[DRAFT] Freedoms of Aviation

[Inven]

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING that there are lots of flights each day

FURTHER NOTING that each nation has its freedom of aviation rule, which makes flight extremely difficult.

DEFINE the freedoms of aviation are:
1. The right to fly over a foreign country without landing. (A flight from nation A to nation B, flown by a nation B's airline, flying over the nation C.)
2. The right to refuel or carry out maintenance in a foreign country without embarking or disembarking passengers or cargo. (A flight from nation A to nation B, flown by a nation B's airline, refueling at a nation C's airport.)
3. The right to fly from one's own country to another country. (A flight from nation A to nation B, flown by a nation A's airline.)
4. The right to fly from another country to one's own. (A flight from nation A to nation B, flown by a nation B's airline.)
5. The right to fly between two foreign countries on a flight originating or ending in one's own country. (A flight from city X, nation A, to city Y, nation B, with a stop in city Z, nation C, flown by a nation A's airline. Passengers and cargo may travel between city B and city C, with no intention to continue on to city A.)

HEREBY DEFINE the freedoms of aviation.

 

[Gorundu]

But defining the freedoms don't do anything. A resolution is only legal if it tells member nations to do something.

 

[Inven]

But defining the freedoms don't do anything. A resolution is only legal if it tells member nations to do something.

Meaning that I have to add a clause MANDATED or something like that?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

That would seem to satisfy the operative clause rule, though I believe that, strictly, something weaker (such as an "URGES" or "RECOMMENDS") also satisfies the rule.

I do wonder whether this proposal could also run into difficulty in either duplicating or contradicting existing resolutions. There seem to me to be three currently on the books dealing with civil aviation.

Resolution #34 International Transport Safety would seem to create a risk of both duplication and contradiction. It prohibits, by clause 7, nations from barring commercial flights operating in their airspace, provided those flights comply with ITSC regulations, so insofar as this resolution does the same it would seem to be duplication, however, I'm somewhat unsure on this point as it would appear that this proposal has a wider effect and I think it is at least arguable that the rights conferred by resolution #34 on commercial flights should be open to other civilian flights. However, that wider effect raises my concern about contradiction, because I think that the way this proposal, by not appearing to provide any exceptions, runs counter to clause 7.b, which allows a nation to refuse entry for specified reasons.

Resolution #464 Protection of Airspace also appears to me to create a risk of contradiction. Clause 2.a gives members states sovereignty over their airspace, except to the extent that WA resolutions dealing with civilian aircraft protections provide to the contrary. One imagines that existing resolutions #34 and #342 are considered to deal with civilian aircraft protections, otherwise resolution #464 would have been illegal , but it is not immediately clear to me that this resolution can be said to be about civilian aircraft protections, particularly as it does not appear at the moment to exclude military aircraft from its operation.

Resolution #342 Civilian Aircraft Accord also deals with civil aviation. I don't think that this resolution raises any concern for this proposal, but one should be aware of extant regulation in this area to see how this proposal would fit in.

In terms of my view on the substance of the resolution, I think it is plainly in an area which is appropriate for international legislation, however, I do think that as it is currently framed it is overbroad (presuming that the solution to the operative clause issue is simply to say that nations must not infringe on the freedoms). There should, I would think, be exceptions as set out in resolution #34 for things like war or quarantine and military aircraft should, to my mind, be wholly without the scope of the proposal. As I say earlier, I do think it is arguable that the freedoms that currently exist for commercial aircraft should be open to other civilian aircraft and I think there is scope for this proposal in that area, though I have to say I'm not wholly sure what my final position on that question would be.

 

[Gorundu]

I have thought about writing a resolution on this subject before, but felt that it would be practically impossible because IRL, the freedoms, although defined in the Chicago Convention, are not guaranteed by any means. A country has to give explicit permission for another country's plane to fly over it. As such, it would be very difficult to write a mandate that applies across all nations.

Though now that I had a look at GA#34, it seems that the first four freedoms are already guaranteed in clause 7 (which I guess would make clause 2a of GA#464 illegal? I wrote #464 btw...)