Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T22:11:03.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criminal Jurisdiction Over Aircraft Hijacking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Yoram Dinstein
Get access

Extract

Aircraft hijacking projects a vexing problem of criminal jurisdiction. In order to comprehend the ramifications of the problem fully let us take a model case. Suppose that the control over a commercial aircraft—registered in Brazil and leased to an Israeli airline—is forcibly seized, in the course of flight over France, by an Arab nationalist who is a citizen of Jordan, and the aircraft is hijacked to Algeria. The act described is an international offence, as defined by Article 1 of the 1970 Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft:

Any person who on board an aircraft in flight:

(a) unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or by any other form of intimidation, seizes, or exercises control of, that aircraft, or attempts to perform any such act, or

(b) is an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform any such act

commits an offence (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offence’).

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 1972 , pp. 195 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1971) 10 International Legal Materials 133.

2 Ibid., 134.

3 International Civil Aviation Organization, Legal Committee, Subcommittee on Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, First Draft (February 1969), Article 5, 8 Ibid., 245, 252 (1969); Second Draft (October 1969), Article 4, 9 Ibid., 68, 78, (1970).

4 Entry into force was contingent on ten ratifications under Article 13 of the Convention, supra n. 1 at 136.

5 On the universality principle, see the judgment of the Israel Supreme Court in Eichmann v. Attorney General (1962) 16 P.D. 2033, 2060.

6 See e.g. 75 Stat. 466 (1961); 49 U.S.C. § 1472. Cf. Evans, , “Aircraft Hijacking: Its Cause and Cure” (1969) 63 Am. J. Int. L. 695, 695–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See Article 19 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 12 K.A. (No. 410) 215, 222–223.

8 See Article 15 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, ibid., 221.

9 Ibid. We shall deal with piracy here only to the extent that it affects aircraft.

10 Hague Conference Doc. No. 39 (mimeographed) (1970).

11 Hague Conference Doc. SRC/9 (mimeographed) (1970).

12 Hague Conference Doc. No. 45 (mimeographed) (1970).

13 For the definition of the term “flight”, and the exclusion of those flights which commence and end in the State of registration of the aircraft, see Article 3 of the Convention, supra n. 1 at 133–134.

14 See Panhuys, , “Aircraft Hijacking and International Law” (1970) 9 Colum. J. Transnational Law 1, 7.Google Scholar

15 Supra n. 7 at 222–223.

16 Ibid., 221.

17 See Brierly, , The Law of Nations (6th ed., by Waldock, , 1963) 313.Google Scholar

18 Hague Conference Doc. No. 36 (mimeographed) (1970).

19 Hague Conference Doc. SRC/2 (mimeographed) (1970).

20 Cf. the views expressed by commentators on the famous case of the Santa Maria (a Portuguese liner seized in 1961 by a group of rebels, without involving another vessel or aircraft): Colombos, , The International Law of the Sea (6th ed., 1967) 445Google Scholar; Green, , “The Santa Maria: Rebels or Pirates” (1961) 37 British Year Book of International Law 496, 503Google Scholar; Vali, , “The Santa Maria Case” (1961–1962) 56 Northwestern L.R. 168, 172Google Scholar; 4 Whiteman, , Digest of International Law (1955) 666Google Scholar; Zwanenberg, , “Interference with Ships on the High Seas” (1961) 10 Int. & Comp. L.Q. 785, 816–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPer Contra Fenwick, , “‘Piracy’ in the Caribbean” (1961) 55 Am. J. Int. L. 426, 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 On this point cf. Shubber, , “Is Hijacking of Aircraft Piracy in International Law?” (1968/1969) 43 British Year Book of International Law 193, 201.Google Scholar

22 Supra n. 3, Second Report at 71–72, 77.

23 Hague Conference Doc. No. 23 (mimeographed) (1970).

24 Hague Conference Doc. No. 19 (mimeographed) (1970).

25 Hague Conference Doc. SRC/2 (mimeographed) (1970).

26 Supra n. 1 at 133.

27 Supra n. 3, First Report at 247, Second Report at 70.

28 21 K.A. (No. 695) 87, 88 (Article 1 (4)).

29 2 K.A. (No. 51) 157, 158 (Article 3).

30 Ibid., 167 (Part II).

31 Hague Conference Doc. No. 42 (mimeographed) (1970).

32 Hague Conference Doc. No. 61 (mimeographed) (1970).

33 Hague Conference Doc. SRC/8 (mimeographed) (1970).

34 P.C.I.J. Ser. A/10 at 19–20 (1927).

35 Supra n. 28 at 88.

36 See Article 4(c) of the Tokyo Convention, ibid., 89.

37 Hague Conference Doc. No. 9 (mimeographed) (1970).

38 Hague Conference Doc. No. 5 (mimeographed) (1970).

39 Hague Conference Doc. No. 46 (mimeographed) (1970).

40 Hague Conference Doc. SRC/9 (mimeographed) (1970).

41 Supra n. 7 at 217 (Article 5).

42 Hague Conference Doc. No. 8 (mimeographed) (1970).

43 Hague Conference Doc. No. 33/Rev. 1 (mimeographed) (1970).

44 Hague Conference Doc. SRC/8 (mimeographed) (1970).

45 Sec Panhuys, supra n. 14 at 7–8.

46 See Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1946] A.C. 347.

47 See Article 4(b) of the Tokyo Convention, supra n. 28 at 89.

48 Ibid.

49 On the meaning of the section in the Tokyo Convention, see Denaro, , “In-Flight Crimes, the Tokyo Convention, and Federal Judicial Jurisdiction” (1969) 35 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 171, 187–188.Google Scholar

50 Supra n. 3, First Report at 248.

51 Such a nexus is legitimized in Article 4(b) of the Tokyo Convention, supra n. 28 at 89.

52 Supra n. 34.

53 Ibid., 24.

54 Ibid., 23.

55 ibid., 22–23.