THE ANALYSIS DESCRIBES THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION (ICAO) DRAFT CONVENTION AS PROVIDING APPROPRIATE MEASURES FOR THE PROSECUTION AND EXTRADITION OF HIJACKERS DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 1 AS OFFENDERS. SOME POSSIBLE CONVENTION LOOPHOLES INCLUDE AMBIGUITY IN THE SPECIFIED DUTIES OF CONTRACTING STATES TO EITHER PUNISH OR EXTRADITE AND TO DETERMINE HIJACKER EXEMPTION WHEN THE MOTIVATION IS POLITICAL. ALSO DISCUSSED ARE THREE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AIR PIRACY AND PIRACY ON THE HIGH SEAS, LAWS APPLICABLE TO PIRACY AND THE APPLICATION OF THESE LAWS TO HIJACKING, AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE EXEMPTION OF POLITICAL CRIMES FROM EXTRADITION SHOULD BE APPLIED TO HIJACKING CASES. THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATES TO ESTABLISH JURISDICTION, PROSECUTE, OR EXTRADITE ARE OUTLINED, AS ARE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN HIJACKING CASES OF A POLITICAL NATURE. STATES GENERALLY HAVE A DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SUPPRESSION OF AIR PIRACY BASED ON THE BROAD PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING SEA PIRACY AND THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION; HOWEVER, IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THIS IMPLIES THAT STATES HAVE A DUTY TO PROSECUTE HIJACKERS ARRESTED IN THEIR TERRITORIES. ALTHOUGH GENERAL LAW DOES NOT MAKE IT A DUTY TO EXTRADITE HIJACKERS, GENERAL PRINCIPLES SEEM TO IMPLY THAT THE STATE OF REGISTRATION, LANDING, AND THE STATE WHOSE TERRITORY WAS OVERFLOWN HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUNISH. FURTHER, SUPPORT FOR THE PRESCRIPTIVE JURISDICTION OF ALL STATES TO PUNISH HIJACKERS, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED, CAN BE FOUND IN THE DECISION OF THE PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE IN THE LOTUS CASE AND IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 2551. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (AOP)