[GA - Passed] Repeal "Protection of Airspace"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

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

Repeal "Protection of Airspace"
Category: Repeal | GA #464
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Aerospace Act​

Recognising that while Article 2a of GA#464 protects each member state's control "over their territorial airspace with regards to the movement of aircraft," it excludes "any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections" regardless of when those regulations may have been made,

Noting that while this exclusion was likely a good-faith attempt to prevent the target resolution from overriding GA#342 "Civilian Aircraft Accord," it does not prevent any future WA regulation of civilian aircraft that it would not be allowed to make in the target's absence, making it useless in these regards,

Rather confuzzled at Article 2b's declaration that "[a]ll aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace," even though no resolution has established a process by which an aircraft may be "registered" with the ITSC and GA#34 "International Transport Safety" already requires nearly all aircraft that uses international aerospace to follow ITSC standards, and

Hopeful that future resolutions seeking to protect national control of territorial aerospace will do so properly and robustly, rather than simply talk up the need for solutions that do not seriously materialise...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#464 "Protection of Airspace."
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
2500
 
Last edited:
Overview
The resolution proposal at hand seeks to repeal General Assembly Resolution #464 “Protection of Airspace”, citing various issues with regards to territorial airspace, a lack of registration requirements with aircraft, and duplication with GA34 "International Transport Safety" with regards to aircraft standards.

Recommendation
The Ministry believes that definitions of territorial airspace (and territorial waters) have been extremely problematic for the General Assembly since its existence, as it is very difficult to set a limit on what constitutes airspace without either overassuming, one-size-fits-none micromanagement or running into ambiguities such as the line between aircraft and spacecraft. In addition, we believe the proposed replacement is grossly inadequate to address jurisdiction concerns, among several other issues.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly resolution at vote, "Repeal: “Protection of Airspace".
 
Last edited:
Slight issue, you reference ‘Civilian Aircraft Accord‘, however that resolution may be repealed by the time that this proposal goes to vote. Although you still may be able to reference repealed resolutions in a proposal though, I’m not sure…
 
AraFuttio:
Slight issue, you reference ‘Civilian Aircraft Accord‘, however that resolution may be repealed by the time that this proposal goes to vote. Although you still may be able to reference repealed resolutions in a proposal though, I’m not sure…
Click to expand...
You can, that is legal under the GA rules. The arguments made in the repeal regarding CAA apply regardless of whether that resolution is still standing.

For. This makes a strong argument for repeal.
 
Last edited:
Against

I've outlined my reasoning against the other repeal in its thread; the replacement is utterly inadequate and its passing should be avoided.
 
Magecastle:
There are several weeks before the repeal even gets to vote, in which time the replacement can be substantially rewritten.

There is one, linked in the OP.
Click to expand...

As mentioned: X-15. Rocket powered thingy, flew above Karman line. Spacecraft or airplane? At a certain point, the definition of the NS multiverse mucks up definitions regarding territorial airspace/waters/space/blackholes/whatever.
 
Simone:
As mentioned: X-15. Rocket powered thingy, flew above Karman line. Spacecraft or airplane? At a certain point, the definition of the NS multiverse mucks up definitions regarding territorial airspace/waters/space/blackholes/whatever.
Click to expand...
Okay? How do you know that Tinhampton won't amend their draft to address this before it is submitted, especially if you bring it up on the NS thread? Edit: I see you already have.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top