Hague Convention, 1970 is a significant milestone for suppressing the crime of hijacking

“Hague Convention, 1970 is a significant milestone for suppressing the crime of hijacking”. Discuss.

Introduction

The Hague Evidence Convention or the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters is a many-sided agreement which was drafted underneath the support of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The agreement was negotiated in 1967 and 1968 and signed in The Hague on 18 March 1970. It entered into force in 1972.

It allows broadcast of letters of request beginning from one participant state to a different signatory state, with no recourse to consular and political channels.There was a raise in quantity of aircraft hijackings during 1968(30 hijacks) and 1969 (89 hijacks).

Definition of Hijacking

It is the illegal capture of an airplane. “Aircraft hijacking is a contemporary addition to the roster of international and national crimes and the necessity for its control at international and national level is only beginning to be recounted by states.” In a wider range hijacking is an operation in opposition to the security of national aviation as well as resembles piracy.

The articles of the Hague Convention of 1970, also does not define the term ‘hijacking’, except just mentions its crucial rudiments which are following:

· Illegal use of power or risk thereof or whichever other form of coercion;

· To do mentioned acts with a intention to grasp that airplane or else to exert management over it;

· On board an aircraft in voyage, the understood acts ought to have been followed;

· To carry out the above-mentioned act is furthermore at fault of the offence of hijacking, assistant of being who attempts or performs.

· Co-conspirator of the individual who performs or attempts to perform the above mentioned act is also guilty of the offence of hijacking.

The wider concept of the offence of hijacking has been incorporated in the Montreal convention, 1971.

Incentives behind Aircraft Hijacking

Hijacking of aircrafts is generally not perpetrated in order to steal the freight. The majority aircraft hijackings are undertaken to use the passengers as hostages. Purpose can differ from demanding the release of certain inmates, to give importance to the grievances of a meticulous group of people, use the aircraft as a weapon to target.

Improvement of Law relating to hijacking

In order to resolve the rising of hijacking and the dangers against the safety of the flights of aircraft presented grave problems particularly before the International Civil Aviation Organization [I.C.A.O.]. However some troubles remained even after the adoption.

The Tokyo Convention

Although the Tokyo Convention includes certain provisions relating to hijacking of aircraft, they are both general in terms and limited in effect. The principal objective of the Tokyo Convention is to ensure that offences and acts which jeopardize the safety of civil aircraft or persons or property, or good order and discipline, on board civil aircraft should not go unpunished because of a lack of jurisdiction over those responsible.

The Hague Convention

Either the flight is domestic or international is applicable to this convention.[3]It also provides provision, on the pursuit and punishment of hijackers, applicable only to persons on board the aircraft in flight, but is concluded that hijacking as offences. Besides, the definition of the term ‘in flight’ is different in the Hague Convention, which is considered that ‘the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation.

The Montreal Convention

The offences committed on board aircraft are stated exclusively in The Hague and Tokyo

Convention, the Montreal convention is the one to conquer the other unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation. It is concluded in 1971 one year following the adoption of the Hague Convention.

The Hague Convention, 1970

Hague Convention came into action on October, 1971 as a development of the Tokyo Convention. The Convention was adopted on December 16, 1970 and is in fact known as the “Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft”. It is an important highlight for restraining the offense of hijacking. The Convention was acceded by 174 states on September 17, 2001 (This list is based on information received from the depositaries, the Governments of the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States).

Hague Convention, 1970 preferred not to the word ‘hijack’ but rather to the exploitation of the word ‘crime’. The punishment depends on the State that tries the offense. There are 14 articles in total entered into force Oct. 14, 1971. Two of them are elaborated below:

Article 1: Any person who on board an aircraft in flight is said to have committed an offense if:

  • unlawfully seizes or exercises control of that aircraft or attempts to perform any such act or
  • It is an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform any such act commits an offense.

Article 8: Extradition of offenders: The offense shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offense in any existing extradition treaty.

Strengths

It was first international treaty of intended universal effect concerning the protection of cultural heritage in peace time with persuasive effect on public attitudes on this issue.[4] It influenced in the development of other conventions

Weaknesses

There were inelegance of some of the drafts and certain provisions of national law which limit the effectiveness of the Convention were not dealt with. A joint operational collection of experts from UNESCO and UNIDROIT is at present running on a replica section to resolve these issues.

The Australian legislation implementing the Convention applies to objects imported after the date of Australia’s accession to the Convention, but “which were previously exported from another country at any time when there was a cultural heritage protection law in force, contrary to the provisions of that law”

Building on Strengths

There were disapprovals of the Convention, the keeping out of events before 1970 raised by certain countries regarding some specific difficulties of federal States. Individuals have been very influential in promoting the convention and implications have often been made for stronger disciplinary measures.

Advantages

  • Significant development in the law related to aircraft hijacking.
  • Familiarity of the crew with a particular airport and its approach procedures.

Disadvantages

  • integrated only those aircraft that were in airborne
  • consist of only those flying aircraft that are an act of abduction
  • consequences in felony only if the offender is a individual on board the plane
  • fails to offer aid to passengers
  • Fails to distinguish Hijacking as a crime under worldwide law.[5] It only treated it as an offense.

Criticisms of Hague Convention

Hague Convention was a development on its predecessor the Tokyo Convention. It was yet subject to some disapproval so far as certain requirements relating to authority of States and expulsion of lawbreakers are concerned.

Moreover, even though Convention was adopted, hijacking sustained to rise. Accordingly, a Conference was called at Montreal from 8th to 23rd September, 1971. Underneath this, the State parties have undertaken that they will offer penalty to the hijackers. The other jurisdictions are similar to that of the Hague Convention.

If they wish to ignore their obligation to wither extradite or prosecute, then there is nothing to stop them. It is why the provision of asylum for the hijackers in afore mentioned case law is able, even it is condemnable. There is nothing can do to prevent states from granting political asylum to hijackers, if they so choose.

Conclusion

The Hague Convention sought to narrow that jurisdictional gap. The Hague convention facilitated the groundwork to apprehend hijack perpetrators, as it was more punitive in nature than the Tokyo Convention of 1963. Domestically, from 1961 through 1976, as the apprehension rates of domestic hijackers grew, the number of domestic hijacking incidents subsequently declined.

A large progress was accomplished by The Hague convention, but a few inadequacies still continued. One is concerning jurisdiction, as there is no duty to accuse. Next is regarding no terms on who is legally responsible for damage to people from the hijacking. Moreover, to achieve such reward one has to resort to the Warsaw System, however it does not at all times offer sufficient relief. In concern of the rising rate of hijacking incidents as a weapon of terror campaign has on a variety of incidents, particularly on the 911 incident, was provoked the idea of establishing an International Criminal Court to deal with this aspect of aviation.

National importance when it works with the state region and control over the air space of the country and its international importance when it deals with the airborne navigation from place to place. All countries, small or weak, have to work together so that they can induce the dominant country to be obedient towards the aviation law.

[1] “20: Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters”. Retrieved 13 January 2012.

[2] “Incident description October 8, 1969”. Aviation Safety Network. Retrieved 14 August 2011.

[3] See Art 3(3) of Hague Convention of 1970

[4] Neil Brodie, “The effect of an artefact’s provenance on its saleability” (2006) Culture Without ContextNo. 19, autumn, 4?6.

[5] See the 20thSession of the Extraordinary Assembly of ICAO (Rome, Aug-Sept 1973)

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.