Aerial Incident Research Articles

Incident aérien au-dessus de la Biélorussie et instrumentalisation de la règle de droit international

The interception and subsequent diversion of a civil aircraft overflying the territory of Belarus, in May 2021, elicited many indignant condemnations. Notwithstanding the justifications brought forward by the public authorities of this country, invoking most notably the necessity to deal with a bomb threat, it appeared that the principal motivation of this intervention was different. It aimed at arresting a political opponent who had previously succeeded in leaving Belarus. Against this backdrop, it appears that international air law is indeed satisfactory when it comes to preventing and suppressing unlawful actions directed against civil aviation, when they emanate from individuals. It is, however, incomplete and arguably inefficient when the interferences originate in public authorities. Given the actual geopolitical context, this aerial incident unfortunately reveals the lacunas of international air law and the tendency to instrumentalise it.

Silent Warriors, Incredible Courage: The Declassified Stories of Cold War Reconnaissance Flights and the Men Who Flew Them. by Wolfgang W. E. Samuel, Jackson, MI: University Press of Mississippi, 2019. 291 pp.

<i>Silent Warriors, Incredible Courage: The Declassified Stories of Cold War Reconnaissance Flights and the Men Who Flew Them</i>. by Wolfgang W. E. Samuel, Jackson, MI: University Press of Mississippi, 2019. 291 pp.

Buddhist bomb diversion and an American airman reincarnate: World War folklore, airmindedness, and spiritual air defense in Shan State, Myanmar

The Second World War indelibly transformed the political landscape of Southeast Asia. Few people in Myanmar’s Shan State today have any direct memories of the Japanese occupation and Allied bombing campaigns in the area. Therefore, folklore offers an important connection to the historical events and cultural geographies of war. Based on ethnography among Shan villagers carried out in 2015, this article discusses folklore regarding two specific aerial bombing incidents between the towns of Kyaukme and Hsipaw, Shan State. According to these narratives, local spiritual powers influenced the effects of either the bombs or the airplanes themselves. Through analysis of the stories, we learn of the capacity for local spiritual powers to extend their domain to the air, which, in turn offers a new way to understand airmindedness as a relationship with aviation technology and aerial geographies of war. In addition to articulating a Buddhist and spiritual framework for airmindedness, these stories also mobilize physical evidence not only to confirm their truth, but also to encourage Buddhist notions of morality in the future.

Reducing International Terrorism: Negotiation Dynamics in the U.S. Cuba Skyjack Crisis

Hijack terrorism was a major national security problem in the United States during the late 1960s; aerial piracy incidents reached an epidemic level. Most events had a common scenario: armed hijackers boarded flights in the US and threatened death to passengers and crew if the aircraft was not diverted to Cuba, where political asylum awaited them in Castro's Communist regime. The problem was resolved through a combination of technology developments to prevent skyjack occurrence and bilateral negotiations between the American and Cuban governments leading to the Anti-Hijacking Accord of 1973. Rates of hijacking fell sharply. What was the role of negotiation in halting terrorism? How did negotiations proceed? Any lessons for ending other terrorist campaigns? This analysis examines the conditions leading parties to negotiate, reach agreement and implement it, drawing on factors identified in other international dispute resolution contexts (mutual hurting stalemate, party willingness, turning points, conflict duration, political pact) plus the meaning attributed to the concept of terrorism by each party. Using terrorist event data, the three phases of hijack acativity and negotiation attempts, Congressional Hearings and US declassified documents, the key finding shows that prospects for resolution depend largely on turning points linked to party shifts in the concept of terrorism, moving the focus from political motivation to criminal act.

Judicial Decision (International Court of Justice) Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan vs. India)

Judicial Decision (International Court of Justice) Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan vs. India)

V. Cases Before the Court

Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United Kingdom).

II. Cases Before the Court

1. Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom).

Aerial Incident off the Coast of China

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India), Judgment (Jurisdiction)

Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India), Judgment (Jurisdiction)

International Court of Justice (ICJ): Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India)

International Court of Justice (ICJ): Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India)

Case concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie

1Air — Crimes against aircraft — Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971 — Scope of Convention — Whether applicable to allegations of State terrorism — System of aut dedere aut punire — Dispute settlement mechanism — ApplicabilityExtradition — General principles — Whether State under a duty to extradite in the absence of an extradition treaty — Anti-terrorist conventions — Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971 — Extradition provisions — Whether State required to extradite own nationals — Whether Montreal Convention creating exclusive system — Demand for surrender of accused persons outside the context of the ConventionInternational Court of Justice — Composition of bench — Judge ad hoc — Statute of the Court, Article 31(5) — Rules of Court, Articles 36 and 37 — Whether two States parties in the same interest — Circumstances in which judge disqualified from hearing case — Right of Party to case to nominate judge ad hoc to replace judge disqualified from sittingInternational Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Date at which jurisdiction to be established — Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971, Article 14(1) — Extent of jurisdiction conferred upon International Court of Justice — Conditions for seising International Court of Justice — Definition of a dispute — Existence of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention — The effect of United Nations Security Council Resolutions upon jurisdiction under Article 14(1) — Admissibility — Date at which question of admissibility to be determinedInternational Court of Justice — Preliminary objections — Rules of Court, Article 79 — Objection possessing an exclusively preliminary character — Joinder of objection to the merits — Admissibility — Effect of Security Council Resolutions on dispute — Whether rendering Application without objectInternational organizations — United Nations — Security 2Council — Powers to maintain international peace and security — United Nations Charter, 1945, Chapter VII — Power to characterize situation as a threat to international peace and security — Acts of terrorism — Power to require State to take specified actions — Security Council requiring State to surrender terrorist suspects for trial — Security Council Resolutions 731 (1992), 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) — Effect — Binding character — United Nations Charter, Articles 25 and 103 — Whether affecting admissibility of Application — Whether rendering Application to Court without object — Relationship between Security Council and International Court of Justice — Whether Court possessing powers of judicial review

Case Analysis: To Review or Not to Review? The Lockerbie Cases Before the World Court

On 27 February 1998, the International Court of Justice rejected the preliminary objections of the US and of the UK in the cases concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie. The arguments made to the Court, and its decisions on jurisdiction and admissibility, are examined with a view to ascertaining the issues facing the Court, as well as the possible outcomes, if the cases reach the merits stage. The disputes over the Montreal Convention are considered, but particular attention is paid to the legal effects and, more widely, the legality of the relevant Security Council resolutions (Resolutions 748 and 883). The underlying question to be considered is whether there are any indications in the judgments that the Court is moving towards review of those resolutions.

The Lockerbie case continues

THE background to the Cases concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) 1998 I.C.J. Rep. is well known; in 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Scotland and 270 people were killed. The USA and the UK accused two Libyans of the bombing and sought their extradition. Libya argued on the basis of the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation that it was not bound to extradite its own nationals but could try them in its own courts, if appropriate. Libya took the cases to the International Court of Justice. It failed in its requests for provisional measures (see Lowe, (1992) 51 C.L.J. 408), but continued with its claims that the USA and the UK should respect its rights under the Montreal Convention and not put pressure on it to surrender the accused. The respondents made preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the application.

Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) and (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States), Preliminary Objections, Judgments

Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) and (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States), Preliminary Objections, Judgments - Volume 92 Issue 3

International Court of justice: Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America)

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice: Lockerbie Cases, Preliminary Objections

Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab ]amahiriya v. United Kingdom and Libyan Arab ]amahirtya v. United States of America, Judgment of 2 7 February 1998, for the text see the website of the ICJ, . Having declined the indication of provisional measures in the Lockerbie cases In 1992, the ICJ dealt with the preliminary objections raised by the United Kingdom and the United States. At first the Court decided, against the strongly worded opposition of three judges, that the UK had the right to appoint a judge ad hoc, despite the identical legal questions in the cases against the two defendants. Secondly, the Court upheld its jurisdiction, holding that a dispute existed between the applicant and the respondents and not only between the applicant and the Security Council. The Court rejected the objections to the admisslbility of the Libyan applications because Security Council Resolution 748 (1992), which could have made the applications inadmissible, had been adopted only after Libya had filed Its applications. Holding by a 10 to 6 majority (10 to 5 in the case against the US) that the question whether Resolution 748 and the subsequent Resolution 883 (1993) had rendered the applications without object 'does not possess, in the circumstances of the case, an exclusively preliminary character' within the wording of Article 79 of the ICJ Rules, the Court joined the matter to the merits. By pointing out that this question concerned the 'very subject-matter' of the case, the majority of the Court seems to indicate that it does not intend to avoid dealing with the question of the primacy of the SC resolutions over the Montreal Convention. If the Court Indeed extended the jurisdiction which was granted to it for the interpretation or application of a special convention to far-reaching and fundamental questions of general international law and UN Charter law, it ought to be aware that it does not put into question the acceptance of its decisions by its state clientele.

The 1996 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

This Note summarizes the judicial work of the International Court of Justice during 1996, using the updated General List, pleadings filed, Orders and Judgments given and hearings held at the Peace Palace in The Hague to describe the Court’s current record.During the calendar year 1996, the Court was seized of one new contentious case: Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia). In 1996 a total of eleven cases appeared on the General List. Besides the new case referred to, the contentious proceedings before the full Court were Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. United States), Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. United Kingdom) and (Libya v. United States), Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States), Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), and Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria). Advisory proceedings were concluded in Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (request for an advisory opinion by the World Health Organization) and Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (request for an advisory opinion by the General Assembly of the United Nations).

Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: Partial Award Containing Settlement Agreements on the Iranian Bank Claims Against the United States and on the International Court of Justice Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of July 3, 1988

Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: Partial Award Containing Settlement Agreements on the Iranian Bank Claims Against the United States and on the International Court of Justice Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of July 3, 1988

International Court of Justice: Order in Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of July 3, 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

International Court of Justice: Order in Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of July 3, 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

Case Analysis: Some Procedural and Substantive Aspects of the Libya/Chad Case

Libya has come three times before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the basis of special agreements. At present, Libya has pending before the Court two cases it has brought by unilateral application, respectively against the United Kingdom and against the United States, concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie. For its part, Chad had never come before the Court since its accession to independence in 1960.