91ɬ

Navigating the Turbulent Skies: The Chicago Convention in Times of Armed Conflict

On 28 February 2026, an armed conflict broke out in the Middle East with airstrikes, missile, and drone attacks occurring in locations in various countries throughout the region. By the next day, flight information regions (FIR) across Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were closed and/or under operational restrictions. Consequently, vital airspaces for commercial flights over the region vanished overnight, resulting in massive flight cancellations, rerouting, and delays.

On 28 February 2026, an armed conflict broke out in the Middle East with airstrikes, missile, and drone attacks occurring in locations in various countries throughout the region. By the next day, flight information regions (FIR) across Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were . Consequently, vital airspaces for commercial flights over the region vanished overnight, resulting in massive flight cancellations, rerouting, and delays.

The Middle East and, in particular, the Gulf is a global transit hub between Asia, Africa, and Europe. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), , equivalent to more than 67 million passengers. In the first ten days of the conflict, to and from the Middle East had been canceled.

There is no doubt that armed conflict poses significant risks to the safe and secure operations of civil aviation. In such circumstances, it is relevant to reflect on the legal safeguard that international air law provides in preserving the safety and security of international civil aviation in times of armed conflict.

The Chicago Convention

The legal foundation for international civil aviation is built upon the Convention on International Civil Aviation(Chicago Convention). It is to be recalled that the Chicago Convention was born out of war on 7 December 1944, when the Second World War had not yet come to an end. Article 89 of the Chicago Convention states that “in case of war, the provisions of this Convention shall not affect the freedom of action of any of the contracting States affected, whether as belligerents or as neutrals.” However, the Chicago Convention sets forth principles for the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation regardless.

Article 1 of the Chicago Convention reaffirms that “the contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.” While Article 3(a) confirms that the Chicago Convention shall be applicable only to civil aircraft, Article 3(c) provides that “no state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorization by special agreement or otherwise, and in accordance with the terms thereof.” Moreover, military aircraft shall be considered as state aircraft according to Article 3(b). Therefore, the airspace over each State is de jure closed to foreign aircraft, including military aircraft such as unmanned aircraft systems for military purposes.

Following the shoot down of Korean Air flight 007 in 1983 during the Cold War, the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in its 25th (Extraordinary) Session adopted an amendment to the Chicago Convention by introducing Article 3 bis, which reflects the principle of customary international law that “every State must refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight.”[1] In the wake of the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight 17 in 2014, ICAO has further developed guidance to States, aircraft operators, and air navigation services providers on risk management for civil aircraft operations over or near conflict zones in , which is the centerpiece for dealing with these situations. Acknowledging the potential risk to the safety and security of civil aviation from armed conflicts, the Chicago Convention and ICAO have evolved over time to address and mitigate these risks.

One might argue that Article 89 of the Chicago Convention may override other provisions of the Convention in times of armed conflict. It is worth noting that, based on Article 3 of the , the general principle is that the existence of an armed conflict does not ipso factoterminate or suspend the operation of treaties, as between States parties to the conflict or between a State party to the conflict and a State that is not. Therefore even in times of armed conflict, the principles under the Chicago Convention remain valid and applicable.

ICAO Council Decision

In light of the attacks by Iran on Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, the ICAO Council discussed the situation pursuant to a request by the UAE under Article 54(n) of the Chicago Convention, which mandates the Council to “consider any matter relating to the Convention which any contracting State refers to it.” The UAE, along with the other States of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco, jointly presented a . In this context, the ICAO Council is to hear the case in a quasi-judicial capacity and apply the Rules of Procedure for the Council.[2] As per Article 53 of the Chicago Convention, those contracting States not represented on the Council and whose interests were especially affected—in this case, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and Iran—.

On 31 March 2026, the condemning the violation by the Islamic Republic of Iran of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, including their sovereign airspaces, contrary to Article 1 of the Chicago Convention. In particular, the ICAO Council deplored Iran's illegal use of unmanned aircraft systems for military purposes against civilian infrastructure over the territories of the affected Member States, while recalling the United Nations (UN) (2026), which deplored the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects, including airports.

Recognizing the serious and ongoing risk to the safety of civil aviation arising from unauthorized military incursions into airspace and the resulting disruption of civil aviation operations in the region, :

  1. Condemnation and demand for immediate cessation: condemnation of Iran for violating the sovereignty of the affected States and for jeopardizing the safety and security of civil aviation, and an urgent call for it to cease its unlawful acts and to respect its obligations under the Chicago Convention.
  2. UN involvement: transmitting the text of the decision to the UN Secretary-General and other relevant UN bodies.
  3. Continuous review: directing the ICAO Secretary General to draw the attention of all Member States to the decision on the basis of Article 54(j) of the Chicago Convention and remaining seized of the matter.

It should be noted that ICAO Council decisions, as in international law in general, do not have a strong enforcement mechanism. In addition, the ICAO Assembly can enforce a penalty for non-conformity, which takes the form of suspending the voting power of a defaulting contracting State in accordance with Article 88 of the Chicago Convention. Nevertheless, ICAO Council decisions carry political and moral weight as the collective view of the international civil aviation community. Therefore, the Council decision conveys an unequivocal message on the paramount importance of preserving the safety and security of international civil aviation amid the ongoing situation in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the , a specialized Arab organization affiliated with the Arab League for cooperation and coordination among Arab countries in the field of civil aviation, issued a condemning the attacks which targeted a number of airports and civil aviation facilities. In solidarity with the affected Arab States, the Presidency of the ACAO General Assembly affirmed that the attacks constitute a violation of international law and the principles of the Chicago Convention, and called for respect of the rule of international law.

Concluding Remarks

The armed conflict in the Middle East since 28 February 2026 has caused significant disruption to civil aviation in the region, with global ramifications in and potential shortages. While the situation has not yet fully settled at the time of writing, the aviation industry has shown remarkable resilience in resuming operations in a , thanks to the efforts of the ICAO Middle East Regional Office in Cairo in consultation and coordination with ICAO Headquarters and the affected States. As of early May 2026, many FIRs in the region have partially reopened and resumed normal air navigation operations. The Chicago Convention, which has stood the test of time for more than 80 years, remains a solid legal foundation in safeguarding international civil aviation even in times of armed conflict like the present one.

In an era marked by heightened rivalry among great powers, it is perhaps timely to recall the Chicago Convention’s preamble, which reads:

“WHEREAS the future development of international civil aviation can greatly help to create and preserve friendship and understanding among the nations and peoples of the world, yet its abuse can become a threat to the general security; and

WHEREAS it is desirable to avoid friction and to promote that cooperation between nations and peoples upon which the peace of the world depends;”

This simple yet profound message captures the raison d'être of the Chicago Convention, which will continue to provide the essential rules-based stability in international civil aviation and help us navigate the turbulent skies ahead.

[1] Michael Milde, International Air Law and ICAO (Third Edition), Chapter 4 Section 4.6.

[2] Ludwig Weber, International Civil Aviation Organization (4th Edition), Chapter 2 Section 3(III)(B).

Chi Ho (Jason) Chan is an alumnus of 91ɬ Institute of Air and Space Law, and he contributed this commentary solely in his personal capacity.

In keeping with 91ɬ’s commitment to academic freedom, the Institute of Air and Space Law supports the free expression of ideas in its publications. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official positions or views of the Institute of Air and Space Law, the Faculty of Law, or 91ɬ. Furthermore, authors represent only themselves; they do not represent their countries of nationality nor any organizations with which they may be affiliated.

Back to top