THERE ARE BASIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OFFENSES COMMITTED ON BOARD AIRCRAFT AND OFFENSES PERPETRATED ON THE GROUND: (1) EVEN MINOR OFFENSES SUCH AS ASSAULT OR A FIRST FIGHT IN AN AIRCRAFT CAN ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF PASSENGERS; (2) IN REGIONS OF THE WORLD WHERE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS CROSS SEVERAL NATIONAL BORDERS WITHIN MINUTES, JURISDICTION OVER AN OFFENSE IS DIFFICULT TO DECIDE; (3) EXCEPT WHERE THE AIRCRAFT'S COUNTRY OF REGISTRATION HAS ENACTED A LAW, AND OFFENSE COMMITTED OVER THE HIGH SEAS MAY NOT BE PUNISHABLE; AND (4) AN ALLEGED OFFENDER CAN DISEMBARK IN A COUNTRY WITH NO JURISDICTION OR EXTRADITION TREATY. A FURTHER PROBLEM IS THAT HIJACKERS NORMALLY LEAVE THE AIRCRAFT WHEN INSIDE A COUNTRY THAT WILL GIVE THEM ASYLUM OR IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. THE 1970 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF AIRCRAFT CONTAINS PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER HIJACKING AND EXTRADITION BUT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR SOME TYPE OF EXTRATERRITORIAL STATUS OF IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF PASSENGERS AND CREW MEMBERS IN THE COUNTRY TO WHICH AN AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN HIJACKED. THE CONVENTION DEALS ONLY WITH UNLAWFUL SEIZURE COMMITTED ON BOARD AIRCRAFT AND DOES NOT APPLY TO SABOTAGE COMMITTED ON THE GROUND OR TO UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCES WITH AIR NAVIGATION. (DEP)