Leasing Jurisdiction
Organization (ICAO) on the subjects of several working papers (e.g. C-WP/10066
“
...in the USA, the FAA jurisdiction and unruly passengers. and C-WP/11191), identifying three major
For example, the International subject areas of concern:
reported an average of Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has
repeatedly complained about the lack of 1. drafting a list of specific offences for
207 unruly passenger a concerted, coordinated legal inclusion in national law
framework surrounding aircraft leasing.
enforcement actions Concerning jurisdiction, the ITF has held 2. extension of jurisdiction over such
that: “It cannot be right that access to a offences
per year from 1995- fundamental right of redress depends
so often on the coincidental 3. appropriate mechanisms for effective
2000, increasing to circumstances of an aircraft implementation
registration.” (ITF ATConf/5-WP/73)
248 per year from Over the past few years, ICAO has The study group suggested the
addressed the above issues through a following offences to be included in
2001-2006...” study group. This study group issued national law to ensure a uniform
Several States, such as USA or the
UK, have taken a more activist
approach towards unruly passenger
incidents, by extending their
jurisdiction over these types of offences
whenever such an incident is reported
to their authorities, regardless of where
the incident occurred.
Most countries, however, have not
followed suit, as these countries believe
such extension of jurisdiction goes beyond
the provisions of the Tokyo Convention and
requires further examination with respect
to its feasibility under the basic principles
of international law.
The increased practice of aircraft
leasing (in the year 2000, 40% of the
aircraft used in airline operations were
leased, up from only 15% in 1986) has
further complicated the matter. Under
the Tokyo Convention, the State of
registry has jurisdiction over unlawful
acts committed on board aircraft, even if
the aircraft are operated by someone
from a different State. The State most
closely connected to the potential
offences, however, is probably the State
where the operator of the flight has his
principal place of business.
Consequently, it would be desirable to
extend jurisdiction to the State of the
operator, regardless of State of registry
of the aircraft.
Similarly to aircraft leasing, aircraft
charter and code-sharing arrangements
may result in situations where the State
most closely connected to the potential
offences is different from the State of
registry of the aircraft.
The above issues have prompted various
international organisations, air carriers,
State representatives and other parties to
approach the International Civil Aviation
Aviationsecurityinternational December 2007
www.asi-mag.com 35
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