Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T21:05:18.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comment on “Criminal Jurisdiction Over Aircraft Hijacking”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

S. Z. Feller
Get access

Extract

1. In his article “Criminal Jurisdiction over Aircraft Hijacking”, Dr. Y. Dinstein analyzes the provisions of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, of December 16, 1970—hereinafter referred to as “the Hague Convention”. This convention deals with States' jurisdiction with regard to the offence of “hijacking”, as defined by Article 2 of the convention, in accordance with the nature of their connection with the offence committed.

The learned writer, in the course of his analysis, postulates three premises. The first premise is that Article 4 of the Hague Convention lays down an order of preference with respect to the jurisdiction of the States referred to in that Article. The second premise is that this order of preference is reflected in the order of the paragraphs of Article 4 which specify which are the states in question (paragraphs 1 and 2). The third premise is that the Hague Convention does not provide for universal jurisdiction in respect of the offence of hijacking.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 1972 , pp. 207 - 213
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 See supra p. 195.

2 In using the term “paragraph” we have adopted the language of the Hague Convention. Cf. Dr. Dinstein article, where the term “section” is used in its place.

3 See Y. Dinstein, “Criminal Jurisdiction over Aircraft Hijacking”, supra, p. 200.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid. p. 196.

6 Ibid. p. 200.

7 The texts of these paragraphs are as follows: Article 8, paragraph 1—“The offence shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty existing between Contracting States. Contracting States undertake to include the offence as an extraditable offence in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them”. Article 8, paragraph 3—“Contracting States which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize the offence as an extraditable offence between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State”.

8 Article 8, paragraph 2—“If a Contracting State which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another Contracting State with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offence. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State”.

9 The word “other” appears in paragraph 2 only.

10 Article 7—“The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of an ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State”.

11 Article 4, paragraph 2—“Each Contracting State shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offence in the case where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him pursuant to Article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article”.

12 See Mankiewick, R. H., “Le Projet de Convention Relative à la Capture Illicite d'Aéronef” (1970) Rev. Fr. Dr. Aérien 142, 148.Google Scholar

13 See White, Gillian M. E., “The Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft” (1971) 6 The Review of International Commission of Jurists, 38, 41.Google Scholar It may be noted that the author is a member of the Legal Committee of ICAO.

14 Other offences of this type are traffic in narcotics, obscene publications, slave trade, genocide, exploitation of women and children for immoral purposes.

15 See the Preamble to the Hague Convention.

16 See Research in International Law, “Draft Convention in Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime”, Comment, Art. 9 (Supp. 1935) 29 Am. J. Int. L. 569–572.Google Scholar

17 That Article provides that “All States shall co-operate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State”.

18 See Gillian M. E. White, op. cit., p. 41: “The Hague Convention achieves a similar result [to declaring that hijacking is an international offence] by providing in the second paragraph of Article 4 that each contracting State establish its juris diction over the offence where the hijacker is present in its territory…”

19 Y. Dinstein, op. cit., p. 200.

20 Article 4, paragraph 3—“This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law”.

21 Y. Dinstein, op. cit., p. 204.

22 Ibid.