Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:
The civilian flight crew in this case used all possible and
internationally known means of making themselves known...

I don't think you quite understood what I said. Let me repeat it: the
onus is on civilians to identify themselves to military forces.
Yes, that's why their planes normally carry radar transponders, are not painted
olive or grey and communicate in plain.
If you want them to follow a particular procedure, publish them.
Until then anybody appearing not to be a combatant is supposed to be treated
as a noncombatant.


The only obligation on the military is to be reasonably receptive to such
messages directed at them.
No it isn't. Making an effort to protect noncombatants includes making
an effort to find them before the shooting starts. That, in turn implies
making an effort to recognize what you see.


It may not be pretty, but that's the way things work in a real combat
zone, and the international laws in question recognize that fact.
What did they mistake that airliner for anyway? A strategic bomber or what?
And which of the enemies they were engaged with had bombers made by airbus?


"Throughout its final flight IR655 was in radio contact with various air
traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and
had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before the
Vincennes launched its missiles..."

Note, not a word about IR655 attempting to communicate with the military
forces in question,
That is because they are not supposed to communicate with the military.



"...The Vincennes at that time had no
equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than
the International Air Distress frequency, despite being a sophisticated
anti-aircraft warship."[1]

As John has already noted, this is one thing that very frequency is for:
communicating with people who might have reason to shoot at you, to ask
them to please refrain.
No, it's for communicating that your wings have just fallen off. Talking
about the planes status and position during normal flight is *not* what
emergency frequencies are for.


Does international law permit anybody in a "war
zone", even those who are not direct parties to the conflict, to shoot
first and ask questions later?

Basically, stripped of the rhetoric, yes.
Maybe you don't have to talk to them first, but you are to protect people
not taking part in hostilities. That means a reasonable effort to identify
people not trained to follow your (unpublished!) rules of engagement.

Greetings!
Volker