THE CONVENTION DEALS BOTH WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICTS OCCURRING WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED ABOARD AN AIRCRAFT IN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT AND WITH THE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AIRCRAFT COMMANDER. ALTHOUGH PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION ENABLE THE STATE IN WHICH THE AIRPLANE IS REGISTERED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION, THERE ARE SO MANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE THAT THE TERRITORY OVERFLOWN MAY SEEM TO BE THE TRULY COMPETENT STATE. WHEN EXAMINED FURTHER, THE CONVENTION STATES THAT THE NATIONAL LAW OF THE FLAG APPLIES EXCLUSIVELY ONLY OVER THE HIGH SEAS OR STATELESS TERRITORIES. THESE EXCEPTIONS, THEREFORE, DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION AND WILL FOSTER NEW CONFLICTS REGARDING THE RIGHT OF SAFE PASSAGE. MOREOVER, THE CONVENTION FAILS TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES AS JURISDICTION FOR THE AIRSPACE OF CONTIGUOUS ZONES OF THE HIGH SEAS, FOR FEDERATED STATES, FOR SPACECRAFT, AND FOR AIRCRAFT OPERATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES. IT ALSO FAILS TO DEFINE THE TERM 'OFFENSE' OR TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF EXTRADITION AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY. THE CONVENTION (1) SHOULD HAVE DEALT ONLY WITH ACTS ENDANGERING THE AIRCRAFT'S SAFETY, (2) SHOULD HAVE GRANTED JURISDICTION TO THE FIRST LANDING STATE, (3) SHOULD BE THE APPLICABLE LAW, AND (4) SHOULD REQUIRE JURISDICTION OF THE COMPETENT STATE AND BAN DOUBLE JEOPARDY. BECAUSE EXISTING LAW COVERS MOST OF THE CONVENTIONS' PROVISIONS AND BECAUSE ADOPTION OF THE CONVENTION WILL FOSTER NEW PROBLEMS, THE CONVENTION SHOULD NOT BE RATIFIED. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)