Page 76 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

burst of tracer ammunition across the flight path of the Lib- 12, 1952 (69 Stat. 589), adding a new subsection (5) ,so
yan craft and again gave the visual signal to "follow that the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
me." The airliner did not comply with this command. The the United States" now includes:
final result of the incident was that after several attempts Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any
to compel the airliner to land, the Israeli pilot fired at the citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the
starboard wing roof of the plane. The airliner then at- United States, or any State, Tenitory, district, or possession thereof,
while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other
tempted a forced landing in the desert but was unsuc-
waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United
cessful, the ensuing crash killing over 100 passengers and States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
crew. 153 While publicly regretting the tragedy, the Israelis
maintained that their actions were motivated by self- Note that sec. 501 (b) of the Federal Aviation Act of
defense and were a legitimate exercise of their sovereign 1958 157 permits the registration in the United States only
power. The Israeli government characterized the incident of aircraft owned by citizens of the United States and not
as the result of a "tragic series of mistakes" and stated registered in any foreign country. United States citizens
that it would not have forced the plane down ifit knew the are not forbidden, however, to own or otherwise hold in-
true circumstance but that, at the time, it had reason to terests in aircraft that are registered in a foreign country.
fear a possible "suicide bombing mission" on an Israeli b. Hijacking. A passenger in a commercial airplane
town or military installation by an airliner loaded with ex- threatens to explode a bomb which, he asserts, is in a
handbag he is carrying. The pilot diverts the flight of the
plosives. 154
plane to a destination demanded by the passenger. The
c. Security Zones. To what extent may security con-
passenger leaves the plane at that destination and the
siderations justify the extension by a state of its jurisdic-
plane is flown to its original destination. Even in this sim-
tion into zones of airspace contiguous to those in which it
enjoys sovereignty? The United States (since 1950) and ple example there may be a number of problems of
Canada (since 195 1) have promulgated regulations estab- domestic and international law. The plane may be
lishing Air Defense Ident5cation Zones (ADIZ) ,extend- registered in the United States or in some other country.
The passenger may hijack the plane on the ground in New
ing out some points several hundred miles over the high
seas. Foreign aircraft entering such zones are required to York, while it is over the Atlantic on its way to London,
file fight plans and to make periodic position reports. The or while it is on the ground in London. The hijacker may
be a U.S. national or the national of another state. He may
United States regulations appear to be normally applicable
or may not eventually return to the United States and thus
to foreign aircraft only if they are bound for the United
be subject to its enforcement jurisdiction. The United
States, but there is no comparable limitation in the Cana-
States may ask the government of the foreign state in
dian regulations. During the Algerian conflict, France es-
which the hijacker is located to return him to the United
tablished a "zone of special responsibility," extending
States by extradition proceedings. Additionally, the
some eighty miles from the coast of Algeria, within which
government of a state to which the hijacker has fled may
aircraft were required to file detailed information regard-
ing their flight, to stay within assigned corridors, and to decide to try him, even though that state has had no con-
nection with the event other than having become a place
maintain contact with ground identification stations. 155
4-13. Offenses Aboard or Against Aircraft. a. The spe- of refuge.
cial maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United (1) The 1963 Tokyo Convention. 158 This conven-
States is defined in 1 8 U.S.C. 7. In United States v. Cor- tion was drafted under the auspices of the International
dova, 156 it was held that an aircraft was not a "vessel" Civil Aviation Organization and signed in 1963. It entered
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. 7(1) and that a into force for the United States on December 4, 1969. Sev-
United States court therefore had no jurisdiction to try and enty-four states were parties to the Convention on Janu-
punish a defendant accused of assaulting certain persons ary 1, 1975. The Convention is concerned broadly with
(including the pilot) on a United States aircraft flying over the question of crimes on board aircraft in flight, on the
the high seas between Puerto Rico and New York. Con- surface of the high seas, or any other area outside the ju-
risdiction of a nation state. A special purpose of the Con-
gress thereupon amended 18 U.S.C. § 7 by an act of July
vention is to provide that there be no lapse of jurisdiction
153. For an in-depth factual account of this incident, see Aviation with respect to such crimes. To that end, Article 3 pro-
Week and Space Technology, July 9, 1973, at 51; July 16, 1973,85; and
July 23, 1973, at 83. vides that at least one state shall have jurisdiction:
154. N.Y. Times, Mar. 2, 1973, 5 1, at 4, col. 1. Article 3
155. See M. McDougal, Space Law, supra, note 39 at 307-1 1; Mac- 1. The State of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise ju-
Chesney, Situation Documents and Commentary on Recent Develop- risdiction over offenses and acts committed on board.
ments in the International Law of the Sea 577-600 in Naval War College, 2. Each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be neces-
International Law Situation and Documents 1956; J. Murchison, The sary to establish its jurisdiction as the State of registration over offenses
Contiguous Air Space Zone in International Law (1957); Martial, Smte
Control of the Air Space Over the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous 157. 49us.c.~.5 1401(b).
Zone, 30 Can. Bar Rev. 245 (1952). 158. Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed
156. 89 F. Supp 298 (1950). on Board Aircraft, 20 U.S.T. 2941 (Documentary Supplement) (1969).