ONE OF THE MOST CONFUSING CONCEPTS WITH RESPECT TO HIJACKING IS ITS LEGAL DEFINITION. ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, PRIVACY AND HIJACKING ARE SEPARATE OFFENSES. IN ADDITION, THE HIJACKING CONVENTIONS RECOGNIZED THAT ALL CONTRACTING STATES HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM JURISDICTION OVER HIJACKING CASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR NATIONAL LAWS. THUS, HIJACKING IS STIPULATED TO BE UNDER A LIMITED UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. THE HIJACKING CONVENTIONS HAVE NOT OBLIGATED STATES TO EXTRADITE, PROSECUTE, AND PUNISH HIJACKERS; NO PENALTY CLAUSE IS PROVIDED STATING THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH CONTRACTING STATES ARE OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW. MOST STATES FAIL TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC DEMAND FOR AN ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE OR PUNISH HIJACKERS BECAUSE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ACCEPTS THE RIGHT OF POLITICAL ASYLUM AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NONEXTRADITION FOR POLITICAL OFFENSES. ALTHOUGH MANY JURISTS SUGGEST THAT HIJACKING IS AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME, ONE NOT JUSTIFIED AS A POLITICAL OFFENSE REGARDLESS OF MOTIVE, STATE PRACTICE SHOWS THAT HIJACKING HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AS AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME AND THAT HIJACKERS HAVE USUALLY BEEN GRANTED POLITICAL ASYLUM. MOST STATES ACCEPT THE HIJACKING CONVENTIONS PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE AMBIGUOUS AND LACK ENFORCEABILITY. FUTURE INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS MAY LEAD TO THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HIJACKING. A BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (WJR)