Evolution Of The Aviation Law And Jurisdictions

[Nikdunaev 0]

Hello!

 

I did not find much useful information about that so I decided to ask a question.

 

Nowadays there are legal acts and agreements which state what country jurisdiction is applicable to something happened on board of a flying aircraft. Also if you have to react to a crime right on board somehow for example as landing will take some time you have Tokyo convention for this and other things like that. But the Tokyo convention came into force only in nineteen sixty nine and some other things of that sort even later. What was there before that? After all problems similar to the ones we have nowadays always existed and there certainly were lots and lots of passenger flights and passengers worldwide as well as the cases of crimes on the aircraft and dangerous air rage incidents. I guess the involved countries can decide which ones of them will be applying their law to the incident but what is the crew supposed to do when an immediate response is required in flight?

 

It would be very interesting to know

 

Thank you!

[KevinMM 22]

I don't know, but I'd theorize that it would have been an extension of Maritime law.

[Nikdunaev 0]

Thank you for your reply!

 

I have been thinking about that myself and it seems logical if you look at the normal legal powers of a ship captain to consider an aircraft captain just the same vessel captain if you have no reasons to treat them differently...

It is just that I do not know for sure too and the modern web sorely does not seem to consider it a question lots of stuff should be written on.

 

Or at least I can not manage to find it.

 

For me that is a really interesting question

[ubersu 78]

Actually, if you do a Google search for 'aviation law' and/or 'aviation law history' and/or 'aeronautical law' and/or 'aeronautical law history', you can find quite a bit of material on line.  In general, each country controls the airspace above it and makes law as it deems appropriate, and the ICAO and governmental bodies make law and regulation for traffic between states.  Some of the laws are based on historical maritime law and others, of course, are not.  As a consequence of all of this, it is a fairly arcane tangle and can't be easily encapsulated in a Wikipedia entry.  This http://www.dsaj.gov.mo/iis/EventForm/ContentFileGen.aspx?Rec_Id=4947 paper is a fair introduction.

 

DJ

[mgh 89]

 

 

ut what is the crew supposed to do when an immediate response is required in flight?

 

Obvious the crew makes an immediate reponse!

[Nikdunaev 0]

Just so was the kind of that immediate required crew response actually the same before the Tokyo convention appeared? Or what would it look like?

The document on the link is interesting but again it generally describes the modern state of things. For example it says there that before the seventies most countries did not officially recognize an offense such as an aircraft hijacking. And that again sends us to my original question. Hijackers were prosecuted before that if they were caught. What were the legal grounds for prosecution then?

[ubersu 78]

Lots of grounds but ad hoc - attempted grand theft, assault, air piracy, etc... pretty much whatever they could make fit.  Most hijackers/bombers/murderers (there have been all three) were terminated with extreme prejudice without the benefit of law either by themselves or anyone who was able to do so if possible.  Crews do/did whatever is necessary without consulting a lawyer if they believe there is a threat - legal grounds are irrelevant until everyone on board is safely on the ground.  Most modern cases of aviation law in countries that allow it (France, Brazil for sure) deal with the assignment of blame and/or criminal culpability in the case of an accident.  If you want to know more and from better sources than I then de Paul and Cornell universities have excellent curricula.

 

DJ

[mgh 89]

 

 

What were the legal grounds for prosecution then?

 

Why  not search for yourself it it's important to you?

[Nikdunaev 0]

So the crew was still able to do everything they would do in such case these days even before the Tokyo convention? Was there any kind of document that somehow protected them from accusations of inappropriate usage of force and stuff of that sort? I certainly know that such things exist now but what was it all like back then?

 

Sorry I just did not get it right probably. Those universities may have excellent curricula but I do not study there so how is it going to help me? Sorry again if I do not see something simple.

 

I tried searching the web but probably I am not very good at it and that is what made me ask these questions.

 

Anyway thank you for all your replies!