International Agreements and Organizations — Page 39, Lesson 68

Let's pick this up with the modern freedoms, because that's where the book leaves off. I want to walk you through what's happened since the original five freedoms of the air were agreed. As airlines grew and started operating globally, the old framework wasn't enough. So further commercial freedoms evolved — these are the "modern freedoms." But here's the key point for your Air Law syllabus: these modern freedoms are not covered by the Learning Objectives for Air Law. So you need to know they exist, but you won't be examined on their detail. Now, the Bermuda Agreement. This is a landmark. The first bilateral Air Transport Agreement — and I want you to remember that acronym, ATA — was signed at Bermuda in 1946, between the UK government and the US government. It set the example that other states followed. And to give you a sense of scale, there are currently some 3,000 ATAs in force globally. So when you hear "bilateral," think two states signing an agreement between themselves, and this was the template for all of them. Now let's move to a new topic: the Conventions of Tokyo, the Hague, and Montreal. These three conventions all deal with unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation. Why were they signed? Because unlawful acts of violence endanger the safety of persons and jeopardize the safe operation of airports. And critically, they undermine the confidence of the peoples of the world in the safety of civil aviation. That's the stated reason — it's not just about physical danger, it's about public confidence. That's what led to the signing of these three conventions. Let's start with the Tokyo Convention of 1963. This one establishes a fundamental principle: the State of Registration of an aircraft is competent to exercise jurisdiction over offences and acts committed on board. So if an aircraft is registered in State A, State A has the legal authority over what happens on that aircraft, wherever it is in the world. The object of the Tokyo Convention is to ensure that offences, wherever committed, should not go unpunished. That's the whole point — no legal vacuum in the sky. Now, why does the commander need powers? Because certain acts committed on board an aircraft may jeopardize the safety of the aircraft, or the persons and property on board, or may prejudice good order and discipline on board. So the convention empowers the aircraft commander — and others — to do two things. First, to prevent such acts from being committed. Second, to deliver the person concerned to the appropriate authority. And then there's the seizure case. In the case of an anticipated or actual unlawful or forcible seizure of an aircraft in flight by a person on board — that's hijacking, in plain terms — the States party to the Convention are obliged to take all appropriate measures to restore and preserve... and that's where the excerpt cuts off. But you can see the direction: the states have an obligation to act to restore control of the aircraft. So to tie it together: Tokyo 1963 gives the state of registration jurisdiction, gives the commander powers to intervene and hand over offenders, and obliges states to act against hijacking. That's your foundation before we move to the Hague and Montreal conventions next.