Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Paphitis,
It is pretty straightforward really. I don't know why you're making it so unnecessarily difficult.

Prior to the 1984 Chicago Convention amendment there was not an explicit phrase in the convention outlawing the shooting down of civilian airliners. Mainly as a result of the tragedy of KAL 007 it was determined by the parties to the Convention that an explicit clause be added to the Convention. So no you are wrong to say that "nations do have this right" [to shoot down civilian aircraft]. RoC and Turkey are ICAO signatories. (Of course TRNC is not a signatory but it does have an erga omnes obligation not too shoot down innocents air travllers). If you are so keen, Paphitis, on this 'shoot down violators' assertion then if your principle is generalised this would allow any entity, recognised or not, to gratuitously shoot down civilian airliners. A daft proposition whichever way you look at it.

So put in simple language : the shooting down of civilian aircraft is outlawed. Full stop. Are civilian aircraft occasionally still shot down ? Yes, of course. But that does not make the shooting down of civilian aircraft any more lawful !! [Any more than the fact that killings still occur makes murder any more lawful]

That a civilian aircraft enters restricted/prohibited airspace does not give the jurdical authority licence to shoot it down !!! That someone cuts you up on the road does not give you licence to run them off the road. That your rights have been breached does not give you licence to breach another person's rights, nor does it mean that the other person's rights have been lost or been put in abeyance.

Tit-for-tat and anything-goes is not the basis of modern law.


There's something much more disturbing that has emerged in this thread and it is that some people are vicariously contemplating (and excusing) the shooting down of civilian airliners. Specifically if civilian airliners violate RoC airspace then, the implication is, its OK to shoot them down. Are you guys serious ??? Is this something which you'd see for all airliners, or just those flying to northern Cyprus ?

Yes Copperline, I am DEADLY serious!

Having been in the military myself, I have firsthand experience with the way our pilots are desensitised and trained to perform such a task. A task which involves killing hundreds of innocent passengers, when an aircraft is deemed a security risk or is considered "hostile".

I can tell you for a fact, that the shooting down of an airliner, under certain circumstances is considered a sovereign right of a nation.

And now for the evidence:

The following document outlines the EMERGNENCY PROCEDURES on INTERCEPTION.

This document is part of the ICAO approved Australian ERSA EMERG document of The Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority,

Section 5.12 clearly shows the Emergency Procedures to be followed by aircraft if intercepted by fighter aircraft.

Any aircraft which do not follow these procedures will be destroyed, including passenger aircraft which have violated the FIR, deviated from the cleared flight path, or violated Defence Restricted Areas or Control Zones. Aircraft that deviate from their flight path and do not respond when intercepted will be deemed as hijacked and hence "hostile" and will be destroyed.



The following document also implies the intent of the Australian Defence Force to destroy any aircraft which do not conform to any security directives. It is a letter outlining the special approvals for my employer to operate within a Restricted Area of airspace (R902) during the APEC summit in Sydney. Non compliance of the Air Defence Identification Zone procedures in this airspace will result in INTERCEPTION, and any non compliance with the EMERGENCY PROCEDURES would deem the aircraft as hostile. The RAAF will then destroy the aircraft, even if that aircraft was a QANTAS 747 airliner carrying 400+ passengers. During this period, F18 aircraft were on 24/7 patrol of the airspace and with additional aircraft on high alert ready for the possibility of shooting down any aircraft at a moment's notice. All this for George Bush official visit to Australia in 2007 for the APEC summit.

The blacked out parts basically just hide my current employer and hence ID.

That a civilian aircraft enters restricted/prohibited airspace does not give the jurdical authority licence to shoot it down !!! That someone cuts you up on the road does not give you licence to run them off the road. That your rights have been breached does not give you licence to breach another person's rights, nor does it mean that the other person's rights have been lost or been put in abeyance.

When an aircraft enters Restricted or Prohibited Airspace, then the judiciary authority does have the licence to shoot it down provided that the rules of engagement are met, and the aircraft has had sufficient opportunity to follow the procedures as set down by the Judiciary Authority's rules on rogue aircraft.

Now, I have provided the evidence about my sweeping statements, and now I await you to also provide any evidence to back up your sweeping statements about it being "illegal" to destroy rogue aircraft.

Australia is willing to defend her FIR at all costs, and so are many other countries. It appears that Cyprus however is unwilling to STOP FIR violations which are occurring daily.

Over to you Copperline....

[CopperLine]

You've been in the military ? So what ? So have I (the air force in fact) ? So what ? An argumentative fallacy if ever there was one : argumentum ad verecundiam

That states have procedures to deal with eventualities, including rules of engagement, does not mean to say that the action that they are contemplating is legal nor that they have a right to undertake such an action.

You asked for evidence as to the illegality of shooting down civilian airliners ? I already posted the relevant Chicago Convention amendment. That is the principal (and sufficient) statement of law. Apart from the 1984 amendment already noted just look at Article 5 (and Article 9).


But if you want more - and you believe that UN SC resolutions are the gold standard of of international law (you'd be mistaken if you thought that, but I know you hold UN SC resolutions in such high regard) - try looking at UN SC resolution 616 as an example of UN SC condemnation.

I'd have thought that the prohibition on shooting down civilian airliners is pretty close to a peremptory norm of international law.

Anyway let's get back to the original claim in this thread : that if there was a violation of RoC airspace by TRNC bound civilian aircraft - whether scheduled or unscheduled - they could be 'happily' shot down. And the legal answer to such a proposition is categorically no.

[CopperLine]

Furthermore,

When an aircraft enters Restricted or Prohibited Airspace, then the judiciary authority does have the licence to shoot it down provided that the rules of engagement are met, and the aircraft has had sufficient opportunity to follow the procedures as set down by the Judiciary Authority's rules on rogue aircraft.

I guess you mean jurisdiction or jurisdictional authority not judicial authority (unless you anticipate be-wigged judges patrolling the airways as traffic wardens of the skies).

There is a recognised procedure - again set out in the Chicago Convention, and as already noted Article 9 is important for this - for restricted airspace of which the fundamental principles is that restrictions are universal and not partial. In other words a party cannot say it is restricted for some, but not for others.

And what's all this about "rogue aircraft" - we're not on the set of a Hollywood thriller. An airliner that breaches sovereign airspace is not a 'rogue aircraft' - navigational error, instrument malfunction or any number of piloting decisions might result in an airspace transgression. These do not a 'rogue aircraft' make. Moreover the term rogue aircraft - apart from being more suitable as a boy's own action comic phrase - has no legal meaning .

[DT.]

Furthermore,

When an aircraft enters Restricted or Prohibited Airspace, then the judiciary authority does have the licence to shoot it down provided that the rules of engagement are met, and the aircraft has had sufficient opportunity to follow the procedures as set down by the Judiciary Authority's rules on rogue aircraft.

I guess you mean jurisdiction or jurisdictional authority not judicial authority (unless you anticipate be-wigged judges patrolling the airways as traffic wardens of the skies).

There is a recognised procedure - again set out in the Chicago Convention, and as already noted Article 9 is important for this - for restricted airspace of which the fundamental principles is that restrictions are universal and not partial. In other words a party cannot say it is restricted for some, but not for others.

And what's all this about "rogue aircraft" - we're not on the set of a Hollywood thriller. An airliner that breaches sovereign airspace is not a 'rogue aircraft' - navigational error, instrument malfunction or any number of piloting decisions might result in an airspace transgression. These do not a 'rogue aircraft' make. Moreover the term rogue aircraft - apart from being more suitable as a boy's own action comic phrase - has no legal meaning .

You use the Chigaco Convention time and time again to prove your point, why do you ignore it when it comes to the legality of the tymbou airport?

Is the Ercan “airport” legal?


The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was the result of the 1944 Chicago Conference to establish an international authority for civil aviation matters.

http://www.icao.int/


The International Civil Aviation Organization membership list includes Cyprus and Turkey as members but not “TRNC”.

http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?cgi/statesDB4.pl?en


The Convention on International Civil Aviation clearly DIRECTLY LINKS the United Nations with any barring or debarring of country/state memberships…

1) A State whose government the General Assembly
of the United Nations has recommended be debarred from
membership in international agencies established by or
brought into relationship with the United Nations shall
automatically cease to be a member of the International
Civil Aviation Organization;

2) A State which has been expelled from membership
in the United Nations shall automatically cease to be a
member of the International Civil Aviation Organization
unless the General Assembly of the United Nations attaches
to its act of expulsion a recommendation to the contrary.

b) A State which ceases to be a member of the
International Civil Aviation Organization as a result of the
provisions of paragraph a) above may, after approval by the
General Assembly of the United Nations, be readmitted to the
International Civil Aviation Organization upon application and
upon approval by a majority of the Council.

C) Members of the Organization which are suspended
from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership in
the United Nations shall, upon the request of the latter, be
suspended from the rights and privileges of membership in this
Organization.

http://www.icao.int/icaonet/arch/doc/7300/7300_9ed.pdf


It is well known that the “TRNC” has been declared by the United Nations as ILLEGAL in accordance with UN resolution 541 and cannot therefore ever be admitted to the International Civil Aviation Organization, thus rendering the port ILLEGAL.

In the UN’s own words…

“…the attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is invalid”

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm



Regards, GR.

[Paphitis]

Furthermore,

When an aircraft enters Restricted or Prohibited Airspace, then the judiciary authority does have the licence to shoot it down provided that the rules of engagement are met, and the aircraft has had sufficient opportunity to follow the procedures as set down by the Judiciary Authority's rules on rogue aircraft.

I guess you mean jurisdiction or jurisdictional authority not judicial authority (unless you anticipate be-wigged judges patrolling the airways as traffic wardens of the skies).

There is a recognised procedure - again set out in the Chicago Convention, and as already noted Article 9 is important for this - for restricted airspace of which the fundamental principles is that restrictions are universal and not partial. In other words a party cannot say it is restricted for some, but not for others.

And what's all this about "rogue aircraft" - we're not on the set of a Hollywood thriller. An airliner that breaches sovereign airspace is not a 'rogue aircraft' - navigational error, instrument malfunction or any number of piloting decisions might result in an airspace transgression. These do not a 'rogue aircraft' make. Moreover the term rogue aircraft - apart from being more suitable as a boy's own action comic phrase - has no legal meaning .

I have proven to you that countries have actually ratified the shooting down of aircraft within their Civil Aviation EMERGENCY Procedures. And these procedures are consequently audited and approved by ICAO itself.

Yet you still maintain that it is illegal to destroy an aircraft under any circumstances. Please provide the evidence.

In this day and age, there is no such thing as navigational error. Aircraft use GPS for navigation + other ground based aids. The Flight Management Computer does all the hard work, with little input from pilots. Any aircraft that deviates from cleared routes, will unfortunately be intercepted. If the aircraft does not comply with any issued directives, then it is destroyed. Even Turkey has such procedures.

Instument Malfunction is also irrelevant. Nearly every day there are ground based navigational beacons switched off for maintenance. This does not cause aircraft to deviate from the cleared path.

If you don't agree with me, just ask the Americans. While your at it, ask the Turkish Army what they would do in Turkey under such a scenario.

PS: I did mean jurisdictional authority. And jurisdictional authorities will do anything to avoid another September 11.

Please provide any evidence that stipulates the illegality of shooting down airliners.

Thank you.

[Paphitis]

I hate how Turks disregard the ICAO Chicago Convention when it comes to their non recognition, and then start quoting ICAO the minute a GC starts talking about Cyprus sovereign right to defend her FIR.

Something any serious nation in this world will do, even if it means the possible shooting down of an airliner.

Regards

[CopperLine]

DT, Paphitis,

First that country X breaks a law or is not recognised does not excuse country Y from the provisions of a law. Your 'you break the law so why can't we' whinging actually shows contempt for law full stop.

... you still maintain that it is illegal to destroy an aircraft under any circumstances.

No that is not what I said, I did not say under any circumstances. I'm not interested in some boy's own fantasy of rogue aircraft whatever they are. I'm interested in the reckless and lawless proposition which was mentioned earlier in this thread about 'happily shooting down civilian aircraft because they'd violated sovereign airspace. I said under the circumstances that were being discussed, namely civilian airliners transgressing RoC airspace. Is there in fact any restricted/prohibited airspace in RoC jurisdiction ? If so, where ? (No I'm not asking about sovereign airspace, but Art. 9 airspace)

There's no gainsaying your idiocy when it comes to the Chicago Convention. You might not like what it says there, you might wish it said something else : but it doesn't. The default position - let's call it that for ease of understanding - is that in international law it is unlawful to shoot down civilian airliners. I don't understand why you find that concept so difficult to understand. (It has at its root the prohibition on sinking passenger ships or all ships of neutral states).

[DT.]

I believe you started to disregard the Chicago Convention first Copperline when you gave this advise....not other people...you.

Niki,
I share your concern and questions regarding your nephew's travel plans. After all the arguments about 'legality/illegality', the practical experience of most travellers to the north is that it is safe and unproblematic. In practical terms the Republic of Cyprus immigration and border control authorities are fully aware that people are entering the island through the north, Ercan for example, and leaving through the south, or vice versa. 99 times out of 100 there is no problem, especially if the traveller is an EU citizen.

I'd recommend your nephew take the opportunity to travel north and south ina any combination of entry and exit as suits him. We live and learn.

[Paphitis]

No that is not what I said, I did not say under any circumstances. I'm not interested in some boy's own fantasy of rogue aircraft whatever they are. I'm interested in the reckless and lawless proposition which was mentioned earlier in this thread about 'happily shooting down civilian aircraft because they'd violated sovereign airspace.

This is not some school boy's fantasy. The fact of the matter is, if an aircraft violates a nations airspace and does not respond to Air Traffic Control, then that aircraft can be intercepted. If the aircraft does not respond to directives as per the Emergency Procedures on Interception, then that aircraft can be engaged and destroyed.

I said under the circumstances that were being discussed, namely civilian airliners transgressing RoC airspace.

Civilian aircraft are transgressing RoC airspace not currently under her control, on a daily basis. The RoC can, if it wished, enforce compliance of aircraft entering the Nicosia FIR, and there is nothing that can prevent this from a legal point of view. Sure, there would be political repercussions, but from a legal point of view there is nothing that could stop the RoC from attempting to gain control of her FIR.

Is there in fact any restricted/prohibited airspace in RoC jurisdiction ? If so, where ? (No I'm not asking about sovereign airspace, but Art. 9 airspace)

Restricted Areas are shown in the following 2 charts. They are the pink/purple bordered areas, such as the area around Akamas:





The red arrows on the chart immediately above, point to the NICOSIA FIR boundary.

There's no gainsaying your idiocy when it comes to the Chicago Convention. You might not like what it says there, you might wish it said something else : but it doesn't. The default position - let's call it that for ease of understanding - is that in international law it is unlawful to shoot down civilian airliners. I don't understand why you find that concept so difficult to understand. (It has at its root the prohibition on sinking passenger ships or all ships of neutral states).

It is unlawful to shoot down a civil aircraft for no apparent reason. But it is not unlawful to shoot down a civil aircraft under certain circumstances. If that aircraft enters sovereign airspace and does not respond to ATC, then the jurisdictional authority has the right to intercept it. If it does not comply with Interception Procedures, then the aircraft can be destroyed.

The Helios 737-300 that crashed in Grammatico was Intercepted by Greek F16 aircraft just prior to its crash, because the aircraft did not respond to ATC instructions. The aircraft entered the KEA Holding Pattern for an extended period, as the autopilot was pre-programmed to do so.

The purpose of this interception was to shoot down this airliner if necessary, especially if it was headed for any built up areas, as the aircraft failed to respond to the jurisdictional authority.

It may be illegal to shoot down an aircraft for no apparent reason, but if the aircraft does not respond to ATC, deviates from the intended flight path and cannot be controlled by the jurisdictional authority, then that aircraft can be intercepted. If the aircraft does not comply with any "Follow Me" directives or radar vectoring, then the aircraft is given the appropriate warning that it will be engaged. From that point, the aircraft can be destroyed.

This is not illegal. Most nations that are members of ICAO, have actually ratified procedures for intercepted aircraft.