NationStates Jolt Archive

Of all the resolutions/proposals I wrote for the old UN, now the WA, this is my favorite. It isn't the best (the health accreditation one was) or the most populour (marriage protecton), but is the one I enjoyed putting together the most, and that was the most fun to write. Am wondering if it fits the new version of the old UN and if I should have a crack at getting it passed again.

Orbital Space Safety Act

Environment

All Businesses

Noting the enlarging amount of obsolete satellites, space vehicles, spent rocket casing and other debris currently in orbit around inhabited planets for reasons including, but not limited to, various nations space races, orbiting weapons platforms, exploration of space, deliberate dumping of junk into orbit and visiting space faring nations jettisoning their refuse.

Further noting this debris presents a danger to all nations, whether they use orbital space or not, and worried about the possible loss of life and/or property that could occur when some of this junk survives re-entry, and crashes onto the planet, or collides with working equipment in orbit, manned or unmanned.

Convinced measures to clean up this orbital space debris are necessary to protect life and property of all nations. This will work to promote international co-operation between nations of all technological levels, reduce the economic impact caused by nations losing working equipment to collisions with space junk, and ensure orbital space can be utilized by all in as safe and equal a manner as possible.

Mandates:

1 – All UN nations are responsible for any form of equipment put into orbital space by that nation. This includes anything launched by government and/or private agencies. Nations that use another nation’s facilities for launch purposes are still ultimately responsible for their own equipment.

2 - All UN nations with equipment in orbital space must be able to identify any equipment launched from or by their nation, whether by government or private agencies, and must immediately accept responsibility for any piece of their equipment that poses a danger, at the time it is identified as a danger.

3 – All nations with equipment in orbital space must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property. Nations may delegate direct and/or financial responsibility for dealing with said equipment down to private agencies within that nation at their own discretion.

4 – Nations that have equipment in orbital space are responsible for any and all costs incurred in dealing with their own space debris. If you can afford to build it and put it up there, you can afford the clean up.

Strongly encourages all nations with equipment in orbital space to co-operate with each other and share information and technology both to reduce the amount of space debris currently in orbit, and to improve methods of repair, retrieval or safe destruction of malfunctioning equipment in the future.

Urges all UN nations to work together to clean up unidentifiable and/or small space debris currently in orbital space, as much as they are technologically and/or financially able to assist, to ensure a cleaner, safer, environment for those nations with equipment and/or personnel in that environment, to reduce the possibility of objects damaging working equipment, and to reduce the danger of large pieces of debris falling back to the planet.

Encourages space faring nations to offer their services to assist with the disposal of orbital space debris. Payments and terms of contracts for these jobs will be at the discretion of the nation concerned to negotiate with the customer(s).

Does the honoured Ambassador for Waterana really think that at this point in the legislative evolution of the W.A. that this sort of frivolity can really be justified ?

Yours e.t.c. ,

That is why I'm asking. Have been 'away' for over a year and am just starting to catch up.

O.O.C. Oh I see. Your res is well written but I imagine Urgench would not be the only nation to inquire about whether we need it now or not. Have you got any other interesting old gems up your sleeve ? :)

Well, there is Healthcare Certification (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513582). It was my last passed resolution, and the best written. Is a bit stuffy though. Won't worry about the other passed 3 resolutions. One has been covered, I think, one is an embarrassment (my first effort) and the other wouldn't fly I suspect.

I'm surprised you think OSSA is frivilous. I did write one Joke Proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495433), purely for entertainment, it was never submitted. Now that was frivilous :P.

This seems like it would be a good idea for anyone who does stuff in space, just as a matter of common sense.

OOC: It would be great to see this proposal resurrected. And welcome back W!

My government would welcome the resurrection of this sensible legislation from the WA's predecessor body.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

OOC: Welcome back Waterana! This is Yelda, by the way. Don't know if you remember New Leicestershire.

Gobbannium would be happy to see this one go up, as it were. We've even got some designs on the shelf to make money off it: the Steptoe class "Vaccuum Cleaner".

(With apologies to Phil Masters)

At this point in the WA's evolution we would be only too happy to consider this sort of frivolity. As much as it pains us to agree with the Wateranans, of all their past legislative projects, this one really was the most fun. There's no Cluichstan this time around to endlessly pimp their Death Star, but I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. We would prefer a completely new proposal to just passing a copy of the old one, however; for example, the UNCTI replacement we just passed was a completely different anti-terrorism draft, but equally effective.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

OOC: Yay! Welcome back, Waterana!

At this point in the WA's evolution we would be only too happy to consider this sort of frivolity. As much as it pains us to agree with the Wateranans, of all their past legislative projects, this one really was the most fun. There's no Cluichstan this time around to endlessly pimp their Death Star, but I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. We would prefer a completely new proposal to just passing a copy of the old one, however; for example, the UNCTI replacement we just passed was a completely different anti-terrorism draft, but equally effective.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador




Well it seems this resolution is put beyond doubt. The government of the Emperor of Urgench prepares for the day when w.a. funds will be squandered on sweeping the vast empty wastes of space of the assorted oddments of defunct exploration.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Welcome to the WA Waterana: I can help.

Basically all you need to do is professionally replace all references to the UN with those of the WA. I offer to co-author this proposal now that "Right of Emigration" is nearing proposal stage. Basically I place with the words "The World Assembly," either first or after the preamble so readers know that it is the voice of the WA on behalf of us.

Well it seems this resolution is put beyond doubt. The government of the Emperor of Urgench prepares for the day when w.a. funds will be squandered on sweeping the vast empty wastes of space of the assorted oddments of defunct exploration.You haven't actually read the proposal, have you? The WA doesn't pay for it.

Welcome to the WA Waterana: I can help.

Basically all you need to do is professionally replace all references to the UN with those of the WA. I offer to co-author this proposal now that "Right of Emigration" is nearing proposal stage. Basically I place with the words "The World Assembly," either first or after the preamble so readers know that it is the voice of the WA on behalf of us.Yeah, I'm pretty sure the author already knew this.

You haven't actually read the proposal, have you? The WA doesn't pay for it.



We absolutely have read this proposal thank you very much honoured Ambassador. Even if you disregard the fact that the w.a. consists in its member states (which will be paying under the current wording) you yourself have suggested a redrafting to allow for the current w.a. legislative framework, which logically suggests the possibility that the general fund might be called upon to pay instead. By whatever means this organisation's members will be required to pay will they not honoured Ambassador? Or is this a fact that your enthusiasm for this statute refused to allow you to accept?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Sanctaria fully agrees with this proposal as we have a keen interest in space.

However, there may be a change in policy in coming days and as a result, our stance many change.

Ok, sounds like this is a go. Of course it would be updated and certainly given a good going over to tighten up the wording ect. Will dredge up the old thread on it, and fix any flaws that were brought up while it was at vote.

As for costing WA nations. This as written now is a 'you put it up there, you pay for the cleanup' proposal. A take responsibility for you own actions type of thing. That won't be changed.

We absolutely have read this proposal thank you very much honoured Ambassador. Even if you disregard the fact that the w.a. consists in its member states (which will be paying under the current wording) you yourself have suggested a redrafting to allow for the current w.a. legislative framework, which logically suggests the possibility that the general fund might be called upon to pay instead. By whatever means this organisation's members will be required to pay will they not honoured Ambassador? Or is this a fact that your enthusiasm for this statute refused to allow you to accept?Way to put words in my mouth. Don't try to blame me for your apparent ignorance. We never planned on suggesting WA funding for space junk, and also: nations cleaning up their own mess != WA pays. Get it straight.

It's great to see you back, Waterana!

I think we'd happily vote for this if it came back to vote; it's solid and was vetted in the past so I see no IC reason for Snefaldia not to support.

Way to put words in my mouth. Don't try to blame me for your apparent ignorance. We never planned on suggesting WA funding for space junk, and also: nations cleaning up their own mess != WA pays. Get it straight.


As you well know we did not say that you had said anything you did not say, honoured Ambassador. We made logical deductions which were perfectly justified. Thankfully the honoured Ambassador for Waterana has assured us that no w.a. funds will be used for this scheme. This at least we take heart in.

Since the honoured Ambassador for Omigodtheykilledkenny is insistent on being insulting and has indicated his nation's substantial influence will be brought to bear in favour of this resolution we will do as he presumably wishes and hold our tongues on the matter in the knowledge that our contribution will be sidelined in any case . Accordingly we will get about the business of preparing our national space exploration effort for huge readjustment it will soon be making to its priorities.

We congratulate the honoured and respected Ambassador for Waterana on securing such powerful support for their statute.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I found and reread the whole 'at vote' thread for this when it was passed last time. Couldn't find any problems brought up. Just more than a few people who didn't read it properly, misread it, read more into it, and just generally found something to whine about.

Sorry Kenny, but doubt I'll be changing much. Just cleaning up and updating the language. Old saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it applies :).

Orbital Space Safety Act

Environment

All Businesses

Noting the enlarging amount of obsolete satellites, space vehicles, spent rocket casing and other debris currently in orbit around inhabited planets for reasons including, but not limited to, various nations space races, orbiting weapons platforms, exploration of space, deliberate dumping of junk into orbit and visiting space faring nations jettisoning their refuse.

Further noting this debris presents a danger to all nations, whether they use orbital space or not, and worried about the possible loss of life and/or property that could occur when some of this junk survives re-entry, and crashes onto the planet, or collides with working equipment in orbit, manned or unmanned.

Convinced measures to clean up this orbital space debris are necessary to protect life and property of all nations. This will work to promote international co-operation between nations of all technological levels, reduce the economic impact caused by nations losing working equipment to collisions with space junk, and ensure orbital space can be utilised by all in as safe and equal a manner as possible.

Mandates:

1: All WA nations are responsible for any form of equipment put into orbital space by that nation. This includes anything launched by government and/or private agencies. Nations that use another nation’s facilities for launch purposes are still ultimately responsible for their own equipment.

2 : All WA nations with equipment in orbital space must be able to identify any equipment launched from or by their nation, whether by government or private agencies, and must immediately accept responsibility for any piece of their equipment that poses a danger, at the time it is identified as a danger.

3: All WA nations with equipment in orbital space must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property. Nations may delegate direct and/or financial responsibility for dealing with said equipment down to private agencies within that nation at their own discretion.

4: Nations that have equipment in orbital space are responsible for any and all costs incurred in dealing with their own space debris. In the case of dispute over financial responsibility between two or more nations, the nations concerned must come to agreement on sharing the cost, or enlist the services of and follow the recommendations, of a neutral mediator.

Strongly encourages all nations with equipment in orbital space to co-operate with each other and share information and technology both to reduce the amount of space debris currently in orbit, and to improve methods of repair, retrieval or safe destruction of malfunctioning equipment in the future.

Urges all WA nations to work together to clean up unidentifiable and/or small space debris currently in orbital space, as much as they are technologically and/or financially able to assist, to ensure a cleaner, safer, environment for those nations with equipment and/or personnel in that environment, to reduce the possibility of objects damaging working equipment, and to reduce the danger of large pieces of debris falling back to the planet.

Encourages space faring nations to offer their services to assist with the disposal of orbital space debris. Payments and terms of contracts for these jobs will be at the discretion of the nation concerned to negotiate with the customer(s).

Changed all instances of UN to WA. Also added a new line to clause 4 covering disputes between nations over financial responsibility.

Not too bad.

OOC; good to see you back, Waterana.

Hi Palentine, and everyone else who has welcomed me back :).

Just submitted the proposal for a dry run through the list, to see what sort of support it picks up without a TG campaign. Had to chop a bit off it, as the first time I clicked submit, I got a line of gibberish with the words 'too long' in the middle of it. End result is this..

Noting the enlarging amount of obsolete satellites, space vehicles, spent rocket casing and other debris currently in orbit around inhabited planets for reasons including, but not limited to, various nations space races, orbiting weapons platforms, exploration of space, deliberate dumping of junk into orbit and space faring nations jettisoning their refuse.

Further noting this debris presents a danger to all nations, whether they use orbital space or not, and worried about the possible loss of life and/or property that could occur when some of this junk survives re-entry, and crashes onto the planet, or collides with working equipment in orbit, manned or unmanned.

Convinced measures to clean up this orbital space debris are necessary to protect life and property of all nations. This will work to promote international co-operation between nations of all technological levels, reduce the economic impact caused by nations losing working equipment to collisions with space junk, and ensure orbital space can be utilised by all in as safe and equal a manner as possible.

Mandates:

1: All WA nations are responsible for any form of equipment put into orbital space by that nation. This includes anything launched by government and/or private agencies. Nations that use another nation’s facilities for launch purposes are still ultimately responsible for their own equipment.

2 : All WA nations with equipment in orbital space must be able to identify any equipment launched from or by their nation, whether by government or private agencies, and must immediately accept responsibility for any piece of their equipment that poses a danger.

3: All WA nations with equipment in orbital space must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property. Nations may delegate direct and/or financial responsibility for dealing with said equipment down to private agencies within that nation at their own discretion.

4: Nations that have equipment in orbital space are responsible for any and all costs incurred in dealing with their own space debris. In the case of dispute over financial responsibility between two or more nations, the nations concerned must come to agreement on sharing the cost, or enlist the services of and follow the recommendations, of a neutral mediator.

Strongly encourages all nations with equipment in orbital space to co-operate with each other and share information and technology both to reduce the amount of space debris currently in orbit, and to improve methods of repair, retrieval or safe destruction of malfunctioning equipment.

Urges all WA nations to work together to clean up unidentifiable and/or small space debris currently in orbital space, as much as they are technologically and/or financially able to assist, to ensure a cleaner, safer, environment for those nations with equipment and/or personnel in that environment, to reduce the possibility of objects damaging working equipment, and to reduce the danger of large pieces of debris falling back to the planet.

Encourages space faring nations to offer their services to assist with the disposal of orbital space debris. Payments and terms of contracts for these jobs will be at the discretion of the nation concerned to negotiate with the customer(s).

"3: All WA nations with equipment in orbital space must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property. Nations may delegate direct and/or financial responsibility for dealing with said equipment down to private agencies within that nation at their own discretion"


And who is charged with the responsibility of identifying such dangerous junk honoured Ambassador? Or are we to submit ourselves to the judgement of any and all who wish make whatever crackpot claims they like ?

This statute allows member states to spuriously claim that each other's vital intelligence satellites are "space junk" which pose a threat to life and then demand that they be retrieved. Without any oversight or impartial adjudication on the matter all manner of false claims may be made causing untold dispute and harm to national security.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I think if a piece of equipment is endangering the planet, it wouldn't just be one nation claiming that. RL example. When Skylab started falling out of orbit years ago, the US (it's owners) knew, the USSR knew, the European space agency knew, hell even the Australians (via our 'secret' American bases) knew.

It is ludicrous to suggest one nation with an agenda against another would be able to claim such a thing when other nations can quite easily check and see for themselves if the claim is true or not.

One nation sees the danger, alerts others who confirm it, the owners deal with it. I hardly think that needs to be added to the proposal when it is just common sense. Besides, I don't have the characters spare to cover every possible far out scenario.

I think if a piece of equipment is endangering the planet, it wouldn't just be one nation claiming that. RL example. When Skylab started falling out of orbit years ago, the US (it's owners) knew, the USSR knew, the European space agency knew, hell even the Australians (via our 'secret' American bases) knew.

It is ludicrous to suggest one nation with an agenda against another would be able to claim such a thing when other nations can quite easily check and see for themselves if the claim is true or not.

One nation sees the danger, alerts others who confirm it, the owners deal with it. I hardly think that needs to be added to the proposal when it is just common sense. Besides, I don't have the characters spare to cover every possible far out scenario.


It is not ludicrous at all to suggest that one nation or a group of nations might have an interest in undermining the security of another. Any imperialistic alliance might have every reason to seek the disabling of a vulnerable state's intelligence gathering abilities.

In any case nowhere in this resolution does it state that international consensus must be reached on the validity of claims that any particular piece of orbiting technology has become a danger. The statute merely says that members are responsible for retrieving or destroying anything which has been identified as a danger, by whom or by what criteria or with what justification this identification is made is not addressed. This leaves this resolution open to gross abuse. What constitutes a justifiable and unbiased identification in these circumstances?

Character limit should not prevent the honoured Ambassador from offering a statutory implement of higher quality than that which was common to this organisation's predecessor.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Like I said, it is common sense. If a nation is told its equipment is presenting a danger, and it isn't, then they they can give their accuser(s) the finger and don't have to do anything. What can the accusers do about it? If it is a danger then they are required to fix the problem. The identification of danger will come from many sources. Those nations that are watching space and what is in it, visiting space faring nations, amateur astronomers ect. This sort of information is easily obtained by those with an interest in orbital space, and if something is a threat, I have no doubts they will spread the word.

The proposal doesn't cover false accusations because it doesn't need to, and to add that un-neccessary information would mean removing some part of the current proposal, which I am unwilling to do as I like it as written and believe all clauses currently in the proposal are needed.

Again honoured Ambassador, this is not what the statute actually says, it says members;

" must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property" this is not optional, member states have no freedom to refuse to comply with this provision if the claims are erroneous or false.

Members are forced to accept any and all claims that their possibly perfectly safe orbital technology are a danger to life and then must do as the provision requires of them.

Either optionality must be written into the statute with regard to how members respond to claims about their orbital craft or a system/criteria should be established which assures members states that claims of this kind are impartial and accurate.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench will not be forced to do anything so expensive and time consuming and possible injurious to our national security as this statute requires on the say so of "amateurs", jealous competitor states and people in flying saucers.

Is the honoured Ambassador really so vain as to believe that their resolution is completely perfect and is beyond the possibility of improvement ?

Yours e.t.c.

If you have the characters to spare you could add:

any piece of their equipment that by international consensus is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

If you have the characters to spare you could add:

any piece of their equipment that by international consensus is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire


We would prefer " impartial consensus " or " impartial international consensus" to simple " international consensus" but we accept that both international and impartial may be too many characters, therefore we would favour " impartial consensus ".

Yours e.t.c. ,

If you have the characters to spare you could add:

any piece of their equipment that by international consensus is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Ok, if it will stop this, to my mind, silly argument I'll look at adding that.

Sorry to continue the irrelevance, but how about 'subject to independent confirmation'? (Or 'verification'.) That means we don't have to hang around to convene a giant committee, but it would prevent frivolous claims.

We weren't around to support this proposal in its original incarnation, but strongly support its restitution. The only change I can suggest making is using 'or' instead of 'and/or': the latter is a grammatically unnecessary construction that wastes a few characters.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Ok, if it will stop this, to my mind, silly argument I'll look at adding that.



Silly as it may seem to the honoured Ambassador, we could only feel comfortable with "impartial" rather than "international" consensus. This would remove the possibility of this resolution being used by powerful groups of states who wish to disadvantage less powerful ones.

It would be fewer characters and would obviate the need to include the wording which the honoured Ms. Benson of Quintessence has suggested ( which would presumably further push the character limit ).


Yours e.t.c.

Or, for fewer additional characters yet, you could use either "that is correctly identified as" or "that is rightfully identified as"...

Orbital Space Safety Act

Environment

All Businesses

Noting the enlarging amount of obsolete satellites, space vehicles, spent rocket casing and other debris currently in orbit around inhabited planets for reasons including, but not limited to, various nations space races, orbiting weapons platforms, exploration of space, deliberate dumping of junk into orbit and visiting space faring nations jettisoning their refuse.

Further noting this debris presents a danger to all nations, whether they use orbital space or not, and worried about the possible loss of life or property that could occur when some of this junk survives re-entry, and crashes onto the planet, or collides with working equipment in orbit, manned or unmanned.

Convinced measures to clean up this orbital space debris are necessary to protect life and property of all nations. This will work to promote international co-operation between nations of all technological levels, reduce the economic impact caused by nations losing working equipment to collisions with space junk, and ensure orbital space can be utilised by all in as safe and equal a manner as possible.

Mandates:

1: All WA nations are responsible for any form of equipment put into orbital space by that nation. This includes anything launched by government or private agencies. Nations that use another nation’s facilities for launch purposes are still ultimately responsible for their own equipment.

2 : All WA nations with equipment in orbital space must be able to identify any equipment launched from or by their nation, whether by government or private agencies, and must immediately accept responsibility for any piece of their equipment that poses a danger, at the time it is identified as a danger.

3: All WA nations with equipment in orbital space must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that by impartial consensus is identified as space junk, and also identified as posing a danger to their own or other nation’s people or property. Nations may delegate direct and/or financial responsibility for dealing with said equipment down to private agencies within that nation at their own discretion.

4: Nations that have equipment in orbital space are responsible for any and all costs incurred in dealing with their own space debris. In the case of dispute over financial responsibility between two or more nations, the nations concerned must come to agreement on sharing the cost, or enlist the services of, and follow the recommendations of, a neutral mediator.

Strongly encourages all nations with equipment in orbital space to co-operate with each other and share information and technology both to reduce the amount of space debris currently in orbit, and to improve methods of repair, retrieval or safe destruction of malfunctioning equipment in the future.

Urges all WA nations to work together to clean up unidentifiable and/or small space debris currently in orbital space, as much as they are technologically and/or financially able to assist, to ensure a cleaner, safer, environment for those nations with equipment and/or personnel in that environment, to reduce the possibility of objects damaging working equipment, and to reduce the danger of large pieces of debris falling back to the planet.

Encourages space faring nations to offer their services to assist with the disposal of orbital space debris. Payments and terms of contracts for these jobs will be at the discretion of the nation concerned to negotiate with the customer(s).

I was pleased to see the unsolicited support this gained while in the list. Have made the suggested changes, but kept one and/or because it does suit that particular line.