[GA - Failed] Repeal: "Civilian Aircraft Accord"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fontainberg

Fontainberg

Undertale Weeb
Pronouns
They/them
TNP Nation
Fontainberg
Discord
Avalaise#6417

ga.jpg

Repeal: "Civilian Aircraft Accord"
Category: Repeal | GA #342
Proposed by: Bitely | Onsite Topic​
General Assembly Resolution #342 “Civilian Aircraft Accord” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

APPLAUDS the good intentions of this assembly for recognizing that "it is the duty of all nations to protect the lives of innocent civilians";

NOTING that this resolution was intended "to enact a sensible policy that allows for the safe and secure" oversight of civilian aircraft;

ALARMED that clause 2 section C requires member states to provide "Assistance to any civilian aircraft that declares itself to be in distress" even if there is sufficient evidence that the civilian aircraft is not in distress;

FURTHER alarmed that clause 2 section C requires member states to assist civilian aircraft in the airspace of potentially hostile neighbor nations airspace as long as it's "within ... communication range";

REALIZING clause 2 section C unintentionally opens up both member states military and civilian first responders to possible malicious enemy military action by requiring them to assist an enemy "civilian" aircraft potentially in hostile territory even if the call of distress is suspicious;

BELIEVING that by clause 2 section C requiring members to respond to all distress calls made by "civilian" aircraft within communication range, which could include hostile territory, this resolution has failed to enact a "sensible policy";

HEREBY this Assembly REPEALS "Civilian Aircraft Accord"
Click to expand...
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!
 
*picks up the NS newspaper of the day*
Huh, there's a new proposal up for approval. I wonder what it-
Bitely
*gets up and runs down the hall*
Alistair, I swear to god, you better vote against this proposal!
 
Against. The proposed repeal is predicated on claimed flaws that exist only in narrow circumstances which are outweighed by the benefits of the original resolution.

It does not, to my mind, seem that there will be any great number of circumstances where there will be evidence sufficient to counter the opinion of those actually in the aircraft as to the aircraft being in distress, I am therefore unconvinced by that supposed flaw. As to the claims that the resolution requires assistance, or could require assistance, in hostile airspace, I think this is perhaps true, but it belies the fact that a requirement for a nation to assist is not a requirement that the nation itself have its aircraft enter hostile airspace, assistance can come in many forms and there seems to me to be no reason to read in a requirement of the kind supposed.

The clause beginning "realizing" rests on the supposition that nations will use false signals to draw in those who would assist. In the first place, I simply do not see that this risk can be said to be at a level that outweighs the benefits in terms of assistance for those in danger that the resolution gives. Moreover, I question whether this is a correct reading of the resolution, in that a signal not sent by a civilian aircraft (the definition of which excludes aircraft under military direction) does not attract its protection, so there would arise no obligation to assist if a nation genuinely thought that the signal was so suspicious as to be false.

Finally, the author is an annoyance and I see no reason to support their endeavours.

EDIT: clarifying the parenthetical
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top