> 1) I am not supporting also this one, especially as it was a sad case of vassalisation
Don't get me wrong I agree.
> 2) Refusing to allow use of airspace is different from hijacking plane and abducting people. If someone is using "state piracy" only for the second one it is entirely defensible.
Not much different the plane was forced to land in Austria. Also this was a diplomatic mission, unlike commercial flights they had absolutely NO jurisdiction to act like this.
> Also this was a diplomatic mission, unlike commercial flights they had absolutely NO jurisdiction to act like this.
This is, unsurprisingly, wrong.
The situation Evo Morales' plane was wrong, and was caused by several EU countries shamefully bending to America's manhunt for Snowden, but it was well within jurisdiction. Three countries closed their airspace to the plane, which they were fully within their rights to do. As an official state plane, the Chicago Convention didn't apply to it, and state flights explicitly require separate authorization to overfly a country (Article 3 of the Chicago Convention).
The hijacking by Belarus was blatantly against aviation law, and upcoming investigations will definitely confirm that. Countries may force airplanes in their airspace to land, but only under some circumstances:
> every State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, is entitled to require the landing at some designated airport of a civil aircraft flying above its territory without authority or if there are reasonable grounds to conclude that it is being used for any purpose inconsistent with the aims of this Convention
The plane was flying on authorized flight path and nobody claimed that it was really being used as a military or spy plane, which is what the "inconsistent purpose" amounts to.
Thanks for correcting me, however I consider it an example of double standards. The manhunt for whistleblower Snowden, is according to you justified. The man who revealed the mass surveillance the US is engaged in. Which by itself is beyond any point of legality. However everyone is "enraged" now by the arrest of a Belarusian anti-government journalist and propose sanctions against the country which will affect their already crippling economy.
Plane was not forced to land, but landed due to technical malfunction
> pilots requested emergency landing due to issues with fuel level indicators and thus inability to confirm sufficient amount of fuel to continue flight
Though problem was triggered by France, Italy, Spain and Portugal refused to allow transit.
There is difference between hijacking plane using fighter jet and refusal to allow transit. Both with blatant lies as a pretext.
I am sorry but this is a slightly frustrating conversation because we are losing the forests for the trees. In both cases, an aircraft was grounded based on a suspicion. In one case, the official reason was "technical reasons", in another it was due to "bomb threat". In both cases, the official reasons given were a ruse. That is the key focus here in both cases. The question of forcefully grounding an airplane for ulterior purposes with a different official reason. In one case, the scenario didn't achieve the end result because Snowden was not on the plane. In another case, it did play out because Protasevich was on the flight. Just because the results were different, doesn't mean both acts weren't egregious. In both cases, a country used their muscle to land a flight.
Yes. These were both dick moves, but I think they are very different. In one it was a democratically elected government closing the airspace through diplomatic pressure, indirectly resulting in the pilot having land the plane. The plane in question was a private jet not in commercial traffic, so it wasn't full of people.
In this case a dictatorship forced a commercial plane traveling between two EU/nato countries, full of people, to land in a country without a transparent or independent justice system. The grounding was made with a false bomb threat from the plane and actions by Belo(?)rusian agents on the plane intervening. There was no ruse in the Austria situation - the technical reasons were reported by the pilot. The US pressure was to close the french/spanish airspace.
Again, both dick moves, but to me completely different things.
If the US realized Snowden was crossing US airspace and diverted a plane full of people flying between (say) Brazil and Canada to land in the US by using US agents to cause trouble on board or make false bomb threats to force the plane down, I'd be almost as upset (Almost, because I give democratic governments more of a pass, and because the US justice system is at least slightly more transparent and independent, although a Snowden process certainly would show its terrible side)
> In both cases, a country used their muscle to land a flight.
Absolutely. But in one it was diplomatic muscle or "soft power" from a democratic country. In the other it wasn't.
Plane was flying to South America, had plenty of fuel to return to the starting point, and airspace wasn't closed in that direction (the only time I can think of a sudden widespread "land now or be shot down" issue was 9/11)
The flight wasn't covered by Chicago either as it was a diplomatic flight - the alleged search is a whole separate problem
Don't get me wrong I agree.
> 2) Refusing to allow use of airspace is different from hijacking plane and abducting people. If someone is using "state piracy" only for the second one it is entirely defensible.
Not much different the plane was forced to land in Austria. Also this was a diplomatic mission, unlike commercial flights they had absolutely NO jurisdiction to act like this.