No-fly zone
A no-fly zone, also known as a no-flight zone (NFZ), or air exclusion zone (AEZ),[1] is a territory or area established by a military power over which certain aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in an enemy power's territory during a conflict for humanitarian or military reasons without consent of the enemy state, similar in concept to an aerial demilitarized zone, and usually intend to prohibit the enemy's military aircraft from operating in the region. Military action is employed by the enforcing state and, depending on the terms of the NFZ, may include preemptive attacks to prevent potential violations, reactive force targeted at violating aircraft, or surveillance with no use of force. Air exclusion zones and anti-aircraft defences are sometimes set up in a civilian context, for example to protect sensitive locations, or events such as the 2012 London Olympic Games, against terrorist air attack. A no-fly zone is generally not considered a form of aerial blockade due to its more limited scope compared to an aerial blockade.[2]
This article is about the military zone. For the civil regulatory use, see Prohibited airspace. For the football defensive backfield, see 2015 Denver Broncos season.
No-fly zones are a modern phenomenon established in the 1990s. They can be distinguished from traditional air power missions by their coercive appropriation of another nation's airspace only, to achieve aims on the ground within the target nation. While the Royal Air Force (RAF) conducted prototypical air control operations over various contentious colonies between the two World Wars, no-fly zones did not assume their modern form until the end of the Gulf War in 1991.[3]
During the Cold War, the risk of local conflict escalating into nuclear showdown made military intervention as a tool of United States statecraft unappealing. Furthermore, air power was a relatively blunt instrument until the operational maturation of stealth and precision-strike technologies. Before the Gulf War of 1991, it had not been possible to perform nuanced attacks against transitory, difficult-to-reach targets, and air power thus lacked the ability to produce decisive political effects short of total war. However, the demise of the Soviet Union and technological advances in aerospace capabilities made no-fly zones viable in both political and military contexts.[3]
Enforcement of a no-fly zone is subject to the rules of armed conflict under international humanitarian law.[2]
Analysis[edit]
A 2004 Stanford University paper published in the Journal of Strategic Studies, "Lessons from Iraq and Bosnia on the Theory and Practice of No-fly Zones", reviewed the effectiveness of the air-based campaigns in achieving military objectives. The paper's findings were: First, a clear, unified command structure is essential. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, during Operation Deny Flight, a confusing dual-key coordination structure provided inadequate authority and resulted in air forces not being given authority to assist in key situations; Second, to avoid a "perpetual patrol problem", states must know in advance their policy objectives and the exit strategy for no-fly zones; Third, that the effectiveness of no-fly zones is highly dependent on regional support. A lack of support from Turkey for the 1996 Iraq no-fly zone ultimately constrained the coalition's ability to enforce it.[40]