International Air Law: Chicago Convention, ICAO Annexes and Bilateral Agreements
The exam tests the Chicago Convention as a treaty of sovereignty, the Annex system as the mechanism that turns standards into national law, and the bilateral agreement as the commercial permission slip that sits on top.
The Convention
Signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944. Core articles you should be able to place:
- Article 1 - complete and exclusive sovereignty of each State over its airspace. Article 5 - non-scheduled flights need no prior permission, subject to the State's right to impose conditions. Article 6 - scheduled services require special permission, i.e. a bilateral.
- Article 9 - prohibited areas; Article 12 - rules of the air in force to be uniform; Article 13 - entry and departure formalities; Article 24 - customs treatment of spares; Article 26 - investigation of accidents; Article 29 - documents carried on board.
- Article 31 - certificates of airworthiness; Article 32 - licences; Article 33 - recognition of foreign certificates and licences issued to equal or higher standards; Articles 37–38 - adoption of international standards and notification of differences.
The Annexes
The 19 Annexes cover licensing (1), rules of the air (2), meteorology (3), charts (4), units (5), operations (6), marks (7), airworthiness (8), facilitation (9), telecom (10), ATS (11), SAR (12), investigation (13), aerodromes (14), AIS (15), environment (16), security (17), dangerous goods (18) and safety management (19). Annex 6 is the examiner's favourite: Parts I, II and III separate international commercial air transport, international general aviation and helicopters.
Bilateral agreements
An Air Services Agreement designates airlines, routes and capacity, and grants freedoms: third and fourth are the routine exchange; fifth permits carriage between two foreign points on a route, e.g. an Indian carrier carrying Bangkok–Singapore traffic under India–Thailand rights extended onward.
Traps
Treating Annexes as self-executing; confusing Article 5 with Article 6; assuming a fifth-freedom right exists without explicit grant; forgetting that Article 33 recognition is conditional on equal or higher standards.