The Chicago Convention, formed in 1944, was a watershed point in international aviation history, attempting to govern the use of international airspace and foster international collaboration. This critical examination looks at the growth of sovereignty in international airspace, as defined by the Chicago Convention.

The Chicago Convention initially emphasised state sovereignty over its own airspace, asserting a country's sole control over the skies above its territory. This guiding principle sought to preserve each state's control and jurisdiction over its airspace, matching conventional notions of sovereignty within national borders.

The Convention acknowledged the importance of international cooperation in ensuring safe and efficient air travel. This acknowledgement signified a significant shift in the notion of sovereignty, shifting from total authority to a balance of national interests and collective obligations. States agreed to some constraints on their sovereignty in exchange for the formation of international air routes and aviation standards.

Furthermore, the Chicago Convention, which established the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), represented a shift away from unilateral sovereignty and towards a multilateral approach. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) provides a forum for nations to discuss and agree on common standards and practises, representing a collaborative effort to harmonise rules and assure global aviation safety and development.

The restrictions on national sovereignty became more evident and necessary as aviation technology evolved and air travel became more integrated. States began to cooperate on a larger scale, putting communal benefits ahead of individual interests. The emergence of regional treaties and organisations accelerated this tendency, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of sovereignty that took into consideration both national rights and global duties.

The ownership of the air has been a topic of debate for thousands of years, with the first regulation in the 1780s. State sovereignty became more important as the number of states grew. The development of engine-powered aircraft in the 20th century led to the first aerial intruders, and the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation was established to govern the skies.

However, with the increasing number of aircraft in the air, the number of mistakes has increased. Over the last fifty years, many aircraft have wandered off their authorized routes into foreign and forbidden air territories, leading to serious incidents and loss of lives. The difference between civil and state aircraft is also debated, with the general rule being that no violence is to be used on either group.

Scope Of Research
A Critical Analysis of the Chicago Convention" entails a thorough examination and critique of how the concept of sovereignty has evolved in the field of international airspace, with a special emphasis on the Chicago Convention.

Literature Review
The Chicago Convention of 1944 established the framework for international civil aviation, emphasising states' sovereignty rights over their airspace. Over time, challenges such as transnational threats and technological advancements have prompted a re-evaluation of traditional notions of sovereignty. Scholars highlight tensions between state sovereignty and global cooperation, advocating for a balance to ensure safety and security.

Hypothesis
According to the idea, the history of sovereignty in international airspace, as established by the Chicago Convention, reflects a dynamic interplay between state interests, technological advances, and changing global dynamics. Due to the increasing interconnection of air transport, the Convention increasingly accommodated shared duties and international collaboration, initially emphasising state sovereignty.

According to the idea, this evolution has been defined by a balance between states' desire to establish authority over their airspace and the understanding of the necessity for collaborative governance to assure global airspace safety, security, and efficiency.

Research Question

• How has the notion and implementation of sovereignty evolved in international airspace, including a critical examination of the significance and implications of the Chicago Convention?

Introduction
The concept of sovereignty in international airspace has changed dramatically over time, with the 1944 Chicago Convention serving as a watershed milestone in creating the laws and conventions regulating global airspace usage and administration. This critical analysis aims to investigate the evolution of sovereignty in international airspace by diving into the Chicago Convention's essential clauses and consequences for state sovereignty and international cooperation.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) established the Chicago Convention, formally known as the Convention on International Civil Aviation, to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation. The agreement set the groundwork for modern international aviation law, covering issues such as airspace sovereignty, air navigation, safety, and environmental concerns.

The concept of sovereignty over airspace is one of the Chicago Convention's fundamental principles. The convention's Article 1 states that each state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory, which includes both the territorial sea and the mainland.

This provision supports the traditional concept of airspace sovereignty, which is based on the principle of territorial integrity and holds that a state has control and jurisdiction over the airspace above its land and territorial seas. The treaty also emphasises the concept of sky freedom.

Article 1 recognises that airspace is not subject to national appropriation in any way, and that all states have the right to fly over other states' territory without obtaining permission. This acceptance of overflight freedom implies a shift from absolute territorial sovereignty, advocating the concept of a shared and open airspace for international civil aviation.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) was founded by the Chicago Convention as the specialised institution in charge of managing international aviation concerns. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) provides as a forum for member countries to discuss and develop international standards and recommended practises for the safety, security, efficiency, and environmental sustainability of civil aviation. This institutional structure encourages states to work together to guarantee a consistent approach to aviation regulation, reinforcing the shifting character of sovereignty in the context of international airspace.

As evidenced by the Chicago Convention, the growth of sovereignty in international airspace illustrates the balance between a state's sovereign rights over its airspace and the necessity for international collaboration to maintain the safe and efficient operation of civil aviation. This careful balance between sovereignty and cooperation is critical in handling modern aviation's complexities and concerns, including as airspace congestion, environmental effect, and technical improvements.

The Chicago Convention was crucial in defining the concept of sovereignty in international airspace. It established the notion of exclusive territorial sovereignty while also acknowledging overflight freedom and the need for international collaboration through the ICAO. This dual approach exemplifies the changing character of sovereignty, recognising both state control and collective responsibility in regulating global airspace for the benefit of all.

Historical Back Ground Of Chicago Convention And ICAO

The Convention on International Civil Aviation was created in 1944 by 54 states to advance collaboration and "create and preserve friendship and understanding among the nations and peoples of the world."

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which has been in charge of regulating international air travel ever since, was founded as a result of this historic accord, which is more widely known as the "Chicago Convention."

The Second World War served as a potent catalyst for the airplane's technical advancement. During this time, a sizable network of freight and passenger transport was established, but it faced numerous political and technological challenges as it transitioned to serve new civilian needs. The U.S. administration invited 55 States to an international civil aviation conference in Chicago in 1944 as a result of numerous studies it had started as well as numerous consultations it had with the Major Allies. These delegates journeyed to Chicago at tremendous personal risk and met during a very difficult period in human history. They still held control over many of the nations they represented.

Final attendance at the Chicago Conference was 54 of the 55 invited States, and by the time it finished on December 7, 1944, 52 of those States had signed the newly realised Convention on International Civil Aviation. This historic pact, more known as the "Chicago Convention" today than it was back then, established the guidelines and practises for safe international air travel. As its main goal, it outlined the growth of international civil aviation "...in a safe and orderly manner," with the establishment of air transport services "based on equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically."

The Chicago Convention also formally recognised the need for the establishment of a specialised International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to coordinate and support the extensive international cooperation that the developing global air transport network would demand. The primary goal of ICAO, then as now, was to assist States in achieving the greatest degree of uniformity in civil aviation rules, standards, practises, and administration.

The Chicago Conference wisely agreed to an interim agreement that anticipated the formation of a provisional ICAO (PICAO) to act as a temporary advising and coordinating body due to the customary delays anticipated in ratifying the Convention. The PICAO was made up of an Interim Council and an Interim Assembly. Beginning in June 1945, the Interim Council, which included representatives from 21 Member States, convened regularly in Montreal, Canada.

In June 1946, Montreal hosted the first Interim Assembly of the PICAO, which served as a forerunner to the triennial Assemblies of the ICAO today. The temporary features of the PICAO ceased to be applicable on April 4, 1947, when there were enough ratifications of the Chicago Convention, and it was renamed the ICAO. In May of that year, Montreal hosted the inaugural ICAO Assembly.

The Convention's Annexes have grown in size and complexity during this transition to the modern era of air transport, and as a result, they currently contain more than 12,000 international standards and recommended practises (SARPs), all of which have been unanimously accepted by the ICAO's 193 Member States.

These SARPs, along with the enormous technological advancements and contributions made in the intervening decades by air transport operators and manufacturers, have made it possible to realise the modern international air transport network, which is now acknowledged as a crucial driver of socioeconomic development and one of humanity's greatest cooperative achievements.

Collaboration In Air Navigation

The seamless running of air navigation operations is now required, and this can be accomplished by the contracting parties' mutual collaboration. States should support the respected state in order to ensure that the state to which the aircraft belongs may do so easily and increase its operation.

This Convention requires the contracting state to take all reasonable steps to facilitate and expedite the operation in order to prevent delays for the aircraft and its passengers.

There should not be any obstruction to the regulations governing clearance, quarantine, customs, or immigration. Additionally, governments should implement corresponding customs and immigration processes in accordance with the standard practise used in international air navigation.

Custom Duty

Since each state has its own set of laws governing customs, an aircraft from another state that arrives in a state should be admitted without paying taxes. Additionally, upon arriving on the territory of another state, onboard components including fuel, lubricants, spare parts, other necessary equipment, and aircraft stores will not be subject to any customs duties.

Any equipment or spare parts imported for use in an aircraft engaged in international air navigation should not be subject to a duty.

Distress Management

There may be situations when an aircraft landing on a state's territory needs assistance because it is in some sort of distress. As a result, this convention has established rules for it that stipulate whose territory the aircraft has landed on is required to ensure that the necessary actions are performed and aid is given to the aircraft in the event of any problems or difficulty.

The states should, to the fullest degree practicable, make provisions for cooperation under the norms adopted in accordance with this convention whenever any aircraft goes missing.

International Standards And Practices

To develop and enhance the air navigation services and to bring uniformity, all standards established, methods, and regulations set governing the air facility and auxiliary services must be consistent in all respects.

There will be developed worldwide standards, thus any contracting state that wishes to implement a modification in its own practises that deviates from the developed norm must notify the worldwide Civil Aviation Organisation without delay.

Let's look at the issues that need to be resolved:

• channels for communication and ground-based navigational aids;
• information about the airports and landing zones in each state;
• laws and guidelines for air traffic control;
• granting the operational and mechanical staff a licence;
• airworthiness and identifying markings of the aircraft;
• aeroplane identification number;
• assembling and exchanging meteorological data;
• logbooks, maps, and charts for aviation;
• immigration and customs processes;
• awareness of distressed aircraft and thorough reporting on accident investigations.

If these requirements are not met, the airworthiness certificate for the aircraft should state exactly what failed and why. If an employee hasn't done his job correctly, the licence certificate should be appended with information about the failure, including its causes.

Personnel and aircraft that have certificates of failure attached will not be permitted to operate unless the state whose territory they are entering grants authorization, which is at the state's discretion.

Founding Principles Of Chicago Convention

The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation was approved on December 7, 1944, and it entered into force on April 4, 1947. It is an international pact "on certain principles and practises to ensure that international civil aviation may develop in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and run soundly and economically."

It established the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), an intergovernmental organisation whose goals are to advance the planning and growth of international air travel as well as the development of international air navigational rules and procedures. ICAO ultimately became associated with the UN.

Article 1 of the Convention states that:
"The contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory."

This was a reiteration of language from the 1919 Paris Convention that was similar. The complete and absolute sovereignty any state possesses over the air space above its territory is acknowledged in this article. By virtue of its reach, it would seem that the Convention tends to represent all states, including non-contracting states.

It is emphasised by the words "total" and "excusable" that there is no such thing as an innocent passage. Because of this, there is no such thing as "freedom of the air" over a state's land; rather, freedom only exists in the airspace over the high seas and EEZ.

The air above land areas and adjacent territorial seas over which a state exercises sovereignty, suzerainty, protection, or mandate are included in the lateral bounds of air territory, or "air space," as defined by Article 2 of the Chicago Convention. The same article also defines territory in relation to national territory as "exclusively land areas and territorial seas."

According to Article 55 of the Law of the Sea Convention of 1982, territorial seas and the Exclusive Economic Zone are two different things. Simply expressed, the region of a state's territorial airspace over which it has exclusive sovereignty correlates to the state's declared territorial sea breadth and clearly delineated land borders.

Furthermore, the extent of a state's sovereignty over its internal airspace is limited to the height of the space frontier. The phrase used in convention, however, does not distinguish between national airspace and space.

Article 3 of the Chicago Convention, which covers both military and commercial aircraft. However, neither the idea of state aircraft nor that of civil aircraft are defined in Article 3. "Aircraft used in military, customs, and police services shall be deemed to be state aircraft," states Article 3(b) of the Convention. Since the word "deemed" is used, this is just an assumption rather than a definition.

Both the nature of the enumeration and the nature of the presumption must be accurately determined when interpreting Article 3(b). The enumeration would not be exhaustive but rather serve as an illustration of what would be regarded as a state aircraft under a liberal interpretation of Article 3(b).

Such an interpretation would result in a smaller exemption and a wider range of the Chicago regulatory system's applicability.

The states' non-scheduled airline rights to fly through or stop continuously without requesting permission are confirmed under Article 5 of the 1944 Chicago Convention. However, article 6 requires that prior to providing scheduled air service, states get consent from the contracting state. Additionally, in order to fulfil the sovereignty concept24, Article 7 of the 1944 Chicago Convention specifies cabotage as a practise component of the Chicago Convention.

According to this article, any contracting nation is free to reject the licence that is granted to flyers, shippers, and letter carriers in exchange for money or as a rental from one place to another. All current international civil aviation systems are founded on Article 1 of the 1944 Chicago Convention, as well as Articles 5, 6, and 7.[1]

States have the authority to restrict or prevent overflight over specific regions of their territory in accordance with Article 9(a) of the Chicago Convention. The foundation of the Convention and one of its most powerful expressions is the idea of sovereignty, which is the basis of this clause.

However, in order to be able to employ the power granted by Article 9(a) to construct limited zones, a number of requirements and legal requirements must be met. According to the language of the law, "no-fly zones" may only be established for the following purposes:

1. military necessity; or
2. public safety.

Such "no-fly zones" must also adhere to geographical and temporal constraints and be acceptable and proportionate. Furthermore, if a state wants to impose restrictions on who can use its airspace, it must do so in a way that "does not unreasonably interfere with air navigation." This demonstrates that while safety is the first priority, the threat must be taken into account while applying the sovereignty concept to defend airspace.

Current Challenges Of Maintaining "Air Sovereignty" Of State

The question of how much a state can claim sovereignty over airspace still rules the international community today, despite all the improvements made in the global aviation sector and all the laws enacted to establish air sovereignty, from the Police Directive of 1784 to the Chicago Convention of 1944.

The majority of aviation sovereignty's difficulties, including the legal, political, economic, and national security ones, do, of course, exist in theoretical contexts. As a result, the scope of this study is restricted to examining the legal and national security difficulties that states encounter while establishing air sovereignty under the current system of aviation law.

Agreement on the terms "airspace" and "aircraft" is subject to legal challenges. The absence of a legal consensus on the terms "airspace" and "aircraft" has led to a multitude of legal interpretations that are based on the various interests of each state. The author gives his analyses and viewpoints in light of these worries, which are basically as follows:[2]

Problem Concerning The Determination Of "Airspace" Under State Sovereignty

The Chicago Convention of 1944 in particular has drawn attention to the fact that it never defines what the phrase "airspace" means. Furthermore, neither the definition of outer space nor its origin are mentioned in the 1967 Space Treaty, which regulates space use. However, as stated in Article I of the Chicago Convention, each state has total and exclusive authority over the airspace over its borders.

We mistakenly believe that the boundary between space and airspace is present as a result. The main cause of the difficulties in establishing a state's vertical sovereignty is the lack of a natural boundary separating space from the air. This is comparable to how "international seas" and "territorial waters" of a state are not physically separated from one another.

As a result, it may be argued that Article 1 of the Chicago Convention conveys entire state sovereignty over airspace only as far as flying by conventional aircraft and balloons is practical. There isn't yet a firm international consensus over what qualifies as "air space." States' domestic laws now include mention of the line separating Earth and space as a result. Such unilateral delimitations inevitably lead to ambiguity in the law and fragmentation.

For instance, the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-7 over Eastern Ukraine brought to light a touchy issue involving aerial sovereignty and the extent of airspace. When the passenger airliner was shot down over the Ukraine's conflict zone, it was en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

Up to a height of roughly 9,750 metres, Ukraine had closed off its airspace. The MH7 was flying in the higher airspace at a height of roughly 10,000 metres, and the Ukrainian authorities said that they had not received any new alerts about potential threats. The fact that this was insufficient led to the death of all 298 people.

The States must ensure the safety of the airspace over their territory, according to the joint investigation team (JIT) led by the Netherlands. It would be challenging to offer such a promise if there was hostilities on the area. The occurrence made the national sovereignty over airspace's protection component more difficult to understand.

Where airspace ends and what, as the domain of all humanity, begins is the main issue in airspace delimitation. To ascertain which actions are actually interpreted as determining air sovereignty rights, the answer to this question is crucial.[3]

National Security Challenge-Use Of Force Restriction

On September 1, 1983, a passenger jet operated by Korean Air Lines (KE007) violated Soviet airspace and was shot down by the Soviet Union (now Russia). The civilian aircraft was thought to be an American intelligence plane on a reconnaissance fly over the Kamchatka peninsula. All 269 people on board the target was killed when Soviet fighter planes destroyed it.

The Soviet authorities claimed they used force in self-defence in accordance with their national law; nevertheless, the inquiry found that the Soviet interceptors did not adhere to ICAO rules and recommended practises prior to striking KE007.35As a result, there is a conflict between the state's air sovereignty and the safety of civil aviation.

After the incident, Article 3 of the Chicago Convention was adopted, which forbids countries from using force against civilian aircraft. However, it only applies to civilian aircraft that are "in flight."

Article 3 (a) declares the following:
"The contracting States recognize that every State must (a) refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight and that, in case of interception, the lives of persons on board and the safety of aircraft must not be endangered. This provision shall not be interpreted as modifying in any way the rights and obligations of States set forth in the Charter of the United Nations".36

The requirement that governments in the international community abide by international standards for safeguarding and protecting the safety of civil aircraft of other nationals while in their state's sovereign airspace. Indeed, it is against the law to use weapons on a civil aeroplane, according to customary law. Even while Article 3 is the first clause to explicitly state what can be done in the event of an incursion, it just states what has long been known and recognised.

The lengthy and rather awkward paragraphs (b) to (d) of Article 3 express the idea that a proportionate response by the violating state against a serious threat or serious violation shall be permitted in order to reclaim sovereignty over the skies.

Since there is such a high chance of fatalities if the rules in the article are not followed, the offended state should be discouraged from employing force against the aircraft.

In a later case, Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America (USA), which was determined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), this difficulty was encountered.38 In 1988, the USS Vincennes of the American military shot down an Iranian Airbus A-300B that was flying from Dubai to Iran. All 290 passengers, including the crew, perished. The US commanders erred in thinking the aircraft was a military aircraft.

In a lawsuit brought before the ICJ, Iran alleged that the USA violated the Chicago Convention and the Montreal Convention of 1971 by shooting down the aircraft. The matter was resolved and dismissed before to the start of oral hearings, despite the fact that written pleadings on preliminary objections were filed.

The USA then extended ex-gratia offer of compensation to the victims' families. The ICJ hearings and ICAO investigation have proven that this occurrence constituted a flagrant violation of Article 3 of the Chicago Convention. As a result, this shows that even if the Chicago Convention's essential introductory Article 1 recognises the notion of total air sovereignty, governments have still actively used their sovereign rights. As a result, states seem to adopt a very strict attitude against allowing foreign incursion when it comes to airspace sovereignty.

Invading aircraft over their territory are occasionally seen as an act of aggression, provoking a response from the violated state. In many cases, the penetrated state has led to the downing of such aircraft, igniting the need for a line to separate civilian and military aircraft in the eyes of the international community. Article 3 of the same convention's article 3 is completely irrelevant in this situation.

Conclusion
The state was thought to have legal rights to the airspace over its territory as early as the Roman Empire. More traditional ideas of a state's sovereign control over its territorial airspace have emerged since the turn of the 20th century as the global air transportation market has expanded.

A static view of air sovereignty is envisioned by the ratification of the Chicago Convention on December 7, 1944, which becomes the Magna Carta of civil aviation participation. Aircraft that enter that area without authorization are regarded as intruders under the current system of airspace sovereignty, which grants each state exclusive rights over its own airspace.

Although air sovereignty is still a concept and has formal requirements, its implementation and interpretation have changed, restricting the powers of governments. Aerial sovereignty is not as full and exclusive today as it was when the Chicago Convention was drafted, according to this analysis. Even more significant, the Convention does not define the term "aircraft" in legal terms. It doesn't even define "airspace."

The Chicago Convention was unable to create a clear legal system since its main focus was on issues of aviation sovereignty. It only laid the groundwork for how states set the rules for intercontinental travel, empowering each country to choose its own aviation industry rules at whim. It has becoming harder to retain air sovereignty while balancing safety and security as a result of these inadequacies in key air legislation.

Additionally, in the current environment, national security and economic concerns have largely influenced judgements about international air sovereignty. Notably, rather than sustaining air sovereignty today, the employment of lawful action in self-defences against intruders has resulted in disastrous experiences rather than constructive outcomes.

The Chicago Convention, which was signed in 1944 and established the guiding principles and structure for the management of international airspace, was an important turning point in the history of international aviation. As global geopolitics, technology, and the nature of air travel have changed over time, so too have the interpretation and application of its provisions. In light of the Chicago Convention and its consequences for modern aviation, this critical analysis tries to outline the development of sovereignty in international airspace.

The Chicago Convention initially affirmed a state's sovereign right to govern and exercise jurisdiction over the airspace within its borders. However, the treaty established the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to promote standardisation and harmonisation of civil aviation legislation among states, recognising the necessity for global collaboration and uniformity in air travel. This signalled a shift away from absolute sovereignty towards a more cooperative and collaborative strategy that placed an emphasis on common interests and win-win outcomes.

The acknowledgment of the innocent passage principle in airspace, which is similar to the maritime principle established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), was one of the most important breakthroughs. governments decided to compromise between their need for unrestricted international air travel and their territorial sovereignty by allowing other governments' planes to fly over their territory without landing as long as certain requirements were met.

However, due to technological improvements, particularly the development of satellites and the growing significance of space in contemporary aviation, the idea of sovereignty over airspace remained a complex subject. States started claiming sovereignty over the airspace above their exclusive economic zones, expanding the scope of their legal authority.

Due to the blurring of traditional lines caused by this extension of sovereignty, the Chicago Convention has to be reassessed and reinterpreted in order to take into account the changing dynamics of airspace utilisation.

The conventional understanding of airspace sovereignty has also been challenged by the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones. Drone proliferation and their numerous applications, from commercial to recreational uses, were not initially anticipated by the Chicago Convention. As a result, it became urgent to address the regulation of drones and their incorporation into airspace management, which called for modifications and adaptations to the convention to account for these developing technologies.

The idea of sovereignty in international airspace has become more difficult in the modern setting due to talks about space governance and the potential militarization of space.

The scope of a state's sovereignty over the space above its territory and any potential overlap with the field of space law have come under scrutiny as space technologies become more integrated with aviation.

The Chicago Convention, which supported global collaboration and standardisation while reaffirming states' sovereignty over their territorial airspace, set the groundwork for the regulation of international airspace. But as the world of aviation, technology, and space has developed, it has put old ideas of sovereignty into question, forcing continual reinterpretations and adaptations of the convention to deal with modern problems.

A crucial requirement for ensuring the efficient control of international airspace continues to be striking a balance between national interests, international collaboration, and evolving technologies.

End-Notes:

1. Ruwantissa Abeyratne, "Convention on International Civil Aviation: A commentary," (Springer 2014)
2. Stepen M. Shrewsbury, 'September 11th and The Single European Sky: Developing Concepts of Airspace Sovereignty, [2003] 68 Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 115
3. Gbenga Oduntan "Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in Airspace and Outer Space" (Routledge 2011) 68-72

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Anushka Thakur

Authentication No: DE370409505389-4-1223