NationStates Jolt Archive

The tall gaunt man walked up to the presidium and begun to talk.

"Brothers and Sisters!" He looked out over the people assembled. "I am here in front of you today to discuss a crime against sovereignity. The wonderful region of The Reich has twice now had their space invaded and violated by other nations. First Syskeyia flew in with stealth bombers, then Ma-Tek tried to spread their spaceweapons above our heads and then Ravenspire flew in with an unknown vessel without permission. What has come to this world? WE don't want war, but we sure cannot allow anyone to just fly over our nation without permission and drop who knows what on our peoples head. I want this assembly to show that it is a strong assembly with the power to show these nations that the international community wont stand for this. It has to become an end of SATO nations just ignoring international laws. Thsi isn't the first time they have shown that they want the right to do as they please. I want a UN-condemnation of these nations for their warmongering!"

OOC:


Ma-Tek

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2105896&highlight=#2105896

Ravenspire:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2422163&highlight=#2422163

SATO:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98313&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

bump

If you want UN condemnation, may I suggest adding a poll to your topic?

This has been an OOC post.

It is rather presumtuous to declare any nation a "warmongerer" considering that from their perspective the war was justified. This is a rather controversial topic.

It is rather presumtuous to declare any nation a "warmongerer" considering that from their perspective the war was justified. This is a rather controversial topic.

Ofcourse not. All wars are justified from both perspective, but that is not what we are talking about here. This is surely a controversial topic. It asks the UN if they have any say about international laws and if they are an organ worth listening to. I want to know what other nations thinks, should another nation be able to just go into your sovereign space because they're SATO? because they are big and mighty? Has UN been transformed into lapdogs or could we at least get a condemnation against such obvious and blatant breeches against international law?

should another nation be able to just go into your sovereign space because they're SATO? because they are big and mighty?

Are you intending on stopping them? If they are big and mighty, so is there army. And if you are small and weak, your army is not going to be able to withstand against them. I understand your argument, but you'll find that the bigger you are the more control you'll have over affairs off even other nations.

Then again: The bigger you are, the harder you fall.

should another nation be able to just go into your sovereign space because they're SATO? because they are big and mighty?

Are you intending on stopping them? If they are big and mighty, so is there army. And if you are small and weak, your army is not going to be able to withstand against them. I understand your argument, but you'll find that the bigger you are the more control you'll have over affairs off even other nations.

Then again: The bigger you are, the harder you fall.

The man looked at the Kiroshi delegate. "Let me put it this way. We could crush them if we wanted, but I thought that the UN were a place where we tried to solve conflicts without violence at least at first. My question stands. Has there been a violation of International law?"

We do not have any issues about people flying over our airspace. They can come, go, fly over however they wish.

Passing a proposal like this would severely hinder foreign aid and assisting other allies. I do not have any issues if a cargo plane gets into the airspace of my nation, I do if it is a bomber plane.

Its an issue of which vehicle is flying above. If it is a airliner or cargo plane, we call it commerce and travel. If it is a jet fighter or bomber, that is not just violating airspace, that is invasion.

We will not support this if it is or becomes a proposal. It needs to be more specific on the type of vehicle We will vote against it if it reaches the floor.

Confederacy of the Isles United Nations Delegate
Hung Tony

Yes these nations should be condemned for these actions.

Although I do regret not seeing this sooner. As Airmarshall of the Reich I believe it should have been my duty.

States are not sovereign in and of themselves; they only have what sovereignty their citizens give them.

Nobody owns the air, QED there is no such thing as sovereign airspace.

Clearly we could stop them and bring the world to war.....a great world war that would kill billions...
but we are not the war mongers! we love life and wouldnt dare do anything to destroy it....
The international community MUST act against these violations of common law....BEFORE something terrible happens!

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/images/un-logo.gifhttp://www.oosa.unvienna.org/images/OOSA_Logo2nsl.jpg
SECURITY
Sec. 304. (a) The Administrator shall establish such security requirements, restrictions, and safeguards as he deems necessary in the interest of the national security. The Administrator may arrange with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management for the conduct of such security or other personnel investigations of the Administration's officers, employees, and consultants, and its contractors and subcontractors and their officers and employees, actual or prospective, as he deems appropriate; and if any such investigation develops any data reflecting that the individual who is the subject thereof is of questionable loyALTy the matter shall be referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the conduct of a full field investigation, the results of which shall be furnished to the Administrator.
(b) EDITED

"§ 799. Violation of regulations of National Aeronautics and Space Administration
"Whoever willfully shall violate, attempt to violate, or conspire to violate any regulation or order promulgated by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the protection or security of any laboratory, station, base or other facility, or part thereof, or any aircraft, missile, spacecraft, or similar vehicle, or part thereof, or other property or equipment in the custody of the Administration, or any real or personal property or equipment in the custody of any contractor under any contract with the Administration or any subcontactor of any such contractor, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
(2) adding at the end of the sectional analysis thereof the following new item:
"799. Violation of regulations of National Aeronautics and Space Administration."
(d) Section 1114 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended by inserting immediately before "while engaged in the performance of his official duties" the following: "or any officer or employee of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration directed to guard and protect property of the United States under the administration and control of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,".
(e) The Administrator may direct such of the officers and employees of the Administration as he deems necessary in the public interest to carry firearms while in the conduct of their official duties. The Administrator may also authorize such of those employees of the contractors and subcontactors of the Administration engaged in the protection of property owned by the United States and located at facilities owned by or contracted to the United States as he deems necessary in the public interest, to carry firearms while in the conduct of their official duties.
(f) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Administrator and approved by the Attorney General of the United States, those employees of the Administration and of its contractors and subcontractors authorized to carry firearms under subsection (e) may arrest without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony. Persons granted authority to make arrests by this subsection may exercise that authority only while guarding and protecting property owned or leased by, or under the control of, the United States under the administration and control of the Administration or one of its contractors or subcontractors, at facilities owned by or contracted to the Administration.

bump

The fairly impartial and impartially fair nation of Berkylvania suggests that no international law has been violated, to our knowledge, in this situation. While your airspace may be busier than a drunken cheerleader on prom night, there is no violation in this alone. Should their presence interfere with your own commercial flight patterns, then this might constitute some sort of issue. However, unless these supposed airborne interlopers actually take some sort of hostile action while over your airspace, they are within their rights to pursue the shortest, most economical or most needed route to their destination.

The fairly impartial and impartially fair nation of Berkylvania suggests that no international law has been violated, to our knowledge, in this situation. While your airspace may be busier than a drunken cheerleader on prom night, there is no violation in this alone. Should their presence interfere with your own commercial flight patterns, then this might constitute some sort of issue. However, unless these supposed airborne interlopers actually take some sort of hostile action while over your airspace, they are within their rights to pursue the shortest, most economical or most needed route to their destination.

So you would agree to planes or shuttles to fly over your nation, not knowing what they were carrying? On ortillery range or beneath? Fascinating... I believe not many nation share your confidence in the other nations good will, and I know quite a few nation that would use such a gullible approach to wreck damage and annexation. I would recomennd you to reconsider such an approach if that is what you allow.

Nope, this proposal is null, it calls sanctions against individual nations states and against other unspecified ones at later dates on the recognition of certain "hostile" actions, which is contrary to the mandate of this U.N. and impossible due to game mechanics,

If you must persue this, do so in the general discussion area please.

A Rep of Komokom, forever impartial, unless your ignorant or offensive, then we'll spit on you and tell you why you ARE wrong. :D

mostly yes, but depends on what it's being violated with and with
what intent.
i don't think high altitude reconisance is objectionable
nor are unmaned drones not equiped with any sort of military ordinance,
especialy if they drop little packages of m&m's with tiney parachutes, or other useful items like scientific pocket calculators and sonic screwdrivers.
i think everyone has a basic right not to be annoyed by anyone else and
this right does extend to nations.

any nation engauged in unprovoked military action however, by engauging thus, forfiets any such right for the duration of doing so

no nation, has a moral right to overfly militarily another nation's airspace however.

specific deffinicians of where soverign airspace ends and international airspace begins are needed however. horizontal that would be the same as soverign/international waters and land boundries.
virticly 60,000ft sounds like a nice round number.

anyone who breaks anything by dropping something from the air
must of course be held accountable and liable for the dammage in an
impartial and unbiased international court of law

=^^=
.../\...