In order to monitor effectively her self-claimed
Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), China requests the airlines flying
through to submit flight plans and related information before the actual
exercise. Beijing’s unilateral move has
triggered disputes with its neighboring countries, while he US, inexpertly
shifts her stance.
同一個空域存在「航管」與「戰管」等兩種指揮中心本為常態：前者屬於遍佈全球的「航空情報區」(FIR)，管理權源在國際民航組織；後者僅少數濱海國家實施，是主權權利（對台灣治理當局而言是管轄權）的實踐，權力握在各政府。
It is common that the civil traffic control and
the air operation control coexist in one single air space. The former is Flight Information Region (FIR)
under the authority of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), while
the latter, which is rare, goes under the authority of related governments.
就管理空域的效率與正當性而言，FIR
與 ADIZ 兩者能完全重疊最好，至少應避免大幅度錯離。這就是長期以來日本防空識別區未受質疑的根本原因。但中國的 ADIZ 超出上海 FIR 以東500公里以上，錯離甚大，從而北京要求各航空公司向其申報飛航資料，其悍然侵犯全球航管體制莫此為甚。
It is better if an ADIZ could overlap the related
FIR in terms of traffic management and legitimacy. At least the two should not be shifted away
from each other. That is why the international
community rarely questioned Japan’s ADIZ for it roughly overlaps FIR. However, Chinese new ADIZ exceeds Shanghai
FIR f eastward or some 500
kilometers . This
abnormal fact makes Beijing request the Airlines to submit flight information
that it has no right to access, and in fact Beijing violates the global regime
of flight control.
馬政府自我作賤之處是凌駕航空公司的個別判斷，直接以主管當局之尊包裹提交一切飛航資料給北京。由於台北 FIR 是重要航路，馬是否也無端提交他國飛航資料給北京？馬要如何兔脫這筆侵權帳？有了馬政府這個大漏洞，其實解放軍已無需美日航空公司提交資料。但國際社會卻不能任憑台北飛航管制區自行其事而危及飛安。
MYJ should be blamed for taking out the reserve
of airlines to submit their own information to Beijing. He made his Civil Aviation Administration
collect and forward to Beijing all the data, in which those of foreign airlines
flying-by might be included. Is Ma
administration authorized to do so? If
PLA could receive all the flight information flying by Taipei FIR from MYJ, it
is unnecessary to request other airlines.
International community should not tolerate the leak.
有鑑於 ADIZ 是管轄權的發動，中國與日本一樣有權實施難以阻止，但FIR 或是解決此爭議的槓桿，而地位未定的台灣正巧能發揮關鍵性作用。
China, just like Japan, enjoys the right to
establish her own ADIZ. However, FIR
might be leverage toward the solution.
Taiwan, with uncertain and undetermined status, may play a positive key
role.
為區域安全起見，國際民航組織應思考重劃那霸與福岡的區管中心範圍，讓「台北飛航情報區」沿著重要國際航路向東北延伸與擴大[1]。此後，各國途經在東海重疊的中日
ADIZ 時，向台北（而非上海或福岡）申報飛航資料。相對的，台北有義務公開前述資料給上海與福岡等相鄰 FIR 運用。新加坡的 FIR 深入南海，未來也將牽扯中國在南海的 ADIZ，是可借鑑與一體處理的實例。[2] 至於軍機，反正無國際管理體制，就各憑本事並各自付出政治代價。
ICAO should consider cutting some area of the
Air Control Centers of Naha and Fukuoka and accordingly extend Taipei FIR area along
the routes from South East Asia to North East Asia. Those civil airplanes that fly through should
report to Taipei FIR, instead of the former air control center. It is the obligation of Taipei, in return, to
share its related data with Naha, Fukuoka as well as Shanghai FIR. Singapore FIR, stretching deep into South
China Sea, will encounter Chinese future ADIZ on South China Sea, and thus could
be another example of this pattern of FIR management. Just let hard-power AIDZs go a separate way
from civil aviation.
相對於馬政府文學箴言的「東海和平唱議」，前述方案不僅具操作性且切中時機，姑稱為「台北和平倡議」。
MYJ has raised so-called “East China Sea Peace
Initiative” with only pointless pretty slogans; it is more operational for the
extension of Taipei FIR to solve the confrontation of Chinese ADIZ. We might thus name it “Taipei Peace
Initiative.”
【姊妹文章】
Good!
回覆刪除