Montreal Convention, 1970 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts

Montreal Convention, 1970 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts

Cuba:

Algeria has also not signed the Convention. Prof thinks there is a silent conspiracy to allow Algeria open as a door of last resort for situations that may arise.

Act must be unlawful & intentionally, (a) act of violence on board that is likely to endanger the safety of those on the aircraft, not just the passengers, unless that crime leads to a danger in civil aviation.

Note 1(d) Mtl. (1970) - could apply to laser communications & cell phones but there is not one case under this matter but is theoretically possible, as such acts have to be shown to intentionally interfere w/ navigation communications. (although this has yet to ever occur).
2(b) Mtl. (1970) Defines destroying an aircraft ‘while in service’. “An aircraft is considered to be in service from the beginning of the preflight preparation of the aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until 24 hours after any landing; the period of service shall, in any event, extend for the entire period during which the aircraft is in flight as defined in 2(a).”

Meaning the aircraft must be in the process of being in service to make it an int’l act. Ex., Putting explosives on board, threatening act to do X – hoax or not – b/c it puts the aircraft in danger as it puts the safety of all at risk by changing the flight path.

1(d) Mtl (1970) refers to any person who commits an offence if he unlawfully & intentionally destroys or damages air navigation facilities or interferes w/ their operation, if such act is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight.

It may be included w/in the universal jurisdiction b/c such act would normally fall under domestic law as the perpetrator would presumably be caught on the domestic territory where the act was committed.
-Mtl. (1971) has the same watered down balance as Tokyo – that being present the case to authorities for the purpose of taking legal action or extradite the individual.
In short, Mtl. (1970):

1. 
   Reproduced structure and main principles in Hague.
   
2. 
   Defines a variety of acts as an offence
   

destruction of or damage to an aircraft in service likely to endanger its safety in flight,

placing of dangerous substance on board,

destruction of air navigation facilities,

interference with their operation if likely to endanger,

hoaxes

3. 
   States undertake to punish severely
   
4. 
   Universal jurisdiction
   

Concern b/c Mtl (1970) did not contain a “foreign element” justifying unification of law and establishing universal jurisdiction, however, this insures that there is no hiding place for an offender w/in the contracting states.

[critique] The instrument is intellectually misguided as its purpose is to deal w/ suppression of unlawful acts of violence agst civil aviation. This has happened but do we need a convention for such acts. Int’l conventions are needed for such situations were there is an int’l element where otherwise there would be a legal vacuum i.e. lack of jurisdiction or laws – an attack at an airport will be criminal act under the nation’s law. Here there is no legal vacuum. There is no doubt of jurisdiction either. So, why pass a convention when the matter will be dealt w/ nationally. One can imagine potentially that if such attacks took place & escaped & were found in another country then maybe such an int’l convention is needed, but otherwise its not needed. However, there was political pressure (namely from Canada) to create such a convention b/c in ’85 & ’86 there were attacks in in’tl airports & there was a tragic crash off the cost of Ireland. There was pressure by the Indian gov’t on Canada for not taking safety measures so Canada pushed the convention to show they’re proactive for security & aviation safety. Issues that arise, however, is when a criminal act becomes int’l or national?

(bare hands are not enough to constitute an offence) (A weapon is defined as any object that can used to make an attack agst body integrity more effective).

But, anything is good to have that has int’l agreement regardless if it is a smashing success.

1. 
   Adds to Mtl (1970) definition of the “offence” acts of violence agst a person at an airport serving int’l civil aviation which cause or are likely to cause serious injury or death, and the act of destruction or damage to airport facilities or aircraft not in service or disruption of the services of the airport if such act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at that airport. Note, “safety of that airport” has not been defined but was stated to show that it is the important element.
   
2. 
   It compliments the mosaic of legal tools for the prevention and suppression of unlawful acts agst civil aviation and docs the will of States to protect aviation security.