International Agreements and Organizations — Page 52, Lesson 96

I want to walk you through the international agreements that form the backbone of aviation law. These are the treaties that define how states cooperate when things go wrong in the air. We're going to look at five instruments, each with a specific job, and I want you to notice the pattern: each one was born from a specific problem, and each one assigns responsibility to a specific authority. Let's start with the earliest one, from September 1963, signed in Tokyo. This is the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft. Its job is to answer a fundamental question: when a crime happens on an aircraft, whose law applies? The Tokyo Convention determines whose penal law is applicable. It also defines the rights and obligations of the aircraft Commander — that's the person in charge of the flight, and this treaty gives them specific legal authority to deal with offences on board. It also defines the rights and obligations of the authorities of the state in which the aircraft lands. So if a disturbance happens mid-flight, the state where you land has defined powers to act. And importantly, this convention defines unlawful seizure of aircraft — what we commonly call hijacking. So Tokyo in 1963 is the foundation: it establishes jurisdiction and the commander's authority. Now, the problem with Tokyo was that it didn't go far enough on hijacking specifically. So we move to December 1970, The Hague. This is the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. Notice the title — it's specifically about unlawful seizure. This one is applicable to both domestic and international flights, so it's broader in scope. It defines the term 'in flight' — that's a legal definition that matters because it determines when the convention applies. And here's the key part: it allocates jurisdiction after an offence has been committed. There are four states that can claim jurisdiction, in this order. First, the State of Registration — the country where the aircraft is registered. Second, the State of landing if the offender is still on board. Third, the State of Operator — that's the company operating the flight, which may differ from the registration state. And fourth, the State in which the offender is apprehended, if that state does not wish to extradite. So The Hague gives us a clear hierarchy of who gets to prosecute. Now let's look at a different kind of agreement, from March 1971, Guatemala City. This is a Protocol to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air. This one is about liability — who pays when someone is hurt. It makes the carrier absolutely liable. Now, I want you to understand this shift carefully. It replaces 'fault' liability with 'risk' liability. Fault liability means you're liable only if you were negligent. Risk liability means you're liable simply because the risk materialised, regardless of fault. So in the case of death or injury caused by sabotage or hijacking, the carrier is liable. The protocol limits liability to $100,000 for passengers and baggage, including negligence. But there are exceptions — two of them. First, self-inflicted or wilful damage by the claimant. Second, death or injury resulting from ill health of the passenger. So if the passenger caused their own harm, or died from a pre-existing medical condition, the carrier is not liable. Now we come to September 1971, Montreal. This is the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation. This one deals with a person who commits specific acts. Let me list them. A person who acts violently on board an aircraft. A person who destroys or damages an aircraft in service. A person who places a bomb or similar device on board an aircraft. A person who destroys or damages a navigation aid, or interferes with its operation. And a person who passes false information, thus endangering an aircraft. So Montreal in 1971 broadens the scope beyond hijacking to cover sabotage, attacks on navigation aids, and even false information that endangers an aircraft. And finally, also September 1971, Montreal — there's a Supplementary convention to the one we just discussed. This supplementary instrument deals with offences committed at an airport serving international aviation. So the main Montreal convention covers acts on board and against aircraft in service; the supplementary one extends coverage to the airport environment itself. So let me tie this together for you. Tokyo 1963 gives us jurisdiction and commander's authority. The Hague 1970 gives us a clear hierarchy for prosecuting hijackers. Guatemala City 1971 shifts liability to a risk-based system with a $100,000 cap. Montreal 1971 covers sabotage and violence against aviation, and its supplementary protocol extends that to airports. Each one builds on the last, and together they form the legal framework that governs how states handle offences in international aviation.