During times of war or conflict, many factors must be considered when trying to normalize the situation for civilians. However, safety and resolution are the most imperative factors. In the case of most conflicts, sub-regional or territorial tensions last far longer than the armed conflict, often both proceeding and the period following any combat. 

In the aerospace community, the balance between trying to regulate civilian or commercial air traffic in these instances is a delicate line. Although one would think that an airplane flying 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) over a conflict zone would be okay, the rules of war dictate that this is far from the truth. A dark side of history shows that flying over these zones can be catastrophic and should be avoided.

Conflict zones present a tough debate for commercial airliners. As air logistics are planned months to years in advance, changing routes and passages can become difficult to track at the last minute. No-Fly Zones, designated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), are areas that “should be avoided or may be continued under specified conditions.” 

In essence, these territories are disclosed to fly operating teams to be avoided in any capacity, as safety cannot be guaranteed due to conflict. In war, aviation has grown to be a major factor. Not only can aircraft be used as an offensive weapon (bombs, missiles, etc.), but they are also used to gain intelligence, such as in reconnaissance operations. As a result, all aircraft, man or unmanned, are typically viewed as a threat.

Commercial airlines in conflict zones have recently entered a new era. In January 2020, 176 passengers were killed on Ukraine International Airline (UIA) Flight PS752, in which the Islamic Republic of Iran shot down the commercial airliner amidst growing tensions with the United States of America. This comes around five years after Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) was shot down by a Russian surface-to-air missile, causing the deaths of 298 passengers. Both highlight the uncertainty of flying through these no-fly zones and the possible chaos. In both events, geopolitical tensions led to the attacks. 

In the wake of the MH17 and UIA disasters, the United Nations Human Rights and Special Procedures Office released information on no-fly zones. According to the document, “States can impose prohibitions or restrictions on the use of their airspace and determine along which routes and at which minimum altitude aircraft may fly within that airspace.” 

Self-attestation in announcing a conflict is in place is key, as failure to disclose can lead to violations of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) and the potential to breach elements of the Geneva Convention. The UN released that states should “refrain from engaging in conduct resulting in the arbitrary deprivation of life” in any hostilities.

Denouncing whether to fly or not in one of these areas is tough. However, most sovereign states historically tend to work along some form of diplomacy with opening or closing airspaces. The unpredictable factor is with non-state actors, which operate independently. This makes some formal operations hard. In Ukraine and the Middle East, many non-state actors and small arms militias have been partaking, typically to the tune of hand-to-hand combat. Access to sophisticated ground-to-air targeted missiles may be hard for these groups, but history shows it is not impossible.

Disputed areas are listed as territories or pieces of land claimed by more than one sovereign state. Although disputed territories have existed for thousands of years on claims of ethnic, religious, or geographical stipulations, most disputed lands in the twenty-first century came from the fall of the USSR and Yugoslavia in the 1990s. 

An ongoing land dispute that continually brings up the idea of aviation is the Nagorno-Karabakh lands, which Armenia and Azerbaijan claim respectfully. The continual conflict between both nations has seen repeated opening and closing of airspaces above each country, with the most recent closure occurring in the Fall of 2023. This is a major step, as the Azeri-Armenian air corridor grew in popularity due to the Russia-Ukraine war closing airspaces to the west.

Many organizations attempt to aggregate this information to track open-air spaces. As a part of the Chicago Convention, states engaging in armed conflict must attest that their airspace is part of an active conflict zone. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) releases the Conflict Zone Information Bulletin, which tracks where conflicts are ongoing. According to EASA, current no-fly corridors include North Korea, areas surrounding Israel, and parts of eastern Ukraine.