• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.16
• /
• pp.303-339
• /
• 2007

"The damage incurred from forced mobilization under the Japanese Imperialism" means the life, physical, and property damage suffered by those who were forced to lead a life as soldiers, civilians attached to the military, laborers, and comfort women forcibly mobilized by the Japanese Imperialists during the period between the Manchurian Incident and the Pacific War. Up to the present time, every effort to restore the history on such a compulsory mobilization-borne damage has been made by the damaged parties, bereaved families, civil organizations, and academic circles concerned; as a result, on March 5, 2004, Disclosure act of Forced Mobilization under the Japanese Imperialism[part of it was partially revised on May 17, 2007]was officially established and proclaimed. On the basis of this law, the Truth Commission on Forced Mobilization under the Japanese Imperialism Republic of Korea[Compulsory Mobilization Commission hence after] was launched under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister on November 10, 2004. Since February 1, 2005, this organ has begun its work with the aim of looking into the real aspects of damage incurred from compulsory mobilization under the Japanese Imperialism, by which making the historical truth open to the world. The major business of this organ is to receive the damage report and investigation of the reported damage[examination of the alleged victims and bereaved families, and decision-making], receipt of the application for the fact-finding & fact finding; fact finding and matters impossible to make judgment; correction of a family register subsequent to the damage judgement; collection & analysis of data concerning compulsory mobilization at home and from abroad and writing up of a report; exhumation of the remains, remains saving, their repatriation, and building project for historical records hall and museum & memorial place, etc. The Truth Commission on Compulsory Mobilization has dug out and collected a variety of records to meet the examination of the damage and fact finding business. As is often the case with other history of damage, the records which had already been made open to the public or have been newly dug out usually have their limits to ascertaining of the diverse historical context involved in compulsory mobilization in their quantity or quality. Of course, there may happen a case where the interested parties' story can fill the vacancy of records or has its foundational value more than its related record itself. The Truth Commission on Compulsory mobilization generated a variety of oral history records through oral interviews with the alleged damage-suffered survivors and puts those data to use for examination business, attempting to make use of those data for public use while managing those on a systematic method. The Truth Commission on compulsory mobilization-possessed oral history archives were generated based on a drastic planning from the beginning of their generation, and induced digital medium-based production of those data while bearing the conveniences of their management and usage in mind from the stage of production. In addition, in order to surpass the limits of the oral history archives produced in the process of the investigating process, this organ conducted several special training sessions for the interviewees and let the interviewees leave their real context in time of their oral testimony in an interview journal. The Truth Commission on compulsory mobilization isn't equipped with an extra records management system for the management of the collected archives. The digital archives are generated through the management system of the real aspects of damage and electronic approval system, and they plays a role in registering and searching the produced, collected, and contributed records. The oral history archives are registered at the digital archive and preserved together with real records. The collected oral history archives are technically classified at the same time of their registration and given a proper number for registration, classification, and keeping. The Truth Commission on compulsory mobilization has continued its publication of oral history archives collection for the positive use of them and is also planning on producing an image-based matters. The oral history archives collected by this organ are produced, managed and used in as positive a way as possible surpassing the limits produced in the process of investigation business and budgetary deficits as well as the absence of records management system, etc. as the form of time-limit structure. The accumulated oral history archives, if a historical records hall and museum should be built as regulated in Disclosure act of forced mobilization, would be more systematically managed and used for the public users.