Post by Asairia on May 3, 2019 17:21:39 GMT
WORLD ASSEMBLY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
PROTECTION OF AIRSPACE
DELEGATE IS VOTING: AGAINST ☒
FINAL RESULTS:
9,737 (59.1%) FOR
6,749 (40.9%) AGAINST
Overview
Protection of Airspace is a resolution that define airspace and creates guidelines for the travel thereof.
About the Proposal
The author, East Meranoprius of the Union of Allied States, has proposed the following:
The World Assembly,
Recognising every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory and convinced airspace is an integral part of this territory;
Aware of the importance of international air transport for trade and desiring to protect the neutrality and security of international airspace;
Noting the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace;
Fearing that
Hereby,
1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
A. An "aircraft" as an object capable of flight, controlled entirely by sapient beings;
B. "Airspace" as the portion of the atmosphere above the land or water surface and below the height where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible;
C. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation;
D. "International airspace" as airspace not above any nation's land or water territory;
2. Mandates that:
A. Member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace with regards to the movement of aircraft, except in the case of any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections;
B. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace;
3. Prohibits any member nation from exercising territorial control over international airspace, unless required by an existing World Assembly resolution.
Recognising every nation's right to protect the sovereignty of its territory and convinced airspace is an integral part of this territory;
Aware of the importance of international air transport for trade and desiring to protect the neutrality and security of international airspace;
Noting the lack of legislation regarding sovereignty of airspace;
Fearing that
- A lack of clearly defined sovereign air space can create dangerous diplomatic situations and cause preventable war;
- A lack of clearly defined international airspace will destabilise commerce and security by allowing nations to exert undue influence in neutral territory;
- A lack of clearly defined boundaries between space and atmosphere will create dangerous tensions between space powers;
Hereby,
1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
A. An "aircraft" as an object capable of flight, controlled entirely by sapient beings;
B. "Airspace" as the portion of the atmosphere above the land or water surface and below the height where airfoil-based powered flight becomes impossible;
C. "Territorial airspace" of a nation as airspace above the recognised land and water territories of a member nation;
D. "International airspace" as airspace not above any nation's land or water territory;
2. Mandates that:
A. Member nations shall have sole sovereignty over their territorial airspace with regards to the movement of aircraft, except in the case of any World Assembly regulations regarding civilian aircraft protections;
B. All aircraft registered under International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) regulations shall have the right to fly in international airspace;
3. Prohibits any member nation from exercising territorial control over international airspace, unless required by an existing World Assembly resolution.
My Decision
The greatest concern over this proposal surrounds the latter part of the definition of 'aircraft', which is defined as, "An object capable of flight, controlled entirely by sapient beings." Quite a few people perceive this language as a ban on autopilot use, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) use, and guided cruise missile use, and I must say, I share these concerns.
While it may be plausible to argue that UAV and autopilot use are still accepted due to the fact that there are sapient operators or pilots ready to take control should the need arise, the fact that an argument to that extent is needed at all presents a potentially turbulent, pun intended, future for those industries. Guided munitions, on the other hand, often do not have sapient operators outside of someone pointing the crosshairs at a target and pressing a button, or in more advanced cases, keeping a targeting laser aimed at something until the ordinance hits it. Under the current definition, some of our most accurate and effective weaponry will be banned because they are not entirely controlled by sapient beings. Sure, that may sound like a beneficial unintended affect; after all, who doesn't like disarmament efforts? Trust me on this one, though; unintentionally banning precision weaponry will take us back to the mid-twentieth century when we carpet bombed entire cities and areas in an attempt to dislodge the enemy. A ban to this effect will do far more harm than good.
I'll close by noting there is a minor argument going on over the use of 'sapient' versus 'sentient', but in all honesty, it's a pointless argument that really only holds significance to those who believe the WA should strictly be a modern tech Earth versus those who believe we live in a multiverse teeming with different species and planets.
Nonetheless, due to the unintended ban on precision weaponry because of limited direct control and the unnecessary need to have the courts decide whether or not UAVs and autopilots are also banned under this resolution, I have cast my vote against this proposal and encourage you to do the same.
Current Delegate support at time of publication.