>Из слов пока единственного публично высказавшегося очевидца столкновения EП-3 с истрибителем - пилота второго истрибителя - ответственность за аварию лежит полностью на EП-3, который намеренно таранил истрибитель (www.aбцнewс.цом)
>А имел-ли право американский военный самолет нарушать границу Китая и приземлятся на китйской авиабазе?
>Вeник
Я нe aдвокaт, но вот что думaют eкспeрты.
China has no legal right, under international agreements accepted by both China and the United States, to detain the crew or to enter the U.S. spy plane that was forced to land on Hainan Island, international legal scholars said yesterday. Under one treaty signed by both nations, each is required to assist a damaged aircraft and thus, the spy plane could not be considered to have entered China illegally, analysts said. "It seems the plane had the right to land under 'force majeure' " in order to deal with an incident beyond its control, such as damage from colliding with the Chinese chase plane," said Georgetown University law professor Anthony Clark Arend. "Under the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, China and the United States are parties which 'undertake to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable,' " said Mr. Arend, citing the convention. "One could argue that the Chicago convention only applies to civil and not military aircraft. But given the concept of force majeure it is not unreasonable to apply it to military planes because of distress. "I think there is a right to land if it is in distress" said Mr. Arend, citing both the Chicago convention and the more recent Law of the Sea Treaty. In another legal twist to the 3-day-old spy-plane standoff, China further claims it has the right to search the plane and detain the crew because it was conducting spying operations inside Chinese airspace. This indicates China is reasserting its claim to much of the South China Sea — a claim that has already led to Chinese naval clashes with Vietnam and the Philippines, which are among six countries claiming portions of the sea. Chinese President Jiang Zemin said the EP-3E spy plane violated international law and intruded into Chinese airspace with its emergency landing. "The responsibility fully lies with the American side" for the collision with a Chinese jet, he said. Washington and Beijing look certain to continue arguing over who was responsible for the aerial collision. But Yale University law professor Ruth Wedgwood said the plane had a right to land safely and to remain immune from search. "There is a traditional right of safe harbor in distress. So when the plane lands because of engine problems or hurricanes it's as if the plane isn't there. This goes back to the 19th century and earlier maritime law. "And if they called in a distress, that's a super-duper case of no right to go into the plane, especially if they were responsible for the plane having to make a forced landing."
