{"component": "clause", "props": {"groups": [{"samples": [{"hash": "dDzVUP8Cfo4", "uri": "/contracts/dDzVUP8Cfo4#interim-conclusions", "label": "Doctoral Thesis", "score": 29.9703540433, "published": true}, {"hash": "l4AT8inrHiE", "uri": "/contracts/l4AT8inrHiE#interim-conclusions", "label": "Doctoral Thesis", "score": 24.1697467488, "published": true}, {"hash": "7L0ACK2W7la", "uri": "/contracts/7L0ACK2W7la#interim-conclusions", "label": "Doctoral Thesis", "score": 24.1697467488, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "domestic-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [0, 12]}, {"key": "legal-personality", "type": "clause", "offset": [47, 64]}, {"key": "international-organisations", "type": "clause", "offset": [68, 95]}, {"key": "privileges-and-immunities", "type": "definition", "offset": [109, 134]}, {"key": "the-member-states", "type": "clause", "offset": [366, 383]}, {"key": "the-un", "type": "definition", "offset": [428, 434]}, {"key": "responsibility-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [632, 650]}, {"key": "wrongful-act", "type": "clause", "offset": [655, 667]}, {"key": "primary-obligation", "type": "clause", "offset": [683, 701]}, {"key": "the-content", "type": "clause", "offset": [761, 772]}, {"key": "rights-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [820, 829]}, {"key": "private-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [830, 845]}, {"key": "international-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [900, 917]}], "size": 3, "snippet": "Domestic law governs the conferral of domestic legal personality on international organisations. But for its privileges and immunities, an international organisation with such personality would be subject fully to domestic law and the jurisdiction of the local courts. Whether an international organisation has international legal personality depends on the will of the member states. Such personality is often conferred. As to the UN, as opined by the ICJ in Reparation for Injuries, it has been endowed with such personality. As a consequence of international legal personality, an international organisation incurs international responsibility for the wrongful act of breaching a primary obligation towards a private party. However, the ARIO clarify neither the content nor implementation of such responsibility. The rights of private parties to remedies against international organisations under international law require closer examination.", "hash": "b6bcc5c5dc1cdecffbf6a8e4538561f4", "id": 1}, {"samples": [{"hash": "dDzVUP8Cfo4", "uri": "/contracts/dDzVUP8Cfo4#interim-conclusions", "label": "Doctoral Thesis", "score": 29.9703540433, "published": true}, {"hash": "l4AT8inrHiE", "uri": "/contracts/l4AT8inrHiE#interim-conclusions", "label": "Doctoral Thesis", "score": 24.1697467488, "published": true}, {"hash": "7L0ACK2W7la", "uri": "/contracts/7L0ACK2W7la#interim-conclusions", "label": "Doctoral Thesis", "score": 24.1697467488, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-un", "type": "definition", "offset": [69, 75]}, {"key": "by-general", "type": "clause", "offset": [166, 176]}, {"key": "section-2", "type": "definition", "offset": [362, 371]}, {"key": "december-1999", "type": "clause", "offset": [427, 440]}, {"key": "section-13", "type": "clause", "offset": [442, 453]}, {"key": "human-rights-committee", "type": "definition", "offset": [639, 661]}, {"key": "see-\u2587", "type": "clause", "offset": [663, 668]}, {"key": "section-14", "type": "clause", "offset": [713, 724]}, {"key": "inter-alia", "type": "clause", "offset": [746, 756]}, {"key": "public-duties", "type": "clause", "offset": [805, 818]}, {"key": "public-office", "type": "clause", "offset": [830, 843]}, {"key": "capital-punishment", "type": "clause", "offset": [905, 923]}, {"key": "customary-international-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [925, 952]}, {"key": "general-principles", "type": "clause", "offset": [957, 975]}, {"key": "the-member-states", "type": "clause", "offset": [993, 1010]}, {"key": "opt-out", "type": "clause", "offset": [1027, 1034]}, {"key": "relation-to-international-organisations", "type": "clause", "offset": [1181, 1220]}, {"key": "in-addition-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [1253, 1267]}, {"key": "terms-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [1329, 1337]}, {"key": "in-detail", "type": "clause", "offset": [1363, 1372]}, {"key": "chapter-3", "type": "definition", "offset": [1376, 1385]}, {"key": "general-convention", "type": "definition", "offset": [1419, 1437]}, {"key": "respect-human-rights", "type": "clause", "offset": [1482, 1502]}, {"key": "bill-of-rights", "type": "definition", "offset": [1594, 1608]}, {"key": "wide-range", "type": "definition", "offset": [1677, 1687]}], "size": 3, "snippet": "There are good arguments that international organisations, including the UN, are bound by treaties to which they have consented. Furthermore, they arguably are bound by general international law, that is, 226 Ibid., para. 12.19, fn. 65. 227 Another example concerns the UN Transitional Authority in East Timor (UNTAET). See UNTAET/REG/1999/1, 27 September 1999, Section 2 of which is largely identical to UNMIK/REG/1999/24, 12 December 1999, Section 1.3. 228 See further paragraph 2.4.2.1.1. 229 Art. 1.2 of UNMIK/REG/2006/12, 23 March 2006. Furthermore, UNMIK was the first UN operation to have submitted to human rights oversight by the Human Rights Committee. See \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 et al. (2017), para. 12.29. 230 Also, Section 1.4 of UNMIK/REG/1999/24 inter alia prohibits discrimination by anyone \u2018undertaking public duties or holding public office in Kosovo\u2019, whereas Section 1.5 of said regulation abolished capital punishment. customary international law and general principles of law. However, the Member States, inter se, may \u2018opt out\u2019 of such obligations by clearly expressing a \u2018desire\u2019 to that effect. Further enquiry is required when it comes to jus cogens norms, including in relation to international organisations. Regarding the UN specifically, in addition to human rights obligations under general international law, in terms of treaty law, as discussed in detail in chapter 3, it incurs obligations under the General Convention. The UN may moreover be considered bound to respect human rights under the UN Charter, as its constitution, which rights are specified in the International Bill of Rights. As to the UN operation in Kosovo, UNMIK, it is moreover bound by a wide range of international human rights obligations, as per its own decision.", "hash": "9ba294e485642d8f422bb26a5c1cff9c", "id": 2}, {"samples": [{"hash": "3LZvHKMT3xb", "uri": "/contracts/3LZvHKMT3xb#interim-conclusions", "label": "Research Paper", "score": 30.0656062206, "published": true}, {"hash": "i7qy9apbvbS", "uri": "/contracts/i7qy9apbvbS#interim-conclusions", "label": "Research Paper", "score": 24.2245037645, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "section-29", "type": "clause", "offset": [0, 10]}, {"key": "general-convention", "type": "definition", "offset": [21, 39]}, {"key": "third-party-claims", "type": "definition", "offset": [80, 98]}, {"key": "having-a", "type": "definition", "offset": [100, 108]}, {"key": "private-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [110, 121]}, {"key": "the-un", "type": "definition", "offset": [143, 149]}, {"key": "legal-person", "type": "clause", "offset": [156, 168]}, {"key": "a-party", "type": "clause", "offset": [173, 180]}, {"key": "provisions-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [228, 242]}, {"key": "breach-of-section", "type": "clause", "offset": [326, 343]}, {"key": "states-parties", "type": "definition", "offset": [430, 444]}, {"key": "to-third-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [450, 466]}, {"key": "a-long", "type": "clause", "offset": [489, 495]}, {"key": "the-nature", "type": "clause", "offset": [595, 605]}, {"key": "law-applied", "type": "clause", "offset": [648, 659]}, {"key": "the-dispute", "type": "clause", "offset": [672, 683]}, {"key": "claims-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [708, 717]}, {"key": "diplomatic-protection", "type": "clause", "offset": [742, 763]}, {"key": "the-claims", "type": "clause", "offset": [769, 779]}, {"key": "international-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [867, 884]}, {"key": "a-dispute", "type": "definition", "offset": [968, 977]}, {"key": "section-30", "type": "clause", "offset": [1277, 1287]}, {"key": "of-claims", "type": "clause", "offset": [1340, 1349]}, {"key": "the-process", "type": "clause", "offset": [1378, 1389]}, {"key": "request-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [1416, 1427]}, {"key": "advisory-opinion", "type": "definition", "offset": [1431, 1447]}, {"key": "current-practice", "type": "definition", "offset": [1453, 1469]}, {"key": "the-rule-of-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [1514, 1529]}, {"key": "article-14", "type": "definition", "offset": [1544, 1554]}], "size": 2, "snippet": "Section 29(a) of the General Convention concerns legal controversies concerning third party claims, having a \u2018private law character\u2019, to which the UN, as a legal person, is a party. Under Section 29, the UN is required to make \u2018provisions for appropriate modes of settlement\u2019 of such disputes. Where the UN fails to do so, in breach of Section 29(a) of the General Convention, it incurs international responsibility towards those states parties (not to third parties themselves). There is a long-standing tradition of the UN recognising its liability where third party claims are substantiated. The nature of that liability varies depending on the law applied in settling the dispute. Where a state espouses claims of its nationals by way of diplomatic protection, and the claims are founded, the UN incurs international responsibility, that is, responsibility under international law, towards that state. In reality, it is the UN that unilaterally determines whether a dispute has a \u2018private law character\u2019 and whether modes of settlement qualify as \u2018appropriate\u2019 (both heads of Section 29 are discussed separately below). Consequently, the UN effectively controls its own accountability. Whilst such determinations may be scrutinised by the ICJ in advisory proceedings under Section 30, that is not a realistic avenue given the multitude of claims and the political nature of the process regarding the making of a request for an advisory opinion. The current practice is at odds with core notions of justice and the rule of law (and arguably Article 14 of the ICCPR), which are central to the UN\u2019s very purposes and operations, and which it has embraced.", "hash": "af0bf951374063ca17d9c7593f4cdf41", "id": 3}, {"samples": [{"hash": "eDeTuTuK5mk", "uri": "/contracts/eDeTuTuK5mk#interim-conclusions", "label": "Protection of Aviation Security Through the Establishment of Prohibited Airspace", "score": 27.7159479808, "published": true}, {"hash": "bnnhjCERyAw", "uri": "/contracts/bnnhjCERyAw#interim-conclusions", "label": "Protection of Aviation Security Through the Establishment of Prohibited Airspace", "score": 27.7159479808, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "regional-agreements", "type": "clause", "offset": [34, 53]}, {"key": "suspension-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [59, 72]}, {"key": "contracting-state", "type": "definition", "offset": [99, 116]}, {"key": "subject-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [132, 142]}, {"key": "chicago-convention", "type": "definition", "offset": [175, 193]}, {"key": "the-action", "type": "clause", "offset": [297, 307]}, {"key": "consistent-with", "type": "clause", "offset": [319, 334]}, {"key": "article-9", "type": "definition", "offset": [335, 344]}, {"key": "regulation-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [376, 389]}, {"key": "the-route", "type": "clause", "offset": [525, 534]}, {"key": "the-principal", "type": "definition", "offset": [607, 620]}, {"key": "basis-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [680, 688]}, {"key": "applies-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [708, 718]}], "size": 2, "snippet": "Albeit prescriptions in bilateral/regional agreements, the suspension of transit privileges over a Contracting State\u2019s territory is subject to territorial sovereignty and the Chicago Convention. Pakistan\u2019s prohibited airspace along its western border in the 1950s did target Indian aircraft only; the action was hardly consistent with Article 9 of the Chicago Convention. The regulation of transit rights by Pakistan in 2019 in law did not make a distinction regarding aircraft\u2019s nationality. However, because Airway P518 is the route designated in Indian- Pakistan BASA, Air Indian and Indian airlines are the principal airlines being hit. This measure made a distinction on the basis of air routes, but it applies to all aircraft without making a distinction as to the nationality of an aircraft.", "hash": "b879dc47947ed9eebf9aba4d794c71ab", "id": 4}, {"samples": [{"hash": "3LZvHKMT3xb", "uri": "/contracts/3LZvHKMT3xb#interim-conclusions", "label": "Research Paper", "score": 30.0656062206, "published": true}, {"hash": "i7qy9apbvbS", "uri": "/contracts/i7qy9apbvbS#interim-conclusions", "label": "Research Paper", "score": 24.2245037645, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-phrase", "type": "clause", "offset": [61, 71]}, {"key": "private-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [73, 84]}, {"key": "section-29", "type": "clause", "offset": [102, 112]}, {"key": "general-convention", "type": "definition", "offset": [123, 141]}, {"key": "meaning-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [183, 193]}, {"key": "the-term", "type": "clause", "offset": [194, 202]}, {"key": "domestic-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [265, 277]}, {"key": "international-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [283, 300]}, {"key": "public-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [319, 329]}, {"key": "according-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [467, 479]}, {"key": "refer-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [623, 631]}, {"key": "the-un", "type": "definition", "offset": [722, 728]}, {"key": "relate-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [740, 749]}, {"key": "actual-performance", "type": "definition", "offset": [755, 773]}, {"key": "the-performance", "type": "clause", "offset": [963, 978]}, {"key": "official-acts", "type": "definition", "offset": [983, 996]}, {"key": "number-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1171, 1180]}, {"key": "nature-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1309, 1322]}, {"key": "state-parties", "type": "definition", "offset": [1344, 1357]}, {"key": "personal-injury", "type": "definition", "offset": [1382, 1397]}, {"key": "illness-or-death", "type": "clause", "offset": [1399, 1415]}, {"key": "property-loss-or-damage", "type": "clause", "offset": [1421, 1444]}, {"key": "remedy-requested", "type": "clause", "offset": [1456, 1472]}, {"key": "in-private", "type": "definition", "offset": [1538, 1548]}, {"key": "public-realm", "type": "definition", "offset": [1620, 1632]}, {"key": "international-organizations", "type": "clause", "offset": [1636, 1663]}, {"key": "adoption-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1685, 1700]}, {"key": "to-exercise", "type": "clause", "offset": [1771, 1782]}, {"key": "governmental-powers", "type": "clause", "offset": [1783, 1802]}, {"key": "human-rights", "type": "definition", "offset": [1881, 1893]}, {"key": "establishment-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1929, 1945]}, {"key": "application-of-section", "type": "clause", "offset": [2043, 2065]}, {"key": "contrary-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [2112, 2123]}, {"key": "travaux-pr\u00e9paratoires", "type": "clause", "offset": [2128, 2149]}, {"key": "of-disputes", "type": "clause", "offset": [2265, 2276]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "clause", "offset": [2277, 2285]}, {"key": "related-grievances", "type": "clause", "offset": [2307, 2325]}, {"key": "a-dispute", "type": "definition", "offset": [2371, 2380]}, {"key": "other-claims", "type": "definition", "offset": [2632, 2644]}, {"key": "case-studies", "type": "definition", "offset": [2712, 2724]}, {"key": "the-cases", "type": "clause", "offset": [2750, 2759]}, {"key": "arising-out-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [2760, 2774]}, {"key": "lead-poisoning", "type": "clause", "offset": [2786, 2800]}, {"key": "dispute-settlement", "type": "clause", "offset": [2859, 2877]}, {"key": "exercise-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [3098, 3109]}, {"key": "public-authority", "type": "clause", "offset": [3130, 3146]}, {"key": "in-dispute", "type": "definition", "offset": [3252, 3262]}, {"key": "policy-decisions", "type": "clause", "offset": [3344, 3360]}, {"key": "the-dispute", "type": "clause", "offset": [3383, 3394]}, {"key": "failure-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [3531, 3541]}, {"key": "duty-of-care", "type": "clause", "offset": [3554, 3566]}, {"key": "applies-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [3572, 3582]}, {"key": "the-definition-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [3706, 3723]}, {"key": "in-accordance-with", "type": "definition", "offset": [3738, 3756]}, {"key": "to-the-public", "type": "definition", "offset": [3840, 3853]}, {"key": "in-addition", "type": "clause", "offset": [3964, 3975]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [4010, 4025]}], "size": 2, "snippet": "This section concerned the interpretation and application of the phrase \u2018private law character\u2019 under Section 29(a) of the General Convention. It has been submitted that the ordinary meaning of the term dispute of a \u2018private law character\u2019 refers to the following: domestic law, not international law; the opposite of \u2018public law\u2019; and a common denominator among domestic private laws, as opposed to one specific domestic law. It has furthermore been submitted that, according to the collective travaux of the General Convention and the Specialized Agencies Convention, \u2018disputes of a private law character\u2019 may be said to refer to disputes that: concern matters that are \u2018incidental\u2019 to the \u2018constitutional functions\u2019 of the UN and do not relate to the \u2018actual performance\u2019 of such functions; would have come before municipal courts but for the immunity of the UN, Section 29 of the General Convention being the \u2018counterpart\u2019 of the UN\u2019s immunities; and concern the performance of \u2018official acts\u2019, but not \u2018constitutional functions\u2019. In interpreting the phrase \u2018private law character\u2019, the key challenge is to distinguish \u2018public\u2019 from \u2018private\u2019. This section offered a number of considerations to that end. Three ingredients suggest, but are not necessarily determinative of, a \u2018private law character\u2019: the nature of the claimants (third non-state parties); the damage sustained (personal injury, illness or death, and property loss or damage); and, the remedy requested (compensation). Furthermore, the jurisdiction of domestic courts in private law disputes would normally exclude those disputes that are within the public realm of international organizations. Moreover, since the adoption of the General Convention, there has been a development whereby the UN began to exercise governmental powers over individuals. A parallel development involved the advent of international human rights. This \u2018dual process\u2019 calls for the establishment of \u2018public law remedies\u2019. The Dutch experience cautions against expanding the interpretation of the application of Section 29 to such disputes (which would moreover run contrary to its travaux pr\u00e9paratoires). When this interpretation of \u2018private law character\u2019 is applied to the UN\u2019s practice, the 1995 Report\u2019s exclusion of disputes based on \u2018political or policy-related grievances\u2019 appears problematic. In determining whether a dispute has a private law character, what matters is whether the actual performance of constitutional functions is at issue. As seen, in UN practice, defamation claims qualify 758 Ibid., at 733. as disputes of a private law character. And, there are possibly other claims the character of which requires close examination. As to the three case studies, it is submitted that in the cases arising out of the Kosovo lead poisoning and the Srebrenica genocide there are arguments to reject dispute settlement under Section 29 of the General Convention on account of the prevailing public law character of the respective disputes. That is, the impugned decisions in these cases essentially concern policy choices by the UN in the exercise of its governmental or public authority. Conversely, regarding the Haiti cholera epidemic, it has been submitted that the UN\u2019s refusal to engage in dispute settlement under Section 29 is more difficult to justify. It is true that public policy decisions are at play. However, the dispute does not concern such decisions, but rather their operational implementation. The alleged deficiencies in so doing arguably amount to a failure to discharge a duty of care that applies to the UN as much as it does to anyone. In other words, the character of the Haiti dispute, properly considered, seems to fit the definition of \u2018private law\u2019 in accordance with the intention of the drafters of the General Convention. Not only are decisions as to the public or private character of a dispute legally complex, they also have significant implications for the claimants. In addition, controversial decisions, such as with respect to the Haiti cholera epidemic, impact on the UN\u2019s reputation and thereby effectiveness, and may also potentially threaten its jurisdictional immunity (notwithstanding that in the cholera dispute the US courts upheld the immunity). This brings into sharp focus that, as seen previously, it is the UN itself that determines the character of disputes brought against it. That process is problematic, which is compounded by procedural problems in the implementation of Section 29(a), as discussed in the next subsection.", "hash": "a5f2f7a66401dd84e38d1018efa8d477", "id": 5}, {"samples": [{"hash": "eDeTuTuK5mk", "uri": "/contracts/eDeTuTuK5mk#interim-conclusions", "label": "Protection of Aviation Security Through the Establishment of Prohibited Airspace", "score": 27.7159479808, "published": true}, {"hash": "bnnhjCERyAw", "uri": "/contracts/bnnhjCERyAw#interim-conclusions", "label": "Protection of Aviation Security Through the Establishment of Prohibited Airspace", "score": 27.7159479808, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "consistent-with", "type": "clause", "offset": [43, 58]}, {"key": "article-9", "type": "definition", "offset": [59, 68]}, {"key": "chicago-convention", "type": "definition", "offset": [76, 94]}, {"key": "registered-aircraft", "type": "clause", "offset": [115, 134]}, {"key": "national-emergency", "type": "clause", "offset": [274, 292]}, {"key": "chapter-iii", "type": "definition", "offset": [441, 452]}, {"key": "to-establish", "type": "clause", "offset": [478, 490]}, {"key": "prohibited-area", "type": "definition", "offset": [493, 508]}], "size": 2, "snippet": "The blockade against Qatar in 2017 was not consistent with Article 9 of the Chicago Convention, because only Qatar-registered aircraft is prevented from using the airspace of the four countries. Nonetheless, depending on local situations, the four countries could declare a national emergency and invoke Article 89 to justify their ban. Bahrain\u2019s NOTAMS attracts more attention because its FIR encompasses all of Qatar\u2019s sovereign airspace. Chapter III will discuss who and how to establish a prohibited area in delegated airspace(s).", "hash": "8c2bd0f783a5753599b28169baf94218", "id": 6}, {"samples": [{"hash": "eDeTuTuK5mk", "uri": "/contracts/eDeTuTuK5mk#interim-conclusions", "label": "Protection of Aviation Security Through the Establishment of Prohibited Airspace", "score": 27.7159479808, "published": true}, {"hash": "bnnhjCERyAw", "uri": "/contracts/bnnhjCERyAw#interim-conclusions", "label": "Protection of Aviation Security Through the Establishment of Prohibited Airspace", "score": 27.7159479808, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "contracting-state", "type": "definition", "offset": [2, 19]}, {"key": "to-establish", "type": "clause", "offset": [91, 103]}, {"key": "subject-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [155, 165]}, {"key": "conditions-and-requirements", "type": "clause", "offset": [166, 193]}, {"key": "article-9", "type": "definition", "offset": [197, 206]}, {"key": "chicago-convention", "type": "definition", "offset": [214, 232]}, {"key": "under-article", "type": "definition", "offset": [234, 247]}, {"key": "exercise-of-right", "type": "definition", "offset": [316, 333]}, {"key": "the-conditions", "type": "clause", "offset": [358, 372]}, {"key": "public-safety", "type": "clause", "offset": [442, 455]}, {"key": "these-conditions", "type": "clause", "offset": [501, 517]}, {"key": "national-emergency", "type": "clause", "offset": [623, 641]}, {"key": "the-requirements", "type": "clause", "offset": [643, 659]}, {"key": "national-treatment", "type": "clause", "offset": [724, 742]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "clause", "offset": [857, 865]}, {"key": "the-aircraft", "type": "clause", "offset": [885, 897]}, {"key": "flexible-arrangements", "type": "clause", "offset": [1082, 1103]}, {"key": "restricted-area", "type": "definition", "offset": [1177, 1192]}, {"key": "the-foundation", "type": "clause", "offset": [1307, 1321]}, {"key": "research-questions", "type": "clause", "offset": [1362, 1380]}, {"key": "chapter-i", "type": "definition", "offset": [1421, 1430]}, {"key": "interpretation-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1437, 1454]}, {"key": "examples-of-prohibited", "type": "clause", "offset": [1531, 1553]}, {"key": "the-application", "type": "clause", "offset": [1587, 1602]}, {"key": "section-24", "type": "clause", "offset": [1731, 1742]}, {"key": "meaning-of-terms", "type": "clause", "offset": [1831, 1847]}, {"key": "section-31", "type": "clause", "offset": [1965, 1976]}, {"key": "section-32", "type": "definition", "offset": [2024, 2035]}, {"key": "section-33", "type": "clause", "offset": [2076, 2087]}, {"key": "a-permanent", "type": "clause", "offset": [2161, 2172]}, {"key": "normal-operations", "type": "definition", "offset": [2434, 2451]}, {"key": "of-aircraft", "type": "clause", "offset": [2452, 2463]}, {"key": "figure-4", "type": "definition", "offset": [2614, 2622]}, {"key": "april-2020", "type": "clause", "offset": [2889, 2899]}, {"key": "august-2020", "type": "clause", "offset": [3028, 3039]}, {"key": "according-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [3134, 3146]}, {"key": "news-information", "type": "definition", "offset": [3154, 3170]}, {"key": "landing-system", "type": "definition", "offset": [3250, 3264]}, {"key": "industrial-area", "type": "definition", "offset": [3386, 3401]}, {"key": "restrictions-on", "type": "clause", "offset": [3429, 3444]}], "size": 2, "snippet": "A Contracting State enjoys sovereignty over its territory and can exercise the sovereignty to establish prohibited/restricted airspace over its territory, subject to conditions and requirements in Article 9 of the Chicago Convention. Under Article 9 of the Chicago Convention, establishing prohibited airspace is an exercise of right rather than obligation. The conditions, or justifications for closing airspace, include military necessity, public safety, exceptional circum- stances, and emergency; these conditions are to be interpreted narrowly so that they do not cover the airspace restrictions in times of war or in national emergency. The requirements in Article 9 of the Chicago Convention include two aspects: the national treatment in Article 9(a) and the most-favored-nation treatment in Article 9(b). The benchmark for measuring distinction is based on the nationality of the aircraft. Therefore, a Contracting State\u2019s prohibition of one particular airline\u2019s transit rights might not necessarily create distinction as to the nationality of the aircraft, taking note of flexible arrangements under Article 83bis of the Chicago Convention. Furthermore, a prohibited/restricted area should be \u201cas small as practicable\u201d and \u201ccontained within simple geo- metrical limits.\u201d The normative analysis is the foundation upon which this study answers the three research questions on prohibited airspace. As explained in Chapter I, this interpretation of a treaty provision is to be complemented by subsequent practices. Real-life examples of prohibited airspace help further understand the application for these conditions and requirements in Article 9. 216 See further in Chapter V. 217 On Article 89 and national emergency, see Section 2.4 of Chapter V. TION This section examines examples of prohibited airspace to confirm the meaning of terms as explained in previous sections. The following cases will be dis- cussed: \u2013 Pasir Gudang restricted area (2019) in Section 3.1; \u2013 India-Pakistan dispute (1950s and 2010s) in Section 3.2; \u2013 Qatar \u2018blockade\u2019 case (2017-2021) in Section 3.3.\n3.1 Pasir Gudang restricted area (2019) Malaysia announced to establish a permanent Restricted Area for military activities over Pasir Gudang, a port town of Malaysia, from 2 January 2019.218 Singapore objected to this initiative and described the restricted area being in a \u201ccontrolled and congested airspace\u201d that will impact the existing and normal operations of aircraft transiting through.219 Pasir Gudang is located within 3km from Singapore\u2019s Seletar airport. The airspace over Pasir Gudang is controlled by Malaysia. Figure 4: The Pasir Gudang Port220 218 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587://\u2587\u2587\u2587.\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587.\u2587\u2587\u2587/singapore-protests-new-malaysian-airspace-restriction/ 130820.article 219 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587://\u2587\u2587\u2587.\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587.\u2587\u2587\u2587/news/singapore/singapore-malaysia-southern-johor- airspace-seletar-airport-10997022, last accessed 9 April 2020. 220 Source: \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587://\u2587\u2587\u2587.\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587/blog/malaysia-shuts-down-plans-for-ils-approach-at-singapores- seletar-airport/, last accessed 8 August 2020. The Malaysian announcement to establish the airspace over Pasir Gudang as a restricted area, according to public news information, is a response to Singa- pore\u2019s plan to implement procedures for an instrument landing system (ILS) at Seletar airport;221 Malaysia considered that Singapore\u2019s plan would \u201cstunt development\u201d around the Pasir Gudang industrial area, including imposing height restrictions on buildings and affecting port activities.222", "hash": "85dd35d0a777cb81d89c511ea775a219", "id": 7}, {"samples": [{"hash": "37rgR3ocvZ4", "uri": "/contracts/37rgR3ocvZ4#interim-conclusions", "label": "Protection of Aviation Security Through the Establishment of Prohibited Airspace", "score": 34.1486076511, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-operations", "type": "clause", "offset": [0, 14]}, {"key": "civil-aviation", "type": "clause", "offset": [18, 32]}, {"key": "provision-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [97, 109]}, {"key": "an-appropriate", "type": "clause", "offset": [115, 129]}, {"key": "safety-management", "type": "clause", "offset": [161, 178]}, {"key": "civil-aircraft", "type": "definition", "offset": [367, 381]}, {"key": "responsibility-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [844, 861]}, {"key": "international-air", "type": "definition", "offset": [916, 933]}, {"key": "international-rules", "type": "definition", "offset": [941, 960]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [961, 976]}, {"key": "traffic-services", "type": "clause", "offset": [998, 1014]}], "size": 1, "snippet": "The operations of civil aviation involve a complex process which, amongst others, depends on the provision of ATS. An appropriate ATS authority, in implementing safety management, may determine that certain routes are not safe/secure/available; therefore, the ATS authority issues warnings and declares that air routes are restricted or prohibited from being used by civil aircraft. The closure of air routes could lead to prohibited airspace being established against one targeted State. Due to the closure of air routes, especially those air routes that connect national airspaces and international airspaces, a Con- tracting State may lose all its connections to international civil aviation. This targeted State may thus question the legality of this encirclement. To address this problem, the following sections explain the competence and responsibility of appropriate ATS authorities to close air routes under international air law. 3 International rules with respect to the provision of Air Traffic Services", "hash": "12d433f897d5d4fff42b334c0d7538bf", "id": 8}, {"samples": [{"hash": "a7Iu1IlaxI5", "uri": "/contracts/a7Iu1IlaxI5#interim-conclusions", "label": "N/A", "score": 32.194834614, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "chicago-convention", "type": "definition", "offset": [4, 22]}, {"key": "world-war-ii", "type": "definition", "offset": [129, 141]}, {"key": "contracting-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [284, 303]}, {"key": "related-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [349, 359]}, {"key": "the-term", "type": "clause", "offset": [381, 389]}, {"key": "member-states", "type": "definition", "offset": [391, 404]}, {"key": "states-parties", "type": "definition", "offset": [450, 464]}, {"key": "review-and-amendment", "type": "clause", "offset": [477, 497]}], "size": 1, "snippet": "The Chicago Convention was envisaged to deal with aviation matters among friendly countries, the Allies and neutral countries in World War II. An enemy State has to go through Article 93 procedures to become an ICAO Member State. In line with the Chicago Convention, this study uses \u2018Contracting Parties\u2019 for normative analysis of treaty provisions related to prohibited airspace. The term \u2018Member States\u2019 are reserved for ICAO-centered matters and \u2018States Parties\u2019 for treaty review and amendment processes.", "hash": "a9ec5c848cece828fd60dfa4fa06d79e", "id": 9}, {"samples": [{"hash": "a7Iu1IlaxI5", "uri": "/contracts/a7Iu1IlaxI5#interim-conclusions", "label": "N/A", "score": 32.194834614, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "member-states", "type": "definition", "offset": [80, 93]}, {"key": "article-37", "type": "definition", "offset": [95, 105]}, {"key": "chicago-convention", "type": "definition", "offset": [113, 131]}, {"key": "highest-practicable", "type": "definition", "offset": [191, 210]}, {"key": "in-all-respects", "type": "clause", "offset": [275, 290]}, {"key": "a-member", "type": "clause", "offset": [307, 315]}, {"key": "under-article", "type": "definition", "offset": [333, 346]}, {"key": "to-file", "type": "definition", "offset": [378, 385]}, {"key": "the-term", "type": "clause", "offset": [403, 411]}, {"key": "audit-results", "type": "clause", "offset": [482, 495]}, {"key": "not-mandatory", "type": "clause", "offset": [509, 522]}, {"key": "service-arrangements", "type": "definition", "offset": [574, 594]}, {"key": "bilateral-agreements", "type": "definition", "offset": [603, 623]}], "size": 1, "snippet": "ICAO Standards are the minimum regulations designed to be respected by all ICAO Member States. Article 37 of the Chicago Convention requires ICAO Member States to collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in Standards. When impracticable to comply in all respects with Standards, a Member State is obliged under Article 38 of the Chicago Conven- tion to file the differences; the term \u201cpracticable\u201d is not to be auto-interpreted as freely by States. ICAO audit results, even though not mandatory, can be invoked to suspend or change bilateral air service arrangements, if the bilateral agreements so prescribe.", "hash": "2a32508d861a2534aa470d0ca795553c", "id": 10}], "next_curs": "ClwSVmoVc35sYXdpbnNpZGVyY29udHJhY3RzcjgLEhZDbGF1c2VTbmlwcGV0R3JvdXBfdjU2IhxpbnRlcmltLWNvbmNsdXNpb25zIzAwMDAwMDBhDKIBAmVuGAAgAA==", "clause": {"size": 9, "children": [["interim-conclusions", "Interim conclusions"], ["", ""], ["pakistans-right-to", "Pakistan\u2019s right to"], ["the-proceedings278", "The proceedings278"], ["dispute-in-the-1950s", "Dispute in the 1950s"]], "title": "Interim conclusions", "parents": [["interim-conclusions", "Interim conclusions"], ["of-the-general-convention", "Of the General Convention"], ["discussion", "Discussion"], ["terminologies", "Terminologies"], ["contracting-states-states-parties-and-member", "Contracting States, States Parties, and Member"]], "id": "interim-conclusions", "related": [["financial-condition-financial-statements", "Financial Condition; Financial Statements", "Financial Condition; Financial Statements"], ["false-statements-concerning-highway-projects", "FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIGHWAY PROJECTS", "FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIGHWAY PROJECTS"], ["financial-statements-financial-condition", "Financial Statements; Financial Condition", "Financial Statements; Financial Condition"], ["solvent-financial-condition", "Solvent Financial Condition", "Solvent Financial Condition"], ["financial-statements-financial-condition-undisclosed-liabilities-projections-etc", "Financial Statements; Financial Condition; Undisclosed Liabilities; Projections; etc", "Financial Statements; Financial Condition; Undisclosed Liabilities; Projections; etc"]], "related_snippets": [], "updated": "2025-07-07T12:35:11+00:00"}, "json": true, "cursor": ""}}