[Draft] Convention on Automated Flight

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation

The World Assembly,

Affirming it is in the interest of every nation to ensure the sovereignty of its territory, of which a nation's airspace is a vital part;

Understanding it is internationally desirable to protect said sovereignty in order to promote development and prevent conflicts arising over intrusion upon such;

Noting the efforts of prior legislation to protect the sovereignty of national airspace;

Aware of the increasing automation of flight, through such technology as autopilots and flight control systems;

Recognizing the absence of legislation protecting the sovereignty of airspace as pertaining to aircraft utilizing such technology;

Hereby,

1. Instructs the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) to create and update a right and reasonable definition for the altitude at which the atmosphere for the purposes of airfoil-based powered flight ends and outer space begins, to be used by this and future international legislation;
2. Defines for the purposes of this legislation:
   • "Airspace" as the above-ground region of the atmosphere below the aforementioned altitude;
   • "National airspace" as airspace above the area encompassed by a nation's recognized territorial borders on land and water, as well as any additional airspace assigned to that nation through international agreement;
   • "International airspace" as any airspace not meeting the above conditions;
   • An "automated aircraft" as any flight-capable object, which possesses systems or devices whose effect is to make the object not entirely controlled by a sapient operator;
   • A "state aircraft" as any automated aircraft whose function is military, police, or customs in nature;
   • A "civil aircraft" as any automated aircraft which does not fit the above definition;
3. Recognizes the complete and exclusive sovereignty of every member-nation over its national airspace as pertaining to the movement of automated aircraft, except as otherwise noted by international law;
4. Clarifies that, except as otherwise noted by international law:
   • No state aircraft of a member-nation may fly over the national airspace of another without prior authorization by agreement between the two member-nations or otherwise;
   • No civil aircraft not possessing a sapient operator within itself may fly over the national airspace of a member-nation without prior authorization from said nation;
   • No civil aircraft following a predetermined flight path may enter the national airspace of a member-nation without prior authorization from said nation;
5. Permits:
   • A civil aircraft containing a sapient operator and not following a predetermined flight path to enter the national airspace of a member-nation, so long as the civil aircraft in question is not being used for purposes inconsistent with international law;
   • A member-nation to require the landing of any civil or state aircraft over its territory, so long as this requirement is adequately communicated to the operator or operators of the automated aircraft in question, and the automated aircraft is not impounded for an unnecessary period of time or with unnecessary measures;
   • Any automated aircraft compliant with ITSC regulations to operate in international airspace.

Click to expand...

Cretox State:

The World Assembly,

Noting that a nation's airspace is an essential component of its territory;

Believing that a nation's sovereignty over its territorial airspace must be protected;

Commending the efforts of GAR#464, "Protection of Airspace", in protecting this sovereignty; All this in red is fine - standard preambulatory stuff for the repeal part of a repeal/replace.

Concerned, however, that the resolution's definition of an aircraft as "controlled entirely by sapient beings" excludes any aircraft possessing autopilot or flight-aiding computer systems, meaning virtually all modern aircraft; This argument has been tried before, and many find it thoroughly unconvincing - I myself would take good-faith compliance as meaning that the provisions only go in place while the aircraft is being controlled by a sapient, and not so during times where autopilot or similar is enabled. I find it difficult to claim otherwise while still remaining in good faith - the intention of the definition is clear, even if the wording *could* be a bit better. I feel that this could be patched via an additional resolution without necessitating the repeal.

Troubled by the fact that this loophole can be exploited to completely ignore the legislation's clauses;

Remarking that the law's definition of airspace as "the portion of the atmosphere above the land or water surface and below the height where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible" is inherently ambiguous, and fails to consider that airfoil-based flight at particularly high altitudes is far more complex than a mere question of whether or not it is technically possible at a given altitude; I'm not entirely sure if this can be construed as a legitimate argument - Sure, it may be complex, but it's either possible or it isn't.

Lamenting that the above flaws undermine the otherwise commendable legislation;

Confident that a replacement which addresses said issues would be a wholeheartedly accepted by this august body; Just to emphasize - I believe that your first argument can be patched without repeal and I find your second argument unconvincing - so I'm not entirely sure why a repeal/replace is necessary.

Hereby repeals GAR#464, "Protection of Airspace".

Click to expand...