Now we move to the two instruments that actually criminalise hijacking and… — Page 39, Lesson 69

Let me walk you through the two conventions that form the backbone of international law on aircraft hijacking and sabotage. We just covered the Tokyo Convention, which dealt with offences committed on board an aircraft in flight by a person on board — and the key obligation it placed on States party to the Convention: they are obliged to take all appropriate measures to restore and preserve control of the aircraft to its lawful commander. That's the foundation. Now we move to the two instruments that actually criminalise hijacking and sabotage. First, The Hague Convention of 1970. This came about after a spate of politically motivated terrorist hijackings of aircraft in the 1960s. The international community, under the auspices of ICAO — that's the International Civil Aviation Organization — resolved to work together to prevent or deter such acts. The word the convention uses is "suppress." So its formal title is the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague in December 1970. What does it do? It defines the act of unlawful seizure of aircraft — that's hijacking — and it lists which contracting states have undertaken to make such offences punishable by severe penalties. So the key point: this convention doesn't just condemn hijacking; it obliges states to criminalise it and to punish it severely. It also contains detailed provisions on three things: the establishment of jurisdiction by states over the offence — that is, which state has the legal authority to deal with the crime; the taking of the offender into custody; and the prosecution or extradition of the offender. So a state that has the offender in its hands must either prosecute them or hand them over for prosecution elsewhere. The convention came into effect on 14 October 1971. Now the second one, The Montreal Convention of 1971. Its correct title is the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. This one is mainly concerned with acts other than unlawful seizure — so it's not about hijacking per se; it's about sabotage and violence. It makes it an offence to attempt any of the unlawful acts specified, or to be an accomplice to such acts. Again, the contracting states have undertaken to make these offences punishable by severe penalties. And it contains similar detailed provisions regarding jurisdiction, custody, prosecution and extradition of the alleged offender as the Hague Convention of 1970. It came into force on 26 January 1973. Now, what are the specific acts it covers? The excerpt lists them. First: acts of violence on board which endanger people and property and the safety of the aeroplane. So violence that threatens the aircraft itself or those on it. Second: the destruction of an aircraft in service, or causing damage which renders it incapable of flight, or which is likely to endanger its safety in flight. So destroying an aircraft, or damaging it so it can't fly, or damaging it in a way that could endanger it while it's in the air. Third: placing in an aircraft any device likely to destroy, damage or render unfit for flight any aircraft. So planting a bomb or any device that could destroy or damage the aircraft or make it unfit to fly. So the pattern here: The Hague 1970 deals with hijacking — unlawful seizure of the aircraft. The Montreal 1971 deals with the other side — violence, destruction, and sabotage against civil aviation. Together, with the Tokyo Convention, they form the legal framework that obliges states to suppress these crimes, take jurisdiction, hold offenders, and either prosecute or extradite them. That's the core of international air law on this subject.