' ANSPs over international airspace by compelling member nations to comply with centrally-defined airspace boundaries. Whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top