Montreal 1971
The 1971 Montreal Convention criminalised acts and offences which were covered neither by the 1963 Tokyo Convention nor by the 1970 Hague Convention. It repeated some of the provisions of The Hague Convention but it was considered a breakthrough in combating terrorism against air transport as it listed a new series of offences which could be committed without the offender being on board the aircraft. However, the Convention is limited
to offences which affect the safety of the aircraft ‘in service’ or ‘in-flight’. This limitation was addressed to some extent by the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, 1988, which specifically provided for offences against a person at an airport, as well as the destruction of, or damage to, facilities of an airport or an aircraft not in service where such acts endanger, or are likely to endanger, safety at that airport. Another limitation of the Montreal Convention is that it does not make it an offence to threaten to commit the offences in the Convention, unlike The Hague Convention which specifically criminalises a threat to unlawfully seize an aircraft, albeit that this is limited to persons on board the aircraft in-flight.
Chicago 1944
The aviation security provisions of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation were first introduced in 1974 into Annex 17-Security which has since been modified and updated 11 times. The 12th Amendment has been applicable since 1st July 2011 (and the 13th Amendment comes into force on 15th July this year). ICAO also provides states with guidance material in order to assist with the implementation of the security measures contained in Annex 17 such as the Security Manual for Safeguarding Civil Aviation against Acts of Unlawful Interference - Doc. 8973.
“…the 13th Amendment to Annex 17 comes into force on 15th July this year…”
It is worthy to note that Amendment 12 adopted new and more stringent security standards such as the introduction of the concept of building unpredictability into the aviation security regime, while Amendment 13 includes a revision to access control measures and security
June 2013 Aviationsecurityinternational
requirements for transfer and high-risk cargo and establishes common baseline measures for cargo carried on passenger and all-cargo aircraft
These instruments, including Annex 17 of the Chicago Convention, constitute a solid legal framework for aviation security and form a significant part of the sixteen worldwide international treaties related to the prevention and suppression of terrorism. However, all of these instruments were concluded decades ago and many aspects of them require modernisation.
“…the Chicago
Convention…has been ratified by 193 member states, with Dominica, Liechtenstein and Niue being the only states not to have done so…”
Beijing 2010
Since the events of 9/11, there have been several attacks and numerous plots against aircraft in flight, ranging from shoe bombs to dirty bombs and from liquid explosive devices that can be assembled in-flight to IEDs in cargo consignments. Every time, the international community has reacted with pre-emptive and preventive measures, prohibiting any material on board which might seemingly endanger the safety of the flight. New and emerging threats to civil aviation are a constant cause for concern to the aviation community. Threats such as those posed by the carriage of dangerous goods on board, the use of cyber technology designed to interfere with air navigation systems, and the misuse of man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) and even lasers are real and have to be addressed on a regular and harmonised basis. In September 2010 at the ICAO Diplomatic Conference in Beijing, two new international legal instruments were adopted: the Beijing Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation and the Beijing Supplementary Protocol to the 1970 Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft.
The states party to the Beijing Convention were deeply concerned that unlawful acts against civil aviation jeopardised the safety and security of persons and property; seriously affected
the operation of air services, airports and air navigation; and, undermined the confidence of the peoples of the world in the safe and orderly conduct of civil aviation for all states. Once entered into force, the Beijing Convention will succeed and modify the provisions in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civil Aviation (the 1971 Montreal Convention) and the amending Protocol of 1988 between states party to it. The Beijing Protocol also amends the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (The 1970 Hague Convention). The 1970 Hague Convention, as well as the 1971 Montreal Convention, have received wide acceptance; 185 members states for the Hague Convention and 188 member states for the Montreal Convention, but many of their provisions need an update due to the changes that have occurred during the intervening decades following their adoption. Just for the sake of comparison, I remind readers of this journal that the Chicago Convention, one of the most widely ratified Conventions in the world, has been ratified by 193 member states, with Dominica, Liechtenstein and Niue being the only states not to have done so.
“…the Beijing legal instruments further
criminalise a number of new and emerging threats to the safety of civil aviation, including the act of using civil aircraft as a weapon…”
The Beijing legal instruments further criminalise a number of new and emerging threats to the safety of civil aviation, including the act of using civil aircraft as a weapon and of using dangerous materials to attack aircraft or other aviation targets. Both instruments update provisions to promote cooperation between states in combating unlawful acts directed against civil aviation, while emphasising the human rights and fair treatment of any terrorist suspects. Making a threat to commit an
offence under the Beijing instruments may trigger criminal liability, when the circumstances indicate that the threat is credible. The mere act of a conspiracy to undertake an attempt against civil aviation is criminalised.
www.asi-mag.com 21
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