The regulatory process governing Aerodromes and Air Navigation Services involve State responsibility/obligation.

Aerodromes and Air Navigation Services have to be certified by appropriate authorities and have to follow ICAO annexes especially 10 and 11.

The is state liability to quality air navigation services which include runway incursions.

Articles 22 & 28 of Chicago Convention obliges Member States to facilitate and expedite navigation by Aircraft between territories of contracting States for which they can put a user charge on a non-discriminatory basis. However, if the quality of Air Navigation Service was insufficient or misleading, can the State be held responsible and penalized? This question remained unanswered as so far sovereign immunity has been sought in most cases as State has been a service provider but it is unlikely to be accepted in future. However, with privatization of air navigation services and switch over to satellite based navigation, this is issue is gaining importance.

Under Annex 17 Contracting States are obliged to provide Security to Aviation over their area. With increase in security issues especially after 9/11 when civil aircrafts were used as instruments of destruction, there has been a major shift to improvement of security. Annexed 17 lays down detailed security obligations.

ICAO is also conducting detailed audit on security provided by each contracting State in order to improve and harmonize the security system the world over.

While environment does not find a mention in Chicago Convention, 1944, it has now become a very important issue with ICAO. Annex 16 is entirely for environment protection. As issues of global warming come to the forefront, ICAO has also been taking proactive action. Emissions at airports are becoming an issue of obligation.

Emissions by aircrafts in flights are also becoming an issue and ICAO has taken certain steps to mitigate it. Meanwhile, European Commission has gone beyond and enacted a legal instrument bringing their domestic emission trading scheme to cover international flights into EU w.e.f. 01.01.2012.

ICAO is much more than a watchdog. It is a body that makes International Laws

on Aviation which are followed the world over

While it does not have any punitive authority over its contracting states, it is becoming more and more powerful to control violations.

Its Audit policy, though based on a voluntary basis, is becoming a strong watchdog over defaulting States

ICAO has powers under Articles 84,85 and 86 has power to arbitrate in disputes between states.

It has looked into disputes between India and Pakistan, US and Cuba and US and EU amongst other

Incase arbitration by ICAO is not found acceptable the only recourse left is the International Court of Justice

While ICAO statutes are valid during war as provided in Article 89 which states ‘In case of war, the provision of this Convention shall not affect the freedom of action of any state’.

It is however, expected that states will not shoot at a civil aircraft even if it violates another’s air space.

After shooting of a Korean civil aircraft by Soviet Russia for violating Russian air space on April 20th 1978 killing 113 passengers with 11 injured, ICAO amended its Article3 by adding Article 3bis.

Art 3 bis refrains States from using weapons against civil aircraft in flight and also provides that in case of interception, lives of persons on board and safety of aircraft must not be endangered.

ICAO Council did discuss the use of a civil aircraft for criminal purposes like smuggling drugs, gun running or illegal transport of persons but offered no comfort to victim state

Five aircrafts were hijacked on 11th Sept 2001 from Boston. One of these aircrafts was actually shot down by US Government.

How legal was the shooting down? First, it was a domestic flight and therefore

technically did not attract Art 3 Bis. Otherwise also this aircraft was targeting

the White House, seat of the President of USA.

Article 54 (J) makes it mandatory upon the Council of ICAO to report to any contracting State any infraction of the Chicago Convention as well as any failure to carryout recommendations and determination of the Council. They are also required under Article 54 (K) to report to Assembly any infraction of the Convention by a Contracting State. However, so far the Council has failed to report any such infraction either to the country or to the assembly.

This provision gives substance clout to ICAO to discipline its members who are not implementing their obligations but has never been used.