Hello davidjonsson-ga,
The considerations I have found on this topic come from members of the
United States Air Force. In so far as the U.S. Air Force could
actually practice occupation by air (if such a thing exists), the
papers make interesting reading.
The most relevant paper to both parts of your question is:
"Air Occupation: Asking the Right Questions", by Maj. Marc K. Dippold
(March 1997)
Air University ResearchWeb
https://research.au.af.mil/papers/student/ay1997/acsc/97-0161C.pdf
1) Re: What air superiority means effectively and if it is comparable
to occupation
Maj. Dippold considers this issue at length. I will summarize, but
you might want to read the paper to learn more.
At the outset, Maj. Dippold notes that "neither the term air
occupation, nor the word occupation, is defined in Joint or Air Force
doctrine" (page v; see also pages 5-6). [It seems that this is still
true: see the current Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and
Associated Terms at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf.
The terms used there are "air superiority" and "air supremacy".]
Maj. Dippold believes that "air occupation" is a valid concept:
"Rather than build our definition based on a classical perception,
which relegates airpower to merely a supporting role, we should
reconsider the likely air occupation objectives: coerce, enforce
sanctions, and deny the use of territory. Air occupation tasks to
achieve these objectives would be a combination of presence,
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, humanitarian airdrops and
airlift, and punitive strikes." (page 8)
In addition, "aerial psychological operations", such as "leaflet
drops, television programming, and radio broadcasts", along with
"denial of these mediums to subversive groups", would play a key role
in an air occupation. (pages 8-9)
Maj. Dippold notes that "air superiority and air supremacy" constitute
"a prerequisite, but not the underlying goal", of air occupation.
[You can compare his definition of "air occupation" with the
definition of "air superiority" in the Department of Defense
Dictionary: "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force
over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and
its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place
without prohibitive interference by the opposing force." Going by
that definition, "air superiority" is a condition which permits the
conduct of operations for what Maj. Dippold calls "air occupation".]
Maj. Dippold questions the wisdom of the actual term "air occupation",
for reasons partly explained in section 2 of my answer. (pages 10-11)
He prefers the term "air intervention" as more palatable and
appropriate. (pages 11-13) But the main point is that he believes in
the idea of "air occupation".
Another author, Major David R. Uzzell, writes a paper "on the
assumption that air occupation is a viable concept." Operations that
Maj. Uzzell indicates might be in the category of "air occupation" are
the no-fly zones in Iraq and formerly in Bosnia-Herzegovina. (page 2)
Like Maj. Dippold, Maj. Uzzell views "air superiority" as different
but related to "air occupation", stating that "air superiority is
fundamental to air occupations." (page vi). In other words, as he
indicates throughout his paper, air superiority is a necessary means
to the goal of air occupation.
"Air-to-Air Force's Doctrine and Training for an Air Occupation", by
Major David R. Uzzell (March 1997)
Air University ResearchWeb
https://research.au.af.mil/papers/student/ay1997/acsc/97-0161D.pdf
2) Re: What obligations international law implies on the state having
air superiority
Given my answer to section 1, I reinterpret section 2 of your question
to refer to obligations on the state engaging in occupation by air,
not just air superiority.
Maj. Dippold presents the only extended discussion I have seen of this
issue. I would recommend that you read the entire section entitled
"Appropriateness of the Term Air Occupation" (pages 10-11), from which
I have excerpted the following text:
"Conventional international law recognizes only one form of military
occupation: belligerent occupation. According to the Hague
Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, 'as long as the
territory as a whole is in the power and under the control of the
occupant and as long as the latter has the ability to make his will
felt everywhere in the territory within a reasonable time, military
occupation exists from a legal point of view.' ...
If the operation is labeled an 'occupation,' the occupier is bound by
international law to certain responsibilities: the occupying power is
not permitted to annex the occupied territory, is expected to 'respect
and maintain the political and other institutions that exist, and is
responsible for the management of public order and civil life in the
territory under its control.' ...
The utopian nature of the law of occupation has prompted the U.S., and
other states victorious in war, to avoid labeling operations in
conquered territory as 'occupations,' thus precluding the restrictions
and responsibilities. Common excuses are: use of force was in support
of another state whose government asked for intervention ...; the
occupants were interested in permanent control over enemy territory
...; or when historic ownership of the territory is disputed by the
warring factions .... Another more recent excuse for not invoking the
term 'occupation' is to avoid creating the impression the occupant
plans to stay in the territory for a long time ...."
So, in other words, if one nation engages in "air occupation", or any
occupation, it must follow certain rules of international law.
However, the first nation might claim that it is not engaging in an
"occupation" of the second, and is therefore not subject to these
rules.
* * *
(I have found other papers that mention "air occupation" or similar
concepts, but no other papers that address your questions.)
I hope that this answer is helpful.
- justaskscott-ga
I used various combinations of the following search terms on Google:
"air superiority"
asil
"american society of international law"
"international law"
"air occupation"
"air occupations"
"air supremacy"
"air dominance"
"air intervention"
hague
geneva |
