The airspace tribunal and the case for a new human right to protect the freedom to live without physical or psychologica
- PDF / 553,422 Bytes
- 7 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 41 Downloads / 145 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The airspace tribunal and the case for a new human right to protect the freedom to live without physical or psychological threat from above Nick Grief1,2 Accepted: 21 September 2020 © Springer Nature Limited 2020
Abstract Established in 2018, the Airspace Tribunal is a people’s tribunal that is examining the case for and against the recognition of a proposed new human right to live without physical or psychological threat from above. Drawing on the Airspace Tribunal’s first two hearings in London and Sydney, this article explains the Tribunal’s purpose and discusses the nature of the proposed right, why it is considered necessary, how it should be created and how it could strengthen international humanitarian law. It contends that a particuarly compelling argument in favour of the proposed right’s recognition is the psychological impact on civilians of threats experienced from or through airspace. With further hearings planned in other parts of the world, the article concludes by emphasising that the Airspace Tribunal’s aim is to facilitate, continue and develop the vital conversation about protecting human dignity and promoting the universality of human rights in the face of growing threats to our existence. Keywords Airspace · Outer space · Threats · Human rights · International law · People’s tribunal
A little over 100 years ago, on 13 October 1919, the Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation was concluded in Paris.1 For the first time, an international treaty proclaimed the principle that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty in the airspace above its land and sea territory.2 That principle was subsequently confirmed and restated by the Chicago Convention on International Civil
Aviation 1944.3 Since then, questions such as where the boundary between airspace and outer space lies4 and how far up a property owner’s rights extend5 have been keenly debated. However, it is not appropriate to think about airspace just in terms of sovereignty or property rights. We also need to be concerned about the wider human rights dimension, bearing in mind that every State must respect 3
1
LNTS, vol 11, p 173. Paris Convention, Art 1: ‘The Contracting States recognise that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty in the airspace above its territory and territorial waters’. 2
* Nick Grief [email protected] 1
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Doughty Street Chambers, London, UK
2
UNTS, vol 15, p 295. Art 1 of the Chicago Convention declares: ‘The contracting States recognise that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory’. Art 2 provides: ‘For the purposes of this Convention the territory of a State shall be deemed to be the land areas and territorial waters adjacent thereto under the sovereignty… of such State’. In the Nicaragua case, ICJ Reports 1986, p 14, at para 212, the International Court of Justice recognised that those provisions represent ‘firmly established and longstanding tenets of customary
Data Loading...
