P: General Rules

Rule 105

  1. A Belligerent Party is not absolved of its obligations under the law of international armed conflict by establishing “exclusion zones” or no-fly zones.
    2. [Commentary]
  2. Zones designated for unrestricted air or missile attacks are prohibited.
    3. [Commentary]

  1. Rule 105 (a) emphasizes that, by establishing “exclusion zones” or no-fly zones, Belligerent Parties are not absolved from their obligations under the law of international armed conflict,[602] nor do they acquire additional rights. Laws concerning neutrality (see section X) and targeting (see Section D), in particular, still apply within a zone.

  2. Aircraft not qualifying as military objectives may not be attacked for the mere reason of being encountered within an “exclusion zone” or a no-fly zone. While unauthorized presence in a zone may be considered an indicator of hostile intent, the principles of target discrimination as well as the rules on feasible precautions in attack still apply (see Sections D; E and G).[603]

  3. “Exclusion zones” or no-fly zones may not be abused for preventing enemy exports on board neutral aircraft (or vessels). The only lawful method for achieving that goal is blockade (for aerial blockade, see Section V).

  1. Para. 13.78 of the UK Manual: “Should a belligerent, as an exceptional measure, establish such a zone: (a) the same body of law applies both inside and outside the zone.”

    Para. 7.9 of NWP, in the second Para. thereof: “the establishment of such a zone does not relieve the proclaiming belligerent of the obligation under the law of armed conflict to refrain from attacking vessels and aircraft that do not constitute lawful targets. In short, an otherwise protected platform does not lose that protection by crossing an imagi-nary line drawn in the ocean by a belligerent.”

  2. See also Para. 12.58 of the UK Manual: “The right to fire upon any aircraft disregarding a general prohibition of entry into such a zone must be based on military necessity. That requires an assessment as to whether in all circum-stances the aircraft is a military objective and whether an attack upon it can be carried out without disproportionate loss of civilian life or civilian property.”

  1. Rule 105 (b) clearly prohibits any form of unrestricted air and missile attacks, i.e. attacks on sight against all objects and persons encountered within the zone without prior target identification or precautionary measures (see Canadian Joint Doctrine Manual[604] and Para. 7.9 of NWP[605] ).[606] Sometimes, the term “free-fire zone” is used in this context. Since, however, that is not a legal term of art, the Group of Experts preferred the use of the more established term “unrestricted … attacks”.

  2. Aircraft may not be attacked based on mere presence in an “exclusion zone” or in a no-fly zone. Air-craft can only be attacked if they constitute military objectives in accordance with all the criteria discussed in Rule 1 (y) and Section E before being made the object of attack.

  3. However, the prohibition of unrestricted warfare is without prejudice to the possibility of a specific area of land being a military objective on the basis of the location criterion (see Rule 1 (y) and Rule 22 (b)).[607]

  1. Para. 852 of the Canadian Joint Doctrine Manual: “(1) Parties to naval conflicts have on a number of occa-sions established different kinds of zones in and over water areas that deny or restrict access to vessels and aircraft of states that are not parties to the conflict. Vessels or aircraft entering such zones risk being attacked. These zones have been given a variety of names including exclusion zones, military areas, barred areas, war zones and operational zones. (2) A belligerent is not absolved of its duties under International Law by establishing zones that might ad-versely affect the legitimate uses of defined areas of the sea. In particular, such zones are not “free fire zones.”

  2. Para. 7.9 of NWP, third paragraph thereof: “Because exclusion and war zones are not simply free fire zones for the warships of the belligerents, the establishment of such a zone carries with it certain obligations for belligerents with respect to neutral vessels entering the zones.”

  3. See also Para. 8.18 of the Australian Book of Reference 5179 Manual of International Law.

  4. See, e.g., the statement made by the UK on ratification of AP/I, pertaining to Art. 52 of AP/I: “It is the under-standing of the UK that a specific area of land may be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in this Article, its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time offers definite military advantage.”

Categories: P: General Rules Tags:

Rule 106

Nothing in this Section of the Manual ought to be deemed as derogating from the right of a Belligerent Party:

  1. to control civil aviation in the immediate vicinity of hostilities; or


    2. [Commentary]
  2. to take appropriate measures of force protection in the form of, e.g., the establishment of warning zones.


    3. [Commentary]

  1. As indicated in paragraph 11 of the chapeau to this Section, “exclusion zones” and no-fly zones must be distinguished from other well-established belligerent rights, such as the right of belligerent control within the immediate area of operations.[608]

  2. The concept “immediate vicinity of hostilities” includes the contact zone on land and the counterpart area at sea or in the air in which hostilities are taking place or in which belligerent forces are actually operating in support of the hostilities.

  3. In order to prevent “civil aviation in the immediate vicinity of hostilities” from jeopardizing the military operations through (i) presence; or (ii) communication with anyone outside that area, a Belligerent Party may prohibit civil aviation from entering that area, or may establish special restrictions upon flights or activities (e.g., by controlling or blocking their communication).[609]

  4. Art. 30 of the HRAW provides: “In case a belligerent commanding officer considers that the presence of aircraft is likely to prejudice the success of the operations in which he is engaged at the moment, he may prohibit the passing of neutral aircraft in the immediate vicinity of his forces or may oblige them to follow a particular route. A neutral aircraft which does not conform to such directions, of which it has had a notice issued by the belligerent commanding officer, may be fired upon.”

  1. Para. 12.58 of the UK Manual: “Parties to a conflict may establish zones of immediate operations or exclusion zones within which they intend to pursue or are actively pursuing hostilities.”
    Para. 7.8 of NWP, see fn. 601.
    Para. 703 of the Canadian Joint Doctrine Manual: “2. Operational Zones. Parties to a conflict may, by appropriate notice, establish areas of immediate air operations where they pursue combat activities. Such zones may exist over the territories and territorial waters of all states involved in the hostilities. All aircraft entering such zones, including the aircraft of neutral states, risk damage from the hostilities.”

  2. Para. 108 of SRM/ACS, see fn. 600.

  1. Rule 106 (b) relates to “force protection”, which is a generally recognized belligerent right. Such measures may include the establishment and enforcement of “warning zones” around naval units (“defence bubbles”) or around military units stationed on the ground, and other measures the responsible commander considers necessary in view of a given threat.

  2. Such “warning zones” merely serve to keep aviation or navigation at a distance from the force subject to protection, and to indicate that — should they enter the zone — they are at increased risk of defensive action. The establishment of a “warning zone” may never result in attacks without prior warning. However, aircraft approaching a “warning zone” may become liable to attack if, after prior warning, they continue on their course and military necessity warrants attack.

Categories: P: General Rules Tags: