曝光臺 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

The two offences which can be committed on board an aircraft in service are enclosed in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article1 of the Montreal Convention.
Sub-paragraph (b) is designed to deter and penalise acts of sabotage perpetrated against the aircraft itself. The sub-paragraph encompasses attacks both from within andwithout the aircraft. The destruction anddamage referred to in the sub-paragraph must occur while the aircraft is “in service” as theparticular act, the consequence of which is the destruction of the aircraft, may be performed before the aircraft is “in service” as the particular act, the consequence of which is the destruction of the aircraft, may be performed before the aircraft is “in service.” Destruction includes substantial destruction of the aircraft beyond the possibility of rendering it airwor-thy through repair while the concept “causing damage” is intended to cover the damaging of a vital but inexpensive piece of wiring, would render the aircraft incapable of .ight. It couldalso cover any damage, whether caused to an aircraft on the ground or in the air, where there is a likelihood that the safety of the aircraft in .ight would be endangered.609
Sub-paragraph (c) is an attempt by the Convention to encompass, through using the term ‘by any means whatsoever,’ all situations in which explosives or other devices are placed on board an aircraft.
The word “by any means whatsoever” cover the placing of explosives on board an aircraft whether carried on board by the author of the act or any unwitting accomplice, sent on board in air cargo or by mail, or even attached to the outside of the aircraft before it undertakes its journey.610
Sub-paragraph (d) is intended address hostile acts against “air navigation facil-ities” which may include airports, towers, radio services and meteorological services used in international .ights.
608Fitzgerald(1971, p. 68). 609Fitzgerald(1971, p. 68). 610Fitzgerald(1971, p. 70).
E. The Montreal Convention (1971)
Sub-paragraph (e) is concerned with making it an offence for anyone to pass, or cause to pass false information relating to an offence, for example, the presence of an explosive device or would-be hijacker on board the aircraft. Although most nationallegislation may have already enacted legislation concerning this subject, it was felt that measures to restrain such acts could especially be included in this Convention, as it was intended to cover a type of offence which very de.nitely interferes with the orderly conduct of commercial air services. It must be notedthat in order that the act may fall within the Convention, the offender who commu-nicates the information must know that the information is false.
Article 1(2) covers the case of an attempt to commit an offence and the case of being an accomplice to commit one of the offenses listed in the sub-paragraphs of Article. During the debate on the Montreal Convention, there was an attempt to include conspiracyin the de.nition, but some delegations, including France, were of the view that since conspiracy was not an offence under their national systems of penal law, it should not be included in the convention. After longdeliberations, it was decidedby a vote that reference to conspiracy would not be made in the Convention.
III. Penalties and the Scope of the Convention
Like the Hague Convention, the MontrealConvention provides for the undertaking by each contracting State to make the offenses covered by the Convention punish-able by “severe penalties.” Article 3 of the Montreal Convention states that each contracting State undertakes to make the offenses mentioned in Article 1 punish-able with severe penalties. Unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation are thus considered to be serious crimes which the Contracting States must punish by severe penalties. The term “severe penalties” is, however, not de.ned.
The Delegate of France explained at the discussions leading to the adoption of The Hague Convention that in connection with Article 2 the Sub-Committee and the Committee relating to The Hague deliberations had been faced with the question as to whether or not the severity of the punishment to be imposed upon the offender should be stated. The Sub-committee had come to the conclusion that this could not be done, considering the diversity of criminal codes in different countries. A more general wording, i.e., “severe penalties,” was therefore consid-ered more appropriate. It was not customary for international conventions of this type to stipulate minimum penalties, and a number of States did not have any provisions for them in their national legislation.611 This omission has been criti-cized as one of the weaknesses of the convention.612
　
中國航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(178)