454
Articles 69 and 70.
F. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
the service. To this end, Article 28 of the Convention obligates Contracting States to provide, as far as practicable in their territories, airports, radio services, meteorologi-cal services and other air navigation facilities to facilitate international air navigation according to Standards established pursuant to the Convention.
The tightly-set legal parameters of the Chicago Convention, particularly the assurance of air navigation services on an equal and non-discriminatory basis, are relevant in the twenty-.rst century, where service providers and airline operators have to collaborate in ensuring a seamless global air navigation system. Modern technology offers sophisticated air-ground data communications by VHF (very high frequency) and satellite, assisted by precise navigation by inertial/GNSS and computing in air traf.c services. These will be used in the negotiation of dynamic user preferred routes offeringvarious alternatives to airline operators which provide fuel and time savings. However, such preferences for .ight pro.les and uses thereof will be subject to growing air traf.c demands which have to be cautiously assessed. This imposes an added burden on both the service provider and airline operator. Judgment and interpretation will be critical factors in this process, an inevitable corollary of which will be the need to examine legal aspects of the modern seamless air traf.c management system.
As already stated, responsibility of States for the provision of air navigation services in their territories is founded in principles contained in Article 28 of the Chicago Convention of1944. It must be notedthat this is not an absolute obligation as the State is called upon to provide such services only in so far as it .nds practicable to do so. In order to cover an eventuality of a State not being able to provide adequate air navigation services, the Convention imposes an overall obli-gation on the Council of ICAO in Article 69 to the effect that the Council shall consult with a State which is not in a position to provide reasonably adequate air navigation services for the safe, regular, ef.cient and economical operations of aircraft. Such consultations will be with a view to .nding means by which the situation may be remedied. Article 70 of the Chicago Convention even allows for a State to conclude an arrangement with the Council regarding the .nancing of air navigation facilities and the Council is given the option in Article 71 of agreeingto provide, man, maintain and administer such services at the request of a State.
II. Operations Over the High Seas
Article 12 of the Chicago Convention unambiguously states that over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those under the Convention and each Contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations appli-cable. This peremptory principle,455 of adherence by States and aircraft bearing
455Bin Cheng con.rms that over the high seas there is absolutely no option for States to deviate from rules established under the Chicago Convention for the manoeuvre and operations of aircraft. See Cheng(1962, p. 148).
their nationality to any Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) adopted in regard to the high seas, effectively precludes any possible reliance by States on Article38ofthe ConventionwhichallowsStatestodeviatefromSARPsingeneral. In other words, Annex2 on Rules of the Air, which contains provisions relating to the operation of aircraft over the high seas, is sacrosanct and inviolable. The .rst legal issue that would emerge from this clear principle is the question of applica-bility of Annexes (other than Annex 2) to the high seas and whether their provi-sions, if directly related to the principles of manoeuvre and navigation of aircraft over the high seas, would be binding with no .exibility offered by Article 38 of the Convention. Kaiser offers the opinion:
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(124)
