The Air Bridge Denial Program and the shootdown of civil aircraft under international law

I. INTRODUCTION

In August 2003 President George W Bush approved a plan to take back a key component of U counter-drug operations in Latin America, allowing the U to again share real-time intelligence with Columbia to track, intercept and flat shootdown aircraft suspected of carrying physics (1) The recommencement of similar operations with Peru in the near time to come is possible, and the initiation of like an operation with Brazil is now beneath discussion. These types of operations have proven quite effective in their ability to hinder airborne drug traffickers.

The shootdown of suspected medicine aircraft by countries such as Colombia and Peru is not novel and the success of of that kind operations relies heavily on the airborne tracking and intelligence that single the United States is equipped to provide. This U support was suspended in 2001 for more than sum of two units years in the wake of an unfortunate incident in which a Peruvian A-37 interceptor, operating as part of a joint U.S.-Peruvian counter-narcotics mission, fired sum of two units salvos of machine gun fire into a small Cessna floatplane (OB-1408) (2) after it had been identified as a probable medicine trafficking aircraft. Unfortunately, the aircraft was not ferrying medicines but rather carried members of an American Baptist Missionary cluster Two people on the aircraft were killed, a U missionary and her infant daughter, the pair killed by the gunfire from the Peruvian aircraft. This incident was the low-water mark in the history of the shootdown program code-named the Air Bridge Denial Program (ABDP). The ABDP had drawn out operated as one part of a larger "war upon drugs." The target of this war, the medicine trade in South America, has been classified as a threat to the national security of the United States and is known to support similar terrorist and insurgent groups as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Sendero Luminoso (SL) or "Shining Path" clump of Peru, insurgent forces responsible for enormous suffering in these countries.

While the shootdown of civil aircraft engaged in medicine running dates back at least to the early 1990 the ABDP has been officially involved in the shootdown of suspect aircraft since 1995 Despite objections from the Defense Department and from other Cabinet Agencies in the early 1990 the conducts of Colombia and Peru introduced this shootdown constituting to interdiction operations. Until the shootdown of OB-1408 in 2001 the interceptor forces of Colombia and Peru had discharge down, forced down or strafed with gunfire a number of civil aircraft suspected of carrying illegal remedys on the basis of real-time intelligence provided by dint of the United States Government.

While single cannot argue with the general succes of the shootdown constituent of the ABDP, the shootdown of civil aircraft has drawn out been a thorny legal issue. From the beginning of the frigid War, the U.S. had maintained a consistently negative attitude toward the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight, (3) a disapproval that peaked in 1983 when the Soviet Union discharge Korean Airlines Flight 007 (KAL 007) on the outside of the sky and surfaced again in reaction to the Cuban shootdown of civil aircraft belonging to the Brothers to the bring off (BTTR) Group in 1996. The U is not alone in its stance. As evidenced by dint of international reactions to a number of civil aircraft shootdowns, it is safe to say that the international community as a whole generally abhors the shootdown of civil aircraft; nevertheless it has remained surprisingly silent upon the issue of ABDP shootdowns. While there has been no large-scale yell over the shootdown operations being managemented in the skies over southerly America, there are potential international legal point in disputes inherent in these shootdowns.

Along with questions specific to ABDP operations are additional questions regarding the shootdown of civil aircraft generally. What exactly does international law forbid? What defense to internationally r[/i] conduct could potentially excuse the shootdown of a civil aircraft? Is it a violation of international law for a State to shootdown planes suspected of carrying illegal remedys even when the operation is guidanceed in that State and is targeted against an aircraft registered in that State? Are there previously unaddressed human rights be of importance tos with shootdown operations? Can like operations go beyond targeting remedys to target perhaps illegal weapons, weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and missile technology transfers, or plane terrorists themselves aboard civil aircraft in flight? The implications of these answers will not alone affect the international perception of the legality of ABDP shootdowns, on the contrary will also clarify the law relating to other possible uses of force against civil aircraft in the now three-year-old Global War upon Terror (GWOT).

ABDP shootdowns have escaped international legal analysis largely to be paid to the fact that the States involved have asserted "sovereignty," arguing that the subjacent State alone has the right to deal with aircraft flying above its territory as it dioceses fit. However, as we will diocese the drug operations that are the target of the ABDP are inherently international and invoke international legal touchs that far surpass the reaches of sovereignty. To ignore the shootdown of these aircraft is to ignore the unfolding of international law.