How US fighters action against Iranian flight violate principles of international law?

by Abbas Adil

SHAFAQNA | by Leila Yazdani : The actions taken by the US fighters and making harassment for the flight 1152 of Mahan Airlines is violating certain principles of international law and, make the international responsibility of US government. Iran can make the US accountable for the incident in ICAO, international courts, and the United Nations Security Council.

It will lead to legal prosecution, including in the ICAO Council and the International Court of Justice.

The presence of hundreds of American troopers in the southeastern part of Syria; near the city of At Tanf, close to the border with Iraq and Jordan is an illegal act of aggression.

The flying and landing of American fighters in the Syrian territory, is definitely without the consent of this country. Moreover, all US acts, which include jeopardizing safety of civil airliner or jeopardizing the safety of the Syrian people or helping the terrorists expand terrorist acts through Syrian territory, are illegal.

The US has violated the Syrian airspace according to the 1st and 2nd articles of the UN Charter.

According to article 1 of the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

According to article 2 of the UN Charter:

-All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

-All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, according to un.org.

Aggression is banned by international customary law as well as the United Nations Charter. It is considered a jus cogens norm, meaning a norm of the highest order under international law, which all states are obligated to protect and maintain.

The behavior of fighter jets in relation to Flight 1152 of Mahan Airlines and harassing a passenger plane in the territory of a third country wasn’t only addressed towards violating the Syrian sovereignty, but it was a clear violation of aviation security, violation of the principle of freedom of flight of non- military aircraft.

This action is in addition to contradicting Article 3 and 44 of the International Civil Aviation Treaty (Chicago Convention) and, the relevant annexes, article 1 of the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (Tokyo Convention) and the 1971 Montreal Convention.

According to article 3 of Chicago Convention:

A government aircraft (military, customs, police) of a member state of the Convention should not fly over or land in the territory of another country without the prior permission of that country.

In a similar vein, 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, according to jus.uio.no.

Article 44 of Chicago Convention Objectives as follow as:

A member state of the Convention should meet the needs of the peoples of the world for safe, regular, efficient and, economical air transport and, Promote safety of flight in international air navigation.

While, Chicago Convention signed in the Unites States, this Country didn’t even respect their own commitments towards the safety of the civilian airlines.

According to article 1 of Tokyo Convention:

This Convention shall apply in respect of:

Acts which, whether or not they are offences, may or do jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or of persons or property therein or which jeopardize good order and discipline on board, according to mcgill.ca.

Montreal Convention, states clearly the catalogue of the offences referring to it, stating in Article 1:

That an offence is committed by each person who unlawfully and deliberately:

  1. a) Performs an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if that act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft; or
  2. b) Destroys an aircraft in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which renders it incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger its safety in flight; or
  3. c) Places or causes to be placed on an aircraft in service, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to it which renders it incapable of flight, or to cause damage to it which is likely to endanger its safety in flight; or
  4. d) Destroys or damages air navigation facilities or interferes with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight; or
  5. e) Communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight.

This is not the first time that US fighters are threatening the safety of the Iranian passengers. American forces shut down the Iranian passenger plane over the Persian Gulf and killed 290 in 1988.

The blatant nature of this aggression itself, is a stark warning to the international community that further acts of aggression could happen at any time, by the US.

It also risks being seen as a rogue state that does not honour its obligations and exercises its power purely through military might. In simple terms, it risks being seen as an Empire that will stop at nothing—even annihilating entire societies, as it did with Iraq—in order to accomplish its objectives.

What does it mean for the international system where one of its most powerful players can evade scrutiny and accountability for attacking other countries without legal justification?

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.