Abstract This article examines the evolving role of the International Civil Aviation Organization Council as a quasi-judicial body in resolving international aviation disputes. It introduces the concept of ‘fluidity in international adjudication’ arguing that the Council operates on a spectrum between quasi-judicial and judicial functions. Through historical analysis of key disputes, such as India v Pakistan and recent rulings on MH17, the study demonstrates how the Council’s adaptability enhances its resilience while resisting full judicialization. This article also explores future challenges, including disputes related to Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, highlighting the Council’s context-dependent role in international adjudication. It advances a conceptual framework of ‘fluidity in international adjudication’, defined as the institution’s ability to shift dynamically along a continuum between judicial and quasi-judicial functions. This framework offers new ways to address the limitations of binary classifications that obscure the Council’s adaptive role in practice.
Luping Zhang (Tue,) studied this question.