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 main purpose of the Tokyo Convention was to secure the collaboration of States in restraining terrorist activity directed at air transport. It has therefore been said that:
The .rst action taken by the international community to combat hijacking was the Tokyo Convention 1963. This Convention was originally designed to solve the problem of the commission of crimes on board aircraft while in .ight where for any number of reasons the criminal might escape punishment.570
565Boyle(1964, p. 320). 566Boyle(1964, p. 321). 567Boyle(1972, p. 463). 568Boyle(1972, p. 463). 569Abramovsky(1974, p. 89). 570Boyle(1972, p. 463).
The objectives of the Tokyo convention may be subsumed into four principal areas:
(1)
The Convention makes it clear that the State of registration of the aircraft has the authority to apply its laws. From the standpoint of States such as the United States, this is probably the most important aspect of the Convention, since it accords international recognition to the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction under the circumstances contemplated in the Convention;

(2)
The Convention provides the aircraft commander with the necessary authority to deal with persons who have committed, or are about to commit, a crime or an act jeopardising safety on board his aircraft through use of reasonable force when required, and without fear of subsequent retaliation through civil suit or otherwise;

(3)
The convention delineates the duties  and responsibilities of the contracting State in which an aircraft lands after the commission of a crime on board, including its authority over, and responsibilities to, any offenders that may be either disembarked within territory of that State or delivered to its authorities;

(4)
The crime of ‘hijacking’ has been addressed in some degree of depth.571

The Convention applies to any act that is an offence under the penal laws of a Contracting State, as well as to acts which, whether or not they are offenses, may jeopardise safety, good order and discipline on board. The Convention thus does not de.ne the offence at the international level nor does it explicitly explain the nature of the offence. Alona E. Evans has observed:
The offenceisnot madea crime under internationallaw;its de.nitionistobe determined by the municipal laws of the contracting State.572
Admittedly, there are some limitations placed upon the scope of the application of the Convention. Firstly, the Convention excluded from its operations aircraft used in military, customs or police services. It should be noted that reference is not made in the Convention to “State aircraft” as mentioned in Article3of the Chicago Convention, which does not applyto such aircraft. This difference in terminologyis explained by the fact that State aircraft provide air transport that is usually provided by civil aircraft and civil transport in some cases. Secondly, offenses against penal laws of a politicalnature or those based on racial or religious discrimination are not covered by the Convention except to the extent that the Convention addressed such acts which jeopardise safety or good order and discipline on board. the reason for excluding those offenses from the scope of the Convention could be attributed to the view:
Penal laws forbidding various forms of racial and religious discrimination take many and varied forms, and the views of the Courts of the Contracting States may differ on the issue of whether one or the other is within or without the Convention. Even more divergence of
571Boyle(1964, p. 329). 572Evans(1969, p. 708).
C. Concerted Action Under the Auspice of the ICAO
view can be expected in decisions which involve the question of whether a particular offence is of a “political nature.”573
Although the Convention does not de.ne the offence of hijacking, Article 11 speci.es the circumstances that would constitute the offence as:
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(163)