[GA - Defeated] Aerospace Sovereignty Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Aerospace Sovereignty Act
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transportation
Proposed by: Tinhampton, Co-authored by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5 | Onsite Topic​

Convinced that national control of aerospace must be balanced with the need to protect, alert and support civilian aircraft, the General Assembly hereby:
  1. defines:
    1. "civilian aircraft" as any civilian vehicle which flies primarily through air, due to support from the same, and
    2. a member state's "aerospace" as that area within the state's territorial borders above which it ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly, as well as any such area which has been delegated to the state by some other state or entity that has the rights to delegate it (but excluding any such area the state which would otherwise possess the aerospace has itself delegated to some other state or entity),
  2. reserves to each member state (subject to Article c and prior and standing WA law) the ability to determine which civilian aircraft the state permits within its aerospace, what those aircrafts may do while inside it, what training is required of their pilots and flight attendants, and what safety equipment is required within them,
  3. clarifies that the World Assembly may, in the future and subject to its prior and standing law, establish standards for communication between civilian aircraft, as well as between civilian aircraft and air traffic control or other ground personnel, and
  4. requires that each member:
    1. inform the crew of incoming civilian aircraft about significant dangers (including climatic and artificial) that it may face within its aerospace, including any dangers discovered or arising while the aircraft is in flight,
    2. offer as much support as it can to those civilian aircrafts within its aerospace which have encountered significant dangers to its passengers or cargo, or otherwise dangers so severe that they cannot continue to fly as planned, and subsequently express a sincere desire for relevant assistance, and
    3. actively and continually monitor its aerospace for those dangers enumerated in this Article.
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
101100
 
Last edited:
Overview
This resolution seeks to replace various resolutions dealing with the subjects of civilian aircraft and aerospace. It begins by defining both civilian aircraft and aerospace, before establishing a blocker to protect member nation sovereignty over aerospace; specifically "which civilian aircraft the state permits within its aerospace, what those aircrafts may do while inside it, what training is required of their pilots and flight attendants, and what safety equipment is required within them". The resolution then establishes exceptions to this blocker, specifically for regulations addressing communication between civilian aircraft as well as "civilian aircraft and air traffic control or other ground personnel". Finally, the resolution requires member nations to take various measures to protect civilian aircraft in its aerospace, such as to provide information regarding dangers to civilian aircraft and to offer support to civilian aircraft encountering particular dangers.

Recommendation
There are significant concerns over the drafting of the resolution, especially definition a(ii) over what constitutes an "aerospace", which went through several changes over the drafting process and created significant worries over whether the definitions are too ambiguous and rendering the rest of the resolution ineffective. For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the at-vote GA resolution, "Aerospace Sovereignty Act".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For, as co-author. I think this has come a long way from the original draft and does an excellent job in enacting protections for member nation sovereignty over airspace while also duly protecting civilian aircraft.
 
Last edited:
The "flaming tin can airlines" complaint I made wasn't addressed in the final version, although I can write a separate resolution on that.
 
Last edited:
Against.

Doesn't this resolution defeat it's own purpose within the definitions?

It defines "Aerospace" as
  1. a member state's "aerospace" as that area within the state's territorial borders above which it ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly, as well as any such area which has been delegated to the state by some other state or entity that has the rights to delegate it (but excluding any such area the state which would otherwise possess the aerospace has itself delegated to some other state or entity), (emphasis added)
Click to expand...

It then goes on to list a number of requirements that Member Nations must follow for civilian aircraft within its aerospace. But the very definition of aerospace means that there can never actually be civilian aircraft within it, since it is the area above which is ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly (meaning that the civilian aircraft can't actually get to the altitudes needed to be in a member state's aerospace).

Due to the way Aerospace is defined this doesn't seem to actually impose any rules on anyone, aside from provision 3 which indicates that the WA can establish rules for communication between aircraft and ground control, and that provision alone doesn't seem enough to make this worth passing.
 
Gymna:
Against.

Doesn't this resolution defeat it's own purpose within the definitions?

It defines "Aerospace" as


It then goes on to list a number of requirements that Member Nations must follow for civilian aircraft within its aerospace. But the very definition of aerospace means that there can never actually be civilian aircraft within it, since it is the area above which is ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly (meaning that the civilian aircraft can't actually get to the altitudes needed to be in a member state's aerospace).

Due to the way Aerospace is defined this doesn't seem to actually impose any rules on anyone, aside from provision 3 which indicates that the WA can establish rules for communication between aircraft and ground control, and that provision alone doesn't seem enough to make this worth passing.
Click to expand...
The definition is in fact meant to say the reverse -- aircraft cannot fly above the aerospace. Outer space, for example, is rarely part of aerospace.
 
OK, line by line because I promised Mage this over DM: (colored highlights are mine) and because I am on my way to another rather nice lunch...

Clause 1a

"The GA defines... "civilian aircraft" as any civilian vehicle which flies primarily through air, due to support from the same"
Click to expand...

OK, fine

"The GA defines... "a member state's "aerospace" as that area within the state's territorial borders above which it ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly"
Click to expand...

So by definition, aerospace is "any idea for which a civiilian aircraft cannot fly through"

"The GA defines... (for convenience I broke this up into two paragraphs) as well as any such area which has been delegated to the state by some other state or entity that has the rights to delegate it (but excluding any such area the state which would otherwise possess the aerospace has itself delegated to some other state or entity)"
Click to expand...

This is probably actually troublesome. From whom is the power delegated? Can space consisting of air be defined as an area? If a WA state borders a non-WA state, what if the other state asserts jurisdiction?

reserves to each member state (subject to Article c and prior and standing WA law) the ability to determine which civilian aircraft the state permits within its aerospace...
Click to expand...

By definition no civilian aircraft can fly in "aerospace" because the way the two terms are defined, so that's fine - they just determine that nothing can happen because no "civilian aircraft" can fly in "aerospace"

clarifies that the World Assembly may, in the future and subject to its prior and standing law, establish standards for communication between civilian aircraft, as well as between civilian aircraft and air traffic control or other ground personnel, and
Click to expand...

Since no civilian aircraft can fly through "aerospace" (as defined), where exactly can it fly? (Also there's an issue with operative clause since due to the use of the word "may")

Next clause

"requires that each member... inform the crew of incoming civilian aircraft about significant dangers (including climatic and artificial) that it may face within its aerospace, including any dangers discovered or arising while the aircraft is in flight"
Click to expand...

This again has no effect civilian aircraft cannot be in aerospace by definition

"requires that each member... offer as much support as it can to those civilian aircrafts within its aerospace
Click to expand...

This again has no effect civilian aircraft cannot be in aerospace by definition

actively and continually monitor its aerospace for those dangers enumerated in this Article.
Click to expand...

Again there are no dangers since civilian aircraft by definition cannot fly through aerospace.

Against.
 
Last edited:
First off, I (and, I imagine Tinhampton as well) would have far preferred that this have been brought up during drafting as opposed to never being mentioned until submission. Then the criticisms actually could have been addressed, even I still genuinely don't believe that there isn't any issue here.

Simone:
So by definition, aerospace is "any idea for which a civiilian aircraft cannot fly through"
Click to expand...
This just isn't true, as above. Aircraft cannot fly above airspace; they can, however, fly within airspace. I'm not sure how there's any ambiguity here at all. We discussed this extensively by DM, and yet you have not provided even a singular explanation of how the definition means that aircraft cannot fly within, as opposed to above airspace.
Simone:
This is probably actually troublesome. From whom is the power delegated? Can space consisting of air be defined as an area?
Click to expand...
"Such area" clearly refers to aerospace, as per the language used prior in the definiton.
Simone:
If a WA state borders a non-WA state, what if the other state asserts jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
Nothing, unless the WA state (or another entity WA/other international law grants such authority to) has delegated the airspace to the non-WA state.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
First off, I (and, I imagine Tinhampton as well) would have far preferred that this have been brought up during drafting as opposed to never being mentioned until submission. Then the criticisms actually could have been addressed, even I still genuinely don't believe that there isn't any issue here.
Click to expand...

First off, I actually commented on this exact definition on Draft 1 and Draft 2 but I did not realize the final is different. The rest of my reply is on WALL as I prefer to keep arguments not in public. Against by the way.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
The definition is in fact meant to say the reverse -- aircraft cannot fly above the aerospace. Outer space, for example, is rarely part of aerospace.
Click to expand...
It may be meant to say the reverse, but what it actually says is that aerospace is the area where civilian aircraft cannot fly. I did not know about any area where drafts go as I'm still new so sorry if this comment comes at a bad time in the process, but the plain language of the proposal unfortunately makes it moot.

I 100% agree with you that outerspace is not part of aerospace, and would support a proposal with a definition that meant the area above the ground up to the area that civilian aircraft no longer can operate, but that's just not what this says.

Edit: If you can point me to where the drafts of these proposals are posted, I'd love to check that out too so I can help contribute at earlier stages.
 
Last edited:
Gymna:
It may be meant to say the reverse, but what it actually says is that aerospace is the area where civilian aircraft cannot fly.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't see how it can even colourably be interpreted this way. "Which" is effectively a substitute for saying "the area/aerospace" (since using that here would be ungrammatical without introducing longer wording prior to that part). Accordingly, the part would read as "above [the aerospace] aircraft cannot fly".
Gymna:
I did not know about any area where drafts go as I'm still new so sorry if this comment comes at a bad time in the process, but the plain language of the proposal unfortunately makes it moot.

I 100% agree with you that outerspace is not part of aerospace, and would support a proposal with a definition that meant the area above the ground up to the area that civilian aircraft no longer can operate, but that's just not what this says.

Edit: If you can point me to where the drafts of these proposals are posted, I'd love to check that out too so I can help contribute at earlier stages.
Click to expand...
GA drafts are generally posted here.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I don't see how it can even colourably be interpreted this way. "Which" is effectively a substitute for saying "the area/aerospace" (since using that here would be ungrammatical without introducing longer wording prior to that part). Accordingly, the part would read as "above [the aerospace] aircraft cannot fly".
Click to expand...

I would read it differently I guess. The plain language says "a member state's "aerospace" as that area within the state's territorial borders above which it ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly..." To me, you can remove the portion that says "within the state's territorial borders" or move it to the end to more clearly see how the definition as written applies to the area where airplanes can't fly. "[A] member state's "aerospace" [is] that area above which it ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly within the state's territorial borders..." says the same thing as the plain language and shows that the aerospace is defined as an area where planes can't fly.

I feel that even using your example I quoted above, it still shows the definition to mean that it's the area where planes can't fly. Even if "which" is supposed to be a substitute for area/aerospace (which I agree wouldn't make grammatical sense as currently written), it's still talking about an area above an area, and the "ceases the be technically possible..." language applies to the lower level of the two areas. "[A] member state's "aerospace" as that area within the state's territorial borders above [the area/aerospace where] it ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly..." is how it appears to read, using your substitution example.

At least that's how I interpret the plain language of the proposal. I'll leave it at that for now, as I think we've both made our interpretations clear and I'm happy to respectfully agree to disagree and let others vote based on their own interpretations.

GA drafts are generally posted here.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for sharing this and thanks for all the hard work you and others do on these proposals. I hope you don't take my comments to be pointlessly argumentative or as I'm thinking less of any of the hard work all the people who make these proposals do. Just want to be involved and share my opinions, even if they are disagreed with. Thanks for the spirited discussion and all the work!
 
Against, I just don't see what the purpose of having a NatSov blocker over this area is. Also...
as well as any such area which has been delegated to the state by some other state or entity that has the rights to delegate it (but excluding any such area the state which would otherwise possess the aerospace has itself delegated to some other state or entity),
Click to expand...
I can't make heads or tails of this meaning...
 
Against because of my concerns about the definition as in 1b, namely:

a member state's "aerospace" as that area within the state's territorial borders above which it ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly,
Click to expand...

Without a limit, this can very well include satellites and any "vehicle" in space, because orbit can be considered as "flying in a fixed path". And since it is not possible (as much) to control orbit, this can cause problems.
 
Fregerson:
Against because of my concerns about the definition as in 1b, namely:



Without a limit, this can very well include satellites and any "vehicle" in space, because orbit can be considered as "flying in a fixed path". And since it is not possible (as much) to control orbit, this can cause problems.
Click to expand...
How does spacecraft fly "primarily through air, due to support from the same"? Even if outer space was considered air, it doesn't seem that spacecraft's ability to fly is the result of support from outer space.
 
Last edited:
Gymna:
But the very definition of aerospace means that there can never actually be civilian aircraft within it, since it is the area above which is ceases to be technically possible for any civilian aircraft to fly (meaning that the civilian aircraft can't actually get to the altitudes needed to be in a member state's aerospace).
Click to expand...

The clause says "above which", not "where". I can understand some confusion if you take "area" to mean only a flat surface, but in context, that is obvious nonsense. This is ridiculous, and the fact that many further arguments, as well as apparently the entire IFV, hinge on this unhinged reading is shameful.

Simone:
The "flaming tin can airlines" complaint I made wasn't addressed in the final version, although I can write a separate resolution on that.
Click to expand...

I still have no idea what you meant by this. From the gameside thread:

I think clause (b) should require that all member states disclose their safety requirements for their aircraft and compliance thereof by individual airlines, even though you reserve the specific regulatory powers to the WA states.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense, since the nation obviously can't enforce its restrictions without having published them in some format (even as just a list of banned operators). Furthermore, there's no requirement within the resolution that this hypothetical list be based entirely on safety restrictions: it is a "sovereignty" act, after all.

Criticisms of this section of clause 1.2:

as well as any such area which has been delegated to the state by some other state or entity that has the rights to delegate it (but excluding any such area the state which would otherwise possess the aerospace has itself delegated to some other state or entity)
Click to expand...

fall into three categories: those (bizarrely) discounting it by using the obviously-incorrect comprehension of "aerospace" and "area"; those struggling to understand its admittedly-convoluted wording (eg. Simone: it explicitly says it's delegated "by" someone); and those who don't understand what it means. To the last of these, who nonetheless felt entitled to express distaste for it, I am most disappointed; it was explained fully in the gameside thread, and can also be understood with any amount of research. I'll admit I'm personally attached to this, since I raised it as necessary given the (in my opinion) overbearing nature of the wider resolution. However, I do not believe this discounts frustration at the lack of interest and basic care: if you don't understand it and can't be bothered to, leave it alone!

Comfed:
I just don't see what the purpose of having a NatSov blocker over this area is.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this; thanks for keeping me sane in this thread. :D

Fregerson:
Without a limit, this can very well include satellites and any "vehicle" in space, because orbit can be considered as "flying in a fixed path". And since it is not possible (as much) to control orbit, this can cause problems.
Click to expand...

This is the opposite mistake to the first: there is a limit, and it's based on the first definition, which certainly does not include vehicles in orbit. I'm not sure where the quote "flying in a fixed path" has come from.

This is pitiful; I implore everyone involved read the gameside thread (or "read" in general), and in general avoid extended preposterous ramblings based on nonsensical interpretations. An IFV "For" would have been preferable to the one we've ended up with, and it has done nothing to dampen my growing dislike for this government.
 
nvxl:
This is pitiful; I implore everyone involved read the gameside thread (or "read" in general), and in general avoid extended preposterous ramblings based on nonsensical interpretations. An IFV "For" would have been preferable to the one we've ended up with, and it has done nothing to dampen my growing dislike for this government.
Click to expand...
I am not even sure why "nonsensical interpretations" have anything to do with reading the gameside thread - a good proposal would be able to let people understand what the resolution is trying to do purely from reading the resolution. Nobody in the sane mind will go through every single tiny bit of the debate surrounding the proposal to decide that a particular interpretation is what is being considered.

Also I am pretty sure when I wrote my comments that was the wording in the OP; even without that definition I am still unconvinced by the proposal per se and will not change my vote regardless
 
Fregerson:
I am not even sure why "nonsensical interpretations" have anything to do with reading the gameside thread - a good proposal would be able to let people understand what the resolution is trying to do purely from reading the resolution.
Click to expand...

It doesn't; and, I disagree. My comment, "extended ramblings on nonsensical interpretations", was intended exclusively to refer to the incredibly uncritical and dogmatic house-of-cards built upon the ridiculous interpretation of "airspace"; one which directly contradicted the resolution itself. In regards to the latter half, I believe a proposal incorporating technical aspects should absolutely require some basic level of knowledge on the part of any in-depth and self-regarding critic: legislation does not, and will never, exist in a vacuum.

Fregerson:
Nobody in the sane mind will go through every single tiny bit of the debate surrounding the proposal to decide that a particular interpretation is what is being considered.
Click to expand...

In regards to your mistake alone—and as a mistake, I don't consider it damning, considering a prompt correction was issued and noted—it was one case where there was no need to read anything other than the clause itself to fully resolve it. I obviously don't expect anyone to be able to be completely flawless in unrelenting perpetuity when reading these proposals, but retrospectively claiming that one required wider context to avoid the mistake (as opposed to the reality: reading it, as well as the preceding definition) is a misrepresentation.

Fregerson:
...even without that definition I am still unconvinced by the proposal per se and will not change my vote regardless
Click to expand...

I do not expect anyone to change their vote as a result of my comments; consider them more a post-mortem, so to speak. I targeted your vote because you explicitly stated your sole reasoning as being the supposed issue with the definition, and would not have taken issue should you have stated this new rationale (one which I do not disagree with, given its relative vagueness :P).

If anyone has any more fundamental objections to my comments, I am happy to entertain reasonable discourse to a limited extent, however do not wish particularly to extend any personal gripes with specific issues raised as part of my critique.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top