Humanities desk
< July 27	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 28

International laws governing military aircraft flown by defectors

In March 1953, Franciszek Jarecki defected from Poland with a Soviet MiG-15bis landing on the Danish island of Bornholm. It was the first MiG-15 to be examined by American experts, partially disassembled and studied in Denmark. The MiG-15bis was then shipped back to Poland a few weeks later; the wiki article claims it was because of international regulations, while the source only says it was shipped back without explanation. What international regulations might these be, if they exist? Why weren't the Danes allowed to transfer it over to the Americans, who so desperately wanted to study a working example of the MiG-15? They would launch Operation Moolah less than two months later in Korea, with the aim of getting a pilot to defect with another MiG-15, and they were definitely aware of Jarecki's defection because he was on the leaflets. Alcherin (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Canadian MiG Flights (p. 76), the Americans gave Jarecki $50,000 and US citizenship, so they must have been pleased with what information they did glean. The same source says that the MiG-15 obtained from Korea was also offered back to the Soviets after US testing, but they were too embarrassed to accept it, as they were publicly denying action against the UN. See also this article about the 1976 defection of a MiG-25 to Japan. They sent it back in numerous crates with 20 pieces missing. I can't find anything specific to the legal aspects, but "finders keepers" in not an internationally accepted principle, except in the law of salvage, which I believe only applies if an aircraft is recovered from the sea. Alansplodge (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything other than the fact that it was, in fact, Polish military property. Which, really, I don't recall being a clear principle in international law. It could be that there was a treaty in place, such as a treaty of amity. In force at the time between Denmark and the Soviets was likely the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation signed 17 August 1946 (likely extended past 1951), and I would be surprised if the same treaty framework was not used with Poland (see vol. 8 U.N.T.S. p. 201; unofficial English transl. at p. 218). It's also possible any number of multilateral treaties that ended the Second World War involving the U.S., U.K., and U.S.S.R. provided for the disposition of such "lost and found" military equipment, and such treaties may have informally extended to all N.A.T.O. and what would later become Warsaw Pact nations. That's my gut instinct anyway. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Danes being bound by a specific treaty connected to the end of the war in Europe, or by application of N.A.T.O. treaties or policy, might explain why the outcome there was different in comparison with those fighters involved in defections in the Far East as described by Alansplodge above. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for looking into this. Alcherin (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. With respect to the triggering incident of this question—that the reference doesn’t match the claim—you may want to check the original revision of the article, which made the same claim without any footnotes. There were four references at the end of the article and an in-text mention of a documentary elsewhere. Any of those could be the putative source for the claim, and might be worth checking. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]