THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND

HIJACKING OF AIRCRAFT ON STATE

SOVEREIGNTY: THE ISRAELI RAID ON
ENTEBBE AIRPORT RE-VISITED
Abel A. Emiko*
SOMETIME IN 1976 Palestinian freedom fighters who have resorted to
international terrorism hijacked an aeroplane in mid-air and diverted it
to Uganda where they held almost one hundred passengers hostage-
demanding the release of their kinsmen and women in Israeli jails in
exchange for their freedom. They were aided and abetted by the then
Head of the State of Uganda, Idi Amin, now deposed.
Israel in her usual dexterity and brilliance raided Entebbe airport.
With mathematical precision that seemed unbelievable, ninety-three hostages
were rescued in an operation that lasted only forty-five minutes.1
Another rescue operation from terrorists' hijacking was successfully
carried out by the German government in Mogadishu in 1977, of course,
with the co-operation of the Somalian government.2
Only recently the United States also attempted a daring fit to free the
over fifty members of its embassy staff held hostage since November 1979
by the militants in Iran.3
In the case of the operation carried out by Israel on Entebbe airport
some third world commentators argued that the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Uganda was violated: that it was an unprovoked and criminal
act of war.4
We shall attempt to argue in this paper that the twentieth century
society under the siege of terrorism has added another diminishing factor
to the hitherto orthodox concept of sovereignty within the reciprocal
acceptance of the states in the international community.
The concept of sovereignty

Max Huber in the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) arbitration* pungently

* LL.B. (Hons) (Ife), LL.M. (U. Penn.), M. Phil (Ife), Acting Head, Department
of Public Law, University of Ife, Nigeria.
1. See the Daily Sketch of Nigeria, Thursday, July 14, 1976, 5. Also Newsweek
Magazine, of January 3, 1977.
2. See "Time" Magazine, October 31, 1977.
3. This was after it had almost exhausted all legal and diplomatic avenues available
within international relationship.
4. See the views of a commentator in the Advocate of 1977/78, a journal published
by the Law Students' Society of the University of Ife.
5. See 22 American Journal of International Law 867 at 875 (1928).

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

1981] IMPACT OF TERRORISM AND HIJACKING ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY 91

described sovereignty in the following terms:

Sovereignty in the relation between states signifies independence.

Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to
exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other state the functions
of a state.0

Sovereignty as a supreme authority in a state which is not subject to

the whim and caprice of any outside power without the consent of the
sovereign nation may be said to have different significations.
In as much as it cannot countenance any interference from any
extraneous authority more particularly to be teleguided by another state,
sovereignty is coterminous with independence.
The amplitude of this independence covers both external and internal
factors. An independent state has liberty of action in the conduct of its
affairs with other states outside its borders. 7
Inside its borders, sovereignty comprises the power of a state to
exercise supreme authority over all persons, and things within its territory.8
It also carries with it the power to exercise supreme authority over its
citizens at home and their protection abroad. 9 For these reasons a state,
as an international entity possesses, not just independence but also
territorial and personal10 supremacy. The incidents of sovereignty
categorised above are, however, subject to rules of international customary
law, general principles of Jaw recognized by the civilized nations, and the
bilateral and multilateral treaties, willingly and freely entered into by the
nations in the same exercise of their sovereignty. It is this limitation that
prompted J.G. Starke, Q.C., to declare that "the sovereignty of a State
means the residuum of power which it possesses within the confines laid
down by international law". 11

Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter provides that :

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the

threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political

6. Sovereignty, however, can be limited by an act of the state in the same exercise
of her sovereignty.
7. Art. 2(1) of the U.N. Charter provides that the organization is based on the
sovereign equality of all its members.
8. As soon as the hijackers landed the plane carrying the Israelis at Entebbe
airport it came under the territorial jurisdiction of Uganda.
9. Israel then had the duty to protect its citizens from being hacked to death by
those bunch of desperate commandos at Entebbe airport.
10. Personal supremacy is the authority of the state over its nationals abroad.
11. J.G. Starke, Introduction to International Law 94 (6th ed.» 1967).

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

92 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 23 : 1

independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with

the purposes of the United Nations.12

It does not follow that independence and territorial as well as personal

supremacy are rights of the states as such. Nevertheless they are recognized
by other states and, therefore, are protected qualities of the states as
international persons. The protection granted to these qualities by the
law of nations finds its expression in the right of every state to demand
that other states themselves abstain and prevent their agents and subjects
from committing any act which constitutes a violation of its independence
or its territorial or personal supremacy.13
The duty of every state itself to abstain, and to prevent its agents and
in certain cases its subjects from committing any act which constitutes
a violation of another state's independence or territorial or personal
supremacy is correlative to the corresponding right possessed by other
states. In the absence of treaty provisions a state is not allowed to send
its troops, its men of war, or its police force into or through foreign
territory or to exercise an act of administration or jurisdiction on a
foreign territory without the permission or authorization of the sovereign
power in that other territory.
There are two Latin maxims in international law that have formed the
corner-stone of the world order—Pacta sunt servanda^ and Clausula rebus
sic stantibus.15 When things are not normal, when, there in an unbargained
for situation, the duty incumbent on the states not to violate with impunity
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states will have to be
adapted in order to contain the new situation. In the words of former
President Jimmy Carter, "the world must be taken as it really is."16

12. The first and last parts of the preamble to the U. N. Charter say that :
We the Peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has
brought untold sorrow to mankind . . . have agreed to the present
Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international
organization to be known as the United Nations.
One of the purposes of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and
security to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal
of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches
of the peace, and to bring about principles of justice and international disputes or
situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.
13. In the Caroline case of 1837 (See infra p. 97 the United States government
complained about the violation of her territorial sovereignty by Britain.
14. Meaning that treaties or conventions must be honoured. See George
Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law 640 (5th ed., 1967).
15. The "doctrine that a treaty is intended by the parties to be binding only as
long as there is no vital change in the circumstances which, at the time of the con-
clusion of the treaty all the parties had assumed." (Id. at 628).
16. His address to the Congress of the United States in January 1980.

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

 1981] IMPACT Ot TERRORISM AND HIJACKING ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY 93

The U.N. Charter had the real world in focus when it succinctly
provides that :
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations. . . ,17

It is submitted that an armed attack alluded to in the charter can take

different forms. It can be positive, direct and frontal. It can also be
subtle, indirect and constructive within the modus operandi of terrorism
and hijacking of aeroplanes in mid-air.
Terrorism
International terrorism has its genesis in political confrontations that
may not lend themselves easily to legal regulations. They are more of a
symbolic protest against the status quo both domestically and interna-
tionally than of a serious attempt to overthrow the existing legal or
political order.
Even though terrorists' antics have beclouded life in the second half
of the twentieth century it can more easily be understood in the context
of the Arab-Israeli confrontations in the Middle East.
If an examination of the proceedings of the U.N. General Assembly
and the Security Council is carried out, we can easily discern the subtlety
in which the government policies affect attitudes towards international
terrorism.
The governments that are opposed to Israel will accuse her of originat-
ing an instrument of terror against the Palestinians,18 who are, therefore,
said to be acting in self-defence.
The Palestinians' struggle on the other hand is presented as one of
national liberation and anti-colonialism by their sympathizers and all
efforts directed at such ends arc held to be permissible. In so far as
something has to be done to deal with their activities, they argued,
measuies should be directed towards resolving the problem of their self-
determination and homeland, rather than towards suppressing the symp-
toms of an underlying malady.19
Israel and a number of other countries argue that actions of a violent
and indiscriminate nature cannot be tolerated whatever their purpose and
that the states must accept responsibility for the activities of terrorism on
their soil.

17. See art. 51.

18. E.g. The incessant pre-emptive bombings by Israel of alleged Palestinian
army bases in Lebanon,
19. See W.H. Smith, International Terrorism - A Political Analysis, 1977 Year
Book of World Affairs 138 at 154.

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

94 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 23 : 1

Universal principles of jurisdiction under international law

An offence that is subject to universal jurisdiction is one which comes

under the jurisdiction of all the states wherever it is committed. In as
much as by general admission the offence is detrimental to the interest of
the international community, it is treated as a delict jure gentium and all
the states are entitled to apprehend and punish the offenders.20
7 he purpose of conceding universal jurisdiction is to ensure that no
such offence goes unpunished. There are probably only three clear-cut
cases for which there can be universal jurisdiction, namely the crime of
piracy jure gentium, war crimes, and the crime of genocide. All the
states are free to arrest pirates on the high seas and to punish them
irrespective of nationality and the place of commission of the crime.31
In the Eichman case the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as a Court
of Appeal relied in part upon the principle of universal jurisdiction in
upholding the conviction of Eichman by a court in Israel. He was a Nazi
German war criminal alleged to have committed crimes against humanity.
The court overruled objections that Eichman's actions occurred in Europe
during the second world war before the State of Israel was actually
established, and that his offences were committed against people who were
not citizens of that state.

Piracy jure gentium

In its jurisdictional aspect the offence of piracy jure gentium is quite
unique. A pirate is subject to arrest, trial and punishment by all
the states because he is considered to be an enemy of mankind hostis
human! generis. The ship or aircraft involved is similarly subject to seizure
by all the states. By his conduct the pirate is deemed to have lost the pro-
tection of his flag state and any privileges due to him by virtue of his
nationality.
According to article 15 of the Convention on the High Seas of April
29, 1958, piracy consists of any illegal acts of violence, detention or any
depredation committed for private ends by those aboard a private ship
and directed either on the high seas against a ship or persons or property
thereon or in territory or waters of the nature of terra nutlius.22 It also
includes acts of an accessory nature to the main offence, Le. accessory
after and before the act. Hijacking of aircraft and piracy in the high seas
are not much different from each other.

20. SeeOppenheim 1 International Law—A Treatise 608 (Vlllthed, 1955).

21. See U,N. Secretariat, Historical Survey of the Question of International Criminal
Jurisdiction t (1949). See also B.A. Wortley, PirataNon Mutat Dominium, XXIV British
Year Book of International Law 258 (1947).
22. i.e. not under the jurisdiction of any state.

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

1981] IMPACT OF TERRORISM AND HIJACKING ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY95

It was held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case
of In re Piracy Jure Gentium2* that actual robbery was not an essential
element of the crime of piracy and that a frustrated attempt to commit a
robbery on the high seas (and why not also in the air-space) could be
considered piracy. It follows from this now extended meaning of piracy
that the offence may be prompted by motives other than gain.24 Moreover
the instrument of the offence may be an aircraft as well as a ship.
ft can be adumbrated that the universal crime of piracy jure gentium is
in the same class with terrorists' hijacking of aircraft in the air and of
holding the passengers therein hostages.

Hijacking of aircraft in mid-air

The spread of aircraft hijacking in the 1960s led to three international
conventions.
(a) The Tokyo Convention of 196325 (effective in 1969) required restora-
tion of hijacked aircraft to its owners but left punishment of the crime
and its definition to the domestic law of the signatories.26
(b) The Hague Convention of 197027 (effective in 1971) provided for
the extradition or prosecution of hijackers.28
(c) The Montreal Convention of 197129 (effective in 1972) prohibited
the granting of sanctuary to any person guilty of sabotage against an
aircraft whether on a domestic or international flight.30

23. [1934] A.C. 586.

24. See Starke, supra note 11 at 250.
25. See 58 A.J.I.L. 566(1961).
26. The signatories are the following states: Congo (Brazzaville), Federal Republic
of Germany, Guatemala, Holy See, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Panamas,
Philippines, Republic of China, Republic of Upper Volta, Sweden, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and Yugoslavia.
27. Convention for the Suppresion of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, See 65
AJ.LL. 440 (1971).
28. Signed by the following states: Afghanistan, Argentina, Barbados, Belgium,
Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Canada, China,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark* El-Salvador, Ethiopia, France,
Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonessia, Iran, Israel,
Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Panamas,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand,
Trinidad, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United *
States, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Finland, Lagos & Niger.
29. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil
Aviation, see 65 AJ.LL. 455 (1972).
30. The signatories are the following states : Argentina, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chad, Republic of China,
Congo (Brazzaville), Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Gabon, Federal Republic of
Germany, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Mongolia,
Netherlands, Panamas, Phillippines, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Switzer-
land, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukrainian Soviet Sociaist Republic, Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

96 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 23 : 1

Customary rules of international law

A rule of international law can evolve through the practice of the states,
in the absence of treaties, resolutions or conventions. There must however
be a recurrence or repetition of the acts which give birth to the customary
rule. For conduct to be creative of customary law it must be regular
and repeated in a similar situation. In the Asylum case31 the International
Court of Justice stiessed the necessity for constancy and uniformity of
usages or practices before they can be recognized as custom. As J.C.
Starke observed:

Recurrence of the usage or practice tends to develop an expecta-

tion that, in similar future situations, the same conduct or the
abstention therefrom will be repeated. When this expectation evolves
further into a general acknowledgement by States that the conduct
or the abstention thereform is a matter both of legal right and of
legal obligation, the transition from usage to custom may be
regarded as consummated. In this process there is involved, to some
extent, an element of acquiescence on the part of States generally.32

However, John Fischer Williams has countered the above stated Mages
of the evolvement of international law by saying that [t]he Rubicon which
divides custom from law is crossed, at times, silently, unconsciously and
without proclamation.33
It should follow as a matter of course that the self-defence authoriza-
tion granted to the states under attack (frontal or constructive) by article
51 of the charter can be merged with article 15 of the 1958 Convention
on the High Seas, together with the Tokyo, Hague and the Montreal
Conventions of 1963, 1970, and 1971, respectively, to permit the use of
self-help or self-defence by countries whose nationals fall victims to
international terrorism and hijacking.
Self-preservation as practised by the states

The Danish fleet problem of 1807

The Peace of Tilsit agreement was concluded in 1807. Thereafter the

British government became aware of a secret article in the treaty, Under
it Denmark should in certain circumstances be coerced into declaring
war against Great Britain, and France should be enabled to seize the
Danish fleet so as to make use of it againt Great Britain. This plan would

31. (1950) I.C.J. Reports 266 at 276-277.

32. Supra note 11 at 36-37,
33. See John Fischer Williams, Some Aspects of International Law 44 (1939).

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

1981] IMPACT OF TERRORISM AND HIJACKING ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY97

have jeopardised the interest of Great Britain, if carried out because of

the war then going on between Great Britain and France. Denmark was not
capable of defending herself against an attack of the French army in North
Germany under Bernadotte and Davoust, who had orders to invade
Denmark. The British government requested Denmark to deliver up her
fleet to the custody of Great Britain and promised to restore it after the
war. At the same time the means of defence against French invasion,
and a guarantee of her whole possessions were offered to Denmark by
Britan. Denmark, however, refused to comply with the British demands,
whereupon Britain considered that a case of necessity for self-defence had
arisen, shelled Copenhagen and seized the Danish fleet.34

The Amelia case of J 817

This is another example in the history of the application of the doctrine

of self-preservation. Amelia Island, at the mouth of St. Mary's river and
at that time in Spanish territory was seized in 1817 by a band of buccaneers
under the direction of an adventurer named McGregor, who in the name
of the insurgent colonies of Buenos Aires and Venezuela preyed indiscri-
minately on the commerce of Spain and the United States. The Spanish
government from all indications was not willing to drive them off, and
since the matter required immediate action, President Monroe of the
United States sent a naval vessel to the island and expelled the marauders
after destroying their equipments and vessels.35

The Caroline case of 1837

During the Canadian rebellion in 1837 several hundreds of insurgents

got hold of Navy Island on the Canadian side of the River Niagara and
chartered a vessel, the Caroline, to carry supplies from the Port of
Schlosser, on the American side of the Navy Island, and from there to the
insurgents on the mainland of Canada. 1 he Canadian government was
informed of the imminent danger on December 29, 1837. It sent across
the Niagara, to the Port of Schlosser, a British force which obtained
possession of the Caroline, seized her arms, set her on fire and then sent
her adrift down the falls of Niagara.
During the attack on the Caroline two Americans were killed and
several others wounded. The United States complained of this British
violation of her territorial supremacy : but Great Britain asserted that her
act was necessary in self-preservation since sufficient lime was not avail-
able to prevent the imminent invasion of her territory through application
to the United States government. The latter admitted that the act of

34. See Carl. J. Kulsrud, The Seizure of the Danish Fleet, 1807, 32 AJJL.
280-311(1938).
35. See Oppenbeim, supra note 20 at 300,

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

98 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 23 : 1

Great Britain would have been justified if there had really been a neces-
sity in self-defence, but denied that, in fact, such necessity existed at that
time. Great Britain, however, apologised for the violation of American
territorial supremacy, and the United States government did not insist
upon further reparation.
Daniel Webster, the then American Secretary of State, in the Caroline
case formulated the conditions for the exercise of the right of self-defence36
under international law, and these have been accepted by the world
community. They are :

[T]here must be shown a necessity for self defence, instant, over-

whelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for delibera-
tion: the action taken must involve nothing unreasonable or
excessive, since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence must
be limited by that necessity and kept clearly within it.
The West German operation in Somalia of 1977

The chain of events that emerged in Entebbe airport on those early hours
of the morning of July 3, 1976 have reverberated to other parts of the
world.
In the afternoon of October 13, 1977 Lufthansa air control in
Frankfurt sent a message to all air-planes in the mediterranean area to the
effect that they should keep it posted with every piece of information
that they could collect. There were no doubts about the factors respon-
sible for that terse message. A Lufthansa jet had been hijacked.37
What happened was that at exactly 2 p.m., Flight 181's captain,
Jurgen Schumann, first reported that his aeroplane had been commandeered
by terrorists over the French Riviera.
The hijacking immediately assumed an international crisis posture.
Many world leaders called on Schmidt, the West German Chancellor to
offer their support and sympathy. Prominent among them was British
Prime Minister James Callaghan, who provided the West Germans with,
(1) Special, highly sensitive listening devices for locating the terrorists
within the plane; and
(2) a supply of British ''stun grenades" which explode without scattering
metal fragments, but can immobilize an enemy for about six seconds
with their sound and flash.

36. Although Daniel Webster referred only to self-defence, and some writers sepa-
rate self-defence from self-help and self-preservation, it is submitted that the conditions
necessary for the valid exercise of the right of self-defence are applicable to the
exercise of the right of self-help and self-preservation.
37, See Time Magazine of October 31, 1967, p. 13,

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

1981] IMPACT OF TERRORISM AND HIJACKING ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY99

The hijacked aeroplane was forced to fly from Dubai to Mogadishu,

the capital of Somalia.38 The West German Chancellor talked on
telepone with Somalia's President, Siad Barre who finally agreed to
permit a rescue operation within his jurisdiction. Perhaps it is pertinent
to note here that in the case of the terrorists' hijacking of the Air France
aeroplane carrying Israeli nationals to Entebbe airport the irrepressible
President Idi Amin was more of an accomplice. His role can be contrast-
ed with that of President Siad Barre of Somalia in the case of the
Lufthansa scenario who willingly cooperated with the German government
in the successful outcome of the rescue effort.
During the period of the discussion between the two leaders the behavi-
our of the terrorists became increasingly erratic and menacing as the
deadline they had earlier set for the massacre of the hostages approached.
They became a little bit mollified when they were told by a West
German diplomat in the control tower that Bonn would release eleven
prisoners and fly them to Mogadishu. Mahmud, the terrorist leader
consulted with his committee and agreed to put off the deadline once
more, this time until 2.30 a.m. on Tuesday. He told the passengers that
since it would take some time to fly from Germany, he would allow
another seven hours. He however prophetically advised the diplomat
speaking from the tower not to play any tricks as a replica of the Entebbe
drama would not be allowed to happen. Unfortunately for him it proved
to be a re-enactment of Entebbe.
Forty minutes before the final deadline, the rescue operation began.
Three of the terrorists were killed outright, while the fourth, a woman,
was badly wounded. On the rescue operation side, one commando, one
stewardess and four passengers were slightly injured.
The United States rescue attempt in Iran in 1980
Recently the United States made a futile attempt to rescue her nationals
held hostage in Iran by militants who enjoyed the active support of the Iranian
government. The helicopters used in the attempt landedat "Airfieldone",
so designated by the American planners, without the prior approval of the
Iranian government. Under normal circumstances such a landing would
have been castigated as a violation of the territorial integrity and soverei-
gnty of Iran. But under the circumstances that necessitated the rescue
attempt no international law theorists ever suggested that the United States
had violated any rule of international law. What the world lamented was
the doubt in the hitherto assumed perfection in American technology and
yet could not prevent a mechanical fault in the helicopters used in such a
vital operation that involved the dignity and self-respect of Americans.

38. Somalia is a country in the horn of Africa.

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

100 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE (Vol. 23 : 1

The raid on Entetbbe airport

It was mentioned earlier,39 that in the Caroline case of 1837, the
conditions for the exercise of the right of self-defence were spelt out and
those conditions should be applicable in the case of self-preservation or
self-help.
The questions then could be asked as to whether those conditions were
fulfilled before Israel exercised her right of self-help in rescuing her
nationals from the clutches of the terrorists ? Could there have been a
necessity for the exercise 7 Was it instant, overwhelming, leaving no
choice of means, and no moment for deliberations 7 It is submitted that
the conditions were fulfilled.
The hijackers had given a deadline for the general massacre of the
hostages. The deadline was almost running out when Israel struck. There
were no alternatives, other than to hope on the magnanimity
of the terrorists for the release and safety of the hostages. To have
allowed the annihilation of nearly one hunded innocent citizens
in cold blood on the altar of territorial integrity and sovereignty would
have burdened the human conscience with shame. Hijacking like
piracy is an offence against the law of nations, hostis humani generis, the
enemy of the human race, an international nuisance, and all nations are
bound by international obligations to suppress it. Under article 15 of
the Geneva Convention of 1958 the crime of piracy like hijacking
includes acts of an accessory nature to the main offence. This involves
either inciting a group or persons to commit the act, or harbouring them
after the offence. The Government of Uganda became guilty of the offence
of piracy by harbouring the hijackers rather than dealing with them as
international criminals. By becoming an accessory to the criminal act,
it compromised its territorial integrity and sovereignty, rights recognized
under international law with their correlative duties and obligations.
Uganda should have assisted the world in restoring international decency.
'I his she failed to do and instead converted the safety of human lives and
the respect for international law into a sort of animated circus show at
Entebbe airport.
It is true that Israel would not have exercised her right of self-help in
rescuing her nationals if Uganda were a powerful nation that could repel
force with force. After all did a similar incident not happen during the
1974 Olympic games in West Germany, when Israel sportsmen fell into
the hands of the Palestinians ? What was Israel's response then ?
We should not, however, overlook the fact that neither the Security
Council of the United Nations nor the General Assembly, the two
organs of the world forum dominated by Arab and third world

39. See supra p. 96,

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute

1981] IMPACT OF TERRORISM AND HIJACKING ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY 101

countries that usually take positions opposed to Israel could muster

sufficient support for the condemnation of the Israeli action. If that fact
is combined with the West Germany raid at Mogadishu in Somalia, and
the most recent American abortive attempt to rescue her nationals in Iran,
it is fair to adumbrate that the impact of international terrorism has
modified to some extent the sanctity of state territorial integrity and
sovereignty as hitherto recognized under international law. If self-help,
or self-preservation as an exception to the duty incumbent on the states
not to violate one another's independence is still in the twi-light zone of
a true rule of international law it will soon acquire, from the practice of the
states, the imprimatur of the world community, if it has not already done
so.

www.ili.ac.in © The Indian Law Institute