Rule 110
Subject to the Rules set out in Sections D and G of this Manual, aircraft entering a no-fly zone without specific permission are liable to be attacked.
[Commentary]
- Sections D and G deal, respectively, with attacks and precautions in attack.
- Rule 110 reflects that unauthorized presence in a no-fly zone may be considered an indicator of hostile intent, but in no way implies that mere presence within the zone is sufficient to warrant attack. In other words, such presence by itself does not trigger the application of the criterion of “location” to render it a military objective under Rule 22 (b).
- As emphasized in the UK Manual, “attacks on ostensibly civil aircraft ought only to be carried out as a last resort when there is reason to believe that it is itself deployed on an attack”.[613]
- Rule 110 does not authorize automatic engagement or a “free-fire zone”. As in “exclusion zones”, the principles of target discrimination (Sections D and E) and the Rules of Section G still apply.
- Para. 12.58.2. of the UK Manual: “The presumption, in Additional Protocol I, of civilian status in cases of doubt does not, strictly speaking, apply in air-to-air combat [see Art. 49 (4) of AP/I] Nevertheless, attacks on ostensibly civil aircraft should only be carried out as a last resort when there is reason to believe that it is itself deployed on an attack. An example might be when, during an armed conflict, an exclusion zone has been established around the United Kingdom and an apparently civilian airliner enters the zone on a course set for a major city, all required notification and other procedures to establish the zone have been meticulously completed, and all attempts to communicate with the aircraft, including buzzing, have failed or been ignored.”
Categories: P: “Exclusion Zones” in International Airspace
