"However it really is a weird use of language to describe aiming a missile at a hostile warplane flying over your own country as "aggression". I don't mean to say that there mightn't be good grounds for the warplane being there and all - but "aggression" is a weird word to use in that context. I'm sure that when the Germans fired at Allied planes over Germany it wasn't normally referred to as "aggression". "

Not weird at all Kevin. Illuminating an aircraft with a guidance radar is universally accepted as being a hostile act as it may signal intent to fire. Another one, is surfacing a submarine in the path of an oncoming vessel, which is actually classified as an act of war. That dates back to the days when submarines carried deck guns and used those for sending merchant ships to the bottom, torpedoes tended to be reserved for sinking warships as they could fight back.

Regarding the inspections Kevin, it was confirmed last night that any permanent member of the UNSC can elect to have a representative at any inspection. That does not, repeat not, mean that they have five sets of inspection teams on the ground. As to your suggestion regarding occupied zones - you quoted China at the turn of last century as an example of how it didn't work - what about Germany when it did. Like your quotation from the Guardian article, another example of selective presentation Private Fraser.