曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

The Hague Convention, unlike the Tokyo Convention, makes hijacking a dis-tinct offence and calls for severe punishment of any person found within the territory of a Contracting State who hijacked an aircraft. As one writer succinctly observes:
D. The Hague Convention on Hijacking 1970
The Hague Convention speci.cally de.ned the offence of unlawful seizure of aircraft as a model for individual national legislation, and provides ... that each Contracting State undertakes to make the offence punishable by severe penalties.594
Whereas Article I of the Tokyo Convention applied in respect of acts which, whether or not they are offences, the Hague Convention appears to provide the answer the .rst of the problems left by Tokyo Convention.
That offence as de.ned by Hague Convention reads as follows:
Any person who on board an aircraft in .ight
(a)  
unlawfully, by force, or threat thereof, or by any other form of intimidation, seizes, or exercise control of, that aircraft, or attempts to perform any such act; or

(b)  
is an accomplice of a person who performs or attempt to perform any such act commit an offence.

Article 2 of the Convention provides that each Contracting State should make the offence punishable by severe penalties. However, the Convention does not list the exact penalties to be imposedby the Contracting State, other than describing them as severe penalties.
I. The Scope of the Convention
There are several limitations placed on the application of the Convention as expressed by the articles of the Convention. Under Article I, the act must be committed by a person on board an aircraft “in .ight” and it thereby excluded offenses committed by persons not on board the aircraft such as saboteurs who remain on the ground. Thus, the Hague Convention seems to suffer in this respect from the same defects which his predecessor, the Tokyo Convention, has suffered from. D.Y. Chung has observed:
The question of hijacking has been pretty well covered by the Tokyo and Hague Conven-tions. However, the type of hijacking these two Conventions dealt with is only “on board hijacking”, while “non-on board hijacking” is not included. It is possible that someone who is not on board but who has placed a bomb or some destructive device on an airliner, may practice extortion on the airline or divert the plane to another destination. In other words, it is possible to hijack the plane by remote seizure or remote control. Another possibility is that of sabotage. Such a situation is not also covered by the above two Conventions, i.e. Hague and Tokyo.595
Similarly, according to Article I, the Hague Convention only applies to accom-plices who are on board an aircraft in .ight, and not to those who may be on the ground aiding and abetting the unlawful act. The Representative of the Netherlands
594Feller(1972, p. 214). 595Chung(1976, p. 643).
on the ICAO Legal Committee once said in this respect that “it is obviously possible to be an accomplice without being on board an aircraft.”596
Article3 of the Convention provides that the aircraft is deemed to be “in .ight” at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation. Hence, any hijacking initiated or attempted before the closing of the doors of aircraft after embarkation or after the opening of the doors for disembarkation is not covered by the Convention. Rene Mankiewicz observes:
This limitation leaves outside the scope of the Convention any hijacking initiated or attempted before the closing or after the opening of the aircraft doors. As a consequence, such acts are punishable only under the law of the State where committed; the jurisdictional articles of the new Convention do not apply thereto. Furthermore, it follows that such acts are punished merely by the general criminal or air law of the concerned State, unless special legislation is introduced for punishing unlawful seizure committed or attempted on the ground.597
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(171)