International law is not a real thing that has loopholes... it is just a set of agreed upon principles that are usually followed.

>International law is not a real thing that has loopholes... it is just a set of agreed upon principles that are usually followed

Nation states exist in a state of nature, and unfortunately might usually makes right. Superpowers can, and often do, simply decide that aspects of international law just don't apply to them. Of course, that doesn't stop them holding weaker powers to those standards.

Sounds more like an International Wishlist. Wherever the venn diagram of What a Country Does and What the World Wants intersects, they pat themselves on the back. Everything else, they shrug. I wonder what's the point.

That is exactly point; so that at least everyone agrees beforehand when praise/condemnation is appropriate. It doesn't enforce itself, but it does at least provide a notional focus point. Countries do attempt to reward and punish each other in various ways, and "international law" gives some direction to it.

What would happen if a pilot refused? My understanding is pilots have near total authority when operating an aircraft so if a pilot knew the “threat” stated was fabricated could they, in theory, just keep flying? Or even landed at a different, closer airport than the one specified?

To be clear, I don’t think pilots should be in a position to judge the truthfulness of ATF or the government they’re flying over and I don’t think pilot judgment is the “solution” to this loophole that has now been abused twice (that we know). I’m just curious about the process and what would happen if a pilot decided to call the bluff. Would Belarus (or whichever country) scramble fighter jets to force a landing? Would the pilot get in trouble? Is the answer different for a private flight vs commercial flight vs diplomatic flight?

I think that airplane will be considered captured by terrorists. If there's a danger of it being used as a weapon of mass destruction, it'll be blowed up to prevent more deaths. I don't think that it would be considered reasonable to blow up aircraft if it didn't present a danger to big cities.

So IMO pilot could ignore their requirements and I think that nothing would happen outside of angry transmissions. Especially if the plane was near border. But I don't think that it would be reasonable, especially in an airplane full of innocent people.

That MIG-29 on their tail will help them obey.

> to this loophole that has now been abused twice (that we know)

Twice?