Military aviation operates within a distinct legal framework, differentiated from its civil counterpart by its inherent purpose: the application of force. This distinction necessitates a complex interplay between international humanitarian law (IHL), customary international law, and domestic military regulations. Understanding these interwoven legal regimes is crucial for assessing the legality of military air operations and ensuring accountability for actions taken in the context of armed conflict.

What is International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and why is it crucial for military aviation?

Often called the law of armed conflict, IHL forms the bedrock of legal rules for aerial warfare. Key treaties like the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols set out fundamental principles to limit harm in military actions, especially from the air. Three core IHL principles are essential for regulating air power:

• Distinction: Military pilots and commanders must differentiate between military targets (like enemy aircraft or bases) and civilians or civilian locations (like homes and hospitals). Direct attacks on civilians are illegal under IHL.
• Proportionality: Even when attacking a legitimate military target, the harm to civilians or civilian property must not be excessive compared to the military advantage gained. In simple terms: don’t bomb a village to destroy one tank.
• Precaution: Military forces must take all possible steps to avoid or lessen civilian casualties and damage. This includes careful planning, target verification, and choosing weapons and tactics that minimize civilian risk.

These IHL principles are not just suggestions; they are binding legal obligations that heavily influence how military air operations are planned and executed, from targeting decisions to weapon selection. Understanding these principles is vital for anyone seeking to understand the legality of modern aerial warfare.

Customary international law also plays a significant role in regulating military aviation. Rules derived from state practice and opinio juris (a belief that the practice is legally obligatory) further refine the legal framework. For instance, the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks, which cannot be directed at a specific military objective, has become a universally accepted norm of customary international law. This prohibition applies equally to aerial bombardment and other forms of air warfare. The concept of military necessity, while often invoked, does not provide a blanket justification for any and all actions. Military necessity must be balanced against the principles of humanity and proportionality, ensuring that actions taken are both necessary for achieving a legitimate military objective and proportionate to the anticipated military advantage.

Furthermore, domestic military regulations and rules of engagement (ROEs) provide specific guidance to military personnel involved in air operations. ROEs are derived from international law and national policy, providing detailed instructions on the circumstances under which force may be used. These rules often address issues such as target identification, weapons employment, and the use of force in self-defense. They are crucial for ensuring compliance with international law and minimizing the risk of unlawful conduct. The legal complexities are further compounded by the evolving nature of military technology, including the increasing use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones. The legal framework governing the use of drones is still developing, raising complex questions about targeting, accountability, and the applicability of existing IHL principles. The lack of physical presence of a pilot in the aircraft necessitates a meticulous analysis of command responsibility and the potential for remote targeting to blur the lines between combatants and civilians.

Source:
Military Aviation Authority
Using the Air Force against Civil Aircraft
Cybersecurity in aviation: a regulator’s perspective