skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 62968 Find in a Library
Title: SHOULD THE TOKYO CONVENTION OF 1963 BE RATIFIED?
Journal: JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE  Volume:31,  Dated:(1965)  Pages:1-21
Author(s): J J L GUTIERREZ
Corporate Author: Southern Methodist University Law School
United States of America
Date Published: 1965
Page Count: 21
Sponsoring Agency: Southern Methodist University Law School
Dallas, TX 75222
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE 1963 TOKYO CONVENTION ON OFFENSES AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTS COMMITTED ON BOARD AIRCRAFT FOCUSES ON THE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLES OF NATIONALITY, TERRITORIALITY, AND FIRST LANDING.
Abstract: 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)
Index Term(s): Aircraft hijacking; Anti-Hijacking conventions; Critiques; International agreements; International law; Piracy
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=62968

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.