[GA, not in queue] Airspace Sovereignty Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.

Simone

Ursine thingy
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
Discord
simonenstnp
ga.jpg

Airspace sovereignty doctrine
Category: Regulation | Industry Affected: Transportation
Proposed by: Simone Republic | Onsite Topic


The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging the repeals of GARs 342 and 464 concerning aircraft and airspace;

Noting the WA's long interest in outer space (via GARs 349, 451, 460, and 615) and travels therein;

Desiring a common approach to defining what constitutes "airspace" and "outer space" in order to facilitate trade and travel between WA states;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

  1. Definitions.
    • "Flying object" means anything defined by the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) or the International Transport Safety Committee as able to travel in "airspace" (defined below) and relying on its own power, such as aircraft, spacecraft, seaplanes, drones, helicopters, and other similar objects, but excluding:
      • anything not relying on its own power, such as kites; or
      • any sapient species that can fly.
    • "WA organs" means the WA itself and all of its committees.
  2. Sovereignty.
    • Each WA state is deemed to have sovereignty over its own airspace.
    • "Airspace" is hereby defined as the atmosphere vertically over any land mass or any waters for which the said WA state claims sovereignty, up to the boundary where the exobase ends and barometric conditions no longer apply, and where outer space thereafter begins.
    • For WA states in celestial bodies with differing physical features (such as the lack of an atmosphere), the said WA state may assert sovereignty in such proximate space as those strictly necessary for its domestic affairs, subject to recognition as such by IASA. For convenience, such proximate space shall also be referred to herein as a WA state's "airspace".
    • "Outer space" is hereby defined as any space (excluding airspace) between celestial bodies.
    • Outer space is international in nature, and no WA state may assert sovereignty over outer space, or assist anyone else in asserting sovereignty over outer space.
    • In case of airspace vertically over terra nullis, or over international waters where no WA state has asserted sovereignty, such airspace is declared international airspace and no WA state may assert sovereignty over such airspace.
  3. Jurisdiction.
    • A flying object registered to the competent authorities of a WA state is deemed to be under that WA state's jurisdiction, and that WA is deemed the "flag state" of that flying object.
    • A flying object operated by, for, or on behalf of a WA organ is subject to the jurisdiction of that organ, regardless of the flag state of that flying object.
  4. Non-interference.
    • A WA state may not impede the normal operations of any flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA organ, except strictly for the purpose of:
      • capacity management if it is traveling within the WA state's airspace; and/or
      • quarantines, except if the said flying object's operation within that airspace only involves traveling through it without landing or disembarking.
    • A WA state may not disrupt the normal operations of flying objects traveling under the flag of another WA state, or that of flying objects in the airspace of another WA state, or attack such flying objects, unless a declared state of war exists between the relevant states.
  5. Clarifications.
    • The WA reserves the absolute right to regulate the use and jurisdiction of national airspace as well as the operation of all flying objects under the jurisdiction of a WA state (or WA organs) for the safety, security and collective benefits of all WA member states.
    • The IASA is responsible for interpretation of this resolution and to adjudicate any disputes between WA states.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in 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
1000
 
Last edited:
For as author

This is my alternative for the failed resolution Aerospace Sovereignty Act following the repeal of GARs 362 and 464.

There are some key differences:

1. I have taken the liberty to define "airspace" as up to the end of the "exobase" where barometric conditions do not apply (ie there is no air pressure). If your planet does not have an atmosphere, it is defined as "proximate space" to your planet.

2. Each WA state is deemed to have sovereignty over its own airspace.

3. The new resolution permits coordination (over things like air traffic) at the WA level. Previously it was entirely at the national level. This should make it easier for awkward cases such as defending against incoming nuclear attacks and space shuttles gone wrong.
 
Last edited:
I am reluctantly against this, and it is reluctant because I didn’t raise concerns during drafting due to the inexorable pull of real life. I have several concerns with it, the most notable being that the airspace of non-members above the sea is declared as international airspace with no regard for said non-members. Other issues include the restrictive definition of aircraft, which excludes certain gliding aircraft, and the way that airspace is defined by the space over which a member-nation claims sovereignty, rather than the space over which it exercises sovereignty. This causes problems where territorial disputes are concerned.
 
I am reluctantly against this, and it is reluctant because I didn’t raise concerns during drafting due to the inexorable pull of real life. I have several concerns with it, the most notable being that the airspace of non-members above the sea is declared as international airspace with no regard for said non-members. Other issues include the restrictive definition of aircraft, which excludes certain gliding aircraft, and the way that airspace is defined by the space over which a member-nation claims sovereignty, rather than the space over which it exercises sovereignty. This causes problems where territorial disputes are concerned.
Can you double check this - as per Discord - I split the sovereignty and jurisdiction into two different issues
 
2(f): where no WA state has asserted sovereignty when I should have said "where no state has asserted"?

Edit: I have pulled the draft due to the typo above.

Thread locked
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top