Three small states apply the law and their consistent policy – and find themselves accused. Major powers, on the other hand, allow for all nuances. Is it each to their own principles?
Mauritius, Seychelles, and Madagascar’s refusal to allow the overflight of their airspace by a Taiwanese aircraft has triggered a barrage of criticism in some Western capitals. The vocabulary used – “abuse,” “pressure,” “intimidation” – reflects more of a political reflex than a legal analysis.
From a legal perspective, there is hardly any debate. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation is unequivocal – each state exercises full and complete sovereignty over its airspace. The principle is enshrined in Article 1, and Article 3 states that an aircraft of one state cannot overfly a foreign territory without prior permission. Overflight is not a right. It is a permission.
Therefore, it is somewhat paradoxical to label the exercise of this sovereignty as “abuse.” Why then all the agitation? Because the issue is not just about aviation. It is inherently political.
The so-called Republic of China (Taiwan) is only recognized by a handful of states – barely a dozen, including Eswatini in Africa. Yet, at the same time, Taiwan enjoys remarkably dense relations with countries that officially do not recognize it.
Ambiguity accepted by some, organized ambivalence by others.
Mauritius, for its part, made a clear choice in 1972, under the government of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam: to recognize Beijing in the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate government. This choice has remained unchanged in principle. There have been minor shifts on occasion – often more due to lack of insight than a deliberate change in policy – but they have been quickly corrected. The essential, however, remains: a foreign policy marked by consistency, readability, and respect for commitments made.
In this context, granting overflight to an official Taiwanese aircraft is no longer just a technical gesture. It could have been interpreted as a form of de facto recognition. To refuse is to stay faithful to a line. To grant would have altered that.
The choice was therefore less political than it seems: it was logical. Yet, the criticisms are rampant. The US, the European Union, and the UK express their “concern.” One speaks of “abuse” of the international aviation system while denouncing the “pressure” exerted on Taiwan by Beijing.
The contradiction is hard to ignore. Because, these same actors all recognize the policy of One China, the People’s Republic, which is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. And yet, they maintain sustained, visible, sometimes quasi-diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The US provides military assistance. The UK maintains a representation that is not officially named. The EU is increasing cooperative initiatives.
What constitutes a “strategic nuance” for them becomes a matter of suspicion for others. Double standards!
Even more troubling is the repeated invocation of “pressure” exerted on Taiwan. A legitimate concern, no doubt. But it should be placed in a broader context. Decades of sanctions imposed on Cuba or the refusal of visas to certain foreign representatives invited to UN meetings in New York demonstrate other forms of constraint – less publicized but equally real. It is a well-established open secret in diplomatic circles that the major powers, without exception, themselves resort to forms of pressure to align other states with their positions, especially when those states are smaller or more vulnerable.
For principles to be credible, they cannot be selective.
Attributing the decisions of Mauritius, Seychelles, and Madagascar to external influence is a convenient shortcut. It is also implicitly denying their ability to decide for themselves. As though the sovereignty of small states is, by nature, suspect.
This is not just a debatable interpretation, but also revealing. These countries may not have the military or economic power of the major nations. But they have what, in the long run, establishes international credibility: consistency and coherence. The refusal of overflight is an expression of this.
Meanwhile, major capitals continue their exchanges with Beijing. Ursula von der Leyen of the EU Commission recently visited, as did Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, and Donald Trump is expected there soon – a trip simply postponed by his current priorities in the Middle East. Economic interests show little hesitation.
Realism, evidently, has its constants. For small states, this realism takes a different path – clarity of positions and mastery of balances.
Refusing overflight is not an act of hostility. It is an act of coherence. The conclusion is all the more forceful: sovereignty is not variable geometry. When it is invoked by some and disputed by others, it ceases to be a principle and becomes an instrument.
