[GA - MARKED ILLEGAL] Repeal: "Protection of Airspace"

[Hulldom]

Repeal: "Protection of Airspace"
Category: Repeal | GA #464
Proposed by: Greater Cesnica | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Aisprace Standardization Act​

---

The General Assembly,

Applauding the intended goal of GAR #464 "Protection Of Airspace", which is to safeguard the sovereignty of member states' airspace,

Concerned, however, by the definition of "aircraft" in Article 1(a), which does not cover unmanned aerial vehicles or aircraft utilizing an autopilot system,

Cognizant that aircraft equipped with an autopilot system comprise an overwhelming majority of aircraft that would be of concern to GAR#464,

Aware that this flawed definition poses a detriment to the sovereignty of member states' airspace as it prevents member states from barring or interfering with potential aerial threats not covered by the definition of "aircraft" without risking repercussions from foreign entities or other member states,

Disconcerted that Article 2(b) prevents member states from intervening to prevent or stop acts of piracy taking place in international airspace aboard ITSC-conforming aircraft, as would otherwise be permissible under GAR#20, "Suppress International Piracy",

Resolved that replacement legislation is needed to effectively remedy these concerns,

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

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to 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!

---

For	Against	Abstain	Present
0	1	0	0

 

[Hulldom]

IFV

 

[Rewan Demontay]

Against, while it does have good points, it is flawed due to its lacking sufficient proof to supplement its claims

 

[Greater Cesnica]

Against, while it does have good points, it is flawed due to its lacking sufficient proof to supplement its claims

Could you clarify? I explained to the best of my ability within the text why the points (Which you acknowledge are good) are valid.

 

[Hulldom]

This proposal has been marked illegal. Accordingly, thread locked.