THE INCREASE IN HIJACKING IS CAUSING GRAVE CONCERN TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. ALTHOUGH HIJACKING IS COMPARABLE TO PIRACY, AN ACT AGAINST THE SAFETY OF TRAFFIC ON THE OPEN SEA, IT IS NOT COVERED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW PRINCIPLES. THE 1964 TOKYO CONVENTION ON OFFENSES AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTS COMMITTED ON BOARD AIRCRAFT, WHICH CAME INTO FORCE IN 1969, TRIED TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF HIJACKING. THE CONVENTION FAILED, HOWEVER, TO DECLARE HIJACKING A CRIME UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. NEITHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS NOR EXTRADITION IS MANDATORY UNDER THE TOKYO CONVENTION. IT EMPHASIZES RESTORING AIRCRAFT AND PROPERTY AND PERMITTING PASSENGERS AND CREW TO CONTINUE THEIR JOURNEY AND NOT PROSECUTING AND PUNISHING THE CULPRITS. IN 1968, THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION (ICAO) ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS URGING NATIONS TO BECOME PARTIES TO THE TOKYO CONVENTION, CALLING FOR HIJACKING PREVENTION MEASURES, AND URGING COOPERATION WITH NATIONS WHOSE AIRCRAFT ARE SEIZED. IN 1969, AN ICAO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED MAKING HIJACKING A PUNISHABLE AND AN EXTRADITABLE OFFENSE. A 1970 UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION CONDEMNED, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ALL ACTS OF AERIAL HIJACKING OR OTHER INTERFERENCE WITH CIVIL AIR TRAVEL, BUT DID NOT DECLARE HIJACKING A CRIME. THE HAGUE CONVENTION DEFINED HIJACKING AS AN OFFENSE AND REQUIRED CUSTODY OF THE PERPETRATOR AND PROSECUTION WITHIN THE LANDING STATE OR EXTRADITION. HOWEVER, THE CONVENTION FAILED TO PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR EXTRADITION. AS A RESULT, MOST HIJACKERS MAY GO UNPUNISHED. IN ADDITION, THE CONVENTION SHOULD EXPRESSLY DECLARE HIJACKING AS A CRIME UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW RATHER THAN AN OFFENSE. FINALLY, UN SECRETARY-GENERAL U THANT'S PROPOSAL THAT HIJACKERS OF INTERNATIONAL AIRCRAFT BE TRIED BEFORE AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED. FOOTNOTES WHICH INCLUDE REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)