Time for ICAO to reclaim PoK airspace and hand it over to India
Capt. Amit Singh is an aviation professional with over 35 years of experience in commercial airlines, including pivotal roles in three startup airlines, where he developed systems for efficient, low-cost, and profitable operations. A leader in flight operations, safety, and pilot training, he channels his expertise into writing insightful articles on aviation, history, and strategic thinking. Capt. Singh is a sought-after speaker at international safety and training conferences, blending technical knowledge with a passion for storytelling and analysis. Additionally, he explores his creative side through painting, reflecting a well-rounded personality committed to growth and innovation. LESS ... MORE
Introduction: Fir vs sovereignty in the skies
The skies above Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) are a silent witness to a diplomatic and operational anomaly. While the region is legally part of India, Pakistan controls its airspace under the Lahore FIR, approved by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). This arrangement contradicts international law and undermines India's sovereign rights as per Article 1 of the Chicago Convention.
This blog explores why ICAO must reassign Flight Information Region (FIR) control over PoK to India, aligning global airspace governance with international legal principles and geopolitical realities.
Understanding ICAO FIR and airspace sovereignty
An FIR (Flight Information Region) is an airspace zone within which a state is responsible for air traffic services. ICAO allocates FIRs for operational convenience, but FIR allocation does not define sovereignty.
However, in practice, FIR control often:
Imparts legitimacy to the controlling authority.
to the controlling authority. Enables control over overflight permissions .
. Affects international aviation policy and airline routing.
India's sovereignty over Jammu & Kashmir, including PoK, is recognised through the Instrument of Accession (1947). The UN Security Council has consistently referred to the region as disputed, without recognising Pakistan's sovereignty over any part of it.
Current anomaly: Pakistan controls FIR over Indian territory
Despite India's legal claim, ICAO continues to allow Pakistan to:
Control air traffic over PoK via the Lahore FIR .
via the . Deny overflights to Indian aircraft across its own territory.
to Indian aircraft across its own territory. Use FIR control as a tool of geopolitical leverage (e.g., post-Balakot 2019 airspace closures).
This setup is a symbolic undermining of sovereignty and a practical aviation and safety risk.
Why ICAO must reorganise the FIR over PoK
1. Legal Sovereignty vs FIR Control
Article 1 of the Chicago Convention states:
'Every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.'
India's legal claim is grounded in international law .
. FIR control should not contradict recognised territorial boundaries .
. Pakistan's FIR over PoK violates the spirit of ICAO's neutrality.
2. Safety and operational risk in conflict zones
Kashmir is a known conflict zone ; both countries maintain active military deployments.
; both countries maintain active military deployments. Pakistan has continuously unilaterally closed its airspace , affecting global air traffic.
, affecting global air traffic. Civil-military coordination in Pakistani-administered areas lacks transparency, increasing the risk to international aviation.
3. Misuse of airspace control
Pakistan often denies India overflight rights over PoK airspace. As per ICAO, closure of the airspace should not be selective.
over PoK airspace. As per ICAO, closure of the airspace should not be selective. Airlines are forced to reroute, increasing fuel burn, emissions, and cost .
. This violates the principles of peaceful overflight under Article 5 of the Chicago Convention.
Global examples: FIRs managed across borders
ICAO allows FIRs to extend beyond borders only under mutual agreement or when the neighbouring country lacks capacity. These examples reinforce that cross-border FIRs must be consensual and temporary.
a. Singapore FIR over southern Malaysia
Singapore manages Malaysian airspace near Johor.
Based on technical capabilities and Malaysian consent .
. Malaysia has raised sovereignty concerns, triggering renegotiation.
b. Bahrain FIR Over Qatar and Saudi Arabia
Bahrain controls parts of Qatari and eastern Saudi airspace .
. Qatar filed a case with ICAO, demanding FIR realignment. ICAO approved the creation of a Doha FIR, confirming that change is possible.
c. Senegal-Gambia
Senegal manages Gambian airspace through a formal ICAO agreement .
. Gambia consented due to infrastructure limitations.
d. Serbia-Kosovo FIR managed via EUROCONTROL
Despite Kosovo's partial recognition, the FIR was reassigned based on safety needs, not sovereignty status.
In contrast, India neither lacks capability nor has given Pakistan consent to manage the airspace over PoK.
India's rightful claim and ICAO's responsibility
India is a founding ICAO member and has one of Asia's most advanced air traffic systems. Pakistan has no operational reason to control the airspace over Indian land. FIR realignment is:
Legally justified
Technically feasible
Consistent with ICAO precedents
ICAO must act on its responsibility to maintain neutrality, legal alignment, and operational safety.
Conclusion: Restoring balance in international airspace governance
The FIR over Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir represents an outdated, unjust, and unsafe arrangement. It fails the test of international law, undermines India's sovereignty, and exposes civil aviation to geopolitical risk.
ICAO must correct this imbalance.
It must initiate a structured transition plan to reassign FIR responsibility to India for the airspace above its legally recognised territory. This move will:
Align global airspace with UN-recognised borders .
. Enhance regional aviation safety .
. Uphold the principle of sovereignty for all member states equally.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Lawyers don't need to wear black coats in summer: Delhi Bar Association
In a major relief to lawyers practising in the Capital amidst the scorching heat, the Delhi Bar Association (DBA) has decided that advocates will be exempt from wearing black coats, their usual dress code, from May 16 to September 30. Rules framed under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961, prescribe a dress code for all practising advocates. This comprises a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan (a knee-length upper garment with long sleeves, side slits and a standing collar), black sherwani and white bands with advocate's gown for men advocates. Women advocates have to wear a black and full or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with advocates' gowns or sarees and long skirts (white or black without any design). 'All the members are hereby informed that advocates are exempted from wearing a black coat during summer (from May 16 to September 30) as per amendment in rules under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act,1961,' DBA said in a circular dated May 24. 'Therefore, the members are at liberty to appear in the Courts subordinate to the Delhi High Court without wearing a black coat… The members are, however, advised to adhere to other rules of the dress code…,' the circular issued by Vikas Goyal, Secretary, DBA, said. DBA also said the district and sessions judges of various court complexes across Delhi have been informed of this decision. 'This is a very good step. The weather is very erratic and humid. In June, the heat will be way worse. This should be done by all Bar Associations and Councils across North India,' said Advocate Dhir Singh Kasana, former Saket Bar Association secretary. 'Indian district courts lack proper infrastructure in terms of fans, air conditioners, unhygienic washrooms, and sitting rooms, coupled with rising temperatures, it has become a daily physical and mental challenge for the advocates to wear black coats during court hours, especially in summer…This move is a welcome step towards the welfare of the advocates practising at district courts,' Advocate Paras Jain, who practices in Delhi, said. On February 27 this year, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) issued a circular stating that advocates need not wear black coats from March 1 to June 30 every year. Similarly, Bhopal's Bar Council gave a similar exemption to lawyers from April 15 to July 15, 2025.
Hans India
35 minutes ago
- Hans India
Op Sindoor should not be used to derive political mileage
The political class will do better if it stops desisting from trying to derive electoral mileage from the highly successful Operation Sindoor that was executed recently. The military aspects of the operation have been largely praised (even by objective western experts), but the political aftermath has proven far more complex. The ruling party has come under scrutiny for allegedly using the operation's success to enhance its nationalistic image ostensibly for electoral gains. On its part, the Opposition has done little better. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge called for a special parliamentary session to discuss the operation in detail. He raised concerns about inconsistencies in official narratives, particularly surrounding reports regarding the number of Indian aircraft lost during the strikes. He also accused the government of 'misleading the nation.' His statement came after the Chief of Defence Staff Gen Anil Chauhan acknowledged the loss of some Indian aircraft but emphasised that the armed forces had adapted quickly to changing tactical scenarios, ultimately achieving the mission objectives. Chauhan categorically refuted Pakistan's assertions of shooting down multiple Indian jets, labelling them as propaganda meant to distort facts. His remarks highlighted the critical role of clear and truthful communication in sustaining public trust and countering misinformation. The political discourse triggered by Operation Sindoor reflects a broader tension between safeguarding national security and navigating partisan interests. While it is natural for political parties to discuss significant national developments, it is imperative that such dialogues remain constructive and rooted in the national interest. Exploiting military operations for electoral advantage not only undermines the integrity of the armed forces but also erodes public confidence in the nation's democratic institutions. As India continues to assess the long-term implications of Operation Sindoor, there is a pressing need for political maturity and a unified stance on issues of national security. Recognising and honouring the courage and competence of the armed forces should transcend political divides. National security must remain above the realm of party politics, treated with the seriousness and dignity it deserves. Also, our political leaders must come to terms with a sobering reality: Operation Sindoor, while tactically successful and symbolically significant, was not a war that we won—nor even a full-scale battle. At best, it was a well-executed skirmish, a calibrated military response to the horrifying Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 innocent lives. Its importance lies not in territorial gains or dramatic military victories, but in the message it has sent loud and clear-Pakistan will have to pay a heavy price for supporting and harbouring terrorist outfits. Precision strikes on terrorist camps disrupted their operations and showcased India's strategic capabilities. However, this operation must not be mistaken for closure. The war on terror is a long and evolving struggle, requiring constant vigilance, strategic foresight, and, above all, national unity. True victory will come not with a single strike, but through sustained efforts to dismantle the networks of extremism to be assured of lasting peace and security. Operation Sindoor stands as a testament to India's strategic capability and resolve in the face of terrorism. However, its legacy will be defined not just by military precision but by the manner the nation's political leadership chooses to engage with it. By fostering transparency, encouraging responsible dialogue, and prioritising unity, India can ensure that such operations serve their true purpose—protection and security of all its citizens.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump tariff hike threatens to impact $5 billion engineering goods exports: EEPC India
New Delhi: The proposed 50% tariff on all foreign steel and aluminium by US President Donald Trump could hurt India's engineering exports, as these metals and their derivatives account for nearly a quarter of the country's total engineering goods shipments to the US. The annual export of steel, aluminium and their derivatives to the US currently stand at around $5 billion. The 25% tariffs imposed by the US on steel imports (as per the proclamation order dated on 18th March 2025) have created a challenging environment for Indian steel exporters. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Elegant New Scooters For Seniors In 2024: The Prices May Surprise You Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Learn More Undo Although India's direct steel exports to the US are relatively low, the tariffs have led to increased global competition and price pressures. The tariffs have also resulted in a shift in trade flows. 'In case the US goes ahead with its plan and impose a 50% tariff on steel, aluminium and their derivatives, exports of these key items will become costlier leading to a likely dip in shipments," said Pankaj Chadha, Chairman, EEPC India, in a statement. Live Events Chadha highlighted that the UK through its trade deal with the US recently got exemptions from 25% tariff on steel and aluminium and suggested that India should also ask for the same kind of waiver during the ongoing bilateral trade agreement (BTA) negotiations with the US. "This is perhaps not the opportune time to introduce such unilateral tariff especially when BTA negotiations are going on. It can make the work of the negotiators tricky. The proposed tariff increase by the Trump administration is likely to impact the engineering exports which are about $5 billion under this head," the EEPC India Chairman said.
