Among the measures discussed in recent days about the Libyan crisis, including the establishment of exclusion zones sea and air.
This raises questions first cascade of political expediency, it can also raise a number of key operational issues, it is finally clear of legal issues presented here are a few aspects so ( very) short.
Two examples of "historical" Exclusion
In April 1982, during the conflict that pitted him against Argentina, Britain decreed an exclusion zone of 200 nautical miles around the Falkland Islands (Malvinas or) to respect of all vessels engaged in the war effort along with Argentina. This is an example of action taken in war by a belligerent against another. Today, the use of this concept is not formally prohibited in times of conflict. However, paragraphs 105 and 106 San Remo Manual on the Law of Armed Conflict armed sea insist that certain rules are followed in such circumstances, as an exceptional measure, the principle of proportionality or the safeguarding of the rights of neutral States to legitimate uses of the sea and peaceful In 1991, during the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, the U.S., the UK and France have declared north of 36 parallel e an exclusion zone for Iraqi aircraft. This area will then be extended by the two states. The alleged legal basis was then resolution 688 (1991) of Security Council. The enactment of this zone has not been without serious legal questions. Certainly, the Council then launched a call for all UN member states and humanitarian organizations for cooperation to "humanitarian assistance efforts." It remains that this resolution was not based on Chapter VII of the Charter, so it offered no legal basis for such military action.
data of the current problem
Not being in a context of armed conflict of international character, a state (or coalition of states) can not a priori perform no deception or naval operation in territorial waters (usually 12 or 22 nautical miles offshore) to third in its agreement [1] . Similarly, the air space under national jurisdiction overlooks not only the land territory, but also the territorial sea of a State. Aircraft military of other states do not have a right to fly without the consent of state authorities underlying [2] . Added to this is a difficulty with the claim of a Libyan sea and airspace above a surface that is recognized by the international community. It is therefore clear that the decision to establish an exclusion zone could be the result of a resolution of the Security Council based on Articles 42 and following of the Charter. But this requires an affirmative vote of nine of the fifteen members of the Council, including the Agreement (or at least no formal veto) of its five permanent members. However, in this state, the latter seem ... acquired
To overcome all political and operational problems it poses, it would probably significant deterioration of the humanitarian situation or serious risk to the environment [3] .
[1] . This would be contrary to the principle of innocent passage as defined by Article 19.2 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
[2] . See section 3c. the Chicago Convention of 7 December 1944 . See also ICJ, Judgement of 27 June 1986, Case. Of military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua, sp. point 251.
[3] . Remembering the Iraq-Kuwait war, we think here of lots of oil installations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment