Part I – general 5 The Sources of Int’l Air Law 5 Q? How does customary law relate to int’l law?
Part X: Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
Download 0.73 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Q Should ICAO give GPS stnds
Part X: Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)Procedures for Air Navigation Services are not part of the “law-making” function of ICAO. They are only approved of as the general goings-on of the council. art. 54 Chicago does not adopt them. The problem arises b/c very often these rules say that they are for worldwide publication & therefore it looks like that the world must adhere to them. However, this is not the case for the reasons mentioned above. F.A.N.S. (“Future Air Navigation Systems). This is a major difference that the future will bring – as improvements will be w.r.t. communications, navigation & surveillance (i.e. radar) as well as improved infrastructures, which will be for the purpose of air traffic mgmt, to prevent congestion, speed up flight, communication b/t ground to air & air to air & air to ground will also be enhance. V.H.F. (Very High Frequency) covers large stretches of the Earth & aircraft can be lost in real time hence there are rather large difference b/t take offs to ensure an adequate distance b/t aircraft. How do we improve this, along w/ navigation of the aircraft. Real time can now be seen via satellite communications to achieve electronic communication for surveillance & navigation. The most imp. thing is navigation, which can be achieve through Satellite technology. the navigation system is based on radio electronic ranging. The satellites then sends a signal to X & measures this time in nanoseconds your precise position, technically its very complex & demanding. -The advent of GNSS could meaningfully enhance the safety of air navigation. It is expected to enhance economy and regularity be permitting rationalization of air routes, reduction of the required separation of aircraft and of the congestion at airports. With additional savings for States regarding round facilities which will be made redundant. However, the tech is no “self implementing” it works only within its social context and requires a human element for its useful operation. There are currently 1.5 global navigation systems: (1) GPS (Global Positioning System) developed originally for the US army but became public in ’83 when a Korean plane was shot down by Russians. GNSS has a de facto natural monopoly. The GPS can also be used by hikers, sail boats etc. In ’92 the system was made available by the US for 10 years for free for aviation navigation – it is a very precise system that can measure w/in centimeters but the US won’t make the complete technology available for security reasons. The DOD corrupts some info to instead be accurate +/- 100 meters, thus perfect precision isn’t known by those who may use the tech for evil uses. Nevertheless, it is still very precise. -GPS provides positioning in real time, thus safety & economic savings are enhanced as opposed to the VHF system of long ago. Note airports can build augmentation devices to the GPS as is done in Germany, which is accurate to w/in 10 centimeters. (½) Russian equivalent is GLONASS, which was offered for free for 15 years in an attempt to out due the US position. The Russian version is problematic though b/c there is no political or financial will to maintain the system it is somewhat unreliable hence very few actually use the system, receivers are also not widely available. The 3rd largest airport in Russia is now using the US GPS Sovereignty of States: To some degree, globalization and liberalization of air transport erode, with States’ consent, the rigid protection concept of sovereignty over airspace. The President of ICAO Council has even said, “the full implementation of an integrated global satellite-based air navigation system is bound to infringe on State’s sovereignty” as it will require close cooperation and coordination among States. However, the GNSS cannot be imposed on States agst their will, rather support for it will depend on their sovereign political will. Nevertheless, the full benefits of GNSS will be available only to those States that will accept an agreed cooperative framework for the GNSS as dictated by the US who are providing the system. GNSS & Chicago: States have not accepted any ob to provide air navigation facilities and services beyond their territory under Chicago, but may do so, and no State is obliged to make use of such tech if offered. Chicago is rather neutral as to the GNSS as such global coverage was not even foreseen at the time of the drafting of Chicago. Liability: It would be illogical and unjustifiable to delay the implementation of the GNSS or to hold it a hostage to a liability regime on the feature of which no consensus will likely ever emerge. By taking Air Traffic Control liability was a learning experience we should note that it is actually surprising to argue for liability w.r.t. the GNSS – it is after all a navigational aid, no different in substance from existing aides. Additionally, these system are currently free to an undetermined scope of potential users over which the signal providers have not control and with whom they are in no legal relationship apart from their duty to provide, in good faith, the signal as offered in their unilateral statements. 9 Precepts: ICAO on the basis of F.A.N.S.(II)3 enunciated 9 precepts of which only one was directly related to GNSS, although all have some relevance to the GNSS system. The Council Statement has no legal force and is no a source of law. Universal Accessibility: For all States w/out discrimination even to those that are declared hostile to US interests Sovereignty, Authority, and Responsibility of Contracting States Implementation and operation must neither infringing nor impose restrictions on States’ sovereignty, authority or responsibility in the control of air navigation and the promulgation and enforcement of safety regs. The nature of GNSS is a sufficient safeguard to ensure these requirements are met. Responsibility and Role of ICAO ICAO shall continue to discharge the responsibility for the adoption and amendment of SARPS and asserts that it is the only int’l org that can effectively co-ordinate GNSS activities, which is a mandatory of function of ICAO. However, GPS tech was developed independently and stnds are being accepted in practical use on a wide scale. Thus, ICAO law-making function would have to follow the practice of the actual signal providers as accepted by the users. Additionally, art. 33has no relevant to the GNSS signal providers. As it obliges States only to recognize certificates and licenses (31 & 32) if ano/ State meets the min ICAO Stnds. It does not impose a duty on a State to reject them if a States does not meet those Stnds. Technical Cooperation: ICAO invites States in a position to do so to provide assistance w.r.t. technical, financial, managerial, legal and cooperative aspects of implementation. ICAO must rely on donations and UN programs to do this themselves. However if there was adequate funding the ICAO could prove a very cost-efficient and effective means to help States implement services. Institutional Arrangements and Implementation: The institutional arrangement for the GNSS have never been defined and will remain hypothetical depending on the actual GNSS scenario and options. Only the first option represent the current reality – GPS is the only GNSS available, viable and functioning in practice accepted world-wide. GNSS Should be developed as an evolutionary progression towards an integrated GNSS over which contracting States exercise a sufficient level of control. The vision of global integration should take into consideration technical and economical differences in States. At the cost of 10 Billion + 500 million a year in maintenance development of another such parallel system would be technically redundant, wasteful and economically prohibitive. Airspace Organization and Utilization: Interests of efficiency and economy should motivate States to abandon the current systems based on jealously-guarded limits of their sovereign territory – advantages of consolidation are evident but will be difficult and slow to implement in practice. Continuity and Quality of Service: One legal loophole is evident per 89 Chicago as the freedom of action is reserved to States in case of war or declared national emergency. Despite this, however, GNSS continuity of service should be maintained and that int’l law did not allow States to put civil aviation into danger b/c of military reasons. However, no int’l guarantee can be obtained from the current GNSS providers – due to an act of God, vital interests or an act of self-preservation of the States concerned or simply the lack of funds. However, no better guarantees can be assured under even under a purely civilian GNSS under int’l control. Cost Recovery: Addresses a reasonable cost allocation b/t all users and pronounces that any recovery of costs incurred shall be in accord w/ art. 15, including the principle that it shall neither inhibit nor discourage the use of the GNSS safety services. Q? Should ICAO give GPS stnds?No. A new tech does not require legal regulation unless and until it creates specifically new social relations and conflicts of social interest. Caution must be exercises lest the hypothetical legal consideration become a pretext for slowing down the actual implementation of the GNSS. The threat the US will pull the tech out from under the feet of other nations is over stated as the US would hurt themselves as the US would want to ensure quality service for its own national users and to maintain its leadership and credibility in the world. There would be no justification for questioning the good faith of the US gov’t in its commitment to provide continuing and reliable GPS services. GPS will one day be permanent & law will develop therewith, politics will play their role. Lately though the EU is jealous of the US GPS & are introducing their own duplication called “Galileo”. This is very costly as it will be used only for aviation, which is only for 1-2% of all GPS business which EU airlines will be force to use, hence cost/benefit is problematic. GPS, perhaps should be regulated later but just not now. “Law if necessary but not necessarily law”. Directory: pubdocs -> files files -> International maritime conventions files -> Chapter 1: Property as rights, not thing files -> Insurance Law – May 4 files -> Contractual Obligations – Prof. Helge Dedek Introduction 1 files -> Constitutional Limits on Criminal Law 1 files -> Antonio Iacovelli Winter 2005 Advanced Criminal Law files -> Private International Law – Prof. Walsh Summer 2005 files -> Part I: conceptualizing and justifying ip space 3 files -> Topic One Seaworthiness and Common Venture, chapter 15 Download 0.73 Mb. Share with your friends:
|