Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:28:30.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extradition v. Asylum for Aerial Hijackers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

L. C. Green
Get access

Extract

The hijacking of a Lufthansa aircraft from Rome to Kuwait, via Athens, consequent upon the massacre at Rome airport, focused attention upon the problem of the prevention and punishment of aerial hijacking.

This issue has many facets, but perhaps one of those which is of most interest to the lawyer is the institution of judicial proceedings against those involved. Insofar as international hijackings are concerned, the offender is always outside the territory of the country from or to which the aircraft is flying, either because of the diversion or because the hijacker has made his safe exit, a condition for the freeing of the aircraft or its passengers and crew. Invariably, too, he is outside the territory of the aircraft's state of registration. This means that extradition becomes a major issue, with the possibility of the hijacker seeking asylum in order to avoid his return to any of the various countries that may be seeking to place him on trial.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 207 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., McWhinney, , ed., Aerial Piracy and International Law (1971).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., Art. 2 of the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Somalia in Peaslee, , Constitutions of Nations (The Hague, 1965) vol. 1, p. 778.Google Scholar

3 1967, Res. 2313 (XXII).

4 1966, Res. 2200 (XXI).

5 See, e.g., Green, , “The Right to Asylum in International Law” (1961) 3 Univ. of Malaya L.R. 223Google Scholar; Report of Int. Law Assoc. Committee on Legal Aspects of Asylum, Report of 51st Conference Tokyo 1964, p. 246; Sinha, , Asylum and International Law (1971) 18, 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whiteman, , Digest of International Law (1967) vol. 8, p. 681.Google Scholar

6 For details of some typical constitutional provisions of this kind, see Green, , “The Nature of Political Offences” (1964) 3 The Solicitor Quarterly 213, 217–20Google Scholar; and for a fairly comprehensive list, Sinha, op. cit., at p. 54, n. 5.

7 For an interesting instance of avoidance of this, see the Eisler incident between the U.K. and the U.S.A., 1949, Whiteman, op. cit. vol. 9, pp. 129–39; Finch, , “The Eisler Extradition Case” (1949) 43 Am. J. Int. L. 487CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Green, , “Recent Trends in the Law of Extradition” (1953) 6 Current Legal Problems 274, 284–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 See Asylum Case [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266.

9 See the debates at all I.L.A. Conferences since Tokyo.

10 (1970) 9 Int. Legal Materials 673 (emphasis added).

11 European T.S. No. 24, Art. 3.

12 Dept. of Ext. Aff., Canada, Communiqué No. 92, Dec. 3, 1971.

13 R.S.C. 1970, E-21.

14 [1952] LR. 62, 18 Int. Law Rep. 336, 343.

15 (1952) 19 Int. Law Rep. 371, 373–4.

16 The Times (London) October 15, 1973. See, also ibid., Dec. 15, 1973, for German conviction of Czech hijackers.

17 (1971) 10 Int. Legal Materials 133, Arts. 2, 8.

18 Ibid., at p. 1151.

19 (1973) 12 Int. Legal Materials 377, Arts. 87, 89.

20 Dept. of Ext. Aff., Canada, Communiqué No. 19, Feb. 15, 1973, Art. 1.

21 (1973) 12 Int. Legal Materials, 370.

22 [1891] 1 Q.B. 156, 159.

23 [1894] 2 Q.B. 415, 419.

24 The Times (London) Jan. 17, 21, 1974.

25 1891, cited in Papadatos, , Le Délit Politique (Genève, 1955) 84.Google Scholar

26 (1910) 17 C.C.C. 268, 15 W.W.R. 369.

27 24 Int. Law Rep. 518, 520.

28 (1947) 14 Ann. Dig. 145–6.

29 [1955] 1 Q.B. 540, 550, 551.

30 Karadzole v. Artukovic (1957) 257 F 2d 198, 203.

31 U.S., ex rel. Karadzole v. Artukovic (1959) 170 F. Supp. 383, 395.

32 Whiteman, , Digest of International Law (1967) vol. 6, pp. 810–11.Google Scholar

33 Ibid. at pp. 811–2.

34 [1964] A.C. 556, 584, 591–2, 612.

35 (1972) 30 D.L.R. (3d) 260, 268 (Honeywell, Co. Ct. J., O.) unaffected as to substance, 30 D.L.R. (3d) 613.

36 (1972) 28 D.L.R. (3d) 513, 520 (Waisberg, Co. Ct. J., 0.), unaffected as to substance, 30 D.L.R. (3d) 527.

37 Decision of Feb. 4, 1959, summarized in (1960), 54 Am.J.Int.L. 416, 417–8.

38 The Times (London) Dec. 5, 1973, per Butler J.