Redefining the Air Defence Identification Zone in the Framework of Customary International Law

Priyo Hadisusilo, Sigit Riyanto, Harry Purwanto

Abstract

The use of force against other countries is strictly prohibited and has the character of jus cogens. However, this provision is not rigidly applied in the self-defence context codified in the United Nations Charter 1945 Article 51, also in the air defence context through the existence of the Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ). This research discusses whether ADIZ embodies the anticipatory efforts in the framework of customary international law. The research results indicate that the determination of ADIZ is not a form of self-defence principle in Article 51, which is the realm of jus ad bellum. Moreover, the conservative self-defence prerequisites in Article 51 are no longer relevant in line with the revolutionary development of aviation and its armament technology. Therefore, ADIZ as a state security practice constitutes a form of anticipatory efforts within the framework of long-standing state practice as customary international law. 

Keywords

air defence; ADIZ; self-defence

Full Text:

PDF

References

Annex 2 and 15 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation

ICAO Resolution Adopted at the 33rd Session of the Assembly, Provisional Edition A33-1, 2002: Declaration on the misuse of civil aircraft as weapons of destruction and other terrorist acts involving civil aviation

ICAO, Summary on Combined Eighth Meeting of the South Asia/Indian Ocean ATM Coordination Group (SAIOACG/8) and Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the South East Asia ATS Coordination Group (SEACG/25) on the Imposition of Military Requirements and Restrictions on International Civil Aviation 1.1. pp. 1.

ICJ, Nicaragua Case Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US) 26 November 1984

Abeyratne, R. (2012). In search of theoretical justification for air defence identification zones. In Journal of Transportation Security (Vol. 5, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-011-0083-2

Adams, M. C. C. (1994). The best war ever: America and World War II. JHU Press.

Almond, R. (2016). 126 Harvard National Security Journal / Vol. 7. 7, 126–198.

Asikin, Z. (2004). Amiruddin. Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Bush, G. W. (2001). Address to a joint session of Congress and the American people. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 25, xviii.

Calvo, B. A. (2013). China’s Air Defense Identification Zone : Concept, Issues At Stake and Regional Impact (Issue November).

Chainoglou, K. (2007). Reconceptualising self-defence in international law. King’s Law Journal, 18(1), 61–94.

Dahl, E. J. (2013). Intelligence and surprise attack: Failure and success from Pearl Harbor to 9/11 and beyond. Georgetown University Press.

Dutton, P. A. (2009). Caelum liberum: Air defense identification zones outside sovereign airspace. Am. J. Int’l L., 103, 691.

Forest, J. J. F. (2007). The modern terrorist threat to aviation security. Perspectives on Terrorism, 1(6), 10–13.

Franck, T. M. (2003). Preemption, Prevention and Anticipatory Self-Defense: New Law regarding Recourse to Force. Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., 27, 425.

Gill, T. D. (2006). The temporal dimension of self-defence: anticipation, pre-emption, prevention and immediacy. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 11(3), 361–369.

Goldsmith, J. L., & Posner, E. A. (1999). A theory of customary international law. The University of Chicago Law Review, 1113–1177.

Green, J. A. (2006). Docking the Caroline: understanding the relevance of the formula in contemporary customary international law concerning self-defense. Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L., 14, 429.

Green, J. A. (2010). Questioning the Peremptory Status of the Prohibition of the Use of Force. Mich. J. Int’l L., 32, 215.

Head, I. L. (1963). ADIZ, International Law, and Contiguous Airspace. Alta. L. Rev., 3, 182.

Hermawan, S., & Herman, H. (2021). Kajian Terhadap Tindakan Administrasi Pada Kekuasaan Yudikatif Pasca Berlakunya Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 18(1), 59-80.

Higgins, R. (1995). Problems and process: international law and how we use it. Oxford University Press.

Hole, L. Van Den. (2003). Anticipatory self-defence under international law. Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 19, December.

Hossain, K. (2005). The Concept of Jus Cogens and the Obligation Under the UN Charter. Santa Clara J. Int’l L., 3, 72.

Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin L. Rev., 17, 83.

Kelly, M. J. (2003). Time Warp to 1945-Resurrection of the Reprisal and Anticipatory Self-Defense Doctrines in International Law. J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y, 13, 1.

Lamont, C. (2014). Conflict in the Skies: The Law of Air Defence Identification Zones. Air & Space Law, 39(3), 187–202.

Lee, J. W., & Li, X. (2018). Ongoing Tension in the Air. The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law, 6(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340095

McConville, M. (2017). Research methods for law. Edinbburgh University Press.

McDougal, M. S. (1963). The Soviet-Cuban quarantine and self-defense. American Journal of International Law, 57(3), 597–604.

Mulcahy, J., & Mahony, C. O. (2006). Anticipatory Self Defence: A Discussion of the International LAw. Hanse Law Review, 2(2), 231–248. www.hanselawreview.org/pdf4/Vol2No2Art06.pdf

Paddeu, F. (2020). Origins of the Right of Self-defence in International Law: From the Caroline Incident to the United Nations Charter, written by Tadashi Mori. Journal of the History of International Law/Revue d’histoire Du Droit International, 22(4), 595–600.

Reents, M. J. (2008). Operation Noble Eagle and the use of combat air patrols for homeland defense. NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA.

Rinehart, I. E., & Elias, B. (2015). China’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ). In China’s Air Defense Identification Zone: Implications and Associated Issues.

Roosevelt, F. D. (1941). Day of Infamy speech. Delivered to a Joint Session of Congress, 8.

Rothwell, D. R. (2005). Anticipatory self-defence in the age of international terrorism. U. Queensland LJ, 24, 337.

Rouillard, L.-P. (2004). The Caroline Case: Anticipatory Self-Defense in Contemporary International Law. Miskolc J. Int’l L., 1, 104.

SARP, I. (n.d.). Annex 15. Aeronautical Information Services, 10.

Shaw, M. N. (n.d.). International Law (2003) Cambridge University Press. The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New.

Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2001). Penelitian hukum normatif: Suatu tinjauan singkat. RajaGrafindo Persada.

Sofaer, A. D. (2003). On the Necessity of Pre‐emption. European Journal of International Law, 14(2), 209–226.

Steinberg, R. H. (2004). Who is sovereign. Stan. J. Int’l L., 40, 329.

Su, J. (2015). The East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone and International Law. In Chinese Journal of International Law (Vol. 14, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmv027

Vanhullebusch, M., & Shen, W. (2016). China’s air defence identification zone: Building security through lawfare. China Review, 16(1).

National Security Strategy, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/

Convention on International Civil Aviation 7 December 1944, Establishment of ICAO

UN Charter and Statute of ICJ, 26 June 1945

ICAO Document 9426-AN/924 First Edition 1984 Chapter 3, 3.3.4 Special Designated Airspace

September 11 Terror Attacks Fast Facts CNN Editorial Research, https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11-anniversary-fast-facts/index.html

ICJ, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. US), 12 December 1966

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v11i1.57891

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.