NationStates Jolt Archive

This was formally started under the thread for the Private Airline Neutrality Protection Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527391), and I had put forth another proposal, and I don't want people to get confused. This is another draft of the Civilian Aircraft Protection Act, and hopefully it adresses the concerns advanced by those in the other thread. So, without further adu...


Note, this is the revised draft. The original is below. Revised draft has 3,457 characters with spaces.

The United Nations;

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

II. RECOGNIZES that private air travel, and civilian aircraft, is a part of our world, which is a service to the world, and citizens of the world should be allowed to travel without fear of attack.

III. DEFINES a civilian aircraft as ANY craft in the air that does not violate the conditions outlined in Section IV.

IV. DEFINES civilian aircraft as
A) Aircraft with no military or strategic value.
B) Carries only non-combatants, diplomats, non-military cargo, from any nation.
C) Carries no military weapons, material, or intelligence.

V. REQUIRES that all U.N members inform civilian aircraft of their airspace boundaries, and if airspace is currently restricted. If airspace is restricted, then U.N members shall provide alternatives to airline companies to avoid potentially deadly situations.

VI. REQUIRES that if a civilian aircraft enters a U.N member's airspace labeled as "restricted" without authorization, the member will attempt contact with the aircraft through any and all means available and if contact is made with the aircraft, it will be escorted out of the restricted airspace, given instructions to an alternative route, and be allowed to continue on the alternative route without threats of, or actual, bodily or material harm on the aircraft or its passengers.

VII. PROHIBITS any U.N member from attacking a civilian 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, intelligence, and material.

VIII. REQUIRES U.N members to refrain from attacking civilian airports and aircraft on the ground, unless the attacked has placed a military airbase or aircraft in a civilian airport, in which case blood shed is the responsibility of the attacked.

IX. PROHIBITS any U.N member from using its military, or funding any other groups, such as terrorists, Para-militants, and other nation’s militaries, for the purpose of attacking or hijacking any civilian aircraft, in the air or on the ground.

X. ALLOWS action against civilian aircraft deemed as threats to a U.N member’s security, if the aircraft is in that member’s airspace and any three of the following apply; the aircraft has not responded to any attempts to communicate, the aircraft is off its intended flight path, the aircraft will not deviate from this flight path, the aircraft is headed towards a population center or a target of military, economic, or political importance, there is proof that the aircraft is carrying military personnel, material, or intelligence.

XI. ALLOWS U.N members to set up their own security measures to ensure the safety of their airspace, including forcing all aircraft to land at the nation’s borders to have their cargo checked, and close air scans for weapons, intelligence gathering equipment, and other military devices, as long as these do not violate Section VI.

XII. RESOLVES that any U.N member found in violation of this resolution will be subject to any of the following:
A) Sanctions from the U.N body.
B) Monetary compensation to the U.N member whose property was destroyed.
C) Retaliation against military facilities within the borders of the U.N member in violation of this resolution by other U.N members.



"Civilian Aircraft 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;

I. 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.

II. 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.

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

IV. FURTHER DEFINES a private aircraft as any craft in the air, including, but not limited to, non-fixed wing aircraft (helicopter), fixed wing aircraft, including cargo aircraft, non-rigid airships (blimps), and rigid airships (zeppelins) that does not violate the conditions outlined in Section III.

V. 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.

VI. 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 on the aircraft or its passengers, or without bodily or material harm being inflicted on the aircraft or its passengers.

VII. 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.

VIII. 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.

IX. 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.

X. 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.

XI. FURTHER ALLOWS U.N member-states to set up their own private security measures as a means to ensure the safety of their own airspace, including, but not limited to, requiring private aircraft to submit their cargo manifests while in-flight, forcing all private aircraft to land at the nation’s boarders to have their cargo holds checked, and subjecting private aircraft to close air scans for weapons, intelligence gathering equipment, and other military devices, as long as these searches do not violate the last half of Section VI.

XII. 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 borders of the U.N member-state in violation of this resolution by any or all other U.N member-states.

If anyone has any comments or concerns, please, do not hesitate to add them here.

Respectfully,
Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations

New Leicestershire doesn't have a history of shooting down civilian airliners. In fact, to my knowledge we have never shot one down. That said, I am wary of a proposal which seeks to place restrictions upon which targets our armed forces may engage in defense of the nation.

I will be withholding support of this proposal pending further discussions.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Well, my economy relies on trade, so obviously I'll be supporting this one

We as a nation welcome all civilan aircraft if they are expected by our civil aviation athority and are in there correct flight plan and path with there identifacation beaker on. We reserve the right to intercept and shoot down any aircraft thet deviates from there flight plan or is unexpected. Any aircraft that stray over militry sensitive areas will be automaticaly ingaged and destroyed. All unexpacted aircrft that enter our air space will be interceped and apone assessing there threat level will be delt with accordingly. We make no appoliges for taking this stand. If you want to be safe get on a scheduled flight and there will be no problems. therefore we will not be indorsing this.

the voice of shuntalung

This is totaly unaceptable to us for many reason.
1. most nations use civil airliners during a time of conflicet to transpot troops. therfore these aircraft do have a secondard function in the milatry.
2. Are you telling me that no civil airliner can not be fitted with cameras and a like andtherefore be spying under the cover of an airliner.
3. look at the old russian civi air liners they had glass nose cones so that in a time of conflict they could be used a s bombers.
4. In a time of conflict we as a nation will target all airfeilds weather civil or not.
5. in time of conflict all aircraft of the apposing nation will be targeted as we do not belive in non combatons.

At the end of they day if the civi airliner files a flight plan that is accepted by the shuntalung civil aviation authority then thats what they should stick to if they deviate from this and end up getting shot down tuff,the goverment of shuntalung make no appoliges.

You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, same goes for war, If civi air transport is in the air or on the ground it's a viable target, It doesn't take much to turn a plane into a weapon and we can never besure how underhanded our enemy will be.

All is fair in love and WAR!!!!

very true my friend very true. There are no inocents in war only enemys.what ever they are flying. To be honest in a time of conflict shuntalung would stop all non esential air traffic any way. This in turn make its much easier to identefir threats ie if its not one of ours it will get shot down as its not ment to be there. simple

You're over the character limit.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The delegation would sugguest to all who have posted in this thread so far against this proposal to read it again. All of your concerns have already been adressed in it in it's current form.

Mr. Watts, the proposal allows for your nation to set up whatever defense and/or checkpoints it deems necessary under Section XI so that you feel safe. What it does not allow for is indiscriminate shooting down of civilian airliners.

To the delegation from Shuntalung, we sugguest something to you that is quite important regarding proposals: reading. To your concern #1, that is adressed under Section X, where if you know your enemy is transporting troops on the plane, it is no longer a civilian airliner, but a military plane, and can be shot down. As for #2, yes, I know that can happen. Which is why Section XI was added, that nations can impliment any security measures they need, as long as the plane is not harmed if there is no evidence that it is military or hostile in nature. #3, this is not real life, so not a vaild example. As for #4, then expect The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas to be first on the list for military action or economic sanctions against you. The same to #5. You shoot down a civilian airliner with women and children on board with no military value, then you are no better than the nazis.

Ugerland, my response is the same to you. Bomb civilian planes and airports on the ground, and expect Ambrose-Douglas to be at the top of the list of nations imposing sanctions or taking military action.

Also, it should be noted to all that, in a time of war, or any time for that matter, if you do not wish to have civilian airliners flying into or over your country because of the fear of espianoge or attack, you may change your airspace to "restricted", meaning no civilian or transport aircraft except for a select few you allow can travel through your airspace.

You're over the character limit.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

By how many?

By how many?

I think the limit is 3300 and your proposal is over 4700, so quite a bit.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I think the limit is 3300 and your proposal is over 4700, so quite a bit.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Can you point me to where it says that the limit is 3300? I'm not doubting you, I just want to find it so I can begin starting to whittle this down to the appropriate length.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations
Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

XII. 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.
UN armies are illegal.
B) Monetary compensation to the U.N member-state whose property was destroyed.
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/2/nomoneycardud0.png
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.
Again, no UN army.

UN armies are illegal.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/2/nomoneycardud0.png

Again, no UN army.

I think you may misunderstand the purpose of Section XII. Sanctions have nothing to do with a UN Army. They can be levied by UN member-states against the offender, or accepted by all UN members. This in no way creates an army.

Monetary compensation would come from the offender, not the UN, so the UN wouldn't have to pay anything.

The final part is an option for individual nations or regions or alliances who wish to take action against the offender, not creating a UN Army to go after the offender.

I hope this cleared things up for you.

To Ambrose-Douglas can you explain what "women and children of no milatry value" means.
As we in the armed republic of shuntalung see it the soilder must be equiped,fed,clothed etc and therefore if women in a factory on the home land is producing clothing for the soilders is this still a woman of no milatry value? to us she is now of high milatry value, there for anyone who is working in a factory that is providing goods directly or indirecty to the front are now part of the over all mailtry machine and therefore ligatimate targets.Children can if the conflict goes on long enough become part of the milatry. Where do you draw the line? The idea of war is i win by killing more of you than you of me and therefore if shooting down an airliner of as you put it " innocent women and children" reduces your ablity to wage war then so be it.To sound cold harted your civilns are no concern of mine. my concern is to finish the conflict with as few casualities as possible.So an airliner full of women and children of our enemy is to us a justified target if it helps bring a swift end to the conflict. If it is peace time and the airliner sticks to the flight plan provided by the shuntalung CAA then this problem will not accour so why the need for this resolution. No one committs an unprovoked attack the other side might think it unprovoked but the person committing the attack had a good reason.Last of all targeting a civil air feild is with good cause are you honstly telling me that in a time of conflict that lets just say you are loosing and all your milatry airfeilds are destroyed but not yor civilen one that you would loose the war reather than use them. I think not. In times of war people do drastic things. and thefore a civilen airfeild is a viable target

Can you point me to where it says that the limit is 3300? I'm not doubting you, I just want to find it so I can begin starting to whittle this down to the appropriate length.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations
Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

The character limit is 3500. A space counts as 1 character. End-of-line breaks vary. If you're using MS Windows, a line break is 2 characters. Other operating systems, a line break is 1 character.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I think you may misunderstand the purpose of Section XII. Sanctions have nothing to do with a UN Army. They can be levied by UN member-states against the offender, or accepted by all UN members. This in no way creates an army.
Ordering member states to attack someone counts as an army iirc.

The Armed Republic of Ugerland fully agrees with the views of the people of The Armed Republic of Shuntalung. This pact is completely useless and would serve as no purpose but to prolong wars and cause more casualities

Ordering member states to attack someone counts as an army iirc.

Do you see the word ordering there? I don't. It says that they are subject to any or all of the following three things. Any includes none. This resolution in no way attempts to create an army, however it does allow for legal retaliation should a breach of the resolution occur.

The character limit is 3500. A space counts as 1 character. End-of-line breaks vary. If you're using MS Windows, a line break is 2 characters. Other operating systems, a line break is 1 character.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thank you very much Ms. Ahlmann. I will begin editing immediatly.

Benjamin J. Douglas

To Ambrose-Douglas can you explain what "women and children of no milatry value" means.
As we in the armed republic of shuntalung see it the soilder must be equiped,fed,clothed etc and therefore if women in a factory on the home land is producing clothing for the soilders is this still a woman of no milatry value? to us she is now of high milatry value, there for anyone who is working in a factory that is providing goods directly or indirecty to the front are now part of the over all mailtry machine and therefore ligatimate targets.Children can if the conflict goes on long enough become part of the milatry. Where do you draw the line? The idea of war is i win by killing more of you than you of me and therefore if shooting down an airliner of as you put it " innocent women and children" reduces your ablity to wage war then so be it.To sound cold harted your civilns are no concern of mine. my concern is to finish the conflict with as few casualities as possible.So an airliner full of women and children of our enemy is to us a justified target if it helps bring a swift end to the conflict. If it is peace time and the airliner sticks to the flight plan provided by the shuntalung CAA then this problem will not accour so why the need for this resolution. No one committs an unprovoked attack the other side might think it unprovoked but the person committing the attack had a good reason.Last of all targeting a civil air feild is with good cause are you honstly telling me that in a time of conflict that lets just say you are loosing and all your milatry airfeilds are destroyed but not yor civilen one that you would loose the war reather than use them. I think not. In times of war people do drastic things. and thefore a civilen airfeild is a viable target

First, please use paragraphs, it makes everything much easier to read.

Women and children of no military value means that while flying in a place, unless your civilian airliners are equipped with clothes making factories, these women and children have no military value. They are merely civilians. If they are working in a factory in your homeland that makes military supplies, then they are classified as military targets. However, if your civilian airliners do have clothes making factories for the military on board, then they are not civilian airliners anymore, they are military transports.

As for children, I believe there are child labor laws on the books, and you are not allowed to be violating those if you are a UN member, so your point with children is null and void.

Also, since the children part is gone, I'll just stick with women, I ask you... what if the airliner of my citizens that you shoot down has no people of military value? There are no men on the plane, and all the women work as cashiers or waitresses at restaurants, and the children don't work. Have you down a target to hurt my military capability? No, you have shot down a plane full of innocents for no reason whatsoever. That, sir, is disgraceful, and any nation who supports that should not be a member of this body.

As for your peactime argument, this resolution does not apply only to you, sir, but to every other UN nation. There have been problems with civilian airliners being shot down for no reason, even during peace time, and this resolution looks to rectify that.

Finally, you still have obviously failed to read the entire proposal. I direct you to Section VIII which reads, and I quote, "Further requires that UN member-states refrain from attacking civilian and private airports and aircraft on the ground, UNLESS the nation being attacked has placed a military base or aircraft within a civilian or private airport, in which case any civilian blood shed is the responsibility of the nation being attacked." Reading is a wonderful thing, no? The answer to your question was there all along.

As for my country's personal response to such a situtation, we would look at all options availible to us and decide on the best course of action while preserving as many civilian lives as possible. However, specific courses of action are classified "Top Secret" and I am not at liberty to disclose them.

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

Women and children of no military value means that while flying in a place, unless your civilian airliners are equipped with clothes making factories, these women and children have no military value. They are merely civilians. If they are working in a factory in your homeland that makes military supplies, then they are classified as military targets. However, if your civilian airliners do have clothes making factories for the military on board, then they are not civilian airliners anymore, they are military transports.


An army marches on it's stomach. Army's need food supplies and medical supplies. Food thats grown in the fields of an nations country, that is grown by "civilians" (I quote for as far as i'm concerned these people are targets all the same)




As for children, I believe there are child labor laws on the books, and you are not allowed to be violating those if you are a UN member, so your point with children is null and void.

the point that was being made was. These children will grow into adults who will fight for there country, If there killed earlier that just saves hastle in the long run.



Also, since the children part is gone, I'll just stick with women, I ask you... what if the airliner of my citizens that you shoot down has no people of military value? There are no men on the plane, and all the women work as cashiers or waitresses at restaurants, and the children don't work. Have you down a target to hurt my military capability? No, you have shot down a plane full of innocents for no reason whatsoever. That, sir, is disgraceful, and any nation who supports that should not be a member of this body.


Firstly you make it sound like women don't fight and die for there country. and only men are in the army. Which is wrong for a start. However the effect on moral that such an act would have would also more than pay for the loss of life. The simple fact is war is bloody and if people know they will have major losses in all departments then they are less likley to go to war so I put it you you my honrable friend that infact this act encourages war somewhat.

We're pleased to have been able to help the author resolve the issue of proposal length. Now, we'll move on to substantive issues. We have a number of serious concerns with the draft. We'll pose them as questions for the author's consideration and response, if he chooses.

Article I: The use of the term "belligerents" could be read to limit the scope of the proposal to times of declared war. Was this the intent?

Artcle III: How are a nation's military authorities supposed to determine/verify that an aircraft is "carrying only non-combatants and/or diplomats and/or non-military cargo, either from belligerent nations or neutral, third-party nations", and is thus subject to the provisions of this resolution? This issue arises again in Article X. How is a nation supposed to develop "factual, provable evidence" that an in-flight aircraft is engaged in a disqualifying activity?

Article V "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." A nation is supposed to notify thousands of private airline companies? Even those that provide purely domestic service in far-off nations? And nations are then responsible for those airlines' route planning? We consider this completely unrealistic and an unfair imposirtion upon national governments. As we see it, the responsibility to secure safe passage of aircraft rests with the operators.

We have some other concerns about implementation of the proposal, but we'll set them aside for now. We would quite likely support a sound proposal on non-military aircraft safety from attack. This effort could well result in that. We hope it will.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I can safely say that I am absolutly appalled by your answer. However, the root of my disgust will be gotten to with time.


An army marches on it's stomach. Army's need food supplies and medical supplies. Food thats grown in the fields of an nations country, that is grown by "civilians" (I quote for as far as i'm concerned these people are targets all the same)

Firstly, if food is being grown for the army, it is most likely being grown on government or military contracted farms (at least, that is how it works in Ambrose-Douglas). Food grown on civilian farms is property of the civilians alone, and will not be used by the government. Therefore, your assumption would be wrong.

the point that was being made was. These children will grow into adults who will fight for there country, If there killed earlier that just saves hastle in the long run.

This is the where my disgust came in. Killing children to "save the hassle in the long run"? Sir, if these are the ideals that your country holds, remind me never to visit you. Killing children because they may fight for the country one day, if the conflict even lasts that long? You know, there were people who held your ideals once, and put them into action. You know what they were called, sir? Nazis. Nazi Germany. And you sir, to me, sound very much like a Nazi.

Firstly you make it sound like women don't fight and die for there country. and only men are in the army. Which is wrong for a start. However the effect on moral that such an act would have would also more than pay for the loss of life. The simple fact is war is bloody and if people know they will have major losses in all departments then they are less likley to go to war so I put it you you my honrable friend that infact this act encourages war somewhat.

First, sir, I said no such thing. Women serve in the Army in Ambrose-Douglas, though admittedly mostly in non-combat roles. And as for the moral issue, I direct you to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Both of these events, one was on a military target, the other on a civilian one. Both evoked the same reaction. No loss of morale, or despair. Just cold, hard, unyeilding anger that was eventually directed at the attackers. This proposal does not encourage nations to go to war in any way, shape, or form. This proposal is a means to avert war by misunderstandings that lead to losses of civilian life. If you, sir, cannot see that, I sugguest you see your nearest psychiatrist right away.

Benjamin J. Douglas

Article I: The use of the term "belligerents" could be read to limit the scope of the proposal to times of declared war. Was this the intent?

This was not the intent, however, since the proposal was already long, I could not think of a way to shorten it and still say exactly what I wanted. The best compromise I could come up with was "belligerents". If you have another sugguestion, I would be happy to hear it.

Artcle III: How are a nation's military authorities supposed to determine/verify that an aircraft is "carrying only non-combatants and/or diplomats and/or non-military cargo, either from belligerent nations or neutral, third-party nations", and is thus subject to the provisions of this resolution? This issue arises again in Article X. How is a nation supposed to develop "factual, provable evidence" that an in-flight aircraft is engaged in a disqualifying activity?

Article XI was placed to adress these very concerns. In Article XI it sugguested possible courses of action that member-states could take to ensure the safety of their airspace and their nation. One of these was to make all incoming flights land to have their cargo and passengers searched. If you have other sugguestions, I would be happy to hear them.

Article V "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." A nation is supposed to notify thousands of private airline companies? Even those that provide purely domestic service in far-off nations? And nations are then responsible for those airlines' route planning? We consider this completely unrealistic and an unfair imposirtion upon national governments. As we see it, the responsibility to secure safe passage of aircraft rests with the operators.

The proposal could be read that way, but I wrote it as saying that nations should inform private airline companies with planes heading towards their airspace of X, Y, and Z. This would most likely be the operators who would do this, but I can see how this section could be misconstrued. I will work on the language to make it clearer.

If you have any other comments/questions/concerns, please, do not hesitate to voice them.

Benjamin J. Douglas

Ambrose-douglas
you seem to use the term nazis a lot but can i remind you that other nations have had this view in our worlds long history. The romans,vikings,spartans,the english to name just a few so just because i have a radical view point dose not make me or any other person by defult a nazi. The armed republic of Shuntalung still stands by what i have written before. if your nation ever gose to war we can review this topic again and see if your veiw point has changed.

I'll review it both for legality and content, but I don't see any point in that until you get it under the character limit. Standard convention is to edit the initial post (though for continuity reasons it's a good idea to keep your initial draft, if only offline).

Initial response to the complaints about sanctions, retaliation. UN army, money, and so on? All legal. See Res #49, Rights and Duties of UN states, Article 4: "§ Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."

Oh, and ... "boarders" live in your spare room. Nations have "borders". <grin>

Ambrose-douglas
you seem to use the term nazis a lot but can i remind you that other nations have had this view in our worlds long history. The romans,vikings,spartans,the english to name just a few so just because i have a radical view point dose not make me or any other person by defult a nazi. The armed republic of Shuntalung still stands by what i have written before. if your nation ever gose to war we can review this topic again and see if your veiw point has changed.

Using the term three times does not qualify as "a lot", sir. I used the term because that is exactly what Adolf Hitler said, to kill the Jews before they become a problem. That is exactly what you and your counterpart from Ugerland were sugguesting.

I suggest you learn the difference between saying someone's views are like that of Nazis (which is what I did) and actually calling someone a Nazi (which I did not). There is a very large difference.

As for our stance on war, we do plan on getting into one any time soon. Just having gone through a devastating civil war, we will not fight until all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. And no, our view on this will not change.

Good day.

I'll review it both for legality and content, but I don't see any point in that until you get it under the character limit. Standard convention is to edit the initial post (though for continuity reasons it's a good idea to keep your initial draft, if only offline).

Initial response to the complaints about sanctions, retaliation. UN army, money, and so on? All legal. See Res #49, Rights and Duties of UN states, Article 4: "§ Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."

Oh, and ... "boarders" live in your spare room. Nations have "borders". <grin>


Thanks for catching that typo. I'm working on chopping it down, but it's tough to gut 1200+ words from it and still make it sound reasonable and have it say what I want it to.

BJD

How about chopping some of the pretty verbiage on the inclusions and exclusions, and just turn it into a couple of lists?


III. Defines:
Private aircraft: yadda
Belligerent nation: yadda yadda

VII: Specifically permits:
This
That
The other thing

VIII: Specifically excludes:
These
Those
Them

Firstly, if food is being grown for the army, it is most likely being grown on government or military contracted farms (at least, that is how it works in Ambrose-Douglas). Food grown on civilian farms is property of the civilians alone, and will not be used by the government. Therefore, your assumption would be wrong.


During times of war many countries use civilian grown food stuffs to feed there soilders. Especially since the numbber of active soilders increase due to call ups, the army needs tofeed it's soilders and it can't wait a year till crops grow or animals mature so the buy or requisiton civi foods. So my assumption is infact correct




This is the where my disgust came in. Killing children to "save the hassle in the long run"? Sir, if these are the ideals that your country holds, remind me never to visit you. Killing children because they may fight for the country one day, if the conflict even lasts that long? You know, there were people who held your ideals once, and put them into action. You know what they were called, sir? Nazis. Nazi Germany. And you sir, to me, sound very much like a Nazi.


Morality is for the populice of my country to decide I simply act on what they wish and saftey is what my people call out for. As a previouse member said, many regims throughout time have implimented similar action, However it would not be this goverments task to kill you it simply wouldn't matter to our goverment if children are hurt in times of conflict unless they are on our side


First, sir, I said no such thing. Women serve in the Army in Ambrose-Douglas, though admittedly mostly in non-combat roles. And as for the moral issue, I direct you to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Both of these events, one was on a military target, the other on a civilian one. Both evoked the same reaction. No loss of morale, or despair. Just cold, hard, unyeilding anger that was eventually directed at the attackers. This proposal does not encourage nations to go to war in any way, shape, or form. This proposal is a means to avert war by misunderstandings that lead to losses of civilian life. If you, sir, cannot see that, I sugguest you see your nearest psychiatrist right away.


I never said you ever said such a thing you simply made it sound like you were saying that and I simply wanted to understand how your goverment treats it's female populice.

I'm sorry if I said it encoraged people to go to war it simply makes it an easier route to take than it would be without the Act. Here is my line of thinking:

A goverment is run by it's people>>>>>Most of which are civi's
If you were a civi and someone really ticked you off would you not find it easier to go to war if it ment you were unlikley to get hurt than if there was a chance that you could be killed by taking a flight.
War seems like a big risk now as no one wants to die for no reason so it's a less likley route.

Thats a clear line of thinking so I won't have to see the shrink today.

Both of those examples are actions that were taken in a time of peace that resulted in acts of war to be declared my point was that DURING a war if civi's are killed and army troops hear about it they're gonna think that they are not doing there job thus moral lowers through out the country.

How about chopping some of the pretty verbiage on the inclusions and exclusions, and just turn it into a couple of lists?


III. Defines:
Private aircraft: yadda
Belligerent nation: yadda yadda

VII: Specifically permits:
This
That
The other thing

VIII: Specifically excludes:
These
Those
Them

At the moment, I'm through Section IV with a character w/ spaces count of 991. It may be close.

First up, I think this is a stupid idea for many of the reasons already outlined by others. That said:

1. As Mr Flibble pointed out, you're way over the character limit. (It's a meta-rule -- the form is only so big.)

2. III and IV manage to be extremely confusing. It would be better to switch the order of them, making the former IV define 'aircraft' (for the purposes of this resolution) and III stay with (mis)defining 'private aircraft'. Using the right word -- 'civilian' -- would help no end, too.

3. As written, X contradicts earlier clauses without saying that it overrides them. It's also trivially circumventable by any passably smart terrorist. All they have to do allow communication to be established, and one of the necessary conditions for shooting the plane down isn't there any more. The other half of the clause doesn't trigger, since the terrorists aren't military anything.

4. Clause XI is utterly unworkable.

5. Drop XII. Enforcement clauses are a total nightmare in UN resolutions, and almost always illegal. You are allowed (required, really) to assume that member nations will comply.

First up, I think this is a stupid idea for many of the reasons already outlined by others. That said:

1. As Mr Flibble pointed out, you're way over the character limit. (It's a meta-rule -- the form is only so big.)

2. III and IV manage to be extremely confusing. It would be better to switch the order of them, making the former IV define 'aircraft' (for the purposes of this resolution) and III stay with (mis)defining 'private aircraft'. Using the right word -- 'civilian' -- would help no end, too.

3. As written, X contradicts earlier clauses without saying that it overrides them. It's also trivially circumventable by any passably smart terrorist. All they have to do allow communication to be established, and one of the necessary conditions for shooting the plane down isn't there any more. The other half of the clause doesn't trigger, since the terrorists aren't military anything.

4. Clause XI is utterly unworkable.

5. Drop XII. Enforcement clauses are a total nightmare in UN resolutions, and almost always illegal. You are allowed (required, really) to assume that member nations will comply.

1. has been fixed. The proposal is down to 3,457 characters with spaces.

2. Terminology has been changed from "private" to "civilian". Also, if you have any sugguestions on how to better define things, please offer them up. Don't say that I have misdefined something and offer no alternative. That goes for everyone.

3. Wording and structure have been changed to allieviate this problem. A new draft will follow this post. I look forward to your comments/sugguestions on it.

4. Section XI is only unworkable if your nation chooses not to impliment it. Section XI gives each nation the CHOICE of doing such things, and allows them to impliment their own security so that they feel safer, as long as such security measures do not violate Section VI (bodily or material harm).

5. Section XII will not be dropped. It outlines consequences for nations that do not follow what it outlined in this proposal. And the entirety of Section XII has already been legalized by Mr. Flibble per UN Resolution #49: Rights and Duties of UN States, Article 4. "Every UN member state has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."

New, revised version (also on the first post)

The United Nations;

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

II. RECOGNIZES that private air travel, and civilian aircraft, is a part of our world, which is a service to the world, and citizens of the world should be allowed to travel without fear of attack.

III. DEFINES a civilian aircraft as ANY craft in the air that meets all three of the following requirements:
A) Aircraft with no military or strategic value.
B) Carries only non-combatants, diplomats, non-military cargo, from any nation.
C) Carries no military weapons, material, or intelligence.

IV. REQUIRES that all U.N members inform civilian aircraft of their airspace boundaries, and if airspace is currently restricted. If airspace is restricted, then U.N members shall provide alternatives to airline companies to avoid potentially deadly situations.

V. REQUIRES that if a civilian aircraft enters a U.N member's airspace labeled as "restricted" without authorization, the member will attempt contact with the aircraft through any and all means available and if contact is made with the aircraft, it will be escorted out of the restricted airspace, given instructions to an alternative route, and be allowed to continue on the alternative route without threats of, or actual, bodily or material harm on the aircraft or its passengers.

VI. PROHIBITS any U.N member from attacking a civilian 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 and material. For the purposes of this resolution, heads of state and their personal bodyguards are not considered military personnel, even if the head of state or their bodyguards have served, or are currently serving, in the military.

VII. REQUIRES U.N members to refrain from attacking civilian terminal buildings, runways, and aircraft on the ground, unless the attacked has placed a military airbase or aircraft in a civilian airport, in which case blood shed is the responsibility of the attacked.

VIII. PROHIBITS any U.N member from using its military, or funding any other groups and other nation’s military, for the purpose of attacking any civilian aircraft, in the air or on the ground.

IX. ALLOWS action against civilian aircraft deemed as threats to a U.N member’s security, if the aircraft is in that member’s airspace and any three of the following apply; the aircraft has not responded to any attempts to communicate, the aircraft is off its intended flight path, the aircraft will not deviate from this flight path, the aircraft is headed towards a population center or a target of military, economic, or political importance, there is proof that the aircraft is carrying military personnel or material.

X. ALLOWS U.N members to set up their own security measures to ensure the safety of their airspace, as long as these do not violate Section VI.

XI. RESOLVES that any U.N member found in violation of this resolution will be subject to any of the following:
A) Sanctions from the U.N body.
B) Monetary compensation to the U.N member whose property was destroyed.
C) Retaliation against military facilities within the borders of the U.N member in violation of this resolution by other U.N members.

Let the renewed debate begin.

From our experience, we'd recommend that the author focus for now on accommodating substantive concerns that have been or will be expressed concerning the draft. Word-chopping should come after the substance has been locked in. We'd be happy to help. We're pretty good at tightening up language.

For now, let's look at the definition of "civilian aircraft". That term's a considerable improvement. But the definitions in a resolution can be critical and, in this case, we think that is true. The resolution will apply only to civilian aircraft. So if the aircraft in question does not meet the definition, the resolution can be ignored.

A) Aircraft with no military or strategic value.

It would be difficult to find an aircraft that could fly that would not have some military value, if only for low-level tactical reconnaissance. This, to us, is the ultimate loophole.

B) Carries only non-combatants, diplomats, non-military cargo, from any nation.

To determine this in any area of reasonably heavy air traffic would be grossly impractical. It would require the required landing and ground search allowed by Article XI. To be blunt about it... In a time of high threat to our nation, we'll have better things to do.

C) Carries no military weapons, material, or intelligence.

This is completely impossible to determine, specifically in the case of intelligence. Intelligence information can be stored and transported in so many ways that even a competent ground search of the aircraft could not detect it.

So what we have, we believe, is a resolution that holds nations responsible for behaving in a certain way toward specifically defined aircraft when there is no way they can reasonably determine whether the aircraft fit the criteria for application. To us, this is grossly unfair. It also allows nations who wish to deliberately violate the resolution to do so, confident that no reasonable nation could hold them accountable for not doing the impossible.

This is something, we believe, that deserves much thought. Our inclination is to turn the definition around to the positive, rather than the negative. As a quick, knee-jerk example: an aircraft that is properly registered as a civilian passenger carrier or a freight carrier not involved in military contract work, emitting appropriate and legitimate identification via transponder, responsive to queries and instructions from air traffic control, and for which there is no probable cause to believe that it is engaged in activity detrimental to the national security of the nation being traversed.

That's both sketchy and long-winded simultaneously and certainly needs work. But we think such an approach would be far better than trying to impose requirements impossible to enforce.

Also, we'd suggest the author look carefully at how (or perhaps whether) the draft would apply to terrorism. Terrorists are seldom "military personnel" and it's quite arguable that, especially absent a connection to a government sponsor, they would be included in the term "non-combatants".

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

If you were to change the act to be read as, "In times of peace etc etc"

but make it acceptable for civi's to be attacked in times of war The armed republic of Ugerland would fully back this act until such time as a change as such is made we will continue to be against this act

Mr Ambrose-Douglas

Two people have dissagreed with your idea and you have likened them both to the nazis. This is 100% so therfoe i think it qulifies as a lot.

Secondly i do not advocate killing all you women and children or indorse genecide in any way at all on any creed,colour or religious sect. All I have stated is that i will shoot down any aircraft that deviates from its flight plan or belongs to my enemy what ever there type. Once i have conquered my enemys land or the conflict is over i will not as the nazis did continue to wipe out your women and children or people of diffrent religions.This is the diffrence.

Lastly i may stand corrected but did the British and us airforce not bomb german civilians? and under your comparison should they therefore not also be called nazis even thought thats who they were fighting against?

comander in chief of the armed republic of shunalung

OOC: Firstly, Shuntalung, please compose your responses in a word processor with spellcheck, preferably inline spellcheck. Or get FireFox 2.0, which has the same thing. And, please use the shift key. And not just at the beginning of each sentence. "I" is capitalized, too, you know. I realize that, in the grand scheme of things, these are fairly minor points, but by doing these, we can improve the professionalism of this forum.

-Author of Wolfgang, Grammar Nazi

IC:
"Mister... uh... Ambassador of Shuntalung, while the deaths of children and civilians may occur during the normal course of warfare, the problem, the 'Nazi' thinking is the comment about 'killing the children now so they don't grow up to fight with the enemy.' This implies specifically targeting children, or trying to justify their deaths, which is absolutely detestable. Child deaths must be avoided. If they incidentally happen, so be it, but warfighters must avoid it as much as possible. That's why Guardian soldiers are so heavily armored. If they're impervious to most incoming fire, they don't have to shoot first and ask questions later, thus cutting down significantly on civilian deaths."

Mr Ambrose-Douglas

Two people have dissagreed with your idea and you have likened them both to the nazis. This is 100% so therfoe i think it qulifies as a lot.

Secondly i do not advocate killing all you women and children or indorse genecide in any way at all on any creed,colour or religious sect. All I have stated is that i will shoot down any aircraft that deviates from its flight plan or belongs to my enemy what ever there type. Once i have conquered my enemys land or the conflict is over i will not as the nazis did continue to wipe out your women and children or people of diffrent religions.This is the diffrence.

Lastly i may stand corrected but did the British and us airforce not bomb german civilians? and under your comparison should they therefore not also be called nazis even thought thats who they were fighting against?

comander in chief of the armed republic of shunalung

Two people have disagreed with my proposal, sir? I sugguest that you need to learn how to count. There have been more than two people who have disagreed with me ON THIS PAGE ALONE.

The British and US airforces bombed Nazi cities after the Nazis had bombed French and British cities. So, the action taken by British and US forces would be covered under Article XII of this resolution, since they were attacked first.

The rest of my argument has already been covered by the delegation from The Wolf Guardians, who, for a rare occasion, we actually agree with.

If you were to change the act to be read as, "In times of peace etc etc"

but make it acceptable for civi's to be attacked in times of war The armed republic of Ugerland would fully back this act until such time as a change as such is made we will continue to be against this act

The resolution will not be changed to include those words, sir. It will not happen. This does not need a unanimous vote to pass, merely a majority. If you are voting against this proposal because it does not allow your trigger happy pilots to fire on civilians during a time of war, then I do not want you voting for it.

We are happy to hear that the delegation finds the wording of "civilian aircraft" instead of "private aircraft" to be acceptable.

It would be difficult to find an aircraft that could fly that would not have some military value, if only for low-level tactical reconnaissance. This, to us, is the ultimate loophole.

What if Part A was changed to read this instead?
A)Aircraft that generally do not have military or strategic value

Would this phrasing be acceptable?

To determine this in any area of reasonably heavy air traffic would be grossly impractical. It would require the required landing and ground search allowed by Article XI. To be blunt about it... In a time of high threat to our nation, we'll have better things to do.

Well, Article XI is there to give nations the option of implementing their own security measures. These security measures can pretty much be anything that does not violate Article VI. If your nation deems it impractical, then they do not have to do anything. The resolution still give you the ability to attack a civilian aircraft if it meets the conditions in Article X.


This is completely impossible to determine, specifically in the case of intelligence. Intelligence information can be stored and transported in so many ways that even a competent ground search of the aircraft could not detect it.

So what do you suggest then? Take out the term intelligence completely and allow civilian aircraft to carry it? I'd appreciate suggestions in this case.

This is something, we believe, that deserves much thought. Our inclination is to turn the definition around to the positive, rather than the negative. As a quick, knee-jerk example: an aircraft that is properly registered as a civilian passenger carrier or a freight carrier not involved in military contract work, emitting appropriate and legitimate identification via transponder, responsive to queries and instructions from air traffic control, and for which there is no probable cause to believe that it is engaged in activity detrimental to the national security of the nation being traversed.

Just trying to understand here. Are you proposing that for Article IV, or for somewhere else? Also, here is my, hopefully shortened, interpretation of what you said, should it be put into the resolution.

an aircraft that is registered as a civilian passenger or freight carrier not involved in military transport, emitting appropriate, legitimate IFF signals, responsive to queries and instructions from authorities, and it is not engaging in activity detrimental to the security of the nation whose airspace it is in.

The reason "probable cause" is taken out is for nations such as Shuntalung and Ugerland who think that it's ok to shoot down civilians. If there is not room for them to say "we believed this, that, and the other thing", then there is no place for them to be able to shoot a civilian airliner down.

Also, we'd suggest the author look carefully at how (or perhaps whether) the draft would apply to terrorism. Terrorists are seldom "military personnel" and it's quite arguable that, especially absent a connection to a government sponsor, they would be included in the term "non-combatants".

Terrorists are obviously mentioned Article IX, that governments cannot fund them. However, this resolution is more to protect civilians from being shot down then worrying about terrorism. Another resolution could be drafted to deal with that, but, as has been stated, there is a meta-rule on space.

However, we do not believe that terrorists, if they were wishing to harm a target, would follow the guidelines that you have laid out, nor the guidelines established in Article X. Therefore, the nation would have the right to shoot the plane down. If space permitted, I would add a Article where if a plane announces that it has been taken over by terrorists (either by the pilots sending a signal, or the terrorists doing it themselves) then the plane could be shot down, but again, space is at a premium.

We encourage any more sugguestions. These changes have been taken into consideration, but until they are more concrete, changes will not be made.

Benjamin J. Douglas

What we had tried to explain was that we consider the definition of "civilian aircraft" to be unworkable. The definition establishes the scope of the resolution and, we believe, would render it toothless. We would consider the language you propose....

[A]n aircraft that is registered as a civilian passenger or freight carrier not involved in military transport, emitting appropriate, legitimate IFF signals, responsive to queries and instructions from authorities, and it is not engaging in activity detrimental to the security of the nation whose airspace it is in.

... to be an acceptable definition of "civilian aircraft" if it was noted that the definition applies for the purposes of this resolution only. That would apply reasonable criteria for an aircraft to qualify for the protection of the resolution.

As for our concern about intelligence.... It would be a practical impossibility for any national authorities, even given the power to require landing and search, to determine if an aircraft was transporting intelligence. Therefore, including mention of it in the proposal is meaningless. It is often possible to determine whether an aircraft is engaging in intelligence collection, but that's a far different issue.

On terrorists.... The point again concerned the definition. If the definition is changed as we recommend, the point is moot. And, as for space concerns precluding mention of terrorist-controlled aircraft, changing the definition would remove the need for Article X, leaving you some wiggle-room.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

I currently have so many problems with the language of the proposal that I don't think I can offer sensible comments. The whole thing is just failing to come to a coherent structure in my head.

Most countries rely on trade in Nation States so this is a must!

Most countries rely on trade in Nation States so this is a must!
Could you try putting that in a way that makes sense? I can't see how you get from "trade in NS" to this proposal.

Terrorists are obviously mentioned Article IX, that governments cannot fund them. However, this resolution is more to protect civilians from being shot down then worrying about terrorism. Another resolution could be drafted to deal with that, but, as has been stated, there is a meta-rule on space.

However, we do not believe that terrorists, if they were wishing to harm a target, would follow the guidelines that you have laid out, nor the guidelines established in Article X. Therefore, the nation would have the right to shoot the plane down. If space permitted, I would add a Article where if a plane announces that it has been taken over by terrorists (either by the pilots sending a signal, or the terrorists doing it themselves) then the plane could be shot down, but again, space is at a premium.


Are you seriously sugesting terrorists would make there presence known to any goverment that they wish to attack? That is a ridiculous idea. Why would they run the risk of being shot down? The whole point of the attack would be that it was unforeseen.

Are you seriously sugesting terrorists would make there presence known to any goverment that they wish to attack? That is a ridiculous idea. Why would they run the risk of being shot down? The whole point of the attack would be that it was unforeseen.

It has been known to happen. On 9/11 there was an inadvertant case where the terrorists let their presence be known, and on some hijackings terrorists do let their pressence be known. I sugguest you look throughout history.

Still, we digress from the main point of the resolution.

As for our concern about intelligence.... It would be a practical impossibility for any national authorities, even given the power to require landing and search, to determine if an aircraft was transporting intelligence. Therefore, including mention of it in the proposal is meaningless. It is often possible to determine whether an aircraft is engaging in intelligence collection, but that's a far different issue.

On terrorists.... The point again concerned the definition. If the definition is changed as we recommend, the point is moot. And, as for space concerns precluding mention of terrorist-controlled aircraft, changing the definition would remove the need for Article X, leaving you some wiggle-room.


The word "intelligence" has been removed from the resolution as the delegation from Ambrose-Douglas agrees with your concerns and the points you have made.

On terrosists (terrorism), I ask that you please put your changes that you would sugguest in writing. Perhaps it is the hour, or, better yet, the heat, but I cannot comprehend what you are talking about. Article X has nothing to do with terrorists, so I do not see how it applies. I would appreciate any assistance in the matter.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the UN

It has been known to happen. On 9/11 there was an inadvertant case where the terrorists let their presence be known, and on some hijackings terrorists do let their pressence be known. I sugguest you look throughout history.

Still, we digress from the main point of the resolution.


I agree with you that cases have happened in the past where terrorists have made there presence know, but generaly in these cases the terrorist havn't planned on dying for there cause and when they have let there presence be known it's usually far too late to stop them

I actually may have come up with a sugguestion... what if we say this resolution ONLY applies to civilian aircraft, and not to aircraft controlled by terrorists. That way, a second resolution can be written to handle the terrorist threat, but this resolution was started to just protect civilian airliners flying in the air, not to adress terrorism, in the air at least.

Does that sound acceptable to all?

The people of the Armed Republic of Ugerland note that several key changes have been made to the article and although they do not agree with what is laid out in the article we are still willing to enter discussion on the proposed article so as we can fully understand how it may take effect if it is ever fully realised.
The people of our great nation demand clarification of issues it has with parts of this proposal. The articles of the proposal that we have issues with are as follows:


VII. PROHIBITS any U.N member from attacking a civilian 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, intelligence, and material.

VIII. REQUIRES U.N members to refrain from attacking civilian airports and aircraft on the ground, unless the attacked has placed a military airbase or aircraft in a civilian airport, in which case blood shed is the responsibility of the attacked.

XII. RESOLVES that any U.N member found in violation of this resolution will be subject to any of the following:
A) Sanctions from the U.N body.
B) Monetary compensation to the U.N member whose property was destroyed.
C) Retaliation against military facilities within the borders of the U.N member in violation of this resolution by other U.N members.



How would article VII effect the assassination of government officials of nations in times of war? It is common practice among many nations such as our own to attempt to destabilise the government of our enemy by removing key people such as the main government leader and his key advisor. It also is common practice to attempt to destabilise the economy of said nations by removing captains of industry. And in many cases we have found this easier to achieve when said officials are transit such as in private airlines.

Does article VII still permit the attacking of the runways of stated airports as long as nobody is directly hurt by the attack? Also does it permit the aggressors to attack civilian airports if all other military airports have been removed in the enemy’s country and the aggressors believe the enemy will try to move its remaining aircrafts to be used in civilian airports, even if it hasn’t done so already?

Article XII states “Monetary compensation to the U.N member whose property was destroyed.” How would this clause be played if a UN nation attacked another nation that is not part of the UN? Obviously the UN nation would have to follow the codes of conduct set out in this article even although his/her enemy may not. Would the UN member state still be penalised if it attacked civilian airport in retaliation for actions made by the non-UN state?

I actually may have come up with a sugguestion... what if we say this resolution ONLY applies to civilian aircraft, and not to aircraft controlled by terrorists. That way, a second resolution can be written to handle the terrorist threat, but this resolution was started to just protect civilian airliners flying in the air, not to adress terrorism, in the air at least.

Does that sound acceptable to all?


The problem with that would be that we would have to rely on the second resolution going through as well as the first and this is unacceptable. All issues would have to be cleared up in one resolution with posible amendments later and terrorism is a key issue brought up by this resolution.

I don't know if this question has already been answered but what happens to military planes that are carrying wounded soldiers? would they be protected under this resolution?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookeland

I don't know if this question has already been answered but what happens to military planes that are carrying wounded soldiers? would they be protected under this resolution?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookeland

In a time of war, all military personnel, wounded or not, are still considered combatants. This proposal would not protect wounded soldiers being transported.

However, it is hoped that other nations wouldn't go shooting down flights of wounded soldiers during peacetime, but then again, this resolution does not protect that either.

The people of the Armed Republic of Ugerland note that several key changes have been made to the article and although they do not agree with what is laid out in the article we are still willing to enter discussion on the proposed article so as we can fully understand how it may take effect if it is ever fully realised.
The people of our great nation demand clarification of issues it has with parts of this proposal. The articles of the proposal that we have issues with are as follows:


VII. PROHIBITS any U.N member from attacking a civilian 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, intelligence, and material.

VIII. REQUIRES U.N members to refrain from attacking civilian airports and aircraft on the ground, unless the attacked has placed a military airbase or aircraft in a civilian airport, in which case blood shed is the responsibility of the attacked.

XII. RESOLVES that any U.N member found in violation of this resolution will be subject to any of the following:
A) Sanctions from the U.N body.
B) Monetary compensation to the U.N member whose property was destroyed.
C) Retaliation against military facilities within the borders of the U.N member in violation of this resolution by other U.N members.



How would article VII effect the assassination of government officials of nations in times of war? It is common practice among many nations such as our own to attempt to destabilise the government of our enemy by removing key people such as the main government leader and his key advisor. It also is common practice to attempt to destabilise the economy of said nations by removing captains of industry. And in many cases we have found this easier to achieve when said officials are transit such as in private airlines.

Does article VII still permit the attacking of the runways of stated airports as long as nobody is directly hurt by the attack? Also does it permit the aggressors to attack civilian airports if all other military airports have been removed in the enemy’s country and the aggressors believe the enemy will try to move its remaining aircrafts to be used in civilian airports, even if it hasn’t done so already?

Article XII states “Monetary compensation to the U.N member whose property was destroyed.” How would this clause be played if a UN nation attacked another nation that is not part of the UN? Obviously the UN nation would have to follow the codes of conduct set out in this article even although his/her enemy may not. Would the UN member state still be penalised if it attacked civilian airport in retaliation for actions made by the non-UN state?

During times of war, most government officials that I know of either travel under heavilly armed escort or travel on a civilian airliner. It they travel under the former, then any plane they are on is a target, since the escort now makes it military in nature. However, should a head of state be travelling on a civilian airliner with no armed escort present on the plane, then Article VII would prevent you from attacking that plane. Again, this resolution is to make sure, first a foremost, that the skies are safe for CIVILIANS.

To your second question, airport, to me, is defined as the terminal. Maybe clearing up the language would make it better in this case. Anyways, you can attack runways as long as no civilian planes are bombed during the bombing of said runways. As for the second question, no, you cannot. Not until the military has physically moved planes to civilian airports (or terminals) can you attack them.

The thrid question is double sided. To the beginning, yes, the UN member would still be bound by this resolution and would still have to pay compensation, whether or not the other party was a member of the UN or not. For the second question, still no. Whether the other party is a member of the UN or not, all UN members are still bound by the rules laid out in this resolution.

The problem with that would be that we would have to rely on the second resolution going through as well as the first and this is unacceptable. All issues would have to be cleared up in one resolution with posible amendments later and terrorism is a key issue brought up by this resolution.

Space does not allow all issues to be cleared up in one resolution, sir. Unless you have a sugguestion as to how to break a meta-rule on space requirements. Furthermore, terrorism is not a key issue, merely a fringe one, and can easilly be taken out of the resolution completly.

But surely the leader of a country and his immediate council would be classified as military members as they would be involved in the coordination of attacks and as such would then make the civilian transport a military one?

But surely the leader of a country and his immediate council would be classified as military members as they would be involved in the coordination of attacks and as such would then make the civilian transport a military one?

Unless the leader of a government has a military title in front of his name (such as General, etc.), he/she is considered a civilian. Royalty are considered civilians, as well as President's, Premier's, etc.

OOC: Take the RL US for an example. Bill Clinton never served a day in the military, was predient, commander in chief of the military, yet still classified as a civilian. It works the same way here.

OOC: bump

First, a drafting suggestion. You could combine III and IV (and save a few characters) by removing the redundancy. The result would be

IV. DEFINES a civilian aircraft as ANY craft in the air that
A) has no military or strategic value;
B) carries only non-combatants, diplomats, and non-military cargo, from any nation; and
C) carries no military weapons, material, or intelligence.
...or however you've rephrased the subclauses.

Have I got that right, by the way? Are all three conditions supposed to be met before an aircraft is considered to be civilian, or will any one of them do? The proposal is ambiguous at present.

I actually may have come up with a sugguestion... what if we say this resolution ONLY applies to civilian aircraft, and not to aircraft controlled by terrorists. That way, a second resolution can be written to handle the terrorist threat, but this resolution was started to just protect civilian airliners flying in the air, not to adress terrorism, in the air at least.

Does that sound acceptable to all?
Unfortunately you still have to distinguish the case of terrorism, which is why people are bringing it up, otherwise your proposal will apply to them whether you intended it to or not.

During times of war, most government officials that I know of either travel under heavilly armed escort or travel on a civilian airliner. It they travel under the former, then any plane they are on is a target, since the escort now makes it military in nature. However, should a head of state be travelling on a civilian airliner with no armed escort present on the plane, then Article VII would prevent you from attacking that plane. Again, this resolution is to make sure, first a foremost, that the skies are safe for CIVILIANS.
Careful, your explanation makes it sound like a head of state couldn't have armed bodyguards with them on the plane. It's fairly normal to regard "secret service" style bodyguards as civilians, so Article VII would hold for them, but what if the head of state's honour guard are trained soldiers? I'm fairly sure that there are a few nations out there who work like that.

To your second question, airport, to me, is defined as the terminal. Maybe clearing up the language would make it better in this case. Anyways, you can attack runways as long as no civilian planes are bombed during the bombing of said runways. As for the second question, no, you cannot. Not until the military has physically moved planes to civilian airports (or terminals) can you attack them.
Clearing up the language is a must, since I didn't read it that way at all. But anyway this interpretation defeats your point; if the runway has been bombed, no civilians are going to be enjoying air travel from there anyway.

The thrid question is double sided. To the beginning, yes, the UN member would still be bound by this resolution and would still have to pay compensation, whether or not the other party was a member of the UN or not. For the second question, still no. Whether the other party is a member of the UN or not, all UN members are still bound by the rules laid out in this resolution.
I'm still in favour of dropping XII entirely.

Unless the leader of a government has a military title in front of his name (such as General, etc.), he/she is considered a civilian. Royalty are considered civilians, as well as President's, Premier's, etc.

OOC: Take the RL US for an example. Bill Clinton never served a day in the military, was predient, commander in chief of the military, yet still classified as a civilian. It works the same way here.
That doesn't seem reasonable. While I wouldn't expect Gobbannium's royalty to do anything as useful as serve in the military, others might. I also wouldn't expect a military head of government to have different rights when he's acting as head of state from a civilian one.

The problem with that would be that we would have to rely on the second resolution going through as well as the first and this is unacceptable. All issues would have to be cleared up in one resolution with posible amendments later and terrorism is a key issue brought up by this resolution.

Amendments are against the UN's rules...

First, a drafting suggestion. You could combine III and IV (and save a few characters) by removing the redundancy. The result would be

...or however you've rephrased the subclauses.

Have I got that right, by the way? Are all three conditions supposed to be met before an aircraft is considered to be civilian, or will any one of them do? The proposal is ambiguous at present.

No, you've got it right. It's supposed to be all three before the aircraft is considered a civilian one... I'll condense them and add "meets all three of the following conditions". Will that make it clearer?


Unfortunately you still have to distinguish the case of terrorism, which is why people are bringing it up, otherwise your proposal will apply to them whether you intended it to or not.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean... if I eliminate all mentions of terrorism (including the clause about governments not being able to use their own militaries or pay others to hijack civilian airlines) then won't that make it clear that this resolution is ONLY about civilian aircraft, and has nothing to do with terrorism?

Careful, your explanation makes it sound like a head of state couldn't have armed bodyguards with them on the plane. It's fairly normal to regard "secret service" style bodyguards as civilians, so Article VII would hold for them, but what if the head of state's honour guard are trained soldiers? I'm fairly sure that there are a few nations out there who work like that.

I know there are... but it's either we let nations bomb civilian airliners and to take out government leaders, or we don't. I'm on the side that we don't, so as long as the government leader has no MILITARY TRAINED PERSONNEL escorting him/her on the plane, then it cannot be attacked.


Clearing up the language is a must, since I didn't read it that way at all. But anyway this interpretation defeats your point; if the runway has been bombed, no civilians are going to be enjoying air travel from there anyway.

I will change it from "airport" to "terminal" so it reads this way. I'd always assumed they were synonymous, but I guess not. And it doesn't defeat my point. If the military has placed planes on the runway, those can be bombed, as long as every effort is taken to spare civilian life. I'm not so much concerned with making sure civilians can travel as much as that they are alive.


I'm still in favour of dropping XII entirely.

If we drop XII, what is there for nations to fear from disobeying the resolution? Nothing. There has to be some punishment at least sketched out or this resolution will hold no weight whatsoever.


That doesn't seem reasonable. While I wouldn't expect Gobbannium's royalty to do anything as useful as serve in the military, others might. I also wouldn't expect a military head of government to have different rights when he's acting as head of state from a civilian one.

I direct you to my statement from before. It's either we allow heads of state to be shot down on civilian airliners or we don't. I'm leaning towards that we don't. This measure is to protect the CIVILIANS.

EDIT: Proposal now edited... let me know.

OOC: bump

No, you've got it right. It's supposed to be all three before the aircraft is considered a civilian one... I'll condense them and add "meets all three of the following conditions". Will that make it clearer?
Sure. I'd have done what I suggested, which is shorter and grammatically better, but do whatever you prefer.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean... if I eliminate all mentions of terrorism (including the clause about governments not being able to use their own militaries or pay others to hijack civilian airlines) then won't that make it clear that this resolution is ONLY about civilian aircraft, and has nothing to do with terrorism?
No. A civilian aircraft taken over by terrorists is still a civilian aircraft. As such, clause IX dictates when a nation can shoot it down, for example, and clause IX is messy. I can't suggest anything better, but my instictive reaction to reading it is "Ugh!"

I know there are... but it's either we let nations bomb civilian airliners and to take out government leaders, or we don't. I'm on the side that we don't, so as long as the government leader has no MILITARY TRAINED PERSONNEL escorting him/her on the plane, then it cannot be attacked.
I disagree, it's not an either/or situation. You could, for the purposes of this resolution, not consider personal bodyguards to be military personnel, even if they are currently serving.

I will change it from "airport" to "terminal" so it reads this way. I'd always assumed they were synonymous, but I guess not.
"Air terminal" or "air terminal buildings" would be clearer, at least for the first usage.

And it doesn't defeat my point. If the military has placed planes on the runway, those can be bombed, as long as every effort is taken to spare civilian life. I'm not so much concerned with making sure civilians can travel as much as that they are alive.
Even if the military hasn't placed planes on the runway, the runway can be bombed. A bombed-out runway is no good to civil air traffic. Ergo, civilians will not be enjoying air flight from that airport.

If safety is your overriding concern, you'd be better off prohibiting civilians from flying anywhere near a war zone -- an awfully big area given modern warfare. Since you actually want people to be able to fly, and so do I, I'm surprised that you really meant "terminals."

If we drop XII, what is there for nations to fear from disobeying the resolution? Nothing. There has to be some punishment at least sketched out or this resolution will hold no weight whatsoever.
Compliance is mandatory.

I direct you to my statement from before. It's either we allow heads of state to be shot down on civilian airliners or we don't. I'm leaning towards that we don't. This measure is to protect the CIVILIANS.
And I direct you to mine. If you're going to make special cases for heads of state, you shouldn't be discriminatory about it. You can, with a few words, ignore their military status or lack thereof.

No. A civilian aircraft taken over by terrorists is still a civilian aircraft. As such, clause IX dictates when a nation can shoot it down, for example, and clause IX is messy. I can't suggest anything better, but my instictive reaction to reading it is "Ugh!"

There have been lots of proposals where things were just "Ugh"... but if there is no better way to phrase them, then that is how they shall stay.


I disagree, it's not an either/or situation. You could, for the purposes of this resolution, not consider personal bodyguards to be military personnel, even if they are currently serving.

Distinction made... it's at the end of Section VI now, I believe.


"Air terminal" or "air terminal buildings" would be clearer, at least for the first usage.

Even if the military hasn't placed planes on the runway, the runway can be bombed. A bombed-out runway is no good to civil air traffic. Ergo, civilians will not be enjoying air flight from that airport.

If safety is your overriding concern, you'd be better off prohibiting civilians from flying anywhere near a war zone -- an awfully big area given modern warfare. Since you actually want people to be able to fly, and so do I, I'm surprised that you really meant "terminals."

I want people to be able to fly without fear of being shot down. However, we also have to look at things from a military standpoint. Someone brought up a valid issue earlier, where if the military is using civilian runways to take off from, it's now a military target. The runways can be bombed, though it should be avoided, as long as the terminals aren't.


Compliance is mandatory.

And I direct you to mine. If you're going to make special cases for heads of state, you shouldn't be discriminatory about it. You can, with a few words, ignore their military status or lack thereof.

Compliance is mandatory, yes, but what is the harm of outlining things that could happen should they choose not to comply? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Especially if our country is not the destination of the civilian aircrafts in question, it is not only our job to ensure the safety and security of the civilians boarding the said aircrafts. Our part is to make sure that aircrafts can take off, land, and pass our territory safely. But it is not our job to intercept every flight and check its cargo to search for any military weapons and intelligence, especially if the propaganda in question does not concern our country in any way. It is the responsibilty of the country of origin to ensure the safety and security of the civilian aircrafts leaving its territory. In addition, we will not allow ourselves to be restricted on the extent to which we can defend our country.

Therefore, until further notice or discussion, we, the citizens of Metamerism, will be withholding our support for this resolution. Should the conditions above be addressed, we will reconsider our notion for this resolution.

There have been lots of proposals where things were just "Ugh"... but if there is no better way to phrase them, then that is how they shall stay.
The "Ugh" factor stems entirely from the 'perm any three from' nature of the clause, which just cannot be the right way to do it. My instinct is to tell you to delete everything after "if the aircraft is in that members' airspace". But that leaves us back in the situation of trusting member nations to be reasonable about deeming aircraft as security threats, and the whole point of the proposal is that some nations aren't reasonable. Would someone with fresh eyes like to pick this apart?

I'm beginning to get irked at the second half of IV as well:

If airspace is restricted, then U.N members shall provide alternatives to airline companies to avoid potentially deadly situations.
Alternatives to what, exactly? Any aircraft entering your airspace should be obeying your air traffic controllers and following your air lanes anyway, so there should never be any question of them venturing into restricted airspace. The whole clause seems to have the unspoken premise that civilian aircraft can go where they want unless they are explicitly forbidden. The reality is generally the other way round; civilian aircraft go exactly where they are told. If they don't, they usually face a hefty fine if they are lucky enough not to have caused an accident.

This has now been submitted.