Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZs) are designated areas of airspace partly including and/or contiguous to a State's territorial airspace, within which a State imposes identification reporting obligations on all or civil aircraft and exercises certain control of these aircraft. As a strategic regime of airspace and an early warning mechanism, ADIZs first emerged during the early years of the Cold War for national security purposes. As there is no positive legal basis that directly supports this kind of State practice under public international law, the validity and legality of ADIZs are hotly debated. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, where civil aircraft were used as weapons of mass destruction, the impetus of establishing and maintaining ADIZs has changed to some extent and has provoked new concerns. The debate and tensions have been further provoked by the announcement of China on establishing its first ADIZ in the East China Sea on November 23, 2013. This paper mainly focuses on the legal justifications and their limits for ADIZs under public international law. By examining the ADIZ rules and practices of the United States, Canada, and China as typical examples under the legal context of airspace, the paper first demonstrates possible justifications for ADIZs based on the differentiated legal regimes within and outside of sovereign airspace, then discusses the limits of these justifications in respect of the types of aircraft to which the ADIZ rules may apply, the legality of aerial interception, and use of force within ADIZs. The paper concludes that while, under public international law, the rules and practices of ADIZs as related to civil aircraft can be partially justified, those as related to State aircraft - in particular, military aircraft - can hardly be justified, and States have limited legal power in respect of aerial interception and use of force within ADIZs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".