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

have hijacked an aircraft and/or do not return such aircraft, the heads of States and
governments are jointly resolved that their governments should take immediate action to
cease all .ights to that country.
At the same time, their governments will initiate action to halt all incoming .ights from
that country or from any country by the airlines of the country concerned. The heads of
States and governments urge other governments to join in this commitment.
It is evident that the declaration was intended to create an international regime for preventing and deterring acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation by the imposition of stringent sanctions that would adversely affect the economic and political interests of a delinquent State. Mark E. Fingerman observes:
The Declaration focuses on sanctions designed to deter nations from encourag-ing the commission of the offence. In effect, the spirit of the Declaration is a recognition of the fact that States are frequently de facto accomplices to acts of skyjacking ...The rationale of the Declaration would appear to be the foreclosing of the possibility of a skyjacker .nding refuge and thereby reducing the attractive-ness of the offence.621
The object of the Bonn Declaration as is indicated in itspreamble is to intensify the joint effort of States to combat international terrorism. In order to achieve this objective, the Declaration has set out respective obligations on third State in the event a hijackedaircraft ended in the territory of such State. If the third State failed to meetthe obligations speci.ed in the Declaration, the Declaration envisages that a de.nite sanction will be in.icted upon the State as a sort of punishment.
The Declaration refers to an act of hijacking, without actually de.ning the offence. It can be assumed that the act referred to would be interpreted in accor-dance with the de.nition in Article 1 of the Hague Convention. The Declaration seemingly refers to act that has been completed, which means that the hijackers
621Fingerman(1980, p. 142).
F. The Bonn Declaration
should have reached their .nal destination. Thus, a State in whose territory a hijacked aircraft lands only for the purpose of refuelling would not act contrary to the Declaration if it allows the landing without taking action against the hijacker.
The Declaration applies in instances where a State refuses to prosecute or extradite the hijackers and/or return the hijacked aircraft. The words “prosecution and extradition” as contained in the Declaration have the same meaning as used in Articles 8 and 7 of the Hague and Montreal Conventions respectively. Of course, for this provision to be applicable a State must be in a position to prosecute or extradite, i.e., the hijacker must stay in the country and be available for prosecution by the competent authorities. However, once a State is able to take appropriate action but does not act and the hijacker disappears, such omission would be regarded as defaulting according to the spirit of the declaration.
The sanctions which the Contracting States would impose are: (a) taking imme-diate action to cease all .ights to that country, and (b) initiating suspension all incoming .ights which arrive from the defaulting State or are operated by airlines of a defaulting State. These sanctions are in essence an economic boycott or a “reprisal” in international law and are meant as a deterrent. The Declaration is recognises in spirit that some States may act as de facto accomplices to acts of hijacking and may give refuge and safe haven to an offender.
I. The Legal Status of the Bonn Declaration
The suspension of aerial communication as envisaged in the Bonn Declaration has been considered a serious measure in the context of international relation:
Naturally, the suspension of aerial communications was not an economic step...This was a political sanction, because the suspension of aerial communications meant in practice a deterioration in relations between States. It meant stoppage of the carriage of cargo and passengers, it would interfere with diplomatic communications, etc.622
　
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(182)