NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings.

We of Roathin, recognising the difficulty of maintaining the peaceful use of space and the inhibitory effect of this difficulty on physical transactions across that vast domain, submit the following second edition draft proposal for critique before the merciless, kindly or otherwise perceptive examination of our peers, the august assembly of the NSUN.

The proposal below contains three main sections of action:
1) Determining the limits of sovereignty in space
2) Determining the extent of 'free space'
3) Encouraging the development of capability for making such determinations.

Changes have been made primarily to section 1 in order to better define the extent of claim, especially in 1.3 and 1.6.
======

Draft Proposal: The NSUN 'Law of Space' Resolution
Proposer: Roathin
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant


A resolution to promote free trade through enhancing its prerequisite freedom of peaceable physical travel.


RECOGNISING the difficulty of maintaining the peaceful use of space and the inhibitory effect of this difficulty on physical transactions across that vast domain;

CONCERNED THAT the free passage of peaceful craft might be forcibly terminated, or that the passage of peaceful sentient beings might be ended through the automatic exercise of sovereign territorial claims, application of deadly force or other means contrary to the principles of the NSUN;


We propose that


1. A limit to claims of sovereignty be established as follows:

1.1 Claims of sovereignty within three-dimensional space (hereafter referred to as '3DS') are to be endorsed by the NSUN within a specific region defined by relationship to the centre of mass of a body in space.

1.2 Each claim of territorial sovereignty of space made by an entity recognised by the NSUN must be linked explicitly to a specific body to which they have legal title, with the physical extent of that body in 3DS to be verified to the satisfaction of the NSUN.

1.3 The extent of such a claim within 3DS must be confined to a maximum radius of 1/6 of a light-second from the centre of mass of that body,

1.3.1 With the special case that should a body exceed 1/6 of a light-second in radius, the maximum extent of claim should be 1.05 times the radius of such a body;

1.3.2 With the further clarification that an aggregate body such as, but not limited to, a galaxy or binary system, in which every individual territorial claim belongs to the same claimant, be considered as a single body for this purpose, subject to 1.2 above.

1.4 The existence of one or more such claims in no way infringes on the right of a claimant to have further claims subject to their legal title to a body for which such a claim be made.

1.5 The fact that the maximum extent of possible claim based on one body might overlap with another such claim be resolved as follows:

1.5.1 Since all such extents of claim are spherical, the physical overlap may be bisected by a plane;

1.5.2 The area of this bisecting plane which is in contact with both spheres of claim be the effective maximum extent of claim.

1.6 The fact that the actual absolute physical limits of such a claim might change in position with respect to 3DS be resolved as follows, with the general principle that a more static claim overrides a more dynamic one:

1.6.1 Subject to 1.5 above, the limit of claim is always considered relative to the body on which the claim is based;

1.6.2 In the case of a body which is able to change momentum and/or position under the influence of a controlling sentience claiming sovereignty based on it, the claim based on such a body shall be secondary to the claim of a body incapable at that instant of performing such changes;

1.6.3 In the case of a body which may change its extent significantly within 3DS (examples: an aggregate body, variable star, amoeboid mass), using a claim under 1.3.1 above:

1.6.3.1 A claim based on such a body shall be either relative to the NSUN ratified average physical extent of the body in 3DS, or a dynamic claim based on the actual moment-to-moment extent of the body;

1.6.3.2 The claim based on such a body shall be secondary to that of a body more static in extent.


2. A region of 3DS free to travel between two bodies be established as follows:

2.1 Where a region of 3DS exists such that it does not impinge on the above claims, it remains free to navigation, commerce and other peaceful enterprises and that no act of imposition of sovereignty be committed by an agent of one state against another.

2.2 Where, because of contiguous relationship or overlap, no such region exists between two or more bodies, and passage rights being in dispute, that a corridor of passage be defined between them, as follows:

2.2.1 Within the plane defined between bodies as in 1.5 above, all paths be treated as the regions of 3DS defined in 2.1, subject to an extension of a 100-km radius around each such path, provided that such a path and its extension do not infringe on the radius delimited by 1.05 times the radius of each body in the case under dispute.

2.3 Should a craft be too large to traverse such regions of space defined by the above as free regions, it is barred from such passage without the agreement of all bodies through whose extent of claim the craft requires passage.


3. Each member of the NSUN be encouraged to develop personnel and/or institutions trained in the arts and sciences which are:

3.1 Required to determine accurately the extent of such claims of sovereignty such that they be aware of the maximum extent of their sovereign claims and be prepared to accord free rights of passage as outlined above;

3.2 Required for defending such sovereignty as outlined by this most reasonable resolution;

3.3 Required for communication between member states such that they might elucidate and clarify related situations and make or fulfil reasonable requests pertaining to aid in the areas mentioned in 3.1 and 3.2 above.

Have you done a character count?

Have you done a character count?
Greetings.

We estimate the proposal itself has a length of about 900 words, which is about 4500 characters. We trust that if this exceeds the bounds of common decency, more experienced colleagues will let us know.

Greetings.

We estimate the proposal itself has a length of about 900 words, which is about 4500 characters. We trust that if this exceeds the bounds of common decency, more experienced colleagues will let us know.

You're far far FAR above the maximum limit for proposals.

Greetings.

We apologise and seek your advice on how the draft might be converted into a valid proposal.

You're far far FAR above the maximum limit for proposals.

OOC: Aye. To my knowledge, the character limit for proposals is about 3,000.

Greetings.

Especially to esteemed members Vastiva of the Antarctic and the Texan Hotrodders, inter alia: we seek to clarify the form of our proposal before we submit it as such. We request assistance in this matter, will be grateful for any offered, and are grateful for all that has been given so far.

We are sad to admit that we did not find evidence of a word count, which reflects on the incompetence of the legal officers and advisers within our halls of legislation.

We wonder if it is not better to cast the proposal in more general form and then attach an appendix stating how the implementation of the proposal should succeed. After all, in many legislative spheres, this is permitted. We do not find precedent for proposals exceeding the word count (for obvious reason).

Can't append (that would be "ammending" which is bad). The limit is something around 3,200 characters - including spaces.

We're also wondering how this promotes Free Trade. If anything, it restricts trade by limiting where one can go.

We would also mention, according to what this document does, and what DLE has done, they own most of 'it' anyway.

Can't append (that would be "ammending" which is bad). The limit is something around 3,200 characters - including spaces.

We're also wondering how this promotes Free Trade. If anything, it restricts trade by limiting where one can go.

We would also mention, according to what this document does, and what DLE has done, they own most of 'it' anyway.
Greetings.

We will work out some way of reducing verbosity while maintaining exactitude. We believe that it promotes free trade by establishing zones of free passage within which actions of sovereign imposition of control (such as taxation, search and seizure, regulations governing colour of spacecraft etc) become illegal as such regions will be open regions. The proposal does not restrict movement; rather, it establishes where such movement shall be completely without restriction.

With regard to DLE, saying that one owns something is not the same as having legal title to that thing. It is admittedly a fine point, but it should be noted that should anyone lay claim to the universe successfully, ALL of our resolutions become infringements on the sovereign rights of the claimant.

It should be noted that we don't own that many planets, just that they are widely scattered and often in galaxies that are mostly uninhabited. It's hard for someone else to claim a galaxy if you own the only inhabitable planet there.

Greetings.

We will work out some way of reducing verbosity while maintaining exactitude.

It is the opinion of this office, after careful consideration, that the only way to keep this proposal within the character limit is to either cut out entire sections and/or break the proposal into separate units and submit them separately.

Most proposals are too long because they contain excessive amounts of non-vital information and can easily be shortened by eliminating the less useful portions of the rhetoric. Your proposal, however, contains very litle rhetoric and most of the information is vital and concisely stated, which unfortunately leaves little room for the kind of significant editing for length that would be required.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Greetings.

In keeping with the advice kindly offered by Texan Hotrodders, we offer the following suggestion for the consideration of the worthy members of this forum who have read the draft proposal.

We suggest that the proposal be split into two sections, viz.:

Existing Section 1:
NSUN 'Law of Space' Resolution on Limits of Sovereign Claim

Existing Sections 2 and 3:
NSUN 'Law of Space' Resolution on Zones of Free Passage

We believe that this allows a more open debate as well. Although it might seem that the latter is dependent on the former, in actual fact, it allows establishment of 'free space' zones using existing territorial claims. Of course, Section 3 would be more useful if the former is passed as a resolution first; but it can be rewritten into two different subsections, one for the former and one for the latter.

RECOGNISING the difficulty of maintaining the peaceful use of space and the inhibitory effect of this difficulty on physical transactions across that vast domain;

CONCERNED THAT the free passage of peaceful craft might be forcibly terminated, or that the passage of peaceful sentient beings might be ended through the automatic exercise of sovereign territorial claims, application of deadly force or other means contrary to the principles of the NSUN;


We propose that

Hmm. I don't see a way this can be cut.

1. A limit to claims of sovereignty be established as follows:

1.1 Claims of sovereignty within three-dimensional space (hereafter referred to as '3DS') are to be endorsed by the NSUN within a specific region defined by relationship to the centre of mass of a body in space.

1.2 Each claim of territorial sovereignty of space made by an entity recognised by the NSUN must be linked explicitly to a specific body to which they have legal title, with the physical extent of that body in 3DS to be verified to the satisfaction of the NSUN.

1.3 The extent of such a claim within 3DS must be confined to a maximum radius of 1/6 of a light-second from the centre of mass of that body,

1.3.1 With the special case that should a body exceed 1/6 of a light-second in radius, the maximum extent of claim should be 1.05 times the radius of such a body;

1.3.2 With the further clarification that an aggregate body such as, but not limited to, a galaxy or binary system, in which every individual territorial claim belongs to the same claimant, be considered as a single body for this purpose, subject to 1.2 above.

1.4 The existence of one or more such claims in no way infringes on the right of a claimant to have further claims subject to their legal title to a body for which such a claim be made.

1.5 The fact that the maximum extent of possible claim based on one body might overlap with another such claim be resolved as follows:

1.5.1 Since all such extents of claim are spherical, the physical overlap may be bisected by a plane;

1.5.2 The area of this bisecting plane which is in contact with both spheres of claim be the effective maximum extent of claim.

1.6 The fact that the actual absolute physical limits of such a claim might change in position with respect to 3DS be resolved as follows, with the general principle that a more static claim overrides a more dynamic one:

1.6.1 Subject to 1.5 above, the limit of claim is always considered relative to the body on which the claim is based;

1.6.2 In the case of a body which is able to change momentum and/or position under the influence of a controlling sentience claiming sovereignty based on it, the claim based on such a body shall be secondary to the claim of a body incapable at that instant of performing such changes;

1.6.3 In the case of a body which may change its extent significantly within 3DS (examples: an aggregate body, variable star, amoeboid mass), using a claim under 1.3.1 above:

1.6.3.1 A claim based on such a body shall be either relative to the NSUN ratified average physical extent of the body in 3DS, or a dynamic claim based on the actual moment-to-moment extent of the body;

1.6.3.2 The claim based on such a body shall be secondary to that of a body more static in extent.

Try to combine all of this into one paragraph, then see if you can edit it. Removing the numbers (except the first one) will help considerably.

2. A region of 3DS free to travel between two bodies be established as follows:

2.1 Where a region of 3DS exists such that it does not impinge on the above claims, it remains free to navigation, commerce and other peaceful enterprises and that no act of imposition of sovereignty be committed by an agent of one state against another.

2.2 Where, because of contiguous relationship or overlap, no such region exists between two or more bodies, and passage rights being in dispute, that a corridor of passage be defined between them, as follows:

2.2.1 Within the plane defined between bodies as in 1.5 above, all paths be treated as the regions of 3DS defined in 2.1, subject to an extension of a 100-km radius around each such path, provided that such a path and its extension do not infringe on the radius delimited by 1.05 times the radius of each body in the case under dispute.

2.3 Should a craft be too large to traverse such regions of space defined by the above as free regions, it is barred from such passage without the agreement of all bodies through whose extent of claim the craft requires passage.

Same as #1.

3. Each member of the NSUN be encouraged to develop personnel and/or institutions trained in the arts and sciences which are:

3.1 Required to determine accurately the extent of such claims of sovereignty such that they be aware of the maximum extent of their sovereign claims and be prepared to accord free rights of passage as outlined above;

3.2 Required for defending such sovereignty as outlined by this most reasonable resolution;

3.3 Required for communication between member states such that they might elucidate and clarify related situations and make or fulfil reasonable requests pertaining to aid in the areas mentioned in 3.1 and 3.2 above.

Same as #1.

Greetings.

We of Roathin have taken advice from several colleagues and split this proposal into two separate proposals, copies of which are now presented elsewhere in this forum. Thank you.