Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

AIR AND SPACE LAW

A IRCRAFT H IJACKING UNDER I NTERNATIONAL L AW

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Manoj Kumar Mohd Ashad
Assistant Prof. (Law) Roll Number – 94

Enrollment No.-190101094

10th Semester

Page | 1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have made my project under the supervision of Dr. Manoj Kumar, Faculty Lecturer,
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University. I find no words to express my
sense of gratitude for a mam for providing the necessary guidance at every step during
the completion of this project.
I am also grateful to the office, librarian and library staff of RMLNLU, Lucknow for
allowing me to use their library whenever I needed to. Further I am grateful to my
learned teachers for their academic patronage and persistent encouragement extended to
me. I am once again highly indebted to the office and Library Staff of RMLNLU for the
support and cooperation extended by them from time to time. I cannot conclude with
recording my thanks to my friends for the assistance received from them in the
preparation of this project.

Page | 2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................................ 3
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 TERRORISTS AND INTERNATIONAL LINKS.......................................................................................... 6
2. HIJACKING............................................................................................................................................................. 6
3. PROTOCOLS AND CONVENTIONS................................................................................................................ 10
3.1 THE GENEVA CONVENTION ON THE HIGH SEAS (1958):.............................10
3.2 THE TOKYO CONVENTION (1963):.....................................................................12
3.2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF TOKYO CONVENTION, 1963............................................15
3.3 THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON HIJACKING (1970): AND ITS PROTOCOL
(2010):............................................................................................................................ 17
4. JURISDICTION OVER HIJACKING................................................................................................................. 18
5. SOME CASES OR INCIDENTS OF HIJACKINGS.....................................................35
6. AIRCRAFT HIJACKING AND INDIA:........................................................................40
7. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................... 41

Page | 3
 1. INTRODUCTION

According to the Chinese philosophy terrorism is defined as "kill one", "frighten ten
thousand", the aim is to kill, wound or threaten a small number of individuals, in order
to intimidate a whole community, and even a nation, the purpose behind the killing is,
strike far and wide so that no one dares to face or in- form against the terrorism. This
aim is common to all the terrorists from local dada to a mafia boss to command from
local, regional, national and international levels. "Terrorism is the deliberate and
systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political
ends"1 or to say terrorism is a form of political violence, with a wilful and calculated
choice of innocents as its target.2

Terrorism has its deep roots in the history of nations. One can find the incidents of
terrorism in the ancient, medieval, and modern history of the nations. The governments
of the nations have used terrorism against the individuals, social, political or religious
groups of their nationals and also against the other states. As within the state “it is
presumed that the normal law of any society is able to maintain order in that society....
(Thus any) threat to society posed by some acts is enough to justify the kind of
enforcement activity that would be necessary to suppress that threat.” 3 Commenting on
the terrorism Jenkins said, "Terrorism is compounded by the fact that terrorism has
recently become a bad word used promiscuously and often applied to a variety of acts
of violence which are not strictly terrorism by definition. It is generally pejorative.
Some governments are prone to label as terrorism, all violent acts committed by their
political opponents; while anti-government extremists frequently claim to be the
victims of government terror, what is called terrorism thus seems to depend on point of
view, use of the term implies a moral judgement, and if any party can successfully
attach the label terrorism to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to
adopt its moral view

1
Oxford dictionary 216 (1933)
2
international conventions on aerial hijacking: an approach to combat terrorism, r. S. Rajput, the indian
journal of political science, vol. 51, no. 1 (jan. - march 1990), pp. 98-125,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855472 3 rubin, a. 'International terrorism and international law;' in
terrorism interdisciplinary perspective, p. 121-123.
Page | 4
point. Terrorism is what the bad guys do, Morgenthau observed. 34 Terrorism presents
established governments with a number of problems unprecedented in modern history.
Traditionally, governments have possessed a monopoly of organised physical violence
which they would use against other governments mono- politically endowed in a
similar war or against individual citizens violating the legal order. It is now in modern
history that a group of citizens would band together challenging the monopoly of
5
organised violence in the hands of the government. Alfred P. Rubin argues that
government naturally shoulder the greatest responsibility for preventing and
suppressing terrorism because "The act of terrorism constitutes a Common Crime under
the municipal law of the territory (or of the flag state of the aircraft vessel) where it
occurs.4

3
jenkins, b. International terriorism: a new mode of conflict f crescent publishers, los angles, 1975, p.
4
. 5 morganthau, hans: forward to terriorism, interdiscipli- nary perspective p.
Vii. 4 robin op. Cit . P. 121.

Page | 5
5
wilkinson, paul, political terriorism , halsted press, new- york, 1975, p. 310.

Page | 6
2. HIJACKING
Transportation systems have historically attracted terrorist attacks. As such, the
international community has come to terms with the vulnerability of modern aviation,
taking sustained steps towards the protection of aviation. The earliest form of terrorism
against international transportation was piracy. Pirates are considered by international
law as common enemies of all mankind. The international world has an interest in the
punishment of offenders and is justified in adopting international measures for the
application of universal rules regarding the control of terrorism. As we see that Piracy
in the high sea has been a very old phenomenon; but the piracy in the air has its origin
in the post second world war era. Aircraft hijacking is very much a crime of our time. 6
Whether, hijacking is an act of terror or not depends upon whether the intent of the
hijacker is to escape from one country to another or to create terror as an ancillary
affect, for example, the holding of certain persons as hostages in order to secure the
release either of hijacker or of other terrorist, or to get a reward in the form of ransom.78
The harbinger of modern day aircraft seizure was seen first on February 21, 1931, when
a
Pan-Am Fokker F7 aircraft carrying mail was hijacked. The plane, while on the ground
in Peru, was seized by armed Peruvian revolutionaries. They wanted to be taken to
Lima so that they could drop their propaganda leaflets over it. The pilot refused and the
deadlock in their negotiation lasted for ten days, after which the hijackers released the
plane declaring that their revolution was a success.9 Another one was seen on May 1,
1961, when an armed Cuban exile named Elphi Crosisi, who reportedly considered
himself to be the reincarnation of a Spanish Main pirate by the name of Cofrisi, entered
the cockpit of a United States National Airlines aircraft on a flight from Marathon to
Key West, Florida, and forced the pilot to fly to Cuba12 and thus began what was to
become a decade of concern, both domestically for the United States and eventually for
the entire world, with the phenomenon of "aircraft hijacking" or, as it was more
dramatically called

6
The law and Aircraft hijacking, Alona E. Evans
7
freedman, lawrence zelic: terrorism , problems of the polistaraxie, the university of chicago magazine,
vol.
8
j no. 6 summer 1974, p. 7.
9
see also, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-07-01/open-
space/27806673_1_hijackeraircraft-
Page | 7
in the earlier years of the decade, "aircraft piracy" as he flew into what was in many
ways a legal vacuum. Certainly there was no recognized international law to deal with
hijacking. There was not even an internationally agreed-upon solution to the jurisdiction
problem in the wider area of crime aboard aircraft, although there were many theories
from which to choose -the history of attempted definitions of jurisdiction over airborne
crime even predates powered flight by a year.1314 During that decade there had been
over 200 attempts of aircraft hijacking.15
One of the most serious by-products of the jet age has been the unlawful seizure of, or
interference with aircraft engaged in commercial air transport. During the past few
years there have been many examples of hijacking for extortion, hijacking for a joyride,
hijacking for the achievement of political ends, and hijacking purely as a terrorist
activity. Fortunately, many attempts have been thwarted, and in the cases of successful
hijacking, most have resulted in little more than discomfort and inconvenience for the
passengers, and considerable expense for the airlines involved. However, in several
tragic instances, hijacking has ended in the death of innocent persons and the
destruction of aircraft worth many millions of dollars. While the internal laws of many
nations provide punitive sanctions that guarantee swift and sure punishment to the
offenders, the same cannot be said with regard to the international scene. The purpose
of this paper is to look at the international agreements and extradition laws which are
directly concerned with the hijacking problem, to determine their effectiveness as
preventive and punitive measures.19

12 n.y. times, may 2, 1961, at 1, col. 6.

13 fauchille, rvgime juridique des aerostats, annuaire de l'institut de droit international 19 (igo2).
14 the developing law of air hijacking, gary n. Horlick
15 according to the statistics maintained by the faa’s office of air transportation security. For the period
may 1, 1961 through december 29, 1970, there had been 100 hijacking attempts involving u.s.
aircraft
-77 successful and 23 unsuccessful. 19 different u.s. carriers have been involved and hijackers
have boarded air carriers in 44 different cities. 19 A search for an international solution to the
problem of aircraft hijacking, R. J. Mcgrane

Page | 8
Skyjacking incidents increased after Second World War. In a sense skyjacking is
waging a war against another country with fewer weapons. Most of the weapons used
by these hijackers are made in Soviet Russia, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Syria, and East
Germany. There are six types of hijacking:
1. The Jesse James type who commit crime for money.
2. The criminals who just want to get to a particular place.
3. The bluff-artist, who claims (falsely) that his toy gun is a real one, or that he has
placed a bomb in the plane, a sort of relatively harmless cousin to Jesse James’s.
4. The Lunatic
5. The political fanatic, and
6. The Angel of death-dedicated to killing and to being killed who come
somewhere between the lunatic and the fanatic.10

Although the initial instance of aircraft seizure occurred in Peru in the year 1930, 16
Rajinsky noted that "first real rash of this disease breaks out in four years 1947 to 1950
during which there were 14 attempts, all in the Eastern Hemisphere. Out of these 14
crimes, 7 were committed in Europe in the year 1948. Nothing happened 11 in 1951, and
only two in the years 1952 and 1953, both of which were also in the Eastern
Hemisphere.22 By the early 1960's the number of aircraft seizure attempts rose in both
the Eastern and Western Hemispheres, while the legal situation of hijacking of aircraft
did not become a genuine threat to world peace until 1970, by the time hijacking
problems have assumed proportions sufficiently significant to engage the attention of
the entire world community, the leading aviation states had already initiated action in
International Civil Aviation organisation.

A specialized agency of the United Nations, the International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO) was created in 1944 to promote the safe and orderly development
of international civil aviation throughout the world. It sets standards and regulations
necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity, as well as for aviation
environmental

10
glyňe, peter, an anatomy of skyjacking, abelard schu- men, london, 1973, p. 193.
11
international conventions on aerial hijacking: an approach to combat terrorism, r. S. Rajput, the Indian
journal of political science, vol. 51, no. 1 (jan. - march 1990), pp. 98-125,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855472 22 Rajinsky, m. A. Secretary-general of the igao at an airport
security seminar in London November 29-30, 1971 on hijacking p. 1.
Page | 9
protection. The Organization serves as the forum for cooperation in all fields of civil
aviation among its 191 Member States.12
The hazards to aviation safety posed by this activity were summarized by the Acting
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration [hereinafter FAA] in testimony
before the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. He pointed out that:

“Hijacking has involved physical danger to the passengers and the crew. Passengers
have been held as hostages or intimidated and crewmembers have been subjected to
minor assaults. It is obvious that should a bomb or other form of explosive discharge
aboard an aircraft that the aircraft could be lost. Gunplay aboard could involve injury or
death among the crew or passengers. As to the possible effects of bullets penetrating the
aircraft fuselage, there is little danger of catastrophic effects regarding cabin
pressurization; however, there is danger that critical aircraft parts could be hit and
rendered inoperable (hydraulic or electrical systems, radios, or fuel tanks). There is
always the danger that the hijacker could insist on diverting the flight to a destination
beyond the range of the aircraft's fuel supply. This could result in a ditching, a crash
landing, or an emergency landing at an airport without the required runway length for
the aircraft involved. The aircraft could be diverted to an airport at which bad weather
and a lack of navigational aids would make an approach and landing unsafe. The
hijacker could divert the aircraft to an unfriendly or hostile country where the
passengers would be subject to imprisonment. The action of the hijacker in exploding a
bomb or firing a gun or the general commotion caused by the seizure could cause a fire
on board the aircraft with resulting injuries, death, or accident. The act of seizing the
aircraft by the hijacker might cause certain passengers to react in an imprudent manner
resulting in injuries to themselves or other passengers on the aircraft.”13

Hijacking has repeatedly been condemned by international organisations. The United

Nations has on several occasions called on member countries to draw up arrangements

12
see also, http://www.ICAO.int/about-ICAO/pages/default.aspx
13
house colm. On interstate and foreign commerce, preliminary riep., a r r piracy, h.r. rei. No. 91-33, 91st
cong.,
ist sess. 3 (1969). 25 2in september of 1970, the security council passed a resolution condemning air
hijacking. See security council resolution and united nations letter to ICAO in united states department of
state bulletin 63: 341-343 (1970)

Page | 10
that will deal with the menace effectively. 25 The international civil aviation organisation
at its seven tenth assembly session held in Montreal, June 16-30, 1970, noted that the
unlawful seizure of civil aircraft posed a grave menace to the safe operation of
international civil air services and undermines the confidence of the peoples of the
world in the safety of
international civil aviation.1415

The recent aircraft hijacking that shook the entire world was on 29 June 2012: an
attempt was made to hijack Tianjin Airlines Flight GS7554 from Hotan to Ürümqi. Six
people tried to hijack the aircraft 10 minutes after take-off. There were 6 police officers
on board. Four were in plain clothes, taking the plane for a business trip. The hijackers
used aluminium canes with sharpened tips to attack the members of the crew. The
police officers and civilians on board subdued the hijackers, all of whom were of
Uyghur ethnicity. The plot was foiled and the plane returned to Hotan in 22 minutes
after takeoff.16 There was also the major one that shook the entire world and that was
2001, September 11: American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175,
American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight
93, were hijacked on the morning of September 11 by Al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists.
Flight
11 and 175 were deliberately crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center,
Flight 77 was crashed into the Pentagon and Flight 93 crashed into a field in
Pennsylvania after hijackers crashed the plane due to a revolt by passengers. Both
towers of The World Trade Center collapsed; in total 2,996 people, including the 19
hijackers, were killed and over 6000 people were injured. The attacks led to the War on
Terror.17

The frequency of hijacking events continues to underline the need to develop effective
international arrangements binding on each and every state to deal with the problem of
air piracy. The purpose of this paper is to examine the existing state of the law
governing

15
see ICAO resolution adopted by the assembly - seventeenth session 16-30 June 1970 (extraord) prelim
ed July 1970.
Page | 11
16
"plane hijacking fouled in west". Foxnews.com. June 29, 2012. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
17
see also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_aircraft_hijackings#cite_ref-87.

Page | 12
the unlawful seizure of aircraft and to indicate the extent to which acceptable legal
solutions may be found.

Page | 13
 3. PROTOCOLS AND CONVENTIONS

LORD WILBERFORCE once said that "there are very few subjects connected with the
law of the air on which lawyers have written so much or which they have discussed so
often at International Conferences as Crimes on Aircraft."18 This statement cannot be
more true today vis-à-vis the subject of hijacking of aircraft. Till date there have been
the following conventions which we will be discussing about and they are as follows:
1. The Geneva convention on the high seas (1958),
2. The Tokyo Convention(1963),
3. The Hague Convention (1970): and its Protocol (2010),
4. The Montreal Convention (1971),
5. The Bonn Declaration (1978),
6. Protocol to Montreal Convention (1988),
7. Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection
(1991) and
8. Convention on Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil
Aviation (2010)
Now we would be discussing about the above conventions.

3.2 THE TOKYO CONVENTION (1963):

Shocked by the rising trend of aircraft hijacking in the early 1960s and the failure of the
Geneva Convention on the High Seas to offer rules applicable to the offense of
hijacking, the international community considered adopting the Tokyo Convention of
1963, which was adopted under the aegis of the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO). This Convention attempted to provide certain rules that would
address the offense of hijacking.19

By the early 1960's the number of aircraft seizure attempts rose in both the Eastern and
Western Hemispheres, while the legal situation of hijacking of aircraft did not become a

18
See Sir Richard Wilberforce (as he then was), “Crime in Aircraft "' (1963) 67 Journal of the Royal
Aeronautical Society (hereinafter referred to as Jnl.Ryl.Aero. Soc.) 175.
19
Supra.

Page | 14
genuine threat to world peace until 1970, by the time hijacking problems have assumed
proportions sufficiently significant to engage the attention of the entire world
community, the leading aviation states had already initiated action in International Civil
Aviation organisation.20

International civil Aviation Organisation a specialized agency of United Nations since

1947 is comprised of 122 States, including Cuba, and all States of which aircrafts have
been closely associated itself with all the significant organisations of air travel. This
I.C.A.O. in the year 1952 under its Legal Sub-Committee began a study to survey
various responsibilities of the aircraft commander vis’-a-vis’ jurisdictional problems of
crimes committed aboard aircraft. Its efforts eventually led to a full scale inquiry into
the problems, culminating into the Tokyo convention of 1963. The Convention
represented a fresh international legal approach to cope with aircraft seizures by
segregating the legal niceties of 'air piracy' in contrast to the implications stemming
from traditional 'Sea piracy'.21

In March-April 1962 a meeting of the ICAO Legal Sub- committee at Montreal,

focused on rationalization of various State claims to prescriptive jurisdiction over
airborne crimes. The problem was manifest in the creation of an international law
dealing with the aircraft seizures - a law which would clearly define state jurisdiction
over those who commit the crime. Jurisdiction remained the core of the hijacking
problem for international law.22

In 1950, the Legal Committee of ICAO, upon a proposal from the Mexican
Representative on the ICAO Council for the study of the legal status of airports,
referred the subject to the ad hoc Sub-Committee established by the Legal Committee. 43
After a survey had been made of all the problems relating to the legal status of
aircraft, it was

20
Association International Conventions On Aerial Hijacking: An Approach To Combat Terrorism, R. S.
Rajput
21
Seeking A Definition For Piracy In The Air, Ita Bulletin Vol. 13 March 30, 1970 Pp.
32124.
22
Documents Of The Legal Committee: Fourteenth Session Igao Doc. 8302, Lg/ 150 2 At 71 (1963).
43
See Robert P. Boyle & Roy Palsifer, The Tokyo Convention On Offenses And Certain Other Acts
Committed On Board Aircraft, 30 J. Air L. & Comm. 305 (1964) [Hereinafter Tokyo Convention].
Page | 15
decided by the Committee that the best course would be to confine the work to a
detailed examination of some particularly important matters, namely crimes and
offenses committed on board aircraft, jurisdiction relating to such crimes and the
23
resolution of jurisdictional conflicts. The SubCommittee thought that resolving these
problems was of vital importance for the following reasons:
1. One characteristic of aviation is that aircraft fly over the high seas or overseas
having no territorial sovereign. While national laws of some States confer
jurisdiction on their courts to try offenses committed on aircraft during such
flights, this was not the case in others, and there was no internationally agreed
system which would coordinate the exercise of national jurisdiction in such
cases. Further, with (the) high speed of modem aircraft, the great altitudes at
which they fly, meteorological conditions, and, the fact that several States may
be over flown by aircraft within a small space of time, there could be occasions
when it would be impossible to establish the territory in which the aircraft was at
the time a crime was committed on board. There was, therefore, the possibility
that in such a case, and in the absence of an internationally recognized system
with regard to exercise of national jurisdiction, the offender may go unpunished;
2. National jurisdictions with respect to criminal acts are based on criteria which
are not uniform; for example, on the nationality of the offender, the nationality
of the victim, on the locality where the offense was committed, or on the
nationality of the aircraft on which the crime occurred. Thus, several States may
claim jurisdiction over the same offense committed on board aircraft, in certain
cases. Such conflict of jurisdictions could be avoided only by international
agreement;[and]
3. The possibility that the same offense may be triable in different States might
result in the offender being punished more than once for the same offense. This
undesirable possibility could be avoided by a suitable provision in the
Convention.24

After sustained deliberation and contradiction, the Sub-Committee on the Legal Status of

23
Transportation Law Journal, [Vol. 24:27]
24
The Report Of The Sub-Committee, Lc/Sc Legal Status, Wd No. 23, October 10, 1956.

Page | 16
Aircraft produced a draft convention which was submitted to the Legal Committee on 9
September 1958.25 The Legal Committee in turn considered the draft convention at its
12th Session held in Munich in 1959,26 undertaking a substantial revision of the draft
The revised text was subsequently submitted to the ICAO Council, which in turn
submitted the draft to Member States and various international organizations for their
comments. A new SubCommittee was formed to examine the Convention of State
organization in 1961, in order to examine and prepare a report. This report was studied
by the Legal Committee in its 14th Session held in Rome in 1962. A final text of a
Convention was drawn up at this meeting and communicated to Member States with a
view towards convening a diplomatic conference in Tokyo with the long-term prospect
of adopting a Convention on aerial rights. This Convention was signed in Tokyo on 14
September 1963 by the representatives of 49 ICAO Member States, and entered into
force after six years, on 4 December 1969.27 This slow process of ratification of the
Convention (5 years) was by no means due to the ineptitude of the Convention, as has
been claimed, but was due to the fact that the Convention was drafted prior to the series
of hijacking in the late sixties and was not implemented with due dispatch by most
States. Another reason for the delayed process was the complicated legal and political
28
issues facing many countries at the time of the adoption of the Convention. A
significant feature of the Tokyo Convention was that although at first States were slow
in acceding to or ratifying the Convention, 80 States ratified the convention within one
year (1969-70), presumably in response to the spate of hijackings that occurred during
that period.29

3.2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF TOKYO CONVENTION, 1963

The purpose of the Tokyo Convention was to promote aviation safety through
establishment of continuity of jurisdiction over criminal acts occurring board aircraft.
Turner had proposed an additional purpose viz "...to define the rights and status of a

25
Ibid
26
Ibid
27
Robert P. Boyle, International Action To Combat Aircraft Hijacking, Lawyers Of The Americas, At 463
[Hereinafter International Combat].
28
See Abraham Abramovsky, Multinational Convention For The Suspension Of Unilateral Seizure
And Interference With Aircraft Part I: The Hague Convention, 13 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 381, 389
(1974). 29 Supra
Page | 17
person detained in a foreign state after commission of offence.”30 Scope of the
convention is covered under Articles 1 and 2, which includes the offences against penal
law, offences committed by the persons on board while the aircraft is in flight. The
hijackers could be tried only for the extraditable offences, which must be listed in the
treaty as a crime under both the laws of the surrendering and receiving states.31

The main purpose of the Tokyo Convention was to secure the collaboration of States in
restraining terrorist activity directed at air transport. It has therefore been said that
"[t]he first action taken by the international community to combat hijacking was the
Tokyo Convention 1963. This Convention was originally designed to solve the problem
of the commission of crimes on board aircraft while in flight where for any number of
reasons the criminal might escape punishment.''32 The objectives of the Tokyo
convention may be summarized into four principal areas:
1. The Convention makes it clear that the State of registration of the aircraft has
the authority to apply its laws. From the standpoint of States such as the United
States, this is probably the most important aspect of the Convention, since it
accords international recognition to the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction
under the circumstances contemplated in the Convention;
2. The Convention provides the aircraft commander with the necessary authority to
deal with persons who have committed, or are about to commit, a crime or an
act jeopardizing safety on board his aircraft through use of reasonable force
when required, and without fear of subsequent retaliation through civil suit or
otherwise;
3. The Convention delineates the duties and responsibilities of the contracting
State in which an aircraft lands after the commission of a crime on board,
including its authority over, and responsibilities to, any offenders that may be
either disembarked within territory of that State or delivered to its authorities;

30
Turner, James, S. G. "Piracy In The Air", Naval War College Review , Vol. 22, 1969 P. 101.
31
Attempts At Ensuring Peace And Security In International Aviation,R.I.R. Abeyratne.
32
International Combat, Supra Note 18, At 463, In Attempts At Ensuring Peace And Security In
International Aviation,R.I.R. Abeyratne.

Page | 18
 4. The crime of 'hijacking' has been addressed in some degree of depth. 33

Provisions of Hijacking

Article 11 of the convention has been included as the first codified attempt to
specifically, seizure, or other wrongful exercise of control of an aircraft in flight when
such an act is about to be committed. Contracting States shall take all appropriate
measures to restore control of the aircraft to its lawful commander or to preserve his
control of the aircraft. In the above article no effort is made to describe hijacking as an
international crime, nor does this Tokyo convention grant any kind of universal
jurisdiction for the apprehension and the punishment to the hijackers. In nutshell, the
Tokyo convention recognises a legitimate right of the state in which the incident
occurred and the flag State to request extradition of the offender. Theoretically 'Articles
13-15 provide a pattern which officials of the State in which the aircraft lands may
follow; it suggests that the hijacker be taken into custody and a preliminary inquiry be
made. Article 4 indicates that the offender be expelled at the wishes of the receiving
state; and Article 15 calls for extradition or prosecution of the offender at the discretion
of the landing State. If circumstances warrant and the offender evades each of these
conventional provisions, he is virtually assured of liberty. Mckeithan remarked
"Because of this wide latitude which the convention gives to contracting
State……… (it) recognises and legitimizes their right to do as they wish hijackers." 34
It would be fair to say that Tokyo convention was the first modest step in combating
crimes on the board of the aircraft with regard to the hijacking; it did not tackle this
offence specially, but dealt it with only incidentally and in a limited manner. Hijackers
are treated just like any other offenders, and the hijacked aircraft is, under convention to
be restored to the lawful commander. Hijacking and other terrorist offences against the
safety of the aircraft held to be specifically dealt with by other special conventions.

33
Tokyo Convention, Supra Note 14, At 328-29, In Attempts At Ensuring Peace And Security In
International Aviation ,R.I.R. Abeyratne.
34
Mckeithen, R. L. Smith, "Prospects For The Prevention Of Aircraft Hijacking Through Law"
Columbia Journal Of Transnational Law, Vol. 9 Spring 1970, P. 64. 56 Harris, D. J. New Terrorism,
Messne, Julian, 1983.

Page | 19
According to international legal expert D.J. Harris, the Tokyo convention was largely
concerned with "the long standing problems of jurisdiction over all crimes aboard
aircraft”,56 and languished for some years until an upsurge of hijacking in the late 1960's
brought into force. The convention was held on September 14, 1963 and has opened the
same day for signatures but it could not effectively be enforced as most of the states
have not signed the convention till December 1969. Only those states, who had been the
victim of hijacking, became the signatories. This attitude proved to be very shallow one.
After the Tokyo convention, the incidents of hijacking have increased, and the global
community was convinced on this phenomenon. No less than 210 hijacking attempts
had been made in this duration. Eighty incidents occurred in 1970 alone. The Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) carried out the most famous series of
hijacking in September 1970 in which a TWA 709 a Swissair DC 8 and BOAC-VC-lO
were hijacked to Dawson outfield in Northern Jordan while a Pan Am 747 was hijacked
to Cairo.35 This act of political blackmail pointed out the need for immediate
international cooperation, not only to fill the prosecution voids inherent in the Tokyo
convention, but also to reach viable solutions that world prevent such acts from
separation.49

3.3 THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON HIJACKING (1970): AND ITS

PROTOCOL (2010):

The International Civil Aviation organisation and the Inter- national Air Transport
Association suggested to the Legal Committee to review and revision of the legal status
of hijacking, hopefully to elevate it to the level of an international crime", and the
incorporation of mandatory prosecution. The Legal 'Committee of ICAO included the
following objective in its report.
1. Recognition of unlawful aircraft seizures as a penal offence, subject to the
jurisdiction of every state.
2. Encouragement of States to establish such jurisdiction; and

35
Evans, Ernest, Calling A Truce To Terror, Op. Cit. P. 26.
49 Supra.
Page | 20
 3. Proposition to States of alternative for penal measures viz., extradition,
prosecution or under select circum- stances, asylum.36

Accordingly a special diplomatic conference was convened from December 1 to 16,

1970 at Hague to consider the draft proposal. This convention was titled as "convention
for the suppression of unlawful seizure of Aircraft." The Hague convention was
represented by seventy seven States representatives, and other organisations interested
in international civil aviation. Soviet and Arab countries also attended the convention
but Cuba was missing there. The preamble of the convention contains the urgency and
mission of the conference, such as Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft in-flight, safety of
person and property, and the confidence of the people of the world on civil aviation.
The definition of unlawful Seizure of Aircraft as decided by Hague convention was less
vehement than that desired by United States or Soviet Union. In contrast to Tokyo
contention, the wordings of the Hague convention are more closely approximates a law
of nations definition. The basic elements of crime are spelled out to confirm with most
national legislation, without exaggerated interpretation. The unlawful nature of the act
is well described in Article 1, but no specific name is given to the crime. It is designated
as "the offence" Article 2 mentions that". Each contracting States undertake to make the
offence punishable, by severe penalties. But what is severe penalty is not defined. The
Article 2 has to accommodate disparate municipal penalties in accordance with their
national legislations. It is interesting to note that national courts have largely been
unwilling to sentence convicted hijackers to the maximum punishments provided in
their penal laws.60 Some states have chosen to return hijackers to the country in which
the aircraft was seized or to the flag states, even in the cases where extradition treaties
were not applicable; while as West Germany, Denmark, and Austria have seen fit to
grant asylum to hijackers apparently with the understanding that they will not be
returned to the country from which they come, but in the cases of theft of aircraft
(without political implication) or illegal possession of dangerous weapons which
endanger the lives of passengers, these states have denied the right of asylum to the
offenders.61 Some states persist in welcoming "offenders" as heroes, for example Syria
printed a special stamp in 1969 to commemorate

36
Igao Doc 8838, Lg/ 157, 35, 36, (1969).
Page | 21
the seizure of TWA Boeing 737 Jetliner to Damascus. Pakistan set ablaze the hijacked
Indian Fokker Friendship at Lahore under TV coverage in February 1971; the hijackers
were projected as heroes by the Pakistani media. Algeria and Jordan have refused to
prosecute or extradite hijackers particularly when the aircraft seizure had political over-
tone. As a reaction to this decision American Society of Travel Agents (A.S.T.A.)
suspended consumer travel service to Algeria, Iraq, Jordan and Syria until these nations
evidenced their willingness to take necessary steps to these acts of skyjacking.

Page | 22
 4. JURISDICTION OVER HIJACKING

An individual who hijacks an aircraft commits an international crime against the laws
of the contracting states. Since long element required for customary international law
wants to achieve true universal jurisdiction but, conventional law has made evident the
international consensus that skyjacking is an illegal act subject to prosecution under
municipal legal codes.62 The provision of Article 4 of the Hague convention assert that
jurisdiction may be wilfully exercised by the contracting States. The jurisdiction over
the offender is subject to:

1. The State in which the aircraft is registered,

2. The state of a lessee’s domicile under a bare hull character i.e. the aircraft
leased without crew.
3. The State in which the hijacked aircraft lands;

The Article further extends state jurisdiction that any party to the convention in whose
territorial limits an alleged hijacker is found can assume jurisdiction over him, or
extradite him according to their stated municipal provisions sanctioning nation-states
legislation. This convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in
accordance with national law.37 This paragraph further reaffirms that local authorities
are to deal with successful seizure that occur solely within the territory of the flag State.

The jurisdictional provision granted to "take off" state and the landing state to be
applicable, both locations must be external to the flag state territory i.e. if the hijacked
flight occurs wholly within the territorial jurisdiction of the state of registry, the
incident is excluded from the aegis of the Hague convention, it being ... immaterial
whether the aircraft is engaged in an inter- national or domestic flight. This convention
provides to the contracting parties to prosecute the offender if he is not extradited.
Extradition is not specifically required, but Article 7 make it clear that it is the only
acceptable option for prosecution. The individual rights of the accused offender are
safeguarded. Article 6 provides the guidelines to be followed by jurisdictional state;
only upon being satisfied

37
Hague Convention Article 4 Paragraph 3.
Page | 23
that the circumstances so warrant 'may the accused be taken into custody. A fact finding
inquiry of the incident must be made and both the flag state and the alleged hijackers'
nationality state be notified of his detention. If the State holding the offender considers
proper it should notify any other interested State of the fact that such person is in its
custody and of the circumstances which warrant the detention.
The Article 7 of the Convention provides to extradite, or prosecute obligations as
binding upon all contracting states, in- spite of the location of the offence. The aim of
the Article 7 is to deny sanctuary to any alleged offenders, in every part of the world
community. In this way the rewards and the opportunities to escape punitive actions
would be eliminated for potential hijackers, thereby discouraging future attempts. But
this provision has not been fully materialized. Extradition has been grossly underused
in jurisdictional settlements, whereas the legal anti- thesis-asylum- has been all too
often the case. Extradition involves denial of asylum and the surrender of an individual
to a requesting State.38 Customary international law provides no rule which imposes a
duty to extradite,39 hence extradition becomes either a matter of comity or treaty
between the states.40 In spite of the provisions, the fact is that hijacking has been largely
omitted as an offence in the list of most of the extradition treaties. Whether an offender
be provided asylum as the municipal right of a State, thus the asylum provides a safe
haven for an offender as designated in the receiving states, municipal codes, if the
asylum is granted the extradition request will be rejected. Political asylum is hindrance
in cornering the hijackers. Art 14 of the universal declaration of Human rights states
that "Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from
prosecution". The United Nations in its General Assembly has resolved that the
situation of persons invoking such a right is of concern to the international Community,
and such a person shall not be subject to expulsion or compulsory return to any state
where he may be subject to persecution.41 An important question of extradition and
asylum, now emerges. Most of the contracting states of Hague convention have also
supported the universal declaration

38
Oppenhein Lassa, F.L.: International Law, Longmans London, 1905, P. 696.
39
Draft Convention Of Extradition And Comments; Ameri - Can Journal Of International Law , Vol. 29,
1935, Pp. 416-34.
40
Factor V. Lauben Leimer 290 Us 276 (1933) Quoted In Bishop W. W, International Law : Cases And
Materials , Little Brown And Co,Jboston, 1962, P. 471.
41
General Assembly Resolution No. 2312 Of 1967 U.N. Doc A/6716 (1967)
Page | 24
of Human Rights; they have to provide asylum for certain refugee hijackers in violation
of Article 7, which obligates prosecution or extradition without exception what so ever?
But in practice the terminal States decision to extradite, prosecute or grant asylum to an
offender depends upon the following four factors: (1) the nationality of the offender; (2)
the States of the incidents as a political offence; (3) the motivation of the offender; (4)
the success or failure of the seizure.

Article 8 of the Convention states:

1. The offense shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offense in any
extradition treaty existing between contracting States. Contracting States
undertake to include the offense as an extraditable offense in every extradition
treaty to be concluded between them.
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 as its option consider this Convention
as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offense. Extradition shall be
subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
3. Contracting states which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of
a treaty shall recognize the offense between themselves subject to the conditions
provided by the law of the requested state.
4. The offense shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between Contracting
States, as if it had been committed not only in the place in which it occurred, but
also in the territories of the states required to establish their jurisdiction in
accordance with Article 4, paragraph 1.

Thus, according to Article 8, if a contracting State receives a request for extradition

from a State with which it has no extradition treaty the Convention shall be considered
as the legal basis for extradition. The effect of this provision is to enlarge the scope of
existing international treaties on extradition to include hijacking. Where a State is
usually prohibited by domestic law from extraditing a hijacker in the absence of a
treaty, the State must extradite the offender under the provisions of the Convention.42

42
Attempts At Ensuring Peace And Security In International Aviation, R.I.R. Abeyratne

Page | 25
The obligation to extradite an airline hijacker is subject to all other customary and
conventional rules of law governing extraditable offenses. As a general rule, extradition
is denied where an individual is accused of committing a political offense. Most states
recognize the granting of political asylum as a right to be determined by the state from
which it is requested. As the laws of a state may preclude extradition of an airline
hijacker if the offense is regarded as political, the existence of hijacking in an
extradition treaty may not result in mandatory extradition. However, if a state does not
extradite the offender, according to Article 7, the case must be submitted to the proper
authorities for prosecution. I.D. Johnston has stated the following in relation to Article
8:
“The Convention obliges the parties to include hijacking in extradition treaties to be
concluded between them and insert it retrospectively into existing extradition treaties.
Parties which have not concluded extradition treaties but which make extradition
conditional on a treaty can regard the Convention itself as a legal basis for extradition.
These provisions increase the possibility of extradition but by no means make it a
certainty. The Russian Proposal, supported by the U.S.A., that hijackers be returned in
all cases was rejected at the Conference. Automatic extradition, though probably the
best deterrent, was considered too drastic a commitment by most of the negotiating
States. What they are prepared to accept however, was the duty to prosecute offenders
whom they did not extradite as provided for by Article 7.”43

There is no indication in the Convention as to what the position is regarding the

extradition of nationals. Shubber believes that even though there is no mention of the
extradition of the States own nationals according to the Convention or to the term
"offender" in Article 8, such extradition possible:

“There is no reason to suppose that hijackers who happened to be nationals of the State
requested to extradite him should be excluded from the scope of extradition under the
Convention, provided that course of action is compatible with the national law of the

43
I.D. Johnston, Legislation, 5 New Zealand L. Rev. 307 (1973).
Page | 26
State concerned. This interpretation is not incompatible with the intention of the
drafters and the purpose for which the Convention has been created.”44

The Hague convention is a hallmark in international co- operative efforts to suppress

"skyjacking". The urgent need to free commercial air transport from the threat of
seizure prompted nations to respond with a vigorous denunciation of the (Un- named)
"offences", and to provide more vehement punitive measures, contracting states were
now required to establish jurisdiction over the offender when apprehended even if the
offence did not occur within their territorial borders. The 88 members of the
international community have formally sanctioned the deterrent provisions condemning
unlawful aircraft seizure has elevated this act to the status of international crime. The
Hague's convention became the foundation of all similar future inter- national efforts
pertaining to various categories of terrorist offences.45

44
Sami Shuber, Aircraft Hijacking Under The Hague Convention, 22 I.C.L.Q. 725 (1973).
45
International Conventions On Aerial Hijacking: An Approach To Combat Terrorism, R. S. Rajput

Page | 27
5. SOME CASES OR INCIDENTS OF HIJACKINGS:

El Al Flight 426 (1968): El Al Airlines, based in Israel, has always been a target for
prospective hijackers. For that reason, it has taken thorough measures in recent decades
to ensure passenger safety, and as a result, it’s one of the safest airlines around. Its
biggest blemish, one that changed its procedures for the better, occurred when Flight
426 was commandeered by three members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (PFLP). Initially travelling from London to Rome, the plane was diverted to
Algiers, where war had been declared on Israel a year earlier. All Non-Israeli
passengers were released, leaving 12 Israeli passengers — 10 women and children were
released at the end of the week — and the crew of 10. It took 40 days of negotiations to
reach an agreement, and everyone — including the hijackers were freed. A conflict
between Israel and Algiers could’ve resulted without a resolution.

Dawson’s Field Hijackings (1970): In a single day, four planes were simultaneously
seized by the PFLP gunmen, who forced two to fly to Dawson’s Field in the Jordanian
desert. All 310 passengers were freed, but Jewish passengers and the flight crews
consisting of 56 members were kept behind. Expecting a hostile effort to free the
hostages, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) blew up the empty
planes, demanding the release of the body of Patrick Arguello and the detained Leila
Khaled, both of whom failed in their attempt to hijack El Al Flight 219. Conditions
were met, and a conflict ensued between Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan and
Palestinians known as Black September.

Air France Flight 139 (1976): Six years after the Dawson’s Field incident, two
members of the PFLP and two members of German Revolutionary Cells took control of
Air France Flight 139 en route from Athens to Paris and diverted it to Benghazi, Libya.
After releasing a female hostage who was pretending to have a miscarriage, the 247
remaining passengers and crew of 12 were taken to Entebbe Airport in Uganda, where
four more hijackers joined the effort. Demanding the release of 40 Palestinians detained
in Israel and 13 in other countries, they threatened to kill hostages if they were ignored.
Operation Entebbe followed, as 100 elite commandos from Israel travelled to the site
and stormed the scene amid a haze of gunfire to rescue the hostages. When the smoke
cleared, three

Page | 28
passengers, an Israeli commando and 45 Ugandan soldiers were killed. One passenger
who was at the hospital was later murdered. Overall, 105 passengers were saved.

Lufthansa Flight 181 (1977): Destined from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt Lufthansa
with
86 passengers and five crew members aboard, Lufthansa Flight 181 was hijacked in
midair by four militant Palestinians — members of the PFLP — who called themselves
"Commando Martyr Halime." One invaded the cockpit with a pistol and demanded the
flight to Larnaca, Cyprus, but it was diverted to Rome due to insufficient fuel. After
travelling to Cyprus, Bahrain, Dubai and Aden, it settled in Mogadishu, and Operation
Feuerzauber, primarily undertaken by West German counter-terrorism group GSG 9,
resulted in a hostile raid of the plane and the killing of two hijackers and the injuring of
the others, one of whom was mortally wounded. All 86 passengers survived.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 653 (1977): The hijacking of Malaysia Airlines Flight 653
remains a mystery more than three decades later. Not long after departing Penang for
Kuala Lumpur, Captain G.K. Ganjoor reported an "unidentified hijacker" was aboard
and later reported they were "proceeding to Singapore." Eventually all communication
was lost, and the plane crashed in Kampong Ladang, Tanjong Kupang, killing all seven
crew members and 93 passengers, including Malaysian Public Works Department Head
Dato’ Mahfuz Khalid, Malaysian Agricultural Minister Dato’ Ali Haji Ahmadand, and
Cuban Ambassador to Japan Mario Garcia. Some suspected that a member of the
Japanese Red Army was to blame, though no evidence exists to prove it.

TWA Flight 847 (1985): Six members of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad were responsible
for the infamous two-week ordeal involving TWA Flight 847. En route from Athens to
Rome, the plane was overtaken just after takeoff and diverted to Beirut, where 19
passengers were released, and Algiers, where 20 passengers were released. The plane
returned to Beirut, and the hijackers proceeded to single out United States Navy Seabee
diver Robert Stethem, beat him, fatally shoot him and dump his body onto the ramp.
Seven American passengers with Jewish-sounding names were removed from the plane
and held hostage elsewhere in Beirut. The plane travelled back to Algiers, released 65
passengers, and returned to Beirut. The hijackers made several demands, including the
release of the "Kuwait 17" involved in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in
Kuwait
Page | 29
and international condemnation of the U.S. and Israel. Eventually, the 40 remaining
hostages were released and nobody else was harmed.

EgyptAir Flight 648 (1985): Remembered as one of the world’s bloodiest and scariest
plane hijackings, the events aboard EgyptAir Flight 648 will forever serve as a
reminder of how not to deal with terrorists. After three Palestinian members of the Abu
Nidal Organization took control of the plane destined from Athens to Cairo, an
Egyptian Security Service member opened fire, killing one of the hijackers. In return,
he was shot dozens of times and killed. As a result of the exchange of bullets, the
fuselage of the plane was punctured, and the pilot was forced to descend so that
everyone on board could breathe. Low on fuel, the plane landed in Malta against the
wishes of Maltese authorities, and a stand-off commenced. Eleven passengers and two
injured flight attendants were released, but Maltese Prime Minister Karmenu Mifsud
Bonnici’s hard-line approach resulted in the execution of two American passengers.
Egyptian commandos later stormed the plane, causing a chaotic, fiery scene — from
either the explosives from the commandos or grenades from the terrorists — in which
56 of the 88 remaining passengers were killed. Sixty of the 92 passengers initially on
board were killed.

Pan Am Flight 73 (1986): While preparing to depart for Frankfurt from Karachi,
Pakistan, four members of the Abu Nidal Organization, dressed as Karachi airport
security guards, hijacked Pan Am Flight 73. The crew immediately escaped through an
overhead hatch in the cockpit, grounding the plane. In response, an Indian-American
passenger was executed after demands that the crew return to the plane weren’t met.
Later, as the plane sat in darkness without power and Pakistani authorities prepared to
storm in, a grenade was tossed and random shooting began. In the end, 20 passengers
will killed, but many escaped due in part to the heroics of 22-year-old flight purser
Neerja Bhanot, who helped them off the plane and shielded three children from bullets.

Iraqi Airways Flight 163 (1986): Air safety was a major concern in the Middle East in
the mid-1980s, as deadly hijackings were becoming more common — see the previous
three paragraphs. Iraqi Airways Flight 163, travelling from Baghdad to Amman with 91
passengers and 15 crew members, was taken by four men affiliated with Hezbollah.
Security personnel immediately attempted to neutralize them, but they responded by

Page | 30
detonating grenades in the passenger cabin and cockpit, causing the plane to crash near
Arar, Saudi Arabia. Sixty passengers and three crew members died.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 (1996): Captured on camera by a South African

honeymooner on a beach in the Comoros Islands, the video of the descent and crash of
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 stunned the world. It was hijacked by three nervous and
disorganized Ethiopians who were seeking political asylum in Australia. Knowing he
didn’t have enough fuel to make such a trip, Captain Leul Abate travelled toward the
Comoros Islands, hoping to find an available runway. When both engines failed, he was
unable to locate Prince Said Ibrahim International Airport and was forced to ditch in
shallow waters. Numerous residents and tourists swam to the aid of the passengers.
Even still, the ordeal was costly, as 122 of the 172 passengers and crew members died.

Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305: In what would become the only still unsolved
hijacking case in US history, on November 24, 1971 the now famous DB Cooper
hijacked a Northwest Orient Airlines flight, a Boeing 727-100 which was flying from
Portland, OR to Seattle WA. The hijacker checked in as “Dale Cooper,” paying cash for
his ticket. He boarded the airplane and hijacked it. When the first news wire reporter
from the Washington area picked up on the unfolding hijacking over police radio, he
asked if the police had a name for a suspect. In fact, they did. The police had
interviewed the man who sold Cooper the ticket and asked him if any of the passengers
looked suspicious. Without hesitating, the airline employee responded – “yes, Dale
Cooper.” The police told the news reporter the suspect’s name was “D. Cooper”. The
reporter asked if that was a “D or a B?” The person responded, “Yes.” And thus the
legend of “DB Cooper” was born.

On board the plane, shortly after takeoff, Cooper claimed to have a bomb in his
briefcase and, showing it to an airline stewardess, it sure looked convincing with red
sticks that may or may not have been dynamite, and a battery and lots of wire. The
pilots took the threat seriously and the owner of the airline agreed to Cooper’s demands
– $200,000 cash, any denomination, in a satchel, plus two front and two rear parachutes
(plus food for the flight crew). This was to be delivered to the plane when it landed and
was refuelled. Marked $20 bills were loaded into a satchel and handed over to the
stewardess

Page | 31
who delivered the money to Cooper. The entire time Cooper remained mostly calm and
congenial at the rear of the plane. At no time did he harm anyone on board.

Everyone but the flight crew and the stewardess were allowed to leave the plane.
Cooper gave orders for the plane to take off and fly south towards Reno at no more than
10,000 feet and with the hydraulically operated rear staircase lowered and extended.
The plane could not take off with the rear staircase deployed so Cooper allowed the
flight crew to take off with it raised and secured. Somewhere over the woods of
Oregon/Washington, Cooper opened the rear staircase and jumped out with his
parachutes and cash – the cash strapped to his chest with the cords of one of the
parachutes. It was dark and though other planes were trying to tail the hijacked plane,
no one actually saw Cooper jump. Cooper had forced the flight crew to stay forward
behind the drawn first class curtain so they too did not see Cooper jump. Therefore, no
one could say the exact time Cooper bailed out. The best estimate was he jumped at
8:13PM but given the many changes in the flights air speed, the bad weather, and other
factors, the search area for Cooper was huge, well over a hundred square miles of some
of the most inaccessible and rugged terrain in the continental United States. The search
turned up no trace of Cooper or the money.

In February 1980, 8 year-old boy named Brian Ingram, vacationing with his family on
the Columbia River about 9 miles downstream from Vancouver, Washington uncovered
three packets of the ransom cash, significantly disintegrated but still bundled in rubber
bands. FBI technicians confirmed that the money was indeed a portion of the ransom.
The boy and his family sue to get the money they found and the judge rewards them
half of it. Later, needing alimony money, a now grown Brian sells some of the Cooper
loot to raise needed funds. No other traces of Cooper have so far been found.

Did he survive the jump? Some believe he did. Later tests by the FBI demonstrated that
it was possible to jump from the rear staircase platform of a 727 and survive. Others
believe he jumped out of the plane at a different point than the FBI originally calculated
and landed in the Columbia River and drowned. There, some of the money washed up
on the beach where young Brian discovered it. Others believe Cooper lost the money in
midair or landed with it and stashed it in the ground. Later, rain carried the money
down

Page | 32
creeks that flow into the river. But whatever his fate, DB Cooper became an American
folk hero.

Air India Flight 182: This flight was travelling from Canada to India on the 23 June
1985. While this airline was flying over the Atlantic Ocean, the air plane got blown up
by a secretly planted bomb in the airline, leading to the flight go straight crashing into
the Atlantic Ocean. This incident remains one of the most impactful and dangerous air
plane hijacking in the Canadian history as a totally number of 329 people were killed,
all the passengers comprising of 280 Canadians, 22 Indians and about 27 British
population. When this air hijack took place, not much was known of the reason and
cause behind this accident.
But after almost 20 years of investigation, it was apparently claimed that this hijack
terrorism was done by a Sikh group staying in Canada.

Destruction of Pan American and UTA Flights:

Destruction of the two civilian aircrafts- Pan American flight on December 21, 1988
and the Union Transport Aeriens (UTA) flight on September 12, 1989 are two incidents
that shook the world. While 270 persons were killed in the Pan American flight which
exploded over Lockerbie (Scotland), on December 21, 1988, 170 persons died in UTA
explosions in Niger on September 19, 1989. Persons responsible for the destruction of
the above were suspected to be Libyans. The Security Council unanimously condemned
the destruction of the two civilian aircrafts and the resultant loss of life. The council
requested the Libyan government to co-operate fully in establishing responsibility for
the terrorist acts that led to the destruction of the aircrafts. Libya was urged
immediately to provide a full and effective response to those requests so as to constitute
to the elimination of international terrorism.46

When the Libyan government did not respond to the request for co-operation in
establishing responsibility for those terrorist acts, the Security Council on March 31,

46
Security Council Resolution 731 (1992), January 21, 1992.

Page | 33
1992 imposed aerial embargo against Libya47 under Article 41 of the U.N. Charter
which became effective from April 15, 1992. The Council also decided to establish a
committee consisting of all the members of the council to consider and decide on any
application by states for approval of the flights on grounds of significant humanitarian
needs.48 Member states were asked to report to the Secretary-General by May 15, 1992
on measures instituted by them to meet their obligations under the resolution. The
Council decided that it would review the sanction every 120 days or sooner should the
situation so requires.

The above action of the Security Council got a favourable response from Libya. On
4950
May, 1992 Libya informed the Secretary-General that it accepted Resolution 731
and decided that it ‘definitely renounces all forms of international terrorism of whatever
origin’. Libya also told the Secretary-General that it would undertake to deport from its
territory any person who was proved to be involved in terrorist act. 108 When Libya did
not co-operate with the authorities in establishing responsibility, the Security Council
on November 11, 1993 imposed new sanctions against Libya, widening the air and arms
5152
embargo which came into force from December 1, 1993. However, when the
Secretary-General informed the Council that the two Libyan suspects arrived in
Netherlands to stand Trial under Scottish Law and when the Libyan Government
satisfied the French authorities investigating the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772, the
Security Council on April 5, 1999 suspended the sanction imposed against Libya.

The Scottish Court on January 31, 2001 while convicted Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi
of murder, another Libyan, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah was found innocent and was
acquitted. Both decisions were unanimous.

47
Security Council Resolution 748 (1992), dated March 31, 1992.
48
The Committee was established on April 25, 1992 to handle issues relating to the implementation of
sanctions against Libya.
49
S/23918.
50
S/23917.
51
Security Council Resolution 883 (1993) Dated November 11, 1993. The resolution was adopted by a
vote of
52
to none with 4 abstentions.

Page | 34
 6. AIRCRAFT HIJACKING AND INDIA:

India is a party to the three conventions, namely Tokyo Convention, The Hague
Convention and The Montreal Convention. In order to give order to the conventions,
enabling legislatures have been enacted by the parliament which is as follows:
I. The Tokyo Convention Act was enacted on May 8, 1975 to give effect to the
Tokyo Convention.
II. Anti-Hijacking Act was enacted on November 6, 1982 to give effect to The
Hague Convention.53

III. The Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act was
enacted on November 6, 1982 to give effect to the Montreal Convention.54

Hijackings in India:
STATISTICS OF THE NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT HIJACKINGS:55

DECADE NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL AND

DOMESTIC HIJACKINGS
1942-1952 19
1952-1962 36
1962-1972 262
1972-1982 282
1982-1992 221
1992-2002 176
2002-2012 46

53
In 1994 Anti Hijacking Act was enacted (Act 30 of 1994). However it was replace in 2001 (Act 30 of
2001)
54
In 1994 Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act was enacted
(Act 40 of 1994). However, the Act was repealed in 2001 (Act 30 of 2001) by the Repealing and
Amending Act 2001 enacted on September 3, 2001.
55
See also, http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/period/stats.php?cat=H2.

Page | 35
 7. CONCLUSION

Aircraft hijacking is committed on board an aircraft in flight. It is committed with the

use of force or threat of force or by any other form of intimidation. It is committed
against those who exercise control over the aircraft, and the purpose of hijacking is to
achieve certain aims or to reach a desired destination. Aircraft hijacking is an unlawful
act. It should be highly condemned in order to maintain peace and security in the world
and also for better relations between countries. It is an attack on international order and
injures the international community as a whole. Therefore, world leaders should come
together against this brutal act and vigil that the protocols and conventions are strictly
adhered to and implemented in their real sense. Only then can we expect a peaceful
world, free of such terrorist activities.

Page | 36