NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations;

I. DECLARES that civilians be defined as non-combatants of nations, and as nationals, military or non-combatant, of neutral nations as defined by UN Resolution #134: Rights of Neutral States.

II. RECOGNIZES that civil aviation provides an important service to the world and that those using it should be able to do so without fear of attack.

III. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a civilian aircraft as any craft in the air that is registered as a civilian passenger or freight carrier not involved in military operations, 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.

IV. REQUIRES that all U.N members inform civilian aircraft of their airspace boundaries, of any natural or non-natural dangerous activity occurring, 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.

VII. 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.

VIII. 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.

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 targets of military, economic, or political importance, there is proof that the aircraft is carrying military personnel or material. Members are urged to attempt all means available to avert a potentially deadly situation, keeping the use of deadly force only as a last resort.

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 V.

XI. RESOLVES that any U.N member found in violation of this resolution will be subject to any retaliation deemed necessary by any U.N nation.


3,444 characters, spellchecked, etc. Article XI is legal (it's been checked, so don't ask or say it's illegal).

Questions, comments, suggestions?

Questions, comments, suggestions?

You bet!


IV. REQUIRES that all U.N members inform civilian aircraft of their airspace boundaries, of any natural or non-natural dangerous activity occurring, 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.

Under certain circumstances, alternatives may not be a possibility. Also, not all airline traffic is administered by airline companies. Private aviation should be granted equal rights in this respect.

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.

Does this mean that the nation in the airspace of which an event occurs is responsible for preventing any damage or threats thereof upon a foreign aircraft? Third parties could, beyond the control of said nation, make such threats or cause damage. Surely, one nation cannot be held responsible for the action of another against a third.

VII. 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.

Airports, both military and civilian, are of great strategic importance, regardless of the nature of aircraft stationed there. Also, an attack nation could chose to place it governmental functions at an airport, thus rendering these functions under the protection of this resolution.


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 targets of military, economic, or political importance, there is proof that the aircraft is carrying military personnel or material. Members are urged to attempt all means available to avert a potentially deadly situation, keeping the use of deadly force only as a last resort.

Action should be better defined here, since quite a wide range of procedures could otherwise be included in the term.

I can see certain problems arising from non-dirigible aircraft...

Article XI is legal (it's been checked, so don't ask or say it's illegal).I trust you; still, I'd like to know how the moderators came to conclude that I and XI are not House of Cards violations.

A general question: Do you see this applying to spacecraft as well?

Also, sorry, but I'm not going to take your word that Atricle XI is legal. I've seen no such ruling.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I'm shocked ... SHOCKED ... to see no mention of super-powered vigilantes with flight powers even mentioned. Based on the title, that's surely what I expected.

OK, hoped for. Alas.



(As to the rulings, nobody asked me. I'm gonna hold off on making any additional ruling until the author reveals the source of that approval)

(Of course, it's not possible for anyone to ever repeal #49, since it's such a superior piece of writing that no right-minded person would ever dream of proposing a repeal. I'm not biased towards it or anything, just stating the self-obvious.)

I'm shocked ... SHOCKED ... to see no mention of super-powered vigilantes with flight powers even mentioned. Based on the title, that's surely what I expected.

OOC: That would've been too easy, hardly sporting. ;)

I'm shocked ... SHOCKED ... to see no mention of super-powered vigilantes with flight powers even mentioned. Based on the title, that's surely what I expected.

OK, hoped for. Alas.



(As to the rulings, nobody asked me. I'm gonna hold off on making any additional ruling until the author reveals the source of that approval)

(Of course, it's not possible for anyone to ever repeal #49, since it's such a superior piece of writing that no right-minded person would ever dream of proposing a repeal. I'm not biased towards it or anything, just stating the self-obvious.)

Sorry, Fris, I didn't think I needed to ask since you had already made the ruling in the last thread. Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12687309&postcount=27) the post.

To everyone else's concerns, I will be back later to address them all. And yes, I know the title needs some work. It sounded better at 3 in the morning.

Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12687309&postcount=27) the post.Which you clearly misread. He was making general comments about the scope of the proposal, apparently before the illegal language was slipped in. Just because a mod says something is legal at one point doesn't mean it's always going to be legal. There are rules, and one of them is, you can't rely on past UN resolutions for the implementation of your proposal. Sorry.

Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12687309&postcount=27) the post.
Stating that another resolution covers something is not the same as stating that it's OK to quote that coverage in another proposal. Yes, Rights and Duties allows sanctions, and it's the law at time of passage. Therefore, stating:"XI. RESOLVES that any U.N member found in violation of this resolution will be subject to any retaliation deemed necessary by any UN nation"... would be entirely legal. Referencing #49 should be left out, due the possible loss of such guarantees being a House of Cards violation.

"as defined by UN Resolution #134: Rights of Neutral States" is a trickier proposition. The use of the definition reinforces your proposal without running into a contradiction or duplication issue. It may skirt the House of Cards by depending solely on the definition, not necessarily the rest of the proposal. Even if repealed, the definition still exists on the books (though it won't be enforced), so I'm ruling that one legal.

Lose "under UN Resolution #49: Rights and Duties of UN States, Article 4" and I'll agree that it's legal. Or at least that part, as I haven't time for an exhaustive legal review.

Changed Fris...

Also, Omigod, if you actually read the thread that was posted in, you would see it was the first hashing out of this draft. I slightly misinterpreted what Fris said, but there was no need for your tone, or your ignorance.

there was no need for your tone, or your ignorance.

Tone doesn't always translate well in simple text. Obviously, as I'm reading Kenny's statement and your response, and I'm totally flummoxed as to how you think he as insulting or ignorant.

Next time, take a step back before assuming someone is being belligerent towards you. In this forum, it's usually a whole lot more obvious.

(To supplement Fris's point...) Oh god, this is back. And there are some brand new horrors in there too.

III. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a civilian aircraft as any craft in the air that is registered as a civilian passenger or freight carrier not involved in military operations, 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.
Remember this for later.

IV. REQUIRES that all U.N members inform civilian aircraft of their airspace boundaries, of any natural or non-natural dangerous activity occurring, 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.
This is still based on a fundamental misconception of how airspace is handled. Requiring a nation to set out its boundaries, corridors, control tower communications protocols and the like is reasonable -- any nation should be doing this anyway if they don't like picking bits of burning airplane out of their cities. The bit about providing alternatives carries the implication that airlines should be able to go by whatever route they want, and restricted airspace is an unjust burden upon them that they will reluctantly allow. It ain't so. Aircraft flight plans go through the corridors that are part of the boundaries set out. The whole idea of an alternative to going through restricted airspace is just non-sensical.

I'm simplifying radically here, but do you get how this clause is dangerously far from reality.

V. REQUIRES that if a civilian aircraft enters a U.N member's airspace labeled as "restricted" without authorization...
Would it be unhelpful of me to point out that a civilian aircraft doing this is no longer a civilian aircraft under the definition in the proposal? Yes? Good.

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.
I still think you're discriminating against military heads of state. And military attachés. And bodyguards who happen to be serving military. But you've said before you don't care about that.

VII. 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.
If you want to phrase this in a way that actually gives a damn about civilians, you could replace everything from "unless..." with "except to attack military aircraft or airbases within their boundaries." Also don't expect the homily to win you any friends.

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 targets of military, economic, or political importance, there is proof that the aircraft is carrying military personnel or material.
Once again, almost any one of these conditions would result in a civilian aircraft that isn't a civilian aircraft under the definition, so can be shot down with relative impugnity. And this is an ugly kludge in any case.

XI. RESOLVES that any U.N member found in violation of this resolution will be subject to any retaliation deemed necessary by any U.N nation.
This may now be legal, but it's bloody silly. Any retaliation necessary, really? Does that include going to war with someone over them being rude to a third nation's aircraft? Wars have been declared over flimsier excuses, and I'd hate for the UN to be suckered into de facto endorsing one.

(To supplement Fris's point...) Oh god, this is back. And there are some brand new horrors in there too.

Remember this for later.

Quite remembered.

This is still based on a fundamental misconception of how airspace is handled. Requiring a nation to set out its boundaries, corridors, control tower communications protocols and the like is reasonable -- any nation should be doing this anyway if they don't like picking bits of burning airplane out of their cities. The bit about providing alternatives carries the implication that airlines should be able to go by whatever route they want, and restricted airspace is an unjust burden upon them that they will reluctantly allow. It ain't so. Aircraft flight plans go through the corridors that are part of the boundaries set out. The whole idea of an alternative to going through restricted airspace is just non-sensical.

Or it only carries that implication if you choose to read it in that twisted way...

Providing alternatives means that if an airspace is restricted and the airline company did not know about it beforehand, then the UN nations should provide alternative routes around said restricted airspace that the airplane can take so that it reaches it's destination, hopefully with fuel to spare, though, if necessary, it could land somewhere else and refuel. I never say anything about airliners being able to go wherever they want, that's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

I'm simplifying radically here, but do you get how this clause is dangerously far from reality.

Or it's really not. When airspace over the US on 9-11 became restricted suddenly, flights were given ALTERNATIVE ROUTES to get to where they were going, or to get to a safe airport. That is all that clause is asking for. That you cannot see that baffles me.

Would it be unhelpful of me to point out that a civilian aircraft doing this is no longer a civilian aircraft under the definition in the proposal? Yes? Good.

Ah, yes, your "remember this later" comment. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, juuuuuust maybe, an airliner might ACCIDENTALLY stray into restricted airspace by ACCIDENT? It has happened before, you know, including in the US after 9-11. Were the planes immediately shot out of the sky for trespassing? Certainly not. They were still considered CIVILIAN AIRLINERS and were escorted back to unrestricted airspace. They were not considered military targets.

I still think you're discriminating against military heads of state. And military attachés. And bodyguards who happen to be serving military. But you've said before you don't care about that.

No, I do care about that. I would not be above assassinating a world leader by shooting his airplane out of the sky. But ONLY if it is a private aircraft, one that is either used exclusively by the leader of a nation, or one that is meant to carry just him and his aides/bodyguards/advisers/etc.

What I'm doing is protecting civilians. I see no reason why a 19 year old college student or a single mother of two flying home to see her mother should have to die just because some numbnuts world leader decided to hop on their plane and some heartless, trigger happy bastard decided to blow him/her out of the sky.

If you want to phrase this in a way that actually gives a damn about civilians, you could replace everything from "unless..." with "except to attack military aircraft or airbases within their boundaries." Also don't expect the homily to win you any friends.

I will take your first useful suggestion made this entire thread under consideration. Also, I'm not religious, and I know that a "homily" is a type of Catholic sermon or something. However, the phrase I think you're referring to (the one about the blood being on the hands of the attacked) was not to win friends, but to clarify so there would be no question about whose fault it was if suddenly a bunch of civilians died when a former civilian airport launching F-22s was bombed.

Once again, almost any one of these conditions would result in a civilian aircraft that isn't a civilian aircraft under the definition, so can be shot down with relative impugnity. And this is an ugly kludge in any case.

You do realize that for any ONE of those conditions, it could just be a mistake right? I've been meaning to ask, actually, have you ever flown a plane as a pilot? Or had a family member who was a pilot? I won't jump to close-minded conclusions like you did earlier about it, it's an honest question. I doubt it only because if you did, you would realize how often a plane deviates a little from its flight plan because of pilot improvisation to save fuel or time, or that sometimes radios do go out and pilots can hear but not send. Perhaps the conditions could be changed to any two, but there is no reason why a pilot making the innocent mistake of flying a mile or two outside his flight plan should have to pay with his/her life, and their passengers certainly shouldn't have to pay for it with theirs, either.

This may now be legal, but it's bloody silly. Any retaliation necessary, really? Does that include going to war with someone over them being rude to a third nation's aircraft? Wars have been declared over flimsier excuses, and I'd hate for the UN to be suckered into de facto endorsing one.

Are you reading the same resolution I am? Seriously. It doesn't say the UN HAS TO attack anyone should this be violated. It gives them the option to. Ideally, it would be the nation who's citizens or nationals were killed doing the attacking, but if a third party felt that they needed to get involved, they have every right to do so. The UN wouldn't be "suckered into" anything. That clause gives UN nations the OPTION (meaning they don't have to if they don't want to) of attacking or not. Period.

Can I suggest you change the title? 'Flying Civilians' is only going to induce much silliness.

I'd suggest Civil Aviation Protection Act or some such

I'm shocked ... SHOCKED ... to see no mention of super-powered vigilantes with flight powers even mentioned. Based on the title, that's surely what I expected.

Quite so; and what about dragons, such as Mme Vermithrax, too?

Do flying pigs get protection under this proposal, or under the previous resolution? Or do they need to prove they and sentient before qualifying for this one? What about robotic flying pigs?

A well written and thought out proposal however :

The Security Regiments of our military provides security at Philimbesian airports, to do this they house two units of troops, who run the security checks, oversee the baggage transfer and loading, and house interceptor aircraft squadrons, and command ground to air missile systems. They are not considered combat personnel though I wouldn't care to meet up with them in a dark alley.

Does this make all of the airports used for civilian travel in my country military bases and as such able to be attacked? That would obviously be problematic for us. The military personnel there are tasked with the defense of the airport were we to go to war they would not launch offensive operations, they would continue to defend the airport and the craft taking off and landing . The would in fact be the primary resource should we ever have to use clause IX.

It would be highly ironic if the measures we take to ensure the safety of our civilians could expose them to danger, and exempt them from protection under international law.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

A well written and thought out proposal however :

The Security Regiments of our military provides security at Philimbesian airports, to do this they house two units of troops, who run the security checks, oversee the baggage transfer and loading, and house interceptor aircraft squadrons, and command ground to air missile systems. They are not considered combat personnel though I wouldn't care to meet up with them in a dark alley.

Does this make all of the airports used for civilian travel in my country military bases and as such able to be attacked? That would obviously be problematic for us. The military personnel there are tasked with the defense of the airport were we to go to war they would not launch offensive operations, they would continue to defend the airport and the craft taking off and landing . The would in fact be the primary resource should we ever have to use clause IX.

It would be highly ironic if the measures we take to ensure the safety of our civilians could expose them to danger, and exempt them from protection under international law.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

I thank everyone for their comments so far. I know this needs renaming, as I've said before, it sounded a hell of a lot better at 3 am. I am open to suggestions such as the one Cobdenia made above.

To respond to Mr. Youlkin, since the security officers at your airport are a part of the Philimbesi military and you house interceptor attack squadrons at the airport, then it would be, under this resolution, to be considered a military target.

Originally, the resolution had the wording of "terminal" instead of "airport", trying to keep civilians in the terminal safe (and allowing the bombing of the rest of the airport, such as runways and any hangars where nations keep fighter aircraft). This was seen as problematic, so the wording was changed to allow the entire airport to be bombed should military equipment be present on the premises.

I am sorry that this is the case, as noble as the intentions for your country may be, but that is the case.

I am sorry that this is the case, as noble as the intentions for your country may be, but that is the case.

Then you must understand why we will oppose this, can we at least remove or reword the part in the clause where international law would hold us responsible for their deaths?

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

Then you must understand why we will oppose this, can we at least remove or reword the part in the clause where international law would hold us responsible for their deaths?

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

So you are saying that the airport can still be attacked because there are military personnel/aircraft there, but you just don't want the resolution to say that you are explicitly responsible?

I have a slight problem with this section of clause III:

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.

For two reasons:

1) Past tech nations
2) I don't think it's practical in many aircraft, such as non-dirigible ballons, autogyro's, microlights, to carry equipment and related power supply's to operate such a system.
3) Electric things go wrong

Can I suggest the following alterations:

clearly advertising it's civilian status, through such systems as emitting appropriate, legitimate IFF signals, national civilian registration numbers displayed prominently on the aircraft, specialist civilian light sequencing, and is 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.

Although it might be easier to commitify it; i.e.

FOUNDS the International Civil Aviation Registration Unification Service (ICARUS)

CHARGES ICARUS to lay out an international standard of aviation markings and other such identification systems for use on civil aircraft

[snip]

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a civilian aircraft as any craft in the air that is registered as a civilian passenger or freight carrier not involved in military operations, advertising it's status as such through means sanctioned by ICARUS


Which might get around the problem.

Is founding this "ICARUS" (nice name, btw) legal under UN law? I mean I know there are special restrictions for forming new committees and such, but I'm not well versed in them, so I'm just interested in the legality of it.

Mind you, it's a good idea, a damn good one, I just don't want this to turn illegal on me.

You can form a committee, one of the few limitations being that forming a committee can't be all your resolution does. Since your text is appropriately substantive, I doubt the committee would be illegal.

Although, establishing a committee with no other purpose than regulating the status of civilian airliners seems a bit trivial for my taste.

In this context, a committee would be legal as it doesn't say how the committee should be formed, nor is it all the proposal does.

Although, establishing a committee with no other purpose than regulating the status of civilian airliners seems a bit trivial for my taste.

Perhaps a clause charging Icarus to set minimum safety standards on various classes of aircraft would sought that out?

Providing alternatives means that if an airspace is restricted and the airline company did not know about it beforehand, then the UN nations should provide alternative routes around said restricted airspace that the airplane can take so that it reaches it's destination, hopefully with fuel to spare, though, if necessary, it could land somewhere else and refuel. I never say anything about airliners being able to go wherever they want, that's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
No, it was attempting to make sense of your words. I admit my error; you were in fact considerably more demented than I had imagined.

Aircraft do not, in this day and age, simply appear at the borders of a nation's airspace without notice. Flight plans are a requirement, even for intranational journeys, and aircraft don't take off until that flight plan is logged and accepted. So your case of a company not knowing in advance that they are trying to fly into restricted airspace, the company are the ones guilty of negligence by essentially attempting to enter a nation illegally.

Obviously it's a good thing for nations to publicise changes to airspace restrictions, and for air traffic controllers to refigure their corridors and capacity. But to make nations responsible for the irresponsibility of companies is entirely wrong.

When airspace over the US on 9-11 became restricted suddenly, flights were given ALTERNATIVE ROUTES to get to where they were going, or to get to a safe airport. That is all that clause is asking for. That you cannot see that baffles me.
I haven't read that particular novel, but I'd suggest that if that's what you want to have happen, then say so in the proposal. Because that's not what your current words actually mean.

Ah, yes, your "remember this later" comment. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, juuuuuust maybe, an airliner might ACCIDENTALLY stray into restricted airspace by ACCIDENT?
Has it occurred to you that this is completely irrelevant? I was observing that your definition is so anal that it defeats itself. By your definition, an airliner which doesn't respond to authorities is not a "civilian aircraft," and so none of the proposal applies to it. It doesn't matter whether or not this is by accident, the definition doesn't care. Nor should it; you might remember clashing with almost everybody in an earlier draft because you required the relevant authorities to magically know what was on board any given plane. It might help if you tried to define a "civilian aircraft" instead of the incredible mess you actually define.

No, I do care about that. I would not be above assassinating a world leader by shooting his airplane out of the sky. But ONLY if it is a private aircraft, one that is either used exclusively by the leader of a nation, or one that is meant to carry just him and his aides/bodyguards/advisers/etc.
You what? Let's see if I've got this right: you wouldn't be above shooting a world leader's airplane out of the sky, so you nobly write a law forbidding you to do that. Unless he's a military leader, or has a military attaché or military bodyguards, in which case he's fair game. Gobbannium's about as far from a military dictatorship as you can get, and I'm still not going to approve of something like that.

What I'm doing is protecting civilians. I see no reason why a 19 year old college student or a single mother of two flying home to see her mother should have to die just because some numbnuts world leader decided to hop on their plane and some heartless, trigger happy bastard decided to blow him/her out of the sky.
If that's what your words said, you'd be getting a lot better response from me. But it isn't. If you want your proposal to do this, rewrite it so that it does.

Also, I'm not religious, and I know that a "homily" is a type of Catholic sermon or something.
I'm not religious either, which is why sanctimonious hypocrisy angers me.


You do realize that for any ONE of those conditions, it could just be a mistake right?
And again, you do realise that your proposal doesn't care whether or not it was a mistake, right? The definition is broken.

Are you reading the same resolution I am? Seriously. It doesn't say the UN HAS TO attack anyone should this be violated. It gives them the option to. Ideally, it would be the nation who's citizens or nationals were killed doing the attacking, but if a third party felt that they needed to get involved, they have every right to do so. The UN wouldn't be "suckered into" anything. That clause gives UN nations the OPTION (meaning they don't have to if they don't want to) of attacking or not. Period.
Clearly we aren't reading the same resolution. The one I'm reading says that violators will be subject to "any retaliation deemed necessary by any U.N nation" (my emphasis). This is the UN giving carte blanche to member nations to do what they like, as long as they can come up with a pretext. If one nation decides to go to war with another over an incident involving a third nation's aircraft, this proposal would de facto legitimise that action, regardless of the opinions of the General Assembly, and regardless of the nature of the incident. Any violation of any clause to any degree would do, even if it was failing to inform aircraft that some airspace they were nowhere near was no longer restricted.

So you are saying that the airport can still be attacked because there are military personnel/aircraft there, but you just don't want the resolution to say that you are explicitly responsible?

Sorry for my delay, we had a major natural disaster in one our our states. I've been assisting my government with the operations.

While obviously I'd rather my airports not be attacked, but I'd like the statement of

in which case blood shed is the responsibility of the attacked.


be removed. As we believe that it could then be used to justify attacks on our airports, and should one get through and actually succeed, an strict interpretation of this international law would indicate the attackers are not to blame for their own actions.

We believe that the bloodshed is the responsibility of the attacker, and it is our responsibility to make sure they do not succeed. To say that we should be held responsible for their actions in some ways akin to saying a person deserved a sexual assault because of the clothes they were wearing. Both are the acts of depraved individuals on innocent people (civilians and military) and neither is the fault of the attacked. ever.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

I believe you're going about this the wrong way. I'd start again, this time with a framework for international aviation standardisation, with emphasis on a sort of UN Aviation Administration ((rather like the US TSA)), and go from there with specifics.

As it stands, simply promulgating a series of rules is rather silly, as governments still use their own systems. My own government has a rather large stick about National Sovereignty, and while this might seem to be at odds with our distinguished NSO compatriots, we would suggest that you begin with an international aviation system.

Or, whatever.

Van Turin Lath
His Excellency the Ambassador of Allech-Atreus

My own government has a rather large stick about National Sovereignty, and while this might seem to be at odds with our distinguished NSO compatriots, we would suggest that you begin with an international aviation system.

"My government is a fairly strong supporter of National Sovereignty, but -- as the very existence of our own recently-suggested proposal about the international transit of goods should make obvious -- only with respect to those matters that are actually "national" rather than clearly "international" in nature... and international aviation, by definition, is an "international" matter: Thus, we would also be willing to support a properly-drafted proposal on an international aviation system."

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still, although hopefully not for much longer, required to wear this confounded penguin costume…)