NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings.

The following is a reduced version of the original Law of Space proposal. It is now under 3200 characters in length.

======

Preamble:

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 draft proposal for critique before the merciless, kindly or otherwise perceptive examination of our peers, the august assembly of the NSUN.

The proposal below resolves to establish a legal framework for determining the limits of sovereignty in space, so as to encourage free trade by limiting the regions of space in which sovereign claims might inhibit that free trade.
======

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


A resolution to promote free trade through limiting the extent to which sovereign claims might inhibit such trade.
=====

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;


The NSUN hereby resolves that


A limit to claims of sovereignty be established as follows:

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.

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.

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,

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;

3.2 With the further clarification that an aggregate body (e.g. a galaxy) in which every individual territorial claim belongs to the same claimant, might be considered as a single body for this purpose, subject to (2) above.

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.

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

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

5.2 The area of this plane which is in contact with both spheres of claim be the effective common boundary for both.

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:

6.1 Subject to (5) above, the limit of claim is always considered relative to the body on which the claim is based;

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 less capable at that instant of performing such changes;

6.3 In the case of a body which may change its extent significantly within 3DS (e.g. a variable star), using a claim under (3.1) above:

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;

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

Greetings.

There being no objections to this draft as printed, we call once more for constructive opinions prior to the imminent act of publishing as an actual proposal. Many thanks.

The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra, UN Ambassador for the region of England, offers the following comments:

1 Claims of sovereignty within three-dimensional space (hereafter referred to as '3DS')
We would prefer the use of the term 'space' without reference to dimension, as many physical theories propose extra 'curled-up' dimensions.

are to be endorsed by the NSUN within a specific region defined by relationship to the centre of mass of a body in space.
The concept of a centre of mass is observer dependent under General Relativity.

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,

This would mean that in many cases the claim would not cover geostationary orbits around the body.

5.1 Since all such extents of claim are spherical, the physical overlap may be bisected by a plane;
This does not cover the case of multiple overlapping claims. Perhaps instead say that each point belongs to the claimant whose spherical boundary extends furthest beyond the point, which is equivalent to the above definition for two claims of equal size.

5.1 Since all such extents of claim are spherical, the physical overlap may be bisected by a plane;
Further to my comments in my earlier post, I would like to observe that this statement is not necessarily true - one claim may be entirely contained within another, and even if it is not, the centre of one body may end up within the other's claim.

Greetings.

In order not to duplicate our reply which continues the discussion herein, please command your automaton or other calculating display to access the following link:

Reply on matters concerning the geometry and dimensionality of claims (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9018000&postcount=6)

We are glad for the input given, as it provides us with the reason to elaborate on the structure and phrasing of the proposed resolution, or even to amend it.

Greetings.

We have just realised something of importance to perhaps more than a few of our august colleagues in this assembly.

Should we successfully pass this proposal as a resolution, we need not worry about having problems with whales, sharks, dolphins, porpoises or any other species for which a 'protection' resolution of the existing type is to be made or has been made.

We urge our colleagues to take a careful look at the substance of this proposal. It will be submitted as such 24 hours (forum time) from now.

As the regional delegate from Northwind, I find this proposal well thought out. Indeed, I look forward to adding my acceptance.

Greetings.

We thank our colleague of Darkumbria and the region of Northwind for their support in advance. We ask a further favour:

We are unused to what has been referred to has 'telespamming' and other apparently distasteful methods of disseminating a proposal such that it is supported sufficiently. We therefore seek advice on communicating the worthiness of our proposal without irritating others, noting that the obvious path is indeed to launch uninvited 'advertisements' in the direction of all and sundry, but being reluctant to do so.

Greetings.

We thank our colleague of Darkumbria and the region of Northwind for their support in advance. We ask a further favour:

We are unused to what has been referred to has 'telespamming' and other apparently distasteful methods of disseminating a proposal such that it is supported sufficiently. We therefore seek advice on communicating the worthiness of our proposal without irritating others, noting that the obvious path is indeed to launch uninvited 'advertisements' in the direction of all and sundry, but being reluctant to do so.

I recommend that you discuss this with the nation of Powerhungry Chipmunks. They are adept at getting proposals to quorum, and may have helpful information for you, such as which delegates you should not telegram and which delegates are active and likely to support your proposal.

I recommend that you discuss this with the nation of Powerhungry Chipmunks. They are adept at getting proposals to quorum, and may have helpful information for you, such as which delegates you should not telegram and which delegates are active and likely to support your proposal.
Greetings.

We are most grateful for this advice, and have accordingly despatched a diplomatic wire towards that most esteemed nation. Due to relativistic effects, the draft proposal has now become an actual proposal. We urge the delegates in our august assembly to vote for it should they be in favour of any or all of the following: Free Trade, National Sovereignty, Technological Development and Well-Written NSUN Proposals.