No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 November 2010
Under aerospace doctrine an aerial action is a set of aerial sorties of the same nature which take place simultaneously in pursuit of a common aim. In other words, an action of this type would attain the objective pursued if it involved two or more aircraft engaging in any of a range of operations, namely attacks, reconnaissance, transportation and special aerial missions.
1 Enciclopedia de aviación y astronáutica, Ediciones Garriga, 1972, Vol. I, p. 1078.
2 Rousseau, Charles, Le droit des conflits armés, Editions Pedone, Paris, 1983, p. 356.Google Scholar
3 Enciclopedia de aviación y astronáutica, op. cit., p. 1079.
4 Harris, Arthur Travers, Ofensiva de bombardeo, Editorial Aérea, Madrid, 1947, p. 71.Google Scholar
5 Targets were reached exclusively by visual or optical means and weapons were launched by the use of gravity, with no form of propulsion, and were directly affected by weather conditions.
6 Informe sobre el comercio exterior de material de defensa y de doble uso (1991/94), Ministry of Trade and Tourism, Madrid, 1995, p. X.Google Scholar
7 Micó, Juan Gonzalo Martínez, La neutralidad en la guerra aérea: Derechos y deberes de beligerantes y neutrales, Rufino García Blanco, Madrid, 1982, p. 33.Google Scholar
8 Rousseau, op cit., p. 360.
9 The participating countries were the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan. The Netherlands was subsequently invited to take part.
10 Flores, José Luis Fernández, Conferencia sobre derecho de la guerra aérea, Centro de Estudios de Derecho International Humanitaria, Madrid, 1911.Google Scholar
11 Oppenheim, Lassa, Tratado de derecho internacional público, Bosch, 1967, Tome II, Vol. I, II, p. 65.Google Scholar
12 Schindler, Dietrich, Toman, Jiri, The laws of armed conflicts, 3rd. ed., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/Henry Dunant Institute, Dordrecht/Geneva, 1988, pp. 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Flores, José Luis Fernández, Del derecho de la guerra, Ediciones Ejército, 1982, p. 543.Google Scholar
14 Rousseau, op cit., p. 355.
15 Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2, para. 4.
16 The choice of means and methods of warfare is limited, according to Art. 35 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions. The limitation on weapons is also dealt with in Art. 23 of Hague Convention II.
17 It affirmed that the use of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons was not in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations. There were 25 votes in favour, 20 against and 26 abstentions.
18 As amended on 3 May 1996: “Any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 312, May-June 1996, p. 369.
19 Additional Protocol I, Art. 37.
20 Additional Protocol I, Art. 52: military objectives are limited to “those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action”.
21 Additional Protocol I, Article 56.
22 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954.
23 International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Doswald-Beck, Louise, ed.), Grotius Publications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Enciclopedia de aviación y astronáutica, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 672.
25 Lt Col. Humphries, John G., USAF, “Operational law and the rules of warfare in operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm”, Airpower Journal, Winter 1994, p. 51.Google Scholar