Global AI Governance

The 1970 Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft⁴ was amended by a supplementary protocol in 2010⁵ so as to include the criminalization of remote seizure or exercise of control of an aircraft by technological means, among other updates. The Hague Hijacking Convention is a major treaty ratified by nearly all states in the world:

Hague Hijacking Convention (adopted 1970, in force 1971)

Data last updated: 2022-08-14, CSV, Source: UNTS

Additional source info

In this case UNTS data was supplemented with participation data from ICAO. The main source for each row is indicated in the csv file. Signature data was only available from ICAO, and EIF data only from UNTS. The EIF date was calculated automatically where missing.

In cases of state dissolution, separation and succession the earliest possible date for a given territory was used. In some cases there are multi-year gaps between dissolution of the former sovereign entity and accession of the newly sovereign state. This is reflected in the csv file but not in the data visualization.

Article 1 of the original version was tailored to traditional ’low tech’ hijackers:

Any person who on board an aircraft in flight:

(a)

unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or by any other form of intimidation, seizes, or exercises control of, that aircraft, or attempts to perform any such act, or

(b)

is an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform any such act

commits an offence (hereinafter referred to as “the offence”).

The new 2010 version of Article 1 is much more expansive:

​1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service by force or threat thereof, or by coercion, or by any other form of intimidation, or by any technological means.

​2. Any person also commits an offence if that person:

(a)

makes a threat to commit the offence set forth in paragraph 1 of this Article; or

(b)

unlawfully and intentionally causes any person to receive such a threat,

under circumstances which indicate that the threat is credible.

​3. Any person also commits an offence if that person:

(a)

attempts to commit the offence set forth in paragraph 1 of this Article; or

(b)

organizes or directs others to commit an offence set forth in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 (a) of this Article; or

(c)

participates as an accomplice in an offence set forth in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 (a) of this Article; or

(d)

unlawfully and intentionally assists another person to evade investigation, prosecution or punishment, knowing that the person has committed an act that constitutes an offence set forth in paragraph 1, 2, 3 (a), 3 (b) or 3 (c) of this Article, or that the person is wanted for criminal prosecution by law enforcement authorities for such an offence or has been sentenced for such an offence.

​4. Each State Party shall also establish as offences, when committed intentionally, whether or not any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article is actually committed or attempted, either or both of the following:

(a)

agreeing with one or more other persons to commit an offence set forth in paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article and, where required by national law, involving an act undertaken by one of the participants in furtherance of the agreement; or

(b)

contributing in any other way to the commission of one or more offences set forth in paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article by a group of persons acting with a common purpose, and such contribution shall either:

(i)

be made with the aim of furthering the general criminal activity or purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of an offence set forth in paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article; or

(ii)

be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit an offence set forth in paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article.

This new version is not widely ratified yet, maybe because some states are not enthusiastic about all of the changes introduced in the supplementary protocol. Compare this map with the one above, and bear in mind that the treaty is only in force for parties (see note on terminology).

Beijing Protocol (adopted 2010, in force 2018)

Data last updated: 2022-08-14, CSV, Source: UNTS

Additional source info

UNTS data was supplemented with participation data from ICAO. The main source for each row is indicated in the csv file. Signature data was only available from ICAO.

Another major aviation security treaty, the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation⁶ was replaced by the 2010 Beijing Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation⁷ in the relations between the parties to both treaties.⁸

The Beijing Convention builds on the Montreal Convention but consists in a significant reorientation in the explicit recognition that civil aircraft can be used as a weapon or as a delivery platform for weapons. It establishes as an offence the intentional use of a civil aircraft ‘for the purpose of causing death, serious bodily injury, or serious damage to property or the environment’ (art 1(f)). The release or discharge from an aircraft of a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon, or explosive, radioactive or similar substances in a manner which is likely to cause harm is also criminalized (art 1(g)).

However, the Montreal Convention will still remain relevant for some time to come, as it enjoys near universal ratification with 188 parties, whereas the Beijing Convention has only reached 44 to date.