Back to Air in Disarray?: Disparity in Practices and Interpretations on ADIZs Disrupting the Safety of Civil Aviation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interconnectivity of civil aviation has been long praised with the success of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in harmonizing navigation standards and procedures, along with the utilization of Flight Information Regions (FIRs). However, continuing geopolitical tensions with different implementations of Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZs) have belittled the technical achievement. Among different State practices, some ADIZs have expanded beyond territorial airspace and even overlapped with other FIRs, requiring overflying air- craft to submit flight plans and abide by procedures separate or in addition to air traffic control obligations. The purpose of this Article is to review the ongoing political tensions that are common in issues with ADIZs beyond territorial airspace and to explore different legal schemes put forth by States. While there is no prevailing rule of law that defines the scope and procedure of ADIZs, this Article further revisits the due regard principle under international law and State practices beyond territorial airspace. Due to its reciprocal characteristic, this principle does not solely advocate for the coastal State to arbitrarily put limitations on the freedom of flight beyond its territorial airspace. Rather, the established FIRs have already given considerable certainty and accountability to the overflown State, where the principle also directs both the overflying and overflown States to actively engage in communication and practices involving liaisons. This principle envisions regional confidence-building measures on aerial communication and the technical leadership of ICAO to support these States in reducing the relational gap and facilitating civil–military cooperation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".