What are the rules about flying in another nation’s airspace, intercepting airliners, and general good behaviour in the sky.

A thread 👇

The principles of international air travel were agreed at the 1944 Chicago Convention. WW2 had revolutionised aircraft development and forward-thinking people realised that the rules needed to catch up to accommodate airline travel after the war.
Delegates from 54 countries attended (at considerable personal risk for some) to thrash out a treaty. They had to balance national sovereignty against the co-operation needed for this new means of rapid global transport to work.
Germany, Italy and Japan were not invited (it was 1944) but signed afterwards along with pretty much everyone else. There are now 193 members of ICAO (the body Chicago established) including Belarus.

https://t.co/7qMYlK5E0s
Article 1 of the Convention recognises that states have sovereignty over the airspace above them (although the development of another new technology: space means the rules need to catch up again and agree an upper limit).
In Article 3 states agree not to use weapons against civil aircraft in flight.
However, this is qualified by the UN Charter i.e. the right of self defence. This is why the RAF can intercept non-responding airliners & would be the legal basis for shooting down a hijacked aircraft about to carry out a 9/11-style attack (pic: legal intercept of Ryanair).
States may require an aircraft to land if (a) it doesn’t have permission to fly in their airspace or (b) it is ‘being used for any purpose inconsistent with the aims of this Convention’ i.e. peaceful air travel. Neither of these conditions applied to Ryanair 4978.
So what if an airliner is intercepted? The signals used by intercepting aircraft must be published and pilots should be familiar with them to avoid any misunderstanding. Under the Convention, pilots must comply (so the Ryanair crew had no choice).
However, interception of civil airliners by military aircraft may only take place if the aircraft is there without permission, or if a state has reasonable grounds to believe it is not engaged in peaceful air transport.
So in summary states have a sovereign right to decide who flies in their airspace, and to ensure that they do so safely. They do not have a right to force airliners to land so they can arrest political opponents. That's hijacking.

End.
@UKDefJournal @pinstripedline @nicholadrummond @harry_lye @TheMaverickSgt @adamspink @kingsbury_ollie @CobraBall3 @Justin_Br0nk @MikeyKayNYC @nickstrings @MortenKathy @Charlie533080 @KeirGiles @hthjones @AlexAshWalms @fightingsailor @DefenceViper @war_student @PhilipClare1

More from All

#தினம்_ஒரு_திருவாசகம்
தொல்லை இரும்பிறவிச் சூழும் தளை நீக்கி
அல்லல் அறுத்து ஆனந்தம் ஆக்கியதே – எல்லை
மருவா நெறியளிக்கும் வாதவூர் எங்கோன்
திருவாசகம் என்னும் தேன்

பொருள்:
1.எப்போது ஆரம்பித்தது என அறியப்படமுடியாத தொலை காலமாக (தொல்லை)

2. இருந்து வரும் (இரும்)


3.பிறவிப் பயணத்திலே ஆழ்த்துகின்ற (பிறவி சூழும்)

4.அறியாமையாகிய இடரை (தளை)

5.அகற்றி (நீக்கி),

6.அதன் விளைவால் சுகதுக்கமெனும் துயரங்கள் விலக (அல்லல் அறுத்து),

7.முழுநிறைவாய்த் தன்னுளே இறைவனை உணர்த்துவதே (ஆனந்த மாக்கியதே),

8.பிறந்து இறக்கும் காலவெளிகளில் (எல்லை)

9.பிணைக்காமல் (மருவா)

10.காக்கும் மெய்யறிவினைத் தருகின்ற (நெறியளிக்கும்),

11.என் தலைவனான மாணிக்க வாசகரின் (வாதவூரெங்கோன்)

12.திருவாசகம் எனும் தேன் (திருவா சகமென்னுந் தேன்)

முதல்வரி: பிறவி என்பது முன்வினை விதையால் முளைப்பதோர் பெருமரம். அந்த ‘முன்வினை’ எங்கு ஆரம்பித்தது எனச் சொல்ல இயலாது. ஆனால் ‘அறியாமை’ ஒன்றே ஆசைக்கும்,, அச்சத்துக்கும் காரணம் என்பதால், அவையே வினைகளை விளைவிப்பன என்பதால், தொடர்ந்து வரும் பிறவிகளுக்கு, ‘அறியாமையே’ காரணம்

அறியாமைக்கு ஆரம்பம் கிடையாது. நமக்கு ஒரு பொருளைப் பற்றிய அறிவு எப்போதிருந்து இல்லை? அதைச் சொல்ல முடியாது. அதனாலேதான் முதலடியில், ஆரம்பமில்லாத அஞ்ஞானத்தை பிறவிகளுக்குக் காரணமாகச் சொல்லியது. ஆனால் அறியாமை, அறிவின் எழுச்சியால், அப்போதே முடிந்து விடும்.

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x