Rule 41
Belligerent Parties and Neutrals providing air traffic control service ought to establish procedures whereby military commanders – including commanders of military aircraft – are informed on a continuous basis of designated routes assigned to, and flight plans filed by, civilian aircraft in the area of hostilities (including information on communication channels, identification modes and codes, destination, passengers and cargo).
[Commentary]
- This Rule is based on Para. 74 of the SRM/ACS.[312]
- Rule 41 deals with general precautions whose purpose is to promote a clearer understanding of the situation in the air in a general sense, so that confusion and the likelihood of mistakes can be minimized. The feasible precautions mentioned in Rule 40 are specifically directed at clarifying the status of a particular flight.
- The extent to which Rule 41 can be applied in practice depends on the circumstances, especially the degree of air control exercised over the relevant airspace.
- States providing air traffic control services in their region bear a special responsibility for the safety of civilian air traffic.
- Neutrals providing air traffic control service ought to cooperate in establishing the necessary procedures, in the interest of the safety of civilian air traffic. However, under the law of neutrality, Neutrals must not appear to support military operations by Belligerent Parties (see Section X).
- If air traffic control services are operated by a private firm, all concerned parties ought to cooperate with the firm, as far as military requirements permit, in the interest of the safety of civilian aviation.
- In non-international armed conflicts, there is no such thing as neutrality in the legal sense, and Rule 41 is therefore not applicable. However, (i) the central government providing air traffic control services ought to behave in accordance with Rule 41; and (ii) when a foreign State conducts air traffic control services in an area subject to a non-international armed conflict, it ought to make its best efforts to contribute to the safety of civilian aviation in that area.
- In non-international armed conflicts, a national air traffic control service can hardly be expected to open channels of communication “on a continuous basis” with the commanders of non-State organized armed groups. All bodies providing air traffic control services, however, ought to do everything feasible to ensure that military commanders — including commanders of military aircraft — are made aware (to the maximum extent possible) of designated routes assigned to, or flight plans filed by, civilian aircraft in the area of military operations (including information on communication channels, identification modes and codes, destination, passengers and cargo).
- Para. 74 of SRM/ACS: “Belligerents and neutral States concerned, and authorities providing air traffic services, should establish procedures whereby commanders of warships and military aircraft are aware on a continuous basis of designated routes assigned to or flight plans filed by civil aircraft in the area of military operations, including information on communication channels, identification modes and codes, destination, passengers and cargo.”
