Leasing Jurisdiction
somewhat changed the above. The international community has
“
...in the year 2000, Depending on the type of leasing established some consensus on
arrangement, the country of registry certain categories of offences that
40% of the aircraft may be different from the country the can be prosecuted by any State that
airline is operating out of and the has ratified the Tokyo Convention.
used in airline crewmembers may be from yet a Such offences include acts of
different country. Under the Tokyo terrorism and sabotage, as well as
operations were Convention, the only jurisdiction which serious offenses that jeopardise the
applies for certain is the jurisdiction of safety of the aircraft, its crew or
leased...so it would be the State of registry. So, in fact, when passengers. Hijacking was considered
leasing aircraft the operator also such a severe offence that the
desirable to extend leases the respective jurisdiction of Convention on Unlawful Seizure of
the State of registry. Other Aircraft (signed at The Hague in
jurisdiction to the State jurisdictions may apply as well – but 1970) established provisions that the
this is subject to interpretation. signatory States, in fact, are not only
of the operator...” Who has a vested interest in pursuing given jurisdiction over hijacking
offences committed on board of aircraft offenses, but are obliged to
operating in such an environment? prosecuted such offenses, regardless
board of aircraft in flight with a viable Generally, one might think that everyone of where the offence occurred.
venue to do so. should have an interest in ensuring Unruly passenger incidents continue
Traditionally, the State of registry of the offenders are prosecuted. In reality, to be dealt with rather differently by the
aircraft would also be the State that the however, things are more complicated. signatory States of the Tokyo
airline would be operating out of and, For one, there is no consensus on what Convention. While there is no uniform
more often than not, also the State the constitutes a criminal offence on board reporting system on unruly passenger
operating crewmembers would be an aircraft and what does not. incidents, there seems to be a clear
certified in. As such, there was some Additionally, different countries have trend showing a significant increase in
commonality in the operational basis and different views on the respective the number of incidents involving unruly
corresponding common interest in severity of offences and corresponding passengers (e.g. in the USA, the FAA
pursuing offenses committed during the punishments – or whether a certain reported an average of 207 “unruly
respective operations. offence is even worth prosecuting at all passenger enforcement actions” per
Over the past decades, aircraft (a lot of court systems are already year from 1995-2000 – increasing to
leasing and code-sharing have bogged down with case-load). 248 per year from 2001-2006).
An Air Atlanta aircraft flying for Cargolux
34 December 2007 Aviationsecurityinternational
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52