@goliath (and all his alter ego's)
It seems that we always come around to the same things over and over again, and the main reason is the total ignorance that some people in these forums have about the whole “Greco-Turkish FIR” issue and its multiple side effects.
So let me just try to explain to those few simple minded, what this whole issue is really and actually about, both in terms of legality and international law.
What does ICAO has to say about the FIR?
Do your self a favor and actually read the whole document.
www.icao.int/icaonet/dcs/7300_8ed.pdf
If you do you will make note of the following :
1) “This Convention shall be applicable only to civil aircraft, and shall not be applicable to state aircraft”.
2) “Aircraft used in military, customs and police services shall be deemed to be state aircraft”.
3) “No state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorization special agreement or otherwise, and in accordance with the terms thereof”.
4) “The contracting States undertake, when issuing regulations for their state aircraft, that they will have due regard for the safety of navigation of civil aircraft”.
5) “No munitions of war or implements of war may be carried in or above the territory of a State in aircraft engaged international navigation, except by permission of such State. Each State shall determine by regulations what constitutes munitions of war or implements of war for the purposes of this Article, giving due consideration, for the purposes of uniformity, to such recommendations as the International Civil Aviation Organization may from time to time make”.
6) “Each contracting State may prohibit or regulate the use of photographic apparatus in aircraft over its territory”.
7) “All aeronautical agreements which are in existence on the coming into force of this Convention, and which are between a contracting State and any other State or between an airline of a contracting State and any other State or the airline of any other State, shall be forthwith registered with the Council”.
8) “If any disagreement between two or more contracting States relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention and its Annexes cannot be settled by negotiation, it shall, on the application of any State concerned in the disagreement, be decided by the Council. No member of the Council shall vote in the consideration by the Council of any dispute to which it is a party. Any contracting State may, subject to Article 85, appeal from the decision of the Council to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal agreed upon with the other parties to the dispute or to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Any such appeal shall be notified to the Council within sixty days of receipt of notification of the decision of the Council”.
First of all get used to the fact that there is no “FIR-boundaries” issue or dispute between Greece and Turkey. You can actually read what the issue is all about for the Turkish side in the official Turkish Foreign Affairs ministry homepage.
Second, you should realize that the whole issue from the Turkish side, as far as Athens-FIR is concerned, has to do with the filing of flight plans for military aircraft flying over the Aegean. In that regard the ICAO convention (or better known as Chicago convention) is used as an argument by Turkey, as far as it corresponds to the first note I presented above, which refers to “state aircraft”. However, the document also refers to a series of other parameters as well, especially those I noted above, and one of the most important is the “due regard” reference concerning the safety of civil aviation when “state aircraft” are involved.
Our friend JJ6 has posted in another thread some very interesting things as well, as far as ICAO and FIR are concerned, in regard to the already above mentioned.
I “copy paste” his post as it is:
-Start of JJ6 Post
The UN Convention of the International Law of the Sea states clearly:
Article3
Breadth of the territorial sea
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Greek territorial waters AND airspace should be at 12 nm. The fact that Turkey is the only state in the world that didn't sign the Treaty can't prohibit Greece that signed it, to apply it. Turkey is simply refusing the existence of International Law.
The above link, from article 17 also explains the right to innocent passage and what is it meaning.
Now, Turkey doesn't like the Law, because of the geography that would cut down the international waters. Well, maybe we should give half of the Aegean to Turkey so to correct this unfortunate geographic reality.
Turkey doesn't agree? The UN Treaty predicts this too:
Procedure where no settlement has been reached by the parties
1. If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful means of their own choice, the procedures provided for in this Part apply only where no settlement has been reached by recourse to such means and the agreement between the parties does not exclude any further procedure...
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified the...
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Why Turkey doesn't apply to such Tribunals since we can't agree with each other? Because it is MUCH better to have a casus belli and keep your neighbour at 6nm under threat of war,rather than go to a Court of Law and tell "Please,don't let them expand over 6 nm ,because they have many islands and they 'll cut down the international waters for us".
For the same reason,Turkey has not recognised the juristiction of the International Court of Justice in Hague,while Greece has,since 1993.But of course,Greece can't have a trial there on her own against another state that doesn't recognise the Court's decisions.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicdeclarations.htm
So Turkey,prefered NOT to sign this treaty,so to avoid all these "annoying" obbligations of going to Courts in case of dispute,extended her own waters and airspace to 12nm nontheless,and at the same time prevents under threat of war to apply the International Law to Greece,that HAS signed the UN Convention.
As for submitting or not identification and flight plans in the FIR zones,Turkey invokes the 1944 ICAO Convention that says that state aircrafts will be excluded from the Treaty,saying though that must show concern to the civillian flights.Later ICAO annexes have asked for military flights to follow ICAO procedures to the maximum extend practicable and in the meantime has become common international practice (=International customary Law) to submit flight plans.This is from EuroControl(in which both Greece and Turkey are members and so are bound to follow its procedures):
Use of the ICAO FPL by State aircraft operators
Flight plans will be filed for State Aircraft (Military, Customs and Police) flying as GAT, mixed OAT/GAT and OAT in both IFR and VFR conditions, using the ICAO FPL format.
Filing conditions (including form to be used, rules for the input of data, required filing times, addressing scheme) will be published solely and uniformly in the National (Military) AIP to guarantee easy accessibility.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/mil/public/standard_page/newsletter_0511art01.html
I think it is clear enough.Following the turkish line of thinking,the above link shouldn't even exist,since Eurocontrol,shouldn't have anything to say about military flights.For the same reason ICAO flight plans have provisions for military aircrafts:
Insert one of the following letters to denote the type of flight:
* S if scheduled services
* N if non-scheduled Air Transport Operations
* G if general aviation
* M if military
* X if other than any of the defined categories above
http://www.iom-airport.com/virtual/atc/completing.xml
Since 1944,civillian flights have become a different reality,because of the quantity of flights.Countries cannot let squadron formations roam into another country's FIR while the air controllers tear their hair apart trying to guess where the "boogey" planes will go so to divert civillian flights to secure altitude and routes.When the turkish airforce enters the Athens FIR with formations of even 60 aircrafts in more points,what are the air controllers supposed to do?
The reality has to do with Turkish desire to acquire operational control over the eastern half of the Aegean Sea.This was clear in August 1974,right after the Cyprus invasion,when Turkey unilaterally declared the eastern half of Athens FIR as to be under Istanbul's FIR (NOTAM 714) and later when again Turkey declared the eastern half of the Aegean as Turkish SAR zone.Turkey had to withdraw NOTAM 714,since Greece with her own NOTAM declared the area dangerous for flying and this hurt the tourism of Turkey too.So,Turkey continued with the SAR claim and the refusal to give identification when entering Athens FIR.
-End of JJ6 post.
-Start of JJ6 second post.
We shall bare in mind that Greece and Turkey are members of the Eurocontrol
http://www.eurocontrol.int/corporate/public/standard_page/org_membership.html
Military Flight Plans are filed for GAT (General Air Traffic = civil) flights, mixed OAT/GAT flights as well as for pure OAT (Operational Air Traffic = military) flights.
Military Flight Plans are filed adhering to the maximum extent possible to the ICAO FPL format and GAT and mixed OAT/GAT plans take account of the EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU)/ Integrated Initial Flight Plan Processing System (IFPS) provisions as required.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/mil/public/standard_page/newsletter_0511art01.html
In addition, it says:
Providing OAT (=military) flight plans to civil ATS can create an enhanced awareness of civil ATS (= Air Traffic Services) on military traffic. Mutual awareness is considered enhancing flight safety, reducing ATCO (= Air Traffic Control Officer) communication workload in civil and military units, enabling enhanced flexible use of airspace and facilitating tactical civil-military co-ordination.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/mil/public/standard_page/newsletter_0511art01.html
http://www.eurocontrol.int/corporate/public/standard_page/cb_civilmilitary.html
-End of JJ6 second post.
However, even so, some still insist on the whole issue, and the best shot on attempting to legitimize the Turkish argument is the following document:
http://www.dsca.mil/diils/library/US%20Navy%20Marine%20Coast%20Guard%20Operational%20Law%20Manual%20for%20Lawyers.pdf
However, they also fail to understand, that this is an operational procedure document of the US military, and not an international treaty, therefore has no legality in international law whatsoever, but only a direction or orientation character for the US military commanders in respect to international law.
But lets just read the document, in order to get some perspective.
In that document and at the top of the specific chapter with the title “AIR NAVIGATION”, we actually read:
“Under international law, every nation has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its national airspace, that is, the airspace above its territory, its internal waters, its territorial sea, and, in the case of an archipelagic nation, its archipelagic waters .84 There is no right of innocent passage of aircraft through the airspace over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters analogous to the right of innocent passage enjoyed by ships of all nations. *’ Accordingly, unless party to an international agreement to the contrary, all nations have complete discretion in regulating or prohibiting flights within their national airspace (as opposed to a Flight Information Region - see paragraph 2.5.2.2)) with the sole exception of overflight of international straits and archipelagic sea lanes. Aircraft wishing to enter national airspace must identify themselves, seek or confirm permission to land or to transit, and must obey all reasonable orders to land, mm back, or fly a prescribed course and/or altitude. Aircraft in distress are entitled to special consideration and should be allowed entry and emergency landing rights?”
Which is actually a very interesting part as far as the Aegean being an Archipelago and the rights of innocent passage are concerned. If Turkey actually means to use such documents for its official policy over the Aegean issues, then it should recognize the possibility that Greece might actually do the same.
This also corresponds to the following:
“International Straits Which Connect EEZ/High Seas to EEZlHigh Seas. All aircraft, including military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage through the airspace above international straits overlapped by territorial seas. 87 Such transits must be continuous and expeditious, and the aircraft involved must refrain from the threat or the use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of the nation
or nations bordering the strait. 88 The exercise of the right of overflight by aircraft engaged in the transit passage of international straits cannot be impeded or suspended in peacetime for any purpose. 89 In international straits not completely overlapped by territorial seas, all aircraft, including military aircraft, enjoy high seas freedoms while operating in the high seas corridor
beyond the territorial sea. (See paragraph 2.5.2 for a discussion of permitted activities in international airspace.) If the high seas corridor is not of similar converience (e. g . , to stay within the high seas corridor would be inconsistent with sound navigational practices), such aircraft enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage through the airspace of the strait?
Archipelagic Sea Lanes. All aircraft, including military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded passage through the airspace above archipelagic sea lanes. The right of overflight of such sea lanes is essentially identical to that of transit passage through the airspace above international straits overlapped by territorial seas .91”
All the above are ignored by Turkey when using the specific document to support its claims. Is it because accepting them as well simple undermines its illegal claims? But what the Turkish side is actually using as argument when referring to in this document is the parts below:
“Various operational situations do not lend themselves to ICAO flight procedures. These include military contingencies, classified missions, politically sensitive missions, or routine aircraft carrier operations. Operations not conducted under ICAO flight procedures are conducted under the “due regard” standard.”
“Ordinarily, but only as a matter of policy, U. S. military aircraft on
routine point-to-point flights through international airspace follow ICAO flight procedures and utilize FIR services. As mentioned above, exceptions to this policy include military contingency operations, classified or politically sensitive missions, and routine aircraft carrier operations or other training activities. When U.S. military aircraft do not follow ICAO flight procedures, they must navigate with “due regard” for civil aviation safety?”
Which is limited to exactly what it describes, which makes specific reference to the “due regard” term, and which by no means actually corresponds to the specific actions of the Turkish Air Force inside the Athens-FIR.
Especially the “due regard” element of the document is of vital importance to the whole issue.
However, after these two specific parts we also read:
“International law does not prohibit nations from establishing Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ) in the international airspace adjacent to their territorial airspace. The legal basis for ADIZ regulations is the right of a nation to establish reasonable conditions of entry into its territory. Accordingly, an aircraft approaching national airspace can be required to identify itself while in international airspace as a condition of entry approval.”
“It should be emphasized that the foregoing contemplates a peacetime or nonhostile environment. In the case of imminent or actual hostilities, a nation may find it necessary to take measures in self-defense that will affect overflight in international airspace.”
Which are also very interesting parts, if Turkey actually means to use such documents in order to justify its official policy over the Aegean, thus recognize the right to the Greek side to use some of them as well.
As far as innocent or military passage, we read:
“Innocent Passage. International law provides that ships (but not aircraft) of all nations enjoy the right of innocent passage for the purpose of continuous and expeditious traversing of the territorial sea or for proceeding to or from internal waters. Innocent passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only insofar as incidental to ordinary navigation, or as rendered necessary by force mjeure or by distress .25 Passage is innocent so long as it is not
prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal nation.26 Military activities considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order, and security of the coastal nation, and therefore inconsistent with innocent passage, are:
1. Any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political
independence of the coastal nation
2. Any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind
3. The launching, landing, or taking on board of any aircraft or of any military device
4. Intelligence collection activities detrimental to the security of that coastal nation
5. The carrying out of research or survey activities
6. Any act aimed at interfering with any system of communication of the coastal nation
7. Any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal
nation
8. The loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal nation
9. Any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to the 1982 LOS Convention
10. Any fishing activities
11. Any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.*’
Foreign ships, including warships, exercising the right of innocent passage are required to comply with the laws and regulations enacted by the coastal nation in conformity with established
principles of international law and, in particular, with such laws and regulations relating to the safety of navigation. 28 Innocent passage does no? include a right of overflight.
The coastal nation may take affirmative actions in its territorial sea to prevent passage that is not innocent, including, where necessary, the use of force. If a foreign ship enters the territorial sea and engages in non-innocent activities, the appropriate remedy, consistent with customary international law, is first to inform the vessel of the reasons why the coastal nation questions the innocence of the passage, and to provide the vessel a reasonable opportunity to clarify its intentions or to correct its conduct in a reasonably short period of time.29
A very interesting part indeed. Especially when it comes to the specific claims and actions of Turkey in the Aegean. I wonder if the Turkish side actually realizes what would the adaptation of such document from the Greek side would mean for Turkey in the Aegean?
So in conclusion, the previous document really exerts the overall perception of the US military towards international law, and specifically where it comes to the specific US military operational considerations globally. The document has no international treaty stature, and its not perceived by its author as such. It also makes clear that it doesn’t undermine the status created by international law and agreements, but rather incorporates it into the operational needs of the US military and the US foreign policy.
But what does an official instrument of US foreign policy actually thinks about this document, and what directions does it provide to the US military?
Lets see the document below, which is actually very enlightening in respect to what “due regard” is supposed to be in the first place, and what the actual US policy really is:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/rtf/d45401x.rtf
I think it is a very small in size document so you take the time and read it.
Can you now see the difference between an “operational procedures document” of a military organization, and an official “DoD policy line”?
As far as Turkey is concerned the use of such documents in order to justify, or give legal stature to its actions in the Aegean, actually supports the Greek positions and further undermines Turkish claims and legality of conduct.
I think the whole FIR issue is pretty clear by now, even for the simple minded.
So when some of us say that Turkey is the ONLY, and I say again the ONLY, country in the entire world, to actually use such “EXCUSES”, in order to actively promote its illegal claims over the Aegean, we actually know what we say and mean.
Another bogus issue is the whole interception for FIR violations.
Greece is a country responsible for the safety of civil aviation inside the entire Athens-FIR, so naturally it takes all necessary measures to establish such a safe environment. The Turkish claims are based on a document that actually allows Greece to act more extensively in order to provide the “due regard” and the safety environment inside Athens-FIR. However, Greece chooses not to use the full extend of its legal and military means, and only exercises a limited portion of them, such as identification of any and all unknown aircraft entering the FIR, and interception of all aircraft violating its national airspace.
So get it straight once and for all, as its not so hard to understand.
Identification is for FIR violation. Interception is for National Airspace violation.
On a side note to this specific issue, I have to also add something from the same operational procedures document that the Turkish side uses for its argument, just to show you that it actually hurts Turkish national interests in the Aegean, when using such documents for its claims.
We read in regard with the “innocent passage”:
“Military activities considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order, and security of the coastal nation, and therefore inconsistent with innocent passage, are:
1. Any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of the coastal nation
2. Any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind
3. The launching, landing, or taking on board of any aircraft or of any military device
4. Intelligence collection activities detrimental to the security of that coastal nation”
“Innocent passage does no? include a right of overflight.”
”The coastal nation may take affirmative actions in its territorial sea to prevent passage that is not innocent, including, where necessary, the use of force”.
International law about innocent passage also depicts:
“Duties of ships and aircraft during transit passage:
1. Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:
(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;
(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(c) refrain from any activities other than those incident to their normal modes of continuous and expeditious transit unless rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress;
2. Ships in transit passage shall:
(a) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for safety at sea, including the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea;
(b) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from ships.
3. Aircraft in transit passage shall:
(a) observe the Rules of the Air established by the International Civil Aviation Organization as they apply to civil aircraft; state aircraft will normally comply with such safety measures and will at all times operate with due regard for the safety of navigation;
(b) at all times monitor the radio frequency assigned by the competent internationally designated air traffic control authority or the appropriate international distress radio frequency.
(d) comply with other relevant provisions of this Part.
So as far as “state” aircraft are concerned, we also notice a specific approach to the procedures that basically conform to the “due regard” term of ICAO. Especially the part where state aircraft “will normally comply” with such safety measures actually obligates Turkish fighters to comply with actions taken by the FIR authority in the region (in our case the Athens-FIR controllers). Visual identification of unknown contacts or aircrafts (including “state” aircraft) that don’t file a flight plan when entering the Athens-FIR, is actually one of the many available safety measures authorized by the ICAO, both in general, and in specific regard to the “due regard” provisions. Therefore Turkish fighters entering the Athens-FIR can be identified by Greek fighters, and must comply by allowing the identification process to complete normally.
I guess it is too long of a post, but very enlightening.
I hope that some of you will actually take the time and read it, and then maybe actually try and understand it as well.
HAVE FUN !!!
