Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T18:24:06.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freedom of the Air and the Convention on the Law of the Sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Kay Hailbronner
Kay Hailbronner*
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz, Federal Republic of Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Public international air law is based on two principles. The first recognizes each state’s full and absolute sovereignty over the air above its territory and territorial waters, including the right to impose its jurisdiction over such airspace. Thus, a state may require any foreign aircraft in its airspace, even if only briefly in transit, to comply with its air transport regulations, for example, those concerning the aircraft and its crew, navigation, and the environment. This right, however, is subject to those international treaty obligations the state has assumed in the interest of safe and efficient air transport. The Convention on International Civil Aviation (hereinafter referred to as the Chicago Convention), generally regarded as the Magna Charta of public international air law, requires each contracting state to “collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation.” To this end, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was granted the power to adopt international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with matters such as communication systems and air navigation aids, rules of the air and air traffic control practices, as well as registration and identification of aircraft. Contracting states, however, retained the right to depart from such standards or recommended practices, provided they notified the Organization of the differences between their national regulations and those prescribed by an international standard.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 77 , Issue 3 , July 1983 , pp. 490 - 520
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Done Dec. 7, 1944, 61 Stat. 1180, TIAS No. 1591, 1956 Bundesgesetzblatt [BGB1] II 411, 15 UNTS295.

2 Id., Art. 37.

3 See Buergenthal, T., Law-Making in the International Civil Aviation Organization 57 etseq. (1969)Google Scholar; Matte, N., Traité de droit aérien-aéronautique 195–97 (1964)Google Scholar; Erler, J., Rechtsfragen der ICAO 131 etseq. (1967)Google Scholar.

4 See Cooper, J. C., Space Above the Seas, in Explorations in Aerospace Law, Selected Essays by John Cobb Cooper 194 (Vlasic, I. A. ed. 1968)Google Scholar; Goedhuis, , Sovereignty and Freedom in the Air Space, 41 Grotius Soc’y Transactions 137 (1956)Google Scholar.

5 13 UST 2312, TIAS No. 5200, 1972 BGB1.II 1089, 450 UNTS 82.

6 T. Buergenthal, supra note 3, at 83.

7 See ICAO Council Doc. 7037 (C 814) at 29–30 (1951); cf. Carroz, , International Legislation on Air Navigation over the High Seas, 26 J. Air L. & Com. 158, 168–71 (1959)Google Scholar.

8 T. Buergenthal, supra note 3, at 83; Carroz, supra note 7, at 171; J. ERLER, supra note 3, at 144.

9 According to Article 5, only aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services shall have the right to make flights into or innocent transit nonstop across a foreign state’s territory and to make stops for nontraffic purposes without having to obtain prior permission, and subject to the right of the overflown state to require landing. The attempt to establish a multilateral treaty regime by the International Air Transit Agreement (1956 BGB1.II 442) and the International Air Transport Agreement (for a text, see 2 International Civil Aviation Conference, Proc. 434 (1949)) failed for lack of a sufficient number of ratifications; cf. N. Matte, supra note 3, at 241; Schwenk, W., Handbuch des Luftverkehrsrechts 360–61 (1981)Google Scholar; Lissitzyn, , Freedom of the Air: Scheduled and Non-Scheduled Air Services, in The Freedom of the Air 89 (McWhinney, E. & Bradley, M. eds. 1968)Google Scholar; Johnson, D., Rights in Airspace 58 et seq. (1965)Google Scholar.

10 Pradelle, La, Les Frontières de l’air, 86 Recueil des Cours 117, 139 et seq. (1954 II)Google Scholar; O’Connell, , Innocent Passage of Warships, in 7 Thesaurus Acroasium 405, 446–47 (1977)Google Scholar; Moore, , The Regime of Straits and the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 74 AJIL 77, 85 (1980)Google Scholar.

11 W. Schwenk, supra note 9, at 361, has estimated that in 1979 there were approximately 2,924 bilateral air transport agreements in force.

12 Regarding the dispute between India and Pakistan on the establishment of prohibited zones by Pakistan, which cut off all direct flight routes between the two countries, see N. Matte, supra note 3,at 182–83; J. Erler, supra note 3, at 192. Similar incidents have occurred as a consequence of border disputes between Greece and Turkey, Israel and the Arab states, and Spain and Great Britain.

13 See generally Ming-Min, Peng, Le Statut juridique de l’aéronef Militaire (1957)Google Scholar.

Article 3(c) of the Chicago Convention explicitly provides that no state aircraft of a contracting state shall fly over the territory of another state or land thereon without authorization, by special agreement or otherwise, and only in accordance with the terms thereof. ICAO’s international aviation code also does not apply to state aircraft. Contracting states only undertake, when they issue regulations covering their state aircraft, to have due regard to the safety of navigation of civil aircraft. In practice, national rules relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft will normally correspond to ICAO’s international standards. With some exceptions for military aircraft, those standards apply as well to state aircraft. For an account of the regulations applicable in the Federal Republic of Germany, see W. ScHWENK, supra note 9, at 152–54.

14 Moore, supra note 10, at 84.

15 This article was written on the basis of the text of the Convention agreed upon at the 10th session, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/L.78, of Aug. 28, 1981. No changes were made in the relevant provisions in the final text of Oct. 7, 1982, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/122, reprinted in 21 ILM 1261 (1982), and opened for signature on Dec. 10, 1982. For the codification process within the United Nations, see Hailbronner, & Fritzemeyer, , Das Recht der Vereinten Nationen (2. Teil)—Rechtsquellen, Zusländigkeiten und Arbeitsweise, 13 Juristische Arbeitsblätter 437, 444 et seq. (1981)Google Scholar.

16 Richardson, , Power, Mobility and the Law of the Sea, 58 Foreign AFF. 902, 905–06 (1980)Google Scholar; Moore, supra note 10, at 79.

17 Vitzthum, , Die Gleichschaltung von Land und Meer, in Die Plünderung der Meere 49, 60 et seq. (Graf Vitzthum, W. ed. 1981)Google Scholar.

18 For a summary of the issues raised at the last session, cf. UN Press Release SEA/494, Apr. 30, 1982; see Third United Nations Conference on The Law of the Sea, Official Records; see also Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Documents (Werkhefte Nos. 26, 27, and 29 of the Institut für Internationale Angelegenheiten der Universitat Hamburg, R. Platzoder ed. 1975, 1976); 1–3 Dokumente der Dritten Seerechtskonferenz der Vereinten Nationen, New Yorker Sessionen (Platzoder, R. ed. 1976)Google Scholar.

19 Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 10, 1982, at 5; Knight, H. G., Consequences of Non-Agreements at the Third U.N. Law of the Sea Conference (Studies in Transnational Legal Policy No. 11, 1976)Google Scholar.

20 Cf. statement by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, in Stand, Entwicklung und Mögliche Konsequenzen der 3. Seerechtskonferenz der Vereinten Nationen, Bundestagsdrucksache No. 9/1171 (June 22, 1981); see also Eitel, , Seerechtsreform und Internationale Politik, 107 Archiv Öffentlichen Rechts 100 (1982)Google Scholar.

21 Vitzthum, supra note 17, at 67 et seq.

22 Conf. Doc. C.2/Informal Meeting/4 (Apr. 26, 1978); see also UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WS/12, at 2 (Oct. 31, 1980).

23 Conf. Doc. C.2/Informal Meeting/22 (Apr. 28, 1978).

24 UN Doc. A/CONF.62/L.123 (1982).

25 See UN Press Release, supra note 18, at 38.

26 Darman, , The Law of the Sea: Rethinking U.S. Interests, 56 Foreign Aff. 373 (1977–78)Google Scholar; Reisman, , The Regime of Straits and National Security: An Appraisal of International Lawmaking, 74 AJIL 48 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Knight, , The 1971 United States Proposal on the Breadth of the Territorial Sea and Passage through Straits, 51 Ore. L. Rev. 759 (1974)Google Scholar.

27 Moore, supra note 10, at 93 el seq.

28 Jaenicke, , Die Dritte Seerechtshanferenz der Vereinten Nationen, 38 Zeltschrift für ausländisches Recht und Völkerrecht [Zaörv] 438, 471 et seq. (1978)Google Scholar.

29 Reisman, supra note 26, at 70.

30 Moore, supra note 10, at 102 et seq.

31 Id. at 104.

32 It is doubtful whether compulsory settlement procedures, provided for in part IV of the Convention, apply to disputes arising out of allegations that a state has abused its right of overflight above international straits. Article 297(1) provides for compulsory jurisdiction:

(a) when it is alleged that a coastal State has acted in contravention of the provisions of this Convention in regard to the freedoms and rights of navigation, overflight or the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, or in regard to other internationally lawful uses of the sea specified in article 58;

(b) when it is alleged that a State in exercising the aforementioned freedoms, rights or uses has acted in contravention of this Convention or of laws or regulations adopted by the coastal State in conformity with this Convention and other rules of international law not incompatible with this Convention. . . .

Cf. Bernhardt, , Die Streitbeilegung im Rahmen der Neuordnung des Seerechts, 38 Zaörv 971 et seq. (1978)Google Scholar; Platzöder, Meerengen, id. at 710, 730–31.

33 UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WS/12, supra note 22, at 2.

34 UN Press Release, supra note 18, at 38.

35 Moore, supra note 10, at 110–11.

36 See Law of the Sea: Neglected Issues, pt. III: Air Space and the Law of the Sea 119–62 (Gamble, J. K. ed. 1979)Google Scholar.

37 See Gündling, , Die exklusive Wirtschaftszone, 38 Zaörv 616 (1978)Google Scholar; Rojahn, , 200 sm-Wirtschaftszone, Meeresfreiheit und Hochseefischerei, Völkerrechtliche Entwicklungslinien, 19 German Y.B. Int’l L. 19 et seq. (1976)Google Scholar; Quéneudec, , La Zone économique, 79 Rev. Générale Droit Int’l Public 321 (1975)Google Scholar; Puri, Rama, Evolution of the Concept of the Exclusive Economic Zone in UNCLOS III: India’s Contribution, 22 J. Indian L. Inst. 497 et seq. (1980)Google Scholar.

38 See Gündling, supra note 37, at 653–55, with references to the conference documents at 653 n.105; Jaenicke, supra note 28, at 485–91.

39 Mour, Al, The Legal Status of the Exclusive Economic Zone, 33 Rev. Egyptienne Droit Int’l 35, 60–61 (1977)Google Scholar.

40 Scerni, , La Zone économique exclusive, son importance, sa nature juridique et les probèlmes principaux y relatifs, in 7 Thesaurus Acroasium 157, 183 (1977)Google Scholar.

41 Scerni quotes the head of the U.S. delegation: “It is critical to the United States that the economic zone remains high seas.” Id. at 182.

42 For a detailed account, see Jaenicke, supra note 28, at 489; cf also Brown, , The Exclusive Economic Zone: Criteria and Machinery for the Resolution of International Conflicts between Different Users of the EEZ, 4 Mar. Pol’y Mgmt. 325 (1977)Google Scholar.

43 Oxman, , The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The 1977 New York Session, 72 AJIL 57, 72 et seq. (1978)Google Scholar.

44 See Gündling, supra note 37, at 655; Quéneudec, , Un Probleme en suspens: la nature de la zone économique, Rev. Iranienne Rel. Internationales 39, 40 (1975–76)Google Scholar.

45 Oxman, supra note 43, at 74; Heller, Air Space over Extended Jurisdictional Zones, in Law of the Sea, supra note 36, at 135, 144.

46 Rama Puri, supra note 37, at 509.

47 Oxman, supra note 43, at 69; see also Clingan, , Emerging Law of the Sea: The Economic Zone Dilemma, 14 San Diego L. Rev. 530 (1977)Google Scholar.

48 Jaenicke, supra note 28, at 490.

49 For references, see Gündling, supra note 37, at 627.

50 Jaenicke, supra note 28, at 489; cf. Gündling, supra note 37, at 627.

51 The term “jurisdiction” is usually understood as granting a special and limited competence over particular events, in contrast to sovereignty, which is understood as a comprehensive and continuous competence. Cf. Mcdougal, M. & Burke, W., The Public Order of the Oceans 610 (1962)Google Scholar. Not much clarification, however, can be expected from the Convention’s terms “exclusive rights,” “sovereign rights,” “jurisdiction,” and “exclusive jurisdiction.”

52 See generally Munch, , Les lies artificielles et les installations en mer, 38 Zaörv 933 (1978)Google Scholar.

53 Jaenicke, supra note 28, at 487 and 488 n.104.

54 Cf. Gündling, supra note 37, at 640.

65 See 3 Dokumente der Dritten Seerechtskonferenz, supra note 18, at 719.

56 Cf. Gündling, supra note 37, at 640.

57 See Heller, supra note 45, at 135–53; cf. Hailbronner, Commentary, in Law of the Sea, supra note 36, at 154–58.

58 Heller, supra note 37, at 148.

59 Where a contracting state accepts the responsibility of providing air traffic services over the high seas, standards and recommended practices may be applied “in a manner consistent with [those] adopted for airspace under its jurisdiction” (see text at note 7 supra).

60 Cf. M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 1080 et seq.; Mcdougal, M., Burke, W., & Vlasic, I., Law and Public Order in Space 254 et seq. (1964)Google Scholar; W. Schwenk, supra note 9, at 37 et seq. and 117.

61 Walker, , Jurisdictional Problems Created by Artificial Islands, 10 San Diego L. Rev. 662 (1973)Google Scholar; Knight, , International Legal Aspects of Deep Draft Harbor Facilities, 4 J. Mar. L. & Com. 386 et seq. (1972–73)Google Scholar.

62 Cf. the Statement of Soons, A., Artificial Islands and Installations in International Law 22 (Occasional Paper No. 22, Law of the Sea Institute, 1974)Google Scholar, quoted in Heller, supra note 45, at 149.

63 Cf. Heller, supra note 45, at 150; Lawrence, , Superports, Airports and Other Fixed Installations on the High Seas, 6 J. Mar. L. & Com. 575, 580 (1975)Google Scholar; Schwenk, , Die Anwendung luftrechtlicher Vorschriften bei Flügen von und nach Schiffen und Bohrinseln, 25 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 234 (1976)Google Scholar.

64 See generally Kiss, , La Pollution du milieu marin, 38 Zaörv 902 (1978)Google Scholar.

65 According to Article 236, the provisions of the Convention do not apply to “aircraft owned or operated by a State and used, for the time being, only on government non-commercial service.” States, however, shall ensure that such aircraft “act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable and practicable, with this Convention” (see, for a critical comment, id. at 907).

66 See Convention d’Oslo pour la prévention de la pollution marine par les opérations d’immersion effectuées par les navires et aéronefs, Feb. 15, 1972, 1977 BGB1.II 165.

67 Cf. Christol, Unilateral Claims for the Use of Ocean Airspace, in Law of The Sea, supra note 36, at 130–31.

68 For a discussion of the claims relating to pollution control, see M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 848 et seq.; M. Mcdougal, H. Lasswell, & I. Vlasic, supra note 60, at 308, plead for the application of antipollution regulations in the contiguous zone with respect to aircraft.

69 Christol, supra note 67, at 160.

70 M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 852 et seq.

71 Roberts, , The State of the Art in Weather Modification, in Weather Modification and the Law 1, 20–21 (Taubenfeld, H. J. ed. 1968)Google Scholar.

72 Christol, , Aircraft and the International Legal and Institutional Aspects of the Stratospheric Ozone Problem, 1 Annals Air & Space L. 3 (1976)Google Scholar.

73 See generally Caflisch, & Piccard, , The Legal Regime of Marine Scientific Research and the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 38 Zaörv 848 (1978)Google Scholar.

74 Id. at 888.

75 Gündling, supra note 37, at 642–43; Caflisch & Piccard, supra note 73, at 873 et seq.; Wolfrum, , Der Schutz der Meeresforschung im Völkerrecht, 19 German Y.B. Int’l L. 99, 99 (1976)Google Scholar.

76 Cooper, J. C., The Right to Fly 126 (1947)Google Scholar.

77 For a general discussion of claims with respect to access to airspace above the high seas, see M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 782–94.

78 Id. at 806–23.

79 Id. at 584 et seq.; Oda, , The Concept of the Contiguous Zone, 11 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 131 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Martial, , State Control of the Airspace over the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 30 Can. B. Rev. 245 (1952)Google Scholar; Head, , ADIZ, International Law and Contiguous Airspace, 3 ALTA. L. Rev. 182 (1964)Google Scholar; M. Mcdougal, H. Lasswell, & I. Vlasic, supra note 60, at 294 et seq. and 308.

81 See Hailbronner, K., Der Schutz der Luftgrenzen im Frieden 87 et seq. (1972)Google Scholar.

82 For a comprehensive account of the legal aspects of the treatment of aerial intruders and further references, see id. at 41 et seq.

83 See Poulantzas, N., The Right of Hot Pursuit in International Law (1969)Google Scholar.

84 Heller, supra note 45, at 140.

85 See M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 782 et seq.; M. Mcdougal, H. Lasswell, & I. Vlasic, supra note 60, at 306 et seq.

86 See [1956] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 58, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1956.

87 See a comment by the ICAO on the ILC draft convention, 1 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records 336, UN Doc. A/CONF.13/31 (1958); cf. N. Poulantzas, supra note 83, at 302.

88 Security Control of Air Traffic, 14 C.F.R. pt. 99 (1982); see. Murchison, J., The Contiguous Air Space Zone in International Law 87–94 (1957)Google Scholar.

89 Can. Dep’t of Transport, Rules for the Security Control of Air Traffic, Notam No. 22/55; see J . Murchison, supra note 88, at 79–86; Leanza, U., Fenomeni di zona Contiguitá aerea nel diritto internazionale 231–41 (1961)Google Scholar.

90 Zone réglementée No. 230, reprinted in Debbasch, La Zone contiguë en droit aérien, Ann. I, 24 Rev. Générale L’Air 249, 260 (1961).

91 J. Murchison, supra note 88, at 1 et seq.; Head, supra note 80, at 182 et seq.; Hayton, , Jurisdiction of the Littoral State in the “Air Frontier,” 3 Phil. Int’l L.J. 369 (1964)Google Scholar; Georgiades, , Du nationalisme aérien à l’internationalisme spatial ou le mythe de la souveraineté aérienne, 16 Rev. Française Droit Aérienne 129 (1962)Google Scholar; M. Mcdougal, H. Lasswell, & I. Vlasic, supra note 60, at 306 et seq.; cf. for a discussion of the arguments referred to in favor of the Adiz, K. Hailbronner, supra note 81, at 73 et seq.

92 Christol, supra note 67, at 128–30.

95 1973 Digest of United States Practice in International Law 302; 1975 id. at 451.

94 Christol, supra note 67, at 129; la Pradelle, supra note 10, at 146–47; W. Schwenk, supra note 9, at 116.

95 1973 Digest, supra note 93, at 303.

96 McDougal, & Schlei, , The Hydrogen Bomb Tests in Perspective: Lawful Measures for Security, 64 Yale L.J. 648 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Mcdougal, H. Lasswell, & I. Vlasic, supra note 60, at 303; M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 787.

97 See McDougal & Schlei, supra note 96; Margolis, , The Hydrogen Bomb Experiments and International Law, 64 Yale L.J. 629 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gidel, , Explosions nucléaires expérimental et liberté de la haute mer, in Grundprobleme des Internationalen Rechts, Festschrift für Jean Spiropoulos 173 (1957)Google Scholar.

98 M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 787.

99 Ibid.

100 For the discussion of the principle of “reasonableness” by the International Law Commission, see [1956] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, supra note 86, at 34; M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 761.

101 J. Murchison, supra note 88, at 55.

102 See K. Hailbronner, supra note 81, at 94–97; Verplaetse, J., International Law in Vertical Space 83 (1960)Google Scholar.

103 Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly, 11 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 9) at 39–40, UN Doc. A/3159 (1956), reprinted in [1956] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 253, 295, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1956/Add.l; of. the report of J. Francois, UN Doc. A/CN.4/97, at 13–14 (1956), reprinted in id. at 1, 5–6.

104 For an analysis of the discussion, see M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 604 et seq.; K. Hailbronner, supra note 81, at 88 et seq.

105 M. Mcdougal & W. Burke, supra note 51, at 605 and 606.

106 Id. at 594; see also M. Mcdougal, H. Lasswell, & I. Vlasic, supra note 60, at 310.

107 For the state practice, see K. Hailbronner, supra note 81, at 81–87.

108 M. McDougal, H. Lasswell, & I. Vlasic, supra note 60, at 310; N. Poulantzas, supra note 83, at 298 et seq.

109 For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see K. Hailbronner, supra note 81, at 100–09.

110 Id. at 101.

111 Id. at 109.

112 UN Doc. A/CONF.13/5 and Adds. 1–4 (1958), 1 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records 75, 78–79; 4 id. at 90 et seq.