RadAlt2010:
I don’t think I am wrong or naive in saying that ICAO should have more clout in standardising dangerous, ill equipped, badly run airports, nor that it cannot be effective. If an international body can impose sanctions in the name of politics, it can also impose sanctions in the name of safety. About the only thing for certain in this accident is that poorly equipped and maintained airports raise the stakes enormously.
The first order of responsibility lies with the commercial carrier itself that intends to operate into any airport, especially an airport that is known to have safety and conformance issues.
The second order of responsibility lies with the sovereign state that holds that commercial operator's certificate of fitness.
The third order of resonsibility lies with the affected carrier's pilot's safety committee, if such exists (they do in cowboy-land.
)
ICAO falls way, way below all of the preceding.