NationStates Jolt Archive

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Gemuat

Description: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZES that private airlines are particular aircraft that have no strategic or military value, such as a bomber, helicopter or fighter jet, and main goal is just to ferry civilians through the use of a private airline company to get from one destination to another destination.

REINFIRMS the fact that private airlines and their passengers have no strategic value and therefore, when they are in the air these aircraft should not be targetted by U.N member-states armed forces because it could result in sanctions from other U.N member-states because of the act of targetting innocent civilians.

DEFINES "private aircraft" as a passenger aircfraft that carries civilians from the belligerants at war or from another third party nation-state that is not connected to the conflict, and is therefore protected from attack when it is in the air.

RECOMMENDS that U.N member states clearly state the air-space that is effected and has changed hands during conflicts across the globe and pass that information on to the private airliners to ensure that if a certain nation's private passenger airliner enters that airspace, they can be directed out of the space, without a potential deadly incident.

PROHIBITS U.N member-states military equipment, such as missiles, combat-offensive aircraft or warships, from attacking a private aircraft when it is in the air, without at least attempting to communicate with the aircraft to try to direct it out of restricted airspace. However, if the private aircraft seems to appear to become used as a 'weapon' or is located at a tarmac when an attack occurs by U.N. member-state forces, then that kind of attack is acceptable.

PROHIBITS the hijacking or storming of a private aircraft in a third country if one or another belligerant force believes that military or political forces of the other belligerant state is on that private aircraft because that COULD possibly lead to damages to the aircraft and the injuring and death of innocent individuals in the same aircraft.

For starters you might want to fix REINFRIMS to REAFFIRMS in the second clause.

The Blue Eyed Man
Cookesland

In the wake of RL Sept 11, it's fairly obvious that private airliners can be used as weapons pretty darn effectively. It appears that this proposal removes all possibility of nations taking preventive action against such actions. Seems like a really bad idea overall to me.

http://www.bundestag.de/aktuell/archiv/2005/reg_erkl/merkel.jpg
Fr.Angela Merkel: Aaronian Foreign Minister

Ladies and Gentlemen, It would seem we have a bit of a dilema here.

I can appreciate that the interntions of this act are in good value and I approve of them. However the implimentation of this act, is simply not practical for todays society.

Terrorism is on the rise and after certain events that prohibit the use of many aricraft in fear of terrorism, it would be not be wise or advisable to follow this act.

I am afraid, should this bill be put through the UN parliament, I will not be supporting it, on the basis that it prevents the defence of the Federal Republic of Imperial Aaronia and her allies.

At a tarmac? Tarmac is a place now? Interesting, perhaps a refresher course in grammar before you start your political career.

Tarmac is a place now?
Yes, the tarmac is a place. It's the paved area near the terminal where one boards an aeroplane. Americans call it the ramp or the apron.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Yes, the tarmac is a place. It's the paved area near the terminal where one boards an aeroplane. Americans call it the ramp or the apron.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Or the cooler ones of us actually call it tarmac.

http://www.bundestag.de/aktuell/archiv/2005/reg_erkl/merkel.jpg
Fr.Angela Merkel: Aaronian Foreign Minister

Ladies and Gentlemen, It would seem we have a bit of a dilema here.

I can appreciate that the interntions of this act are in good value and I approve of them. However the implimentation of this act, is simply not practical for todays society.

Terrorism is on the rise and after certain events that prohibit the use of many aricraft in fear of terrorism, it would be not be wise or advisable to follow this act.

I am afraid, should this bill be put through the UN parliament, I will not be supporting it, on the basis that it prevents the defence of the Federal Republic of Imperial Aaronia and her allies.

Guten Abend Frau Minister Merkel,

Would the Federal Republic of Imperial Aaronia support this bill if a additional clause can be added in regards to an increase in security to prevent said terrorists from boarding civilian airliners? Meaning no disrespect Frau Minister, if we can pass a bill preventing civilians from becoming collateral damage, perhaps it can serve as a catalyst for better international airport security? With the increase in security, would that not increase the safety and security of the Federal Republic of Imperial Aaronia?

Yours in service,

HMSM Crown Prince of Sucram-Leon

The delegation from the Federation of Ambrose-Douglas would like to add their support to the statement made by our esteemed colleagues from the Federal Republic of Imperial Aaronia in saying that, in its present form, this resolution is not practical for implementation, though the thought behind it is sound.

If permitted by the delegation from the Republic of Gemuat, we would like to propose this counter-resolution, based off of your ideas, yet completely re-written to address concerns. Your delegation would be permitted, of course, to sign on as a co-author, since it was your original idea that brought this revision to bear.

"Civilian Airline Protection Act"
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

Description:

The United Nations, as a civilized body that does not condone unprovoked attacks against civilians, either on the ground or in the air, henceforth;

DECLARES that civilians are defined as non-combatants of belligerent nations, and/or as citizens, military or non-combatant, of neutral, third-party nations outside of the conflict involving the belligerent nations.

RECOGNIZES that private air travel, and private aircraft, are a part of our world community, and that it is a necessary service to the citizens of all U.N member-states, as well as the rest of the world, and that these citizens should be allowed to travel without fear of attack.

FURTHER DECLARES that a private aircraft be defined as an aircraft with no military or strategic value, carrying only non-combatants and/or diplomats, either from belligerent nations or neutral, third-party nations, from one point to another, and carrying no military weapons, material, or intelligence.

REQUIRES that all U.N member-states inform private airline companies of their airspace boundaries, and if said airspace is currently restricted or not. Should such airspace be restricted, then U.N member-states shall provide alternative routes to the private airline companies to avoid any potentially deadly situations.

FURTHER REQUIRES that should a private aircraft enter a U.N member-state's airspace that has been labeled as "restricted" without authorization, said member-state will attempt contact with said private aircraft through any and all means available and when/if contact is made with said aircraft, it will be escorted out of the restricted airspace, given instructions as to an alternative route, and be allowed to continue on this alternative route without threats of bodily or material harm, or bodily or material harm itself, on the aircraft or its passengers.

PROHIBITS any U.N member-state from attacking a private aircraft in the air or on the ground if it is carrying leaders of a diplomatic, symbolic, executive, or administrative nature and if there is an absence of military personnel, equipment, weapons, intelligence, and material.

FURTHER REQUIRES that U.N member-states refrain from attacking civilian and private airports and aircraft on the ground, unless the nation being attacked has placed a military airbase or aircraft within a civilian or private airport, in which case any civilian blood shed is the responsibility of the nation being attacked.

FURTHER PROHIBITS any U.N member-state from using its own military, or funding any other groups, including, but not limited to, terrorists, Para-militants, and other nation’s militaries, for the purpose of attacking or hijacking any private aircraft, either in the air or on the ground.

ALLOWS action against private aircraft deemed as threats to a U.N member-state’s national security, if, and only if, the aircraft is in that member-state’s airspace, has not responded to any attempts to establish communication, the aircraft is off of its intended flight plan, the aircraft will not deviate from this flight plan, the aircraft is headed towards a population center or a target of military, economic, or political importance, and it is reasonable to assume that the aircraft will be used as a weapon against this target, or if there is factual, provable evidence that the private aircraft is transporting military personnel, material, equipment, weapons, or intelligence.

RESOLVES that any U.N member-state found in violation of this resolution will be subject to any or all of the following:
A) Sanctions from the U.N body as a whole.
B) Monetary compensation to the U.N member-state whose property was destroyed.
C) Retaliation against military facilities within the boarders of the U.N member-state in violation of this resolution by any or all other U.N member-states.

If anyone has any questions, concerns, or revisions, please either post them here or send me a telegram, thank you.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the U.N
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

anyway, you cant be at a tarmac you idiots. You missed the point. Tarmac is not a particular point as say the North Pole is. It is a surface!! so you may be on it but not at it.

Amongst the other problems that people have pointed out, I notice that no one has yet observed that there are such things as freight aircraft...

Amongst the other problems that people have pointed out, I notice that no one has yet observed that there are such things as freight aircraft...

Freight aircraft would be inside the first "FURTHER RESOLVES", as an aircraft with no military or strategic value, and carrying no military weapons, material, or intelligence.

Freight aircraft would be inside the first "FURTHER RESOLVES", as an aircraft with no military or strategic value, and carrying no military weapons, material, or intelligence.

Good thing you can't carry military supplies, troops, or other warlike material on such planes. Good thing nobody is capable of fitting such aircraft with cameras, tracking equipment, or other useful intelligence equipment. Good thing that air traffic control has those nifty gadgets that can instantly search entire aircraft and make that determination before the fighters can even arm their missiles.

You people just aren't paranoid enough. Or devious enough. Whichever.

Good thing you can't carry military supplies, troops, or other warlike material on such planes. Good thing nobody is capable of fitting such aircraft with cameras, tracking equipment, or other useful intelligence equipment. Good thing that air traffic control has those nifty gadgets that can instantly search entire aircraft and make that determination before the fighters can even arm their missiles.

You people just aren't paranoid enough. Or devious enough. Whichever.

*Breathes slowly before responding*

Sir, I will put this as delicatly as I can. Sarcasm has no place here. As a moderator I thought that you might understand that. I can see that I was sorely mistaken.

If you actually read through my ENTIRE proposal, you would see that freight aircraft can carry those things, except that if they do, and enter another nation's airspace without authorization, they can be shot down. Under the resolution, if the plane had any intelligence gathering material on it, then it could be shot down. The entire section under ALLOWS outlines the areas when and if a aircraft of usual non-military status could be attacked.

As for your attack on my intelligence/creativity, I believe the phrase is "Get Bent" unless you find that too offensive in which case I sugguest you take a walk.

Benjamin J. Douglas

<snip>
And my point, which apparently evades both you and the original author, is that you can't tell by the markings on the plane what cargo it's carrying. Nor can you board a plane in flight to check its cargo manifest, nor can you count on its flight crew to be truthful when queried. You can't make a transponder that can't be altered by someone with malicious intent. You can't rely on IFF systems to be truthful.

The entire premise of these proposals is that you will somehow know who is a combatant, and who isn't. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to tell the difference. Yours goes a lot further towards resolving that than the original proposal, but it's still a wide-open question.

And my point, which apparently evades both you and the original author, is that you can't tell by the markings on the plane what cargo it's carrying. Nor can you board a plane in flight to check its cargo manifest, nor can you count on its flight crew to be truthful when queried. You can't make a transponder that can't be altered by someone with malicious intent. You can't rely on IFF systems to be truthful.

The entire premise of these proposals is that you will somehow know who is a combatant, and who isn't. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to tell the difference. Yours goes a lot further towards resolving that than the original proposal, but it's still a wide-open question.

First of all, I want to apologize to you for my comments last night. I was tired, and when that happens I get more irritable. That's no excuse, but I hope that you accept my apology.

I am willing to listen to any ideas that you may have on how to close up this loophole. I will be working throughout the day on it, so please, do not hesitate to let me know.

Respectfully,
Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

I am willing to listen to any ideas that you may have on how to close up this loophole.

No, don't close it up. We love loopholes, especially ones large enough to fly a cargo plane through. *rimshot*

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

If this passes, the creator of the bill can expect a visit from the super-gigantic luxury zeppelin "Brilliance" to his capital.

Of course, whether it's actually carrying passengers or not is for me to know and him to wonder about.

To the delegation from Axis Nova;

Many thanks for bringing up a possibility we had not considered. This will be worked into the on-going draft of this proposal.

Again, our thanks.

Benjamin J. Douglas

I have moved the discussion on my proposal (now edited), over to here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527740). I hope to see you there.

To the delegation from Axis Nova;

Many thanks for bringing up a possibility we had not considered. This will be worked into the on-going draft of this proposal.

Again, our thanks.

Benjamin J. Douglas

Axis Nova has not sent a delegate, as it is not a member of the UN, but rather, an observer.

Axis Nova has not sent a delegate, as it is not a member of the UN, but rather, an observer.

Our apologies for the mix-up in nomenclatures.