EVIDENCE OF UNDERLYING LEGAL AND POLITICAL DISTINCTIONS SUPPORT THE THESES THAT, PIRACY ON THE HIGH SEAS IS A CRIME IN THE LAWS OF MANY STATES BUT NOT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND (2) THAT AIRCRAFT HIJACKING HAS BEEN ELEVATED TO THE STATUS OF AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME THROUGH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS. ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF THE PERTINENT LITERATURE AND STATISTICS INDICATES THAT CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW CONFERS UPON THE STATE ONLY THE EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE SEA PIRATES. IT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY OBLIGATE THE STATE TO EXERCISE THAT JURISDICTION, NOR DOES IT INTERFERE WITH PIRATICAL ACTS WHICH TAKE PLACE WITHIN CERTAIN TERRITORIAL WATERS. MANY STATES HAVE BEEN UNWILLING TO PROSECUTE AIRCRAFT HIJACKERS AND HAVE REFUSED TO SURRENDER FUGITIVES TO OTHER STATES, DESPITE TREATY PROVISIONS WHICH REQUIRED SURRENDER, BECAUSE OF CLAIMS OF POLITICAL ASYLUM. HOWEVER, THE PROMULGATION OF THE TOKYO CONVENTION OF 1963 AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1970 REFLECTS STRONG COMMUNAL ATTITUDES TO REINSTATE SOME FORM OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION OVER AIRCRAFT HIJACKERS. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE DEGREE OF INDIVIDUAL STATE PARTICIPATION IN EACH CONVENTION REVEALS THAT 107 COUNTRIES HAVE PARTICIPATED IN ONE OR ALL OF THE AGREEMENTS, AND THAT COLD WAR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EAST AND WEST DID NOT PREVENT UNIFIED EFFORTS AGAINST SKYJACKING. ALTHOUGH THERE STILL EXISTS A NEED FOR LEGITIMATE POLITICAL ASYLUM, INTERNATIONAL LAW REMAINS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ENSURE EXTRADITION OF CRIMINALS. TABULAR DATA, FOOTNOTES, AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE PROVIDED. APPENDIXES INCLUDE THE AGREEMENTS ON SKYJACKING. (TWK)