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: 64310 Find in a Library
Title: COMMENT ON 'CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER AIRCRAFT HIJACKING'
Journal: ISRAEL LAW REVIEW  Volume:7  Issue:2  Dated:(APRIL 1972)  Pages:207-213
Author(s): S Z FELLER
Corporate Author: Israel Law Review Assoc
C/O Faculty of Law
Hebrew University
Israel
Date Published: 1972
Page Count: 7
Sponsoring Agency: Israel Law Review Assoc
Jerusalem, Israel
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: Israel
Annotation: THIS ARTICLE REPLIES TO A CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF AIRCRAFT, DEFENDING ITS PROVISION OF JURISDICTION IN HIJACKING CASES.
Abstract: THE CRITIQUE BY DR. Y. DINSTEIN (NCJ-64309) ANALYZED THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY DELIVERED A DOUBLE-TIERED STRUCTURE OF JURISDICTION, FAILED TO APPLY THE UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE, AND INCLUDED A SUPERFLUOUS SAVING CLAUSE IN THE THIRD SECTION. THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT THE PREDETERMINED SCALE OF PRIORITIES WITH REGARD TO JURISDICTION OVER HIJACKING OFFENSES IN THE CONVENTION (GIVING JURISDICTION TO THE STATE WHERE THE AIRCRAFT LANDS, THE STATE IN WHICH THE AIRCRAFT IS REGISTERED, AND THE STATE OF THE OPERATOR IF THE AIRCRAFT IS LEASED) MEANS THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE LESS-PREFERRED STATES IS EXCLUDED BY THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE TO WHICH A HIGHER PREFERENCE IS GRANTED ACCORDING TO THAT SCALE. FURTHERMORE, THE CONVENTION, CONTRARY TO DILSTEIN'S CONTENTION, DOES NOT OBLIGATE THE STATE IN WHICH AN OFFENDER IS PRESENT TO EXTRADITE TO ONE OF THE PREFERRED STATES, BUT INSTEAD CREATES A DUTY TO TRY WHEN THERE IS TO BE NO EXTRADITION. THUS, IF THE OFFENDER IS NOT EXTRADITED, THE COUNTRY HAVING THE OFFENDER IS GRANTED EQUAL JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE TO THAT POSSESSED BY PREFERRED STATES. FINALLY, THE HAGUE CONVENTION, THOUGH NOT SPECIFYING THAT AIR HIJACKING IS AN OFFENSE OF THE TYPE DELICTA JURIS GENTIUM, IMPLIES THIS IS TRUE AND PROVIDES FOR THE IN ABSENTIA TRIAL OF THE OFFENDER IF NATIONAL LAW SO STIPULATES. THIS PROVISION, WHICH DILSTEIN TERMED THE SAVING CLAUSE, IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PREVENT PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION FROM WAIVING JURISDICTION BASED ON ANY PRINCIPLE OTHER THAN THOSE INCORPORATED IN THE CONVENTION. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (DAG)
Index Term(s): Aircraft hijacking; Antiterrorist laws; Critiques; International agreements; International extradition; International law; Jurisdiction
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=64310

*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.