U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

IMO (INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONSULTATIVE ORGANIZATION) CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF MARITIME TERRORISM, 1988 (FROM TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE: LIMITS AND POSSIBILITIES OF LEGAL CONTROL, P 225-242, 1993, HENRY H HAN, ED. -- SEE NCJ-141768)

NCJ Number
141779
Author(s)
M Hayashi
Date Published
1993
Length
18 pages
Annotation
The 1988 International Maritime Consultative Organization (IMO) together with the Protocol has filled an important gap in the legal measures against terrorist activities through the adoption of conventions addressed specifically to terrorist acts committed in a maritime context.
Abstract
The 1988 convention follows closely the basic approach and principles adopted by several previous conventions dealing with international terrorism. Like all these instruments, the 1988 convention aims at suppressing acts of violence specifically defined therein through extended jurisdictional bases for the apprehension of offenders and the mechanism of extradition or prosecution under national procedures, thus depriving the offenders of safe havens in any of the states parties. The convention follows the basic pattern of most of the preceding instruments for the suppression of terrorist activities. It has, however, adopted a few improvements on the previously introduced concepts and mechanisms, particularly the inclusion of bodily injuries and killing of a person among the offenses and the delivery of offenders by the ship's masters. The system does not contain an obligation to extradite, and extradition is subject to the conditions stipulated by the law of the requested state. In case there are concurrent requests for extradition, the system allows the requested state the discretion to choose the state to which it prefers to extradite the suspect. The system does not contain an absolute obligation to prosecute and punish the offender. It merely obligates the states to submit the case to the competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution through proceedings in accordance with their law. 51 notes