曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

In the case of an accident involving state aircraft, States are not bound by Article 26 of the Chicago Convention and Annex 13. However, they can voluntarily (through their legislation) apply’ these provisions. Sometimes, the legislation speci.es a different procedure in relation to military aircraft only; all other aircraft, including those used in customs or police services, are treated as civilian in this regard. In the case of other incidents, where for example the requisite over-.ight permission has not been obtained by a state aircraft, which is then forced to land and charges brought against the crew, again the answer would depend on the domestic laws of the over-.own State and the factual circumstances. The classi.cation of an aircraft as “state” aircraft under the Convention does not necessarily mean that military laws and procedures of a State would apply to that aircraft or its crew. The current or any different classi.cation of aircraft under the Convention would not be determinative whether a particular State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, would make that aircraft and/or its crew subject to civil or military laws and regulations. As a matter of practice States usually apply military rules and processes to military aircraft and personnel only. At the international level, attempts to arrive at a common, acceptable de.nition of military aircraft have met with a singular lack of success.
Even though there are no international regulations applicable to UAVs, it is clear that there are certain rules that States are required to adhere to in order to ensure that UAVs operated under their control do not adversely affect civil air transport. The various provisions of the Chicago Convention and its Annexes cited in this article as well as the numerous ICAO Assembly resolutions quoted leave no room for doubt that there is an existing regime that addresses the safety of de-segregated air space when it comes to the operation of civil and State aircraft. This regime derives its legal legitimacy from the principles of State responsibility which are now accepted as binding on States. Article 1 of the Articles of Responsibility of the International Law Commission (ILC) expressly stipulates that every internationally wrongful act entails the international responsibility of a State.478
478See Crawford(2002, p. 77).
F. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 173
Paul Stephen Dempsey479 sums it up well, when he says that the issue of air traf.c management has two critical considerations, one relating to legal issues and the other impacting public policy. Dempsey states correctly that the skies belong to the public and the sovereign is but the trustee in this regard. Therefore, inasmuch as States cannot abdicate or pass on their responsibility and accountability of their traditional function and .duciary responsibility, ICAO too has responsibility under Chapter XV of the Chicago Convention to assist States needing help with regard to the provision of air navigation services.
However, the bottom line with regard to legal challenges posed by the operation of UAVs lies in the issue of liability and the responsibility of States. It is also now recognized as a principle of international law that the breach of a duty involves an obligation to make reparation appropriately and adequately. This reparation is regarded as the indispensable complement of a failure to apply a convention and is applied as an inarticulate premise that need not be stated in the breached convention itself.480 The ICJ af.rmed this principle in 1949 in the Corfu Channel Case481 by holding that Albania was responsible under international law to pay compensation to the United Kingdom for not warning that Albania had laid mines in Albanian waters which caused explosions, damaging ships belonging to the United Kingdom. Since the treaty law provisions of liability and the general principles of international law as discussed complement each other in endorsing the liability of States to compensate for damage caused by space objects, there is no contention as to whether in the use of nuclear power sources in outer space, damage caused by the uses of space objects or use thereof would not go uncompensated. Furthermore, under the principles of international law, moral damages based on pain, suffering and humiliation, as well as on other considerations, are considered recoverable.482
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(131)