[GA - Passed] Repeal "Civilian Aircraft Accord"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Repeal "Civilian Aircraft Accord"
Category: Repeal | GA #342
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5 | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Aerospace Act​

Believing that, while the resolution is well-intentioned, it contains several fatal flaws which severely hinder its ability to carry out its goals,

Alarmed by the resolution's silence regarding the necessary extent of "assistance" to be provided to civilian aircraft in distress under Section 2c, allowing member nations to only provide minimal assistance to civilian aircraft in distress,

Saddened too that Section 4 permits member nations to render whatever "instructions" or "warning" they please, allowing a member nation to -- for example -- demand that a civilian aircraft surrender to military force as these "instructions", thus defeating much of the mandate's purpose,

Emphasising that, as resolutions cannot be amended, the only way to address these flaws is via repeal of the resolution, the World Assembly

Declares the "Civilian Aircraft Accord" to be repealed.
Click to expand...
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
7803
 
Last edited:
Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal GA #342 "Civilian Aircraft Accord" on the basis that several of the flaws in the text prevent it from reaching its goals. It notes that the resolution fails to define the extent of "assistance" provided to civilian aircaft in distress, which can cause member states to provide only sparse assistance to these aircraft. It also notes that the resolution fails to define "instructions" or "warnings" that military aircraft must give to civilian aircraft, which can result in differing interpretations that go against the purpose of the resolution.

Recommendation
Even though the idea itself is something that needs to be legislated, we agree with the repeal that the resolution itself is not written well. By repealing this well-meaning but faulty resolution, the proposal at vote will ensure that nations will not deliberately misinterpret the resolution through its failure to adequately define several terms.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote FOR the GA proposal at vote, "Repeal: 'Civilian Aircraft Accord'".
 
Last edited:
Against. I don't really consider the Aerospace Act to be a direct replacement and I would not jump to a repeal unless the replacement is ready. I also will oppose the replacement without a complete rewrite.
 
Last edited:
Against

This is fine, and the target resolution is worthy of repeal (I commented during drafting forum-side), but I'm really unhappy with the replacement: articles 1 and 3 are passable (the latter is a vague replication of SIGMETs/NOTAMs, and the former is a standard principle but makes no account of oceanic FIRs/other airspace territorial grants); but article 2 seems to prevent any involvement from the WA in regards to the subject matters, which is odd (to say the least); and article 4 is no better than the equivalent provision from the resolution it replaces, giving no information about the manner by which aid should be requested nor given, and its qualifier (regarding "dangers" and "unplanned") being wholly inadequate and ambiguous. I oppose the enactment of that resolution since it would be more difficult to repeal than the present target, owing to its undeserved brevity.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the concerns on the replacement: That replacement is being entirely written by @Tinhampton. This will still have several weeks before it reaches vote, so obviously the replacement can still receive heavy rewrites before being submitted.
 
Present. I am not quite for the replacement. If it is still not done by then, I will change my vote to an against because I feel this is a topic that requires some legislation about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top