THE LEGALITY OF THE BLOCKADING STATES' AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST QATAR IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND FIRS' DISTRIBUTION.

In 2017, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) witnessed an unprecedented escalation as Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Bahrain severed diplomatic ties with Qatar,
initiating comprehensive measures that included the closure of airspace and flight information
regions (FIRs). This research delves into the legal ramifications of these restrictive measures,
focusing solely on the aviation aspect. Methodologically, the study employs a mixed research
approach, intertwining doctrinal and social legal methodologies. The key questions addressed
include the legality of airspace restrictions, the validity of countermeasures, the
responsibilities of states with FIRs, the relationship between the concept of FIR and the
concept of state sovereignty, the impact on FIR distribution in the Arabian Gulf and the
jurisdiction of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council. The thesis
concludes that the blockading states' reliance on countermeasures lacks justification. Failure
to prove Qatar's alleged wrongful acts, coupled with a lack of proportionality in their response,
undermines the legality of their actions. Additionally, the restrictions imposed, including the
denial of Air Traffic Services over the high seas, violate the Chicago Convention, highlighting a
failure in fulfilling international legal obligations. The research challenges Bahrain's unilateral
establishment of a buffer zone, arguing that it lacks legal basis due to its location over
international waters and discriminatory targeting of Qatari aircraft. Consequences of these
restrictions are explored, revealing a reshaping of FIRs in the Arabian Gulf, prompting a critical
inquiry into the conflict between state sovereignty and FIR concepts. The study contends that
FIRs, while granting effective control to the managing state, pose challenges to sovereignty,
impacting national security and the ability to respond to threats. The emergence of the Doha
FIR prompts a deeper examination of the tension between state exclusivity and FIR control.
Addressing the jurisdictional dispute, the research asserts that the ICAO Council had
jurisdiction under the Chicago Convention, despite the broader context of the dispute. The
Council's adjudication is deemed in line with judicial propriety.