> Also this was a diplomatic mission, unlike commercial flights they had absolutely NO jurisdiction to act like this. This is, unsurprisingly, wrong. The situ

> Also this was a diplomatic mission, unlike commercial flights they had absolutely NO jurisdiction to act like this. This is, unsurprisingly, wrong. The situation Evo Morales' plane was wrong, and was caused by several EU countries shamefully bending to America's manhunt for Snowden, but it was well within jurisdiction. Three countries closed their airspace to the plane, which they were fully within their rights to do. As an official state plane, the Chicago Convention didn't apply to it, and state flights explicitly require separate authorization to overfly a country (Article 3 of the Chicago Convention). The hijacking by Belarus was blatantly against aviation law, and upcoming investigations will definitely confirm that. Countries may force airplanes in their airspace to land, but only under some circumstances: > every State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, is entitled to require the landing at some designated airport of a civil aircraft flying above its territory without authority or if there are reasonable grounds to conclude that it is being used for any purpose inconsistent with the aims of this Convention The plane was flying on authorized flight path and nobody claimed that it was really being used as a military or spy plane, which is what the "inconsistent purpose" amounts to.