Open Access Research Article
CRISIS IN THE SKIES: ANALYZING THE GLOBAL THREAT OF AIRCRAFT HIJACKING AND COUNTERMEASURES
Published Paper
Article Details
CRISIS IN THE SKIES: ANALYZING THE
GLOBAL THREAT OF AIRCRAFT HIJACKING AND COUNTERMEASURES
AUTHORED BY
- VAIBHAV
Abstract
Aviation
has evolved a lot since the first successful aeroplane was built by
the Wright Brothers in 1903. This can be attributed to
the significant developments in modern science and technology. Aviation has
grown to be a significant part of our daily lives. Fast travel and convenience
in trade and commercial activities are just some of the boons of aviation.
However, new crimes have also emerged with technological growth and new
inventions. Aircraft Hijacking is one such weed that has grown and created
problems in safe transport. The safety, freedom and many other inalienable
rights of the passengers are affected due to such criminal activity. While the
motive of the offenders might be political or personal, the innocent passengers are
wrongly put through this traumatic experience. Although the Freedoms
of Air have made travel globally convenient, strict action and precautions
must be taken against hijacking. This research paper aims to
understand the terrorist activity of aircraft hijacking through various case
studies. It also aims to understand what constitutes aircraft hijacking and the
international community's efforts to govern such international terrorism.
Further, the research paper will also explore the reasons and motives behind
such hijacking and analyze the effectiveness of the international community in
curbing such violations.
Keywords: Aircraft
Hijacking, International Terrorism, Ransom, Hostage, Tokyo Convention, Hague
Convention, Montreal Convention.
Introduction
Aircraft Hijacking, in layman’s terms, can be
understood as unlawfully taking control of an aircraft through threat or
coercion due to personal or political motives. It can occur before or after the
flight has taken off and is in transit. It did not take long for the crime of
aircraft hijacking to emerge as the first successful plane was built in 1903,
and the first aircraft hijacking was committed in 1931 in Peru Lima. However,
this is not the most severe case of hijacking in the same way the first
aeroplane was not the best. Both the good and the bad have evolved. Aircraft
hijacking is seen as a grave offence against humanity across the
globe. Four elements constitute the crime of aircraft hijacking:
1.
The most obvious one is that the offence is
committed on the Aircraft before or after it has taken off.
2.
The offenders use unlawful force or coercion to gain
control of the Aircraft.
3.
Intimidation is used against the pilots or
other authorities controlling the flight.
4.
The hijacking is committed due to personal
and political reasons such as enmity between countries or terrorism.
The
governments and international community have made much effort throughout the
years to curb the crime of aircraft hijacking and prosecute the violators and
offenders.
Nevertheless,
these hijackings continue to happen despite the preventive and precautionary
measures to safeguard the passengers. Aircraft hijackings, although sometimes
resolved without any casualties, can sometimes take horrible turns and result
in casualties of multiple passengers, like the infamous 9/11 incident, which
shocked the whole international community and resulted in the death of almost
3000 people. This incident paved the way for stricter rules and regulations and is condemned as one of the most fateful
events ever. Hijackers see Aircraft as an easy target since nobody can stop
them once the flight is in transit and hundreds of feet in the air.
Moreover,
they can take the Aircraft to a country that fits their political ideologies
and will provide them with safe asylum till they achieve their aim or motive.
At the same time, past events have made the international community stricter
regarding framing rules and ensuring precautions in Aircraft; an analysis
of how and why they were achieved at the present stage is
essential. The rarity of aircraft hijackings in the modern era suggests the
success of the efforts of the International Community in addressing the issue
Understanding
the Motives and Objectives for Aircraft Hijacking
It is
evident from the past cases that “Aircraft Hijacking” is committed for specific
purposes, aims or objectives. For example, A particular terrorist organization
can Hijack an Aircraft and hold the passenger's, hostage, for vast amounts of
ransom. The aim of the hijackers, in this case, is personal or monetary, as
they use the passengers on board as collateral for getting vast amounts of
money. However, there are also other motives or objectives for Skyjacking,
which are discussed below:
Terrorism: Hijacking
for terrorism is considered to be one of the most gruesome and
inhumane forms of Hijacking. Under this type of Hijacking, the group of
Hijackers take control of the Aircraft through force to create fear in the
general public or become infamous across the globe by communicating their
ultimate aim. This is the most severe type of Hijacking because both
the Aircraft and the passengers’ lives are threatened, and the
past has shown us that these terrorists show no mercy to anyone. The relevant
authorities, even if they try their best, only have limited control hundreds of
feet in the air and thus sometimes have to fall to the demands of the
terrorists.
Political: This type
of Hijacking is committed to creating an imbalance in the country's politics.
After passing a particular order or decision, high-profile political leaders or
organization leaders are targeted and criticized for the country's condition.
Every decision will have supporters and critics, and thus, this type of
Hijacking is done by a group of people who are extremely unhappy with
the leader's decision and want to punish them. This is the reason the
political leaders travel with so much security since their deaths can
affect the governance of the entire nation and create havoc.
Personal: There are
certain instances where hijacking is committed by people who are
mentally unstable or have psychological disorders and commit hijacking for no
other reason apart from criminal intentions. These categories of people are
hazardous as we have seen in the past that serial killers and other unstable
criminals have killed a vast number of people for no other reasons apart from
personal satisfaction from the killings.
Political
Refugee Motive and Release of Members Imprisoned:
Hijackings are also committed when a particular group of
people who are not satisfied with the politics in their state wish to immigrate
to another country illegally to seek political refugee. Apart from this,
certain hijackings are also committed by holding passengers as hostages and
threatening to kill them unless the hijackers’s
colleagues who are imprisoned are released. In these cases, the
hijackers are in contact with the government of the state whose airline is
ambushed and the members are
imprisoned. The Hijack is stopped after the requested members are
released from the prisons of that particular state.
Monetary or
Ransom Motive: Under these types of Hijackings, the group of
Hijackers take control of the plane through unlawful use of force and hold the
passengers hostage, in return for a massive sum of money. The passengers are
released, and the Hijacking is concluded when the requested amount is
deposited into the Hijackers' accounts. The Hijackers can also have other
demands apart from just money to publicize the aim and objective of their
terrorist activities.
These are
the most common motives and objectives that the terrorists who commit “Aircraft Hijacking” have.
Political and personal reasons are the most common, and thus, these are the
ones that need more investigation by the intelligence agencies and other
relevant authorities to know when the terrorists can strike, and thus they can
take precautionary measures
Analysis of
the International Conventions on
Aircraft
Hijacking
Tokyo Convention (1963)[1]
Finally, considering the severity and casualties
caused by aircraft hijacking, “The Convention on
Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft” was introduced in Tokyo and enacted on 4th December
1969. The Tokyo Convention was one of the first efforts taken by the
international community against the offence of “Aircraft hijacking”
or “Skyjacking,” which was becoming more prevalent
due to the lack of regulating legislation or rules around the issue.
Article 1(1) of the Convention declared that actions that threaten the
passengers on the Aircraft, create indiscipline, or affect the general good
conduct and order on the Aircraft shall be a penal offence. Further, Article
1(2) of the Convention discusses the applicability and jurisdiction in cases of
such offences committed on board while the flight is in transit outside its
territorial jurisdiction.
However, the Tokyo Convention has been criticized
since it failed to curb the offence of aircraft hijacking effectively and had
several deficiencies. At the outset, the Convention only defined what
activities could be offences while the Aircraft was on board. At the same time,
it failed to define the offence of “Aircraft Hijacking
exclusively” and the elements that constitute it. It failed to address the
severe offence of Skyjacking and the repercussions of the activities that would
constitute such an offence. The Convention did not declare it a crime but
merely listed activities that could constitute Aircraft Hijacking. However,
this is unfair as aircraft hijacking is a much more grave and serious offence
than creating indiscipline. Secondly, the convention failed to consider the
fact that the offence of ‘Aircraft Hijacking” can also take place within the borders of the Home
State Airline. The applicability of the convention as per Article 1(2) will be “in the high seas” or “other
areas outside the territory of the State”. However, this is a significant
drawback of the convention as time has proved that aircraft hijacking also
takes place in the territory of the home state as much as it takes place
outside. The Convention also failed to impose sanctions or mandate the
prosecution of offenders effectively. The Home State airline can either
exercise its territorial criminal jurisdiction and prosecute the offender or
send the offender back to his/her country to be prosecuted per their laws
regarding such offence. However, providing the power to the authorities on the
flight to prevent such offences and protect the Aircraft was a great initiative
and justified concerning “Aircraft Hijacking”.
The Hague Convention (1970)[2]
The years 1968 and 1969 laid the road for setting
new rules and regulations concerning ‘Aircraft Hijacking’ as more than 100
successful reported hijackings were committed in this period alone. This affected
the international community as passengers no longer felt safe while commuting
through aviation and were hesitant to travel through airlines. Moreover, the
trade and commercial purposes that were fulfilled through aviation were
also threatened due to such a high number of successful hijackings. It was
evident that the Tokyo convention had failed and was inefficient in curbing the
offence of Aircraft Hijacking, and thus, a new Convention was adopted in
Hague on December 16, 1970, which was the “Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft.”. The Convention
very briefly defined the offence of Aircraft Hijacking as Article 1 said
“ Any person who on board an aircraft in flight:
(a)
unlawfully, by
force or threat thereof, or by any other form of intimidation, seizers, or
exercises control of, that aircraft, or attempts to perform any such act, or
(b)
Is an accomplice
of a person who performs or attempts to perform any such act
commits an offence”[3]
Recognizing the accomplices as offenders was necessary
since such offences on the aircraft are generally committed by a
group of people and are rarely a one-person operation. Article 2 of the
Convention has also made mandatory for the “Contracting
State” to make these offences punishable with severe punishments. Unlike the
Tokyo convention, where the Contracting state was at liberty to either
prosecute the offenders or extradite them, the Hague Convention mandates the
Extradition of such individuals who violate the rules of the convention through Article
8. The Extradition will take place by the laws of the requesting
state, and the facts and circumstances plus motives of hijacking are not
considered, which is a drawback because if the act were committed for
political reasons, the Extradition would fail the purpose of the convention
which aims to punish such individuals. Thus, although all the rules and
regulations of the Hague Convention aimed at actions that constituted aircraft
hijacking, it still failed in the same way as the Tokyo Convention in
recognizing exclusively the offence and crime of “Aircraft Hijacking”.
Another drawback is that the convention only protects an aeroplane ‘in-flight’ and “in
situations where it is under a threat of seizure.” this narrows down the
authority of the convention as the Aircraft can also be hijacked on
the ground, as in the case of “Pan Am Flight 73 Boeing 747-121” going
to New York and was hijacked before the flight in Karachi by a terrorist
organization. In order to increase the effectiveness of the Hague Convention
and address its deficiencies, a supplementary portal was adopted in “Beijing in September 2010” the significant change
brought by this supplementation was to replace Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention.
The Article 1 was replaced to:
“(1) Any
person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally seizes or
exercise control of an aircraft in service by force or threat thereof, or by
coercion, or by any other form of intimidation, or by any technological means;
(2) Any person also commits an offence if that person:
(a)makes a threat to commit the offence set forth in
paragraph 1 of this Article or
(b) Unlawfully and intentionally causes any person to
receive such a threat, under circumstances which indicate that the threat is
credible.”
Thus, by replacing the Article, the Convention will
now apply to a broader range of offences. Another practical addition is the
introduction of the term “Aircraft in Service”,
which, as per Article 3, means that the Aircraft will be in service or
operation before the flight has taken off, thus including the time when the
Aircraft is on land getting ready to take off and shall be in service 24 hours
after landing. This solves the deficiency of the Hague Convention,
which only considers the offence committed while the flight has taken off and
is in transit. Although the Hague Convention is not perfect, it considered and
included many provisions to limit success in curbing aircraft hijacking. The
Convention was much broader and effective than the Tokyo Convention.
Montreal Convention (1971)[4]
After the Hague
Convention in 1970, “The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
Against the Safety of Civil Aviation”, i.e., the Montreal Convention,
was adopted in 1971, which, in addition to certain offences committed on
Aircraft, laid more emphasis on the actions that were likely to endanger the
wellbeing and safety of the Aircraft, i.e. placed more importance on the
Aircraft as a property. This can be understood by looking at Article 1 of the Montreal
Commission, which states:
“Article 1.
1.
Any person commits
an offence if he unlawfully and intentionally:
(a) performs an act of violence against a person on
board an aircraft in flight if that act is likely to endanger the safety of
that aircraft; or
(b) destroys an aircraft in service or causes damage
to such an aircraft which renders it incapable of flight or which is likely to
endanger its safety in flight; or
(c) places or causes to be placed on an aircraft in
service, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to
destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to it which renders it incapable of
flight, or to cause damage to it which is likely to endanger its safety in
flight; or
(d) destroys or
damages air navigation facilities or interferes with their operation, if any
such act is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight; or
(e) communicates information which he knows to be
false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight.
2. Any person also commits an offence if he:
(a)
attempts to commit
any of the offences mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article; or
(b)
is an accomplice of a person who commits or
attempts to commit any such offence.”[5]
It must be noted that apart from this, most
of the provisions were similar to those of the Hague Convention.However, there
was were many measures adopted which increased screening and security at the
airports.This would prevent hijackings at the earlier stage by identifying
suspicious people and dangerous weapons/devices. Another significant change
brought about by the Montreal Convention was its supplementary protocol in 1989,
which laid several penalties for persons who commit such offences in airports.
Further, the convention stipulated that the Home State Airline can exercise its
territorial jurisdiction on such offences even if they are far beyond its
territories
Case Study
Hijacking of 4 planes which crashed into the World
Trade Center and Pentagon
Considered to be
one of the most inhumane and destructive terrorist acts post World War 2, the
hijacking incident took place in September 2001. All the four planes which were
scheduled to fly were hijacked by a group of terrorists. The
Hijackers used two planes to destroy the famous “World Trade Centre(WTC)” whereas
the other two planes crashed in “Pennsylvania” and the “Pentagon in Washington”. This is
one of the most severe cases of Aircraft Hijacking, as it led to the death of
hundreds of people and injured thousands of others. It destroyed four
aircraft and damaged much public property, costing millions of dollars in
damages. It shocked the entire World, and the international community could not
do anything since the offenders could not be identified. “Osama Bin Laden”, who is an infamous terrorist, was apprehended to
be responsible for this fateful incident by the United States concurring with
the Intelligence agencies. However, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was
protecting and sheltering Osama Bin Laden, and thus, he could not be
extradited by the United States for prosecution. However, the United
States was not going to stay silent and mourn. Thus they launched ‘Operation Infinite Justice’
and waged a war against such gruesome terrorism by launching “cruise missiles” at the suspected areas in
Afghanistan that were considered to be Terrorist Camps of Taliban and
where Osama Bin Laden was suspected to be hiding. The international community
along with NATO supported this initiative. It is shocking and must be
noted that the country of Pakistan, which is considered to be
associated with the Taliban, also supported the United
States Operation. However, it is difficult to understand what kind of
significant advantage Pakistan would be able to provide by agreeing to support
the US, as the operation will very likely kill most of its citizens who are
involved in terrorist organizations in Afghanistan. “The Secretary General of the United
Nations: Kofi Annan” posted this incident and addressed that:
“Today, the shock of this crime has
united the World. If we are to prevent such crimes for being committed again,
we must stay united as we seek to eliminate terrorism. In this struggle, there
is simply no alternative to international cooperation. Terrorism will be defeated
if the international community unities in a broad coalition, or it will not be
defeated at all.”[6]
Aircraft
Hijackings in India
India was a signatory and ratified “the Tokyo Convention, Hague Convention and Montreal
Convention.” Even India has been affected by the terrorist activity of Aircraft
Hijacking, as there have been six successful cases of aircraft hijackings in
India. The first reported one was in 1970, when a group of people hijacked an
Indian Aeroplane, and the Aircraft was then taken to Lahore (Pakistan) to flee
from India’s
jurisdiction and get safe shelter. It is indeed notable that none of the
passengers were harmed, and they were released; however, the Indian
Aircraft was blown to bits by the terrorists. Despite the requests
from the Indian governments, no prosecution or punishment was given to
the offenders by the Pakistan Government, and they were neither allowed to be
extradited to India for trial and punishment. India, who were angered by
this display of non-cooperation by the Pakistan Government, restricted airspace
access of all Pakistan aircraft in Indian airspace. There was another incident
in 1976 where a similar thing occurred, and the aircraft was again taken to
Lahore in Pakistan. However, learning from their mistakes, the Pakistan
Government ordered the relevant authorities to address the offenders, and the
Aircraft was returned to India along with the passengers, and
luckily, no one was harmed or injured. A Hijacking attempt by the Taliban was
also reported in December 1999 when an Indian aircraft travelled from “Kathmandu in Nepal” to “New Delhi in India."
The Hijackers aimed to take the Aircraft to “Kandhar in Taliban”
in order to facilitate their terrorist aims. A passenger was killed, and
other passengers faced a lot of violence and harassment by the terrorists. The
passengers were released after their demands of the hijackers were
fulfilled. The Indian Government had apprehension that the Hijackers were
taking shelter in Pakistan in order to avoid prosecution by India, and thus,
the Indian Government requested Pakistan to extradite them. However, Pakistan
did not do anything and did not even arrest the Hijackers nor make any attempts
to cooperate with India.
Conclusion
Aircraft hijacking is a very serious terrorist
activity that can endanger the safety and lives of hundreds of people
and can also result in large damage to public property. Moreover, the relevant
authorities must take precautions and serious measures in airports for proper
screening of all passengers in order to prevent the carrying of any devices
that might facilitate hijacking. This is important because if the
screening process is strict, there would be less chance of terrorists entering
the Aircraft that is about to take off. After the Aircraft takes off and is in
the air, the authorities have very few options to take back control of the
airline since the aeroplane is isolated in the air, away from land. To solve
this deficiency, the crew members of the airline need to be adequately trained
regarding what to do and what not to do in such circumstances. The measures
taken by the international community through various conventions, such as the Montreal
and Hague Conventions, are significant initiatives and have
successfully reduced the number of aircraft hijackings in modern times. The
criminalization of aircraft hijacking and other related offences on airlines
has raised awareness across the globe regarding this type of crime.
Further, the extradition rules and compulsory
prosecution of such offenders is another great step, which was essential
because certain countries that support such terrorist organizations will no
longer be able to safeguard these individuals. Providing the right and power to
flight commanders to use necessary force to protect the Aircraft from this
terrorist is another excellent initiative. It will help ensure safety even in
the air. All these measures and increasing security will help the citizens of
the country and the passengers to travel and fly on the airlines without any
worry about safety. The Specialized Intelligence agencies also play an integral
role in detecting these hijackings beforehand and thus preventing them
altogether. The aircraft must be equipped with tools and equipment
that can be used while hijacking to protect the passengers and the
aircraft. Continuous communication with the airline authorities is also
essential to get backup in cases where things go out of hand. The past
incidents have taught us that unless severe and immediate action is taken
against this terrorism by the international community altogether, we will never
be able to eradicate these terrorist activities. Thus, with the help of new
technological advancements such as Artificial Intelligence, the screening
measures at airports can be made more strict and special measures need to be
taken during times of political discord in the country since political discord
is one of the most frequent aims seen in Aircraft Hijackings throughout the
years. Additionally, stricter approaches need to be taken against
terrorist organizations in the Taliban and Afghanistan who have been
constantly involved in such activities and think they are invincible. The
International Community together shall launch initiatives to find and punish
these terrorists.
[2] Convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of
aircraft, December 17, 1970, 860 U.N.T.S 105.
[3] Convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of
aircraft, December 17, 1970, 860 U.N.T.S 105, Article 1
[4] Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the
safety of civil aviation, September 1971, 974 U.N.T.S 178
[5] Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the
safety of civil aviation, September 1971, 974 U.N.T.S 178, Article 1
[6] See his address to the General Assembly Session on Terrorism
of October 1, 2001. (UNIC/PRESS Release/106-2001)
Article Information
CRISIS IN THE SKIES: ANALYZING THE GLOBAL THREAT OF AIRCRAFT HIJACKING AND COUNTERMEASURES
Authors: VAIBHAV
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.