NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild

Description: UN Members to open up their territorial skies above 7,620 metres (25,000 feet) to civilian flights from other UN members

ACKNOWLEDGE that civilian aviation is vital to the freedom of movement of people and goods, and hence for trade, the hurdle of the aviation industry should be kept minimal.

UNDERSTANDING the security concern of member states, we call for open skies only at an altitude high enough to keep risks at minimal, while at the same time facilitate the majority of civilian aviation.

HEREBY encourage that UN members shall

1, grant rights of access of territorial skies above 7,620 metres for civilian (passenger or cargo) aircrafts of airlines registered in a UN country
2, provide neccessary supports, such as aviation control, to such aircrafts, at mutually agreed terms between the member states
3, provide assistance in emergency cases, such as emergency landing, while the airline shall bear full cost shall such cases occur

-----

Please note that this proposal does NOT call for opening up of the aviation industry. It only let commercial airplane "pass through" another UN member state.

Looking forward to your input!

Looks more like a 'mild' Proposal to me.

Allied Tion is keen to highlight the fact that we admire any resolution which aims to further free trade and commerce between member states. None the less in the interests of constructive criticism and in the hopes that certain amendments may be made and the value of this bill placed under scrutiny.




1, grant rights of access of territorial skies above 7,620 metres for civilian (passenger or cargo) aircrafts of airlines registered in a UN country

We wish to highlight that this is an absolute right and is dangerous in several ways. Primarily it poseses a security risk in many ways. A civilian plane need not necassarily contain purely civilian cargo and even when it does it can still be used to breach the security of a nation. An example would be the use of civilian air liners on legitimate trips being used to insert small units of covert paratroops. Several units within even the Tion Defence Forces have proved capable of covertly inserting from almost 30,000 feet from passenger aircraft inflight when equiped with the neccassary equipment.

Civilian planes may also very well be used to carry military cargo or may be subverted for use by terrorists or hostile forces, i hijacked plane can pose a great threat and a civilian cargo aircraft loaded with radioactive materials can pose a dire specter indeed to those unfortunate enought to be on the ground.

Such security risks (amplified by the fact the nation who is having their airspace entered has no control over security procedures at the point of origin) can be seen to neccessitate meassures including armed fighter escort, constant radar tracking and a general use of national resources.

The costs of such meassures and providing the infrastructure and aviation assistance to these aircraft is not mandated in this bill as falling upon the owners of the aircraft, nor are any limitations put in place as to the number of aircraft that may pass over a nation. I wish to highlight that in the case of some nations, even if economic resources were made available, there would be serious difficulty in staffing and maitaining a sufficient aviation support network to handle the potentially millions of flights wishing to fly through their airspace.

Allied Tion believes that with the dangers posed by UN mandated free access to airspace that it is inexcusable that the sovereign nations of this body do not have considerably more freedom in reducing, limmiting or posing far more restrictions on that access.

A downgrade of this bill to mild strength and the exchange of "mandate" to "encourage" or else considerable amendment to its provisions may very well be in order.

I bet the change will make the proposal milder, as it was intended. And they were changed accordingly.

It was suggested to have nations involved to discuss the terms themselves, as this can be used as negotiated according to the bilateral relationship. The traffic control, for instance, can make a handsome profit (as opposed to "recouping the cost" as suggested) from the airliners.

With a designated altitude of above 25,000 feet, any aircraft (or "flying objects", such as parachuting troops) running below the altitude can be dealt with (e.g. shot down) just like any trespassers of the national territory.

Perhaps a clause of mandating airliners to conform to the national regulations of the countries they fly through can be added.

The height should be negotiated by nations as some nations are future tech, and would include spacecraft, and other modes of transportation. Please take out airplane as it does not include other modes of transport, helicopters, jet powered blimps, dragons, and other magical crafts.

Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative

What about past tech nations whose aeroplane's can't make such a high altitude. Admittedly, they would have to still be using hot air baloons or really, really early aircraft, but still a possibility...

The height should be negotiated by nations as some nations are future tech, and would include spacecraft, and other modes of transportation. Please take out airplane as it does not include other modes of transport, helicopters, jet powered blimps, dragons, and other magical crafts.

Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative
The proposal uses only the word "aircraft", which should mean all modes of air transport.
All altitudes above 25,000 ft are open, and that shall provide little hurdle for future aviation technology.

What about past tech nations whose aeroplane's can't make such a high altitude. Admittedly, they would have to still be using hot air baloons or really, really early aircraft, but still a possibility...
This proposal never forbids negotiation between nations regarding aircrafts not reaching 25,000 ft. So nothing will change for aircrafts falling into this category. ;)

HEREBY encourage that UN members shall

I would change "encourage" to "require" if you wish that this must be followed, which is what I assume. If it's just a suggestion, and nations don't have to listen, leave it.

But that would render the proposal useless.

Stay out of our damn airspace.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild

Description: UN Members to open up their territorial skies above 7,620 metres (25,000 feet) to civilian flights from other UN members

The United Nations,

BELIEVING that civilian aviation is vital to the freedom of movement of people and goods, and hence for trade, and that UN member states should not act as obstacles to any of these things,

NOTING the security concern of member states,

CALLING for open skies only at an altitude high enough to keep risks to a minimum, while at the same time facilitate the majority of civilian aviation,

ENCOURAGES that UN members shall:

1. Grant rights of access to territorial skies above 7,620 metres for civilian (passenger or cargo) aircraft of airlines registered in a UN member state.
2. Provide necessary support, such as air traffic control, to such aircraft through mutually agreed terms between said member states.
3. Provide assistance in emergency situations, such as emergency landings, while the airline shall bear full cost after the situation.

Just wanted to correct some grammar. Sorry, the Democratic Republic of Terrence River is nit-picky that way.

A decent idea if it were not for the environmental concerns. Open Skies policies lead to more flights and thus more pollution of the atmosphere.

Perhaps if more thought were applied to the wider aspects of the bill and it it were fleshed out so as to include points of interest I would look more favourably upon it.

/s/
Lord Byron of Venerable Libertarians.

Holy crap, it's Byron!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Holy crap, it's Byron!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
:D

Lord byron waved accross the assembly and smiled at Mr Flibble.

The Dominion is slightly uneasy about this proposal. Should it come to vote, we shall either abstain or vote against.

The Dominion

To clarify, the language was fine as it was. The recommendation of Mild was because it deals with a very narrow scope.

Tarquin, hide the whiskey. Byron's back.

We have to say, with all due respect to the good Sheik's concern for the security of Cluichstani airspace, we aren't entirely sure that we see the point of a proposal as mild as this one has become.

We have to say, with all due respect to the good Sheik's concern for the security of Cluichstani airspace, we aren't entirely sure that we see the point of a proposal as mild as this one has become.

Just because a nation is a member of the UN does not mean we automatically have friendly relations with it. We're not about to open up our airspace to those hostile to Cluichstan -- and, well, let's face it, that's a lot of nations -- or those that we do not trust not to use such access for nefarious purposes.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Just because a nation is a member of the UN does not mean we automatically have friendly relations with it. We're not about to open up our airspace to those hostile to Cluichstan -- and, well, let's face it, that's a lot of nations -- or those that we do not trust not to use such access for nefarious purposes.
Quite, Sheik Nadnerb. We accept and to some extent concur with your reasoning, we just aren't sure that what's left of the proposal at this point is really worth saying.

im not from the UN, but if you are interested go to assitance needed on UN thread, BIG REWARD!