Tokyo's (Rosy) Convention
@andrasz
Thank you; Sir. I understand that the legal scheme you described is what exists.
But the present legal system is set up from the inside looking out. That is, each nation state has its own system of identity controls and verification. And of dealing with all the fine-point particulars noted alluded to or otherwise mentioned on-thread. And from this, sort of like the UN, set of each nation taking its own approach (no pun intended), the international system is constructed. It looks from the inside (each nation) out (to the international, world-wide, global order of civil aviation).
That's why we have a "conflict" between the state of registry and the situs (legal word for, "place", one that is "formally identified by or with a juridical structure") where PIC's inherent legal authority is exerted in fact. In my legal opinion the ICAO governance system not only should be changed, but it MUST be changed so that the situs law yields to the authority of the PIC as articulated by such Captain's "rank" in the overall global civil aeronautics sector. It's a concept of "the legal right of way". The system needs to be re-done, looking from the outside (the global system perspective) in (into each country).
And as with collaring a stinking drunk, ordering my brother the rabbi to finish his prayers later and get in his seat (and belted) and so on and so forth - the civil aeronautics system globally has to impose some order on the apparent Swiss cheese paradise of passport laxity.
I was a student radical in the era of the SDS. Posters need not waste their fingers telling me 'things can't be changed'. I'm on the ORD perimeter - happy to chat over a brew with any and all four-stripers, oh and surely yes, I'm buying.