It's utterly beyond believe -- and counter to basic logic -- that the US would allow foreign military aircraft to fly through its ADIZ without identifying themselves. What's the point of an air *defense* identification zone if it only cares about civilian flights and ignores military ones?

A new article in Asia Times by Peter Lee, quoting specific texts of the US ADIZ regulations, certainly disagrees with the idea that the rules for the Chinese ADIZ were unique and more stringent than the US ones.

Thanks for your responses.

I grant you that FAA regulations on US ADIZs are ambiguous. While Title 14, section 99.9 of the U.S. federal regulations states that “a person who operates a civil aircraft into an ADIZ must have a functioning two-way radio, and the pilot must maintain a continuous listening watch on the appropriate aeronautical facility’s frequency”, the section later drops the distinction between civil and other aircraft.

In practice, however, the US does not apply its ADIZ regulations to foreign military planes that are not bound for US territorial airspace.

The Russians, for example, carry out operations in the US Alaska ADIZ without filing flight plans, and though US fighters intercept and escort them, the US does not expect them to abide by any requirement to “follow instructions” as the Chinese rules demand of all foreign planes.

The point is that in international airspace, anyone can fly. Commercial airliners file flight plans as a matter of course – which means that Japan is running counter to standard practice by telling its airlines not to check in with Chinese air control – but sovereign aircraft such as military planes are NOT subject to ADIZ rules. If they are not intending to enter a coastal country’s territorial airspace they are not required to register with its ATC authorities (as China is insisting) though they ARE subject to interception.

China is absolutely within its rights to intercept foreign military planes in its ADIZ and watch where they go, but Beijing is going beyond the customary law governing such zones when it demands that they identify themselves and follow Chinese ATC instructions.

For more details on this whole question, see “Caelum Liberam”, an essay by Peter Dutton at the US Naval War College who has forgotten more about ADIZs than you or I will ever know…..

http://www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/China-Maritime-Studies-Institute/Publications/documents/Dutton-NC-1st-proofs-(9-29-09)-(3)1.pdf

@wgj: China would garner a strategic win, but only when it submits a solution to its deficiencies in air-refueling and AWACS technology. Until that point, the air force lacks the capability to vigorously enforce its ADIZ claims. If anyone stood to gain from what many consider China's (tactically) premature assertion of its ADIZ, it would be Japan. The many islets it has stationed early warning systems on and scrambled jets from, remove much of the need for developing the same sort of in-air systems the Chinese have to. This allows Japan to build force predominance in the skies of its ADIZ; throwing the credibility of the Chinese ADIZ into doubt. This is significant, as Beijing has hinted at establishing further ADIZs in the near future. If this East China Sea ADIZ is taken to be--at least at the moment--only a rhetorical advance, then this may produce a more vigorous contestation of air space on the part of South East Asian nations that would've formerly submitted to a less antagonistic course. Or at least this is how I figure it.

@samspackman: The quietness is entirely due to the absence of Goldkornian interludes (i. e. shouting and swearing), I contend. :)

@wgj:You're right. Provided that you can marshall sufficient evidence to support your belief that an ADIZ is anything other than a unilateral action with minimal and ambiguous handling on the part of international law.

According to the WallStreet Journal:

"The authority to establish an ADIZ is not given by any international treaty nor prohibited by international law and is not regulated by any international body."

Your point about ASEAN capabilities vis-a-vis China is well taken however...

Jane Perlez's suggestion that China should have consulted other countries before announcing the ADIZ is so ridiculous. As mentioned during the show, Japan expanded its ADIZ twice in the last few years; did Japan consult with China before its ADIZ expansion? Second, China would have got the same response from Japan and US if it had actually consulted with them first. Now what do you suggest China do? Nothing? Isn't that stupid? Or if China still proceeds, wouldn't the situation be even more tense than it is now?

I just can't believe an expert could throw out such a foolish idea that is totally unrealistic without being challenged on the spot.