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 Convention also authorizes a contracting State which is not a State of registration to interfere with an aircraft in .ight in .ve cases in which the offence
(a) has an effect on the territory of State; (b) has been committed by or against a national or permanent resident of State; (c) is against the security of the State; (d) consists of a breach of any rules or regulations relating to the .ight or manoeuvre of aircraft in force in such State; (e) that the exercise of such jurisdiction is necessary in order to ensure the observance of any obligation of such State under a multilat-eral international agreement.
As regards the geographic scope of the Convention for jurisdictional purposes, Article 1 provides that the Convention applies in respect of acts or offenses committed while the aircraft is “in .ight” or on the surface of the High Seas or on another area which does not have a territorial sovereign. The term “in .ight” is de.ned in Article 1(3) as “from the moment when the power is applied for the purpose of take-off until the moment when the landing run ends.” Hence, hijacking attempts initiated during the time the aircraft isparked or taxing are not considered to be within the ambit of the Convention. As a consequence, the provisions of Tokyo convention fell short of curbing the crime of sabotage of air transport facilities. This shortcoming of the Tokyo Convention, inter alia, led to the adoption of Montreal Convention (1971).
III. Powers and Duties of States
It is a basic obligation of a State to co-operate with other States in order to ensure the safety of internationalcivil aviation. Article 11 of the Tokyo Convention, which is referred to above, provides that Contracting States have certain obligations whenever a person on board an aircraft has unlawfully committed by force or threat thereof an act of interference, seizure or other wrongful exercise of control. The question of whether a particular act is lawful or unlawful is to be judged by the law of the State of registration of the aircraft or the law of the State in whose airspace the aircraft maybein .ight.Paragraph1of Article 11 imposes on allthe Contracting States the obligation to take appropriate measures to restore or to preserve the aircraft commander’s control of the aircraft. The words “appropriate measures” are
580Mendelsohn(1967, p. 514).
C. Concerted Action Under the Auspice of the ICAO
intendedto mean only those things which it is feasible for a Contracting State to do and also only those which it is lawful for a Contracting State to do. Thus, a Contracting State, which is situated thousands of miles away from the scene of the hijacking, is not under any obligation to take any action, because it would not be feasible for it do so.
Article 12 imposes another obligation on each Contracting State. This Article is a corollary to Articles6 and8 of the Convention. The latter two Articles authorize the aircraft commander to disembark any person who has committed, or is about to commit, an act of the type described in Article I of the Convention. Article 12 obliges a contracting State to allow the commander of an aircraft registered in another contracting State to disembark the alleged offender. Article 12 provides:
Any Contracting State shall allow the commander of an aircraft registered in another contracting state to disembark any person pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1.
Thus, it is clear that the obligation of a Contracting State to permit disembarka-tion of a hijacker, at the request of the aircraft commander, is an unquali.ed obligation.
Article 13 of the Convention deals with the obligation of a contracting State to take delivery of a person from the aircraft commander. This provision should be contrasted with the authority of the aircraft commander to disembark. The obliga-tion of the contracting State under this Article is a corollary to the authority given to the aircraft commander under Articles 6,7 and 9.
　
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(166)