NCJ Number
62617
Journal
BRITISH JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume: 43 Dated: (1968/1969) Pages: 193-204
Date Published
1969
Length
12 pages
Annotation
THIS ARTICLE CONTENDS THAT HIJACKING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACT OF PRIVACY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COMPARES PROVISIONS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION ON THE HIGH SEAS WITH THE TOKYO CONVENTION ON HIJACKING TO SUPPORT THIS.
Abstract
UNDER THE 1963 TOKYO CONVENTION, HIJACKING IS DEFINED AS ANY UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT OR WRONGFUL EXERCISE OF CONTROL THAT IS COMMITTED BY FORCE OR THE THREAT OF FORCE. ALTHOUGH VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONVENTION'S PROVISIONS ON INTENT EXIST, THE PREFERRED INTERPRETATION EXCLUDES VERBAL THREATS OR UNMANIFESTED ATTEMPTS TO HIJACK FROM THE CONVENTION. PIRACY AS DEFINED BY THE 1958 GENEVA CONVENTION HAS SOME SIMILARITIES WITH HIJACKING. THE PIRACY DESCRIPTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS AND SPECIFIES THAT PIRACY MUST BE DIRECTED FROM OUTSIDE THE SHIP OR AIRCRAFT. THUS HIJACKING IS NOT PIRACY. IT IS, RATHER, A BROADER CONCEPT THAT SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE TOKYO CONVENTION COVERING MANIFESTED INTENTIONS AND AFFORDING MORE PROTECTION TO AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT, CREW, AND PASSENGERS. STILL, HIJACKING COULD BE CONSIDERED A LIMITED TYPE OF PIRACY BECAUSE THE TOKYO CONVENTION, LIKE THE GENEVA AGREEMENT, ALLOWS THE STATE UNDER WHOSE FLAG THE CRAFT FLIES TO EXERCISE SOME JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENDERS. UNTIL THE TOKYO CONVENTION IS RATIFIED, HIJACKING IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW. THE FOOTNOTES CONTAIN A LIST OF ALL HIJACKINGS REPORTED FROM 1952 THROUGH 1969, AS WELL AS SEVERAL REFERENCES. (MJM)