skip navigation


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: 99641 Find in a Library
Title: Hostage Rights - Law and Practice in Throes of Evolution
Journal: Journal of International Law  Volume:15  Issue:1  Dated:(Winter 1983)  Pages:61-125
Author(s): H H A Cooper
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 65
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper explores the feasibility of developing international and uniform standards for dealing with international hostage situations, with attention to the host government's responsibilities, the means available to end a hostage situation, and minimum standards for the treatment of hostages.
Abstract: The paper examines semantic problems arising from the interchangeable use of the words hostage-taking and kidnapping and the legitimate expectations, claims, or interests of a hostage. A discussion of official obligations of governments and private obligations of hostage-takers owed to hostages notes that both are influenced strongly by status and relationships. The paper traces a shift in official responses to hostage-taking following the 1972 terrorist episode at the Munich Olympic Games. It focuses on the attack versus negotiation dilemma, the role of private individuals who have a special ability to influence the course of a hostage-taking, the hostages' right to self-defense, and legal limits on other tactics taken by hostages to help themselves. Also explored are the type of response and legal liability of police agencies involved in a hostage-taking situation, what hostages are potential litigants, identifying a defendant in such litigation, and the choice of a forum. Other sections of the paper review recent cases relating to the liability of government officials as well as the liability of private actors as illustrated by Curtis v. Beatrice Foods (1980). The paper includes 184 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Hostage negotiations; Hostages; Human rights violations; International agreements; Legal liability; Police hostage-negotiation units
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*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.