Aircraft Hijacking 1

AIRCRAFT HIJACKING

WITH

RELEVANT CASES

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Dr. Jasmeet Gulati Harkiran Singh Brar

87/10

IVth Semester

Aircraft Hijacking 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during the

writing of this project.

My deepest thanks to my Public International Law Lecturer, Dr. Jasmeet Gulati, the Guide of

the project for guiding me and correcting various documents of mine with attention and care.

She has taken pain to go through the project and make necessary corrections as and when

needed.

I would also thank my Institution and my faculty members without whom this project would

have been a distant reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and well-wishers.

Aircraft Hijacking 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................4

PLANE HIJACKING: IN PERSPECTIVE...........................................................................................4

DEVELOPMENT OF LAW RELATING TO HIJACKING.................................................................8

PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF THE CRIME OF HIJACKING...9

HANDLING HIJACKINGS: PREVENTIVE.....................................................................................10

CRISIS MANAGEMENT...............................................................................................................11

ACTION REQUIRED.....................................................................................................................11

FAMOUS AIRCRAFT HIJACKING INCIDENTS............................................................................12

FIRST RECORDED AIRCRAFT HIJACK....................................................................................12

THE FAMOUS D.B. COOPER PLANE HIJACK..........................................................................12

ATLAS JET AIRLINE FLIGHT HIJACKING...............................................................................12

LOCKERBIE CASE........................................................................................................................13

THE MOST FAMOUS 9/11 PLANE HIJACKINGS......................................................................14

HIJACKINGS IN INDIA....................................................................................................................15

SPECIAL FEATURES OF IA 814 HIJACKING............................................................................15

REPORTED CASES OF AIRCRAFT HIJACKING IN RECENT DECADE....................................17

BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................19

Aircraft Hijacking 4

INTRODUCTIONAircraft hijacking (also known as skyjacking and sky controlling) is the unlawful seizure of an aircraft by an individual or a group. In most cases, the pilot is forced to fly according to the orders of the hijackers. Occasionally, however, the hijackers have flown the aircraft themselves. In at least one case, a plane was hijacked by the official pilot.

According to Alona E. Evans, “Aircraft Hijacking is a contemporary addition to the roster of international and national crimes and the necessity for its control at international and national level is only beginning to be recognised by the States”.

In order to call an act ‘aircraft hijacking’ certain elements are required to be present:

Aircraft Hijacking is committed on board an aircraft in flight. It is committed with the use of force or threat of force or by any other form of

intimidation. It is committed against those who exercise control over the aircraft. The purpose of hijacking is to achieve certain aims or to reach a desired destination.

Unlike the typical hijackings of land vehicles or ships, skyjacking is not usually committed for robbery or theft. Most aircraft hijackers intend to use the passengers as hostages, either for monetary ransom or for some political or administrative concession by authorities. Motives vary from demanding the release of certain inmates (IC-814) to highlighting the grievances of a particular community (AF 8969). Hijackers also have used aircraft as a weapon to target particular locations (during the September 11, 2001 attacks).

Hijackings for hostages commonly produce an armed standoff during a period of negotiation between hijackers and authorities, followed by some form of settlement. Settlements do not always meet the hijackers' original demands. If the hijackers' demands are deemed too great and the perpetrators show no inclination to surrender, authorities sometimes employ armed special forces to attempt a rescue of the hostages.

PLANE HIJACKING: IN PERSPECTIVEThere are seven categories of criminal acts against civil aviation:

Commandeering of civil aviation aircraft Hijacking of civil aviation aircraft, bombings Attempted bombings and shootings in civil aviation aircraft Shootings at in-flight aircraft Attacks at airports Off-airport facility attacks Incidents involving charter and privately-owned aircraft

Aircraft Hijacking 5

Of these, both commandeering and hijacking relate to seizing control of an aircraft. Commandeering is seizing control of an aircraft, while it is on the ground, with its doors open. Hijacking is seizing control of a plane, with the crew or/and passengers inside after the doors have been closed whether it is still on the ground or in flight by one or more persons, who are or who claim to be armed, for a purpose, which need not necessarily be criminal.

A hijacking can be carried out by even a member of the crew. Chinese civil aviation has the only recorded incident of self-hijacking in October, 1998, when the pilot of an Air China flight from Beijing to Kunming in Yunnan, took it instead to Taiwan after threatening to crash it killing the passengers if the other members of the crew prevented him from flying to Taiwan.

Generally, hijacking carries a more severe penalty than commandeering. Both offences involve intimidation, but, while in commandeering the danger is more to the aircraft and other property on the ground, in hijacking it is to the plane as well as the human beings inside.

The first incident of commandeering in the history of civil aviation took place on February 21, 1931, at the city of Arequipa in Peru when a group of local revolutionaries surrounded an aircraft and demanded that the pilot fly them to wherever they wanted. He refused and the revolutionaries terminated their seizure on March 2, without any damage to the plane.

The first recorded incident of hijacking took place in July 1948, when four Chinese hijackers seized control of a Cathay Pacific flight from Macau to Hong Kong. The ensuing struggle between the hijackers and the crew resulted in a crash killing all (25) aboard.

Between 1948 and 1957, there were 15 hijackings all over the world, an average of a little more than one per annum. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48--an annual average of about five. There was an explosive increase to 38 in 1968 and 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation. During the third 10-year period between 1968 and 1977, there were 414 hijackings, an annual average of 41.

The increase since 1958 could be attributed to the following factors:

First, the use by the USA's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of inspired hijackings as a weapon of destabilisation against the Fidel Castro regime which had seized power in Cuba in January, 1959, and nationalised all plantations and other property owned by US businessmen.

The hijackers inspired or instigated by the CIA did not make any political demands as a price for releasing the aircraft and passengers. They just forced the pilot to fly to either the US naval base at Guantanamo in Cuba or to the US and sought political asylum after condemning the communist regime at a press conference arranged by the CIA.

The CIA thus used hijacking as a psychological weapon to have the Castro regime discredited in the eyes of the Cuban people as well as of those of other Latin American countries in order to prevent an emulation of the Cuban communist model.

Aircraft Hijacking 6

Another CIA objective was to cause a depletion in the Cuban civil aviation fleet strength, thereby causing air transportation difficulties inside Cuba.

The US did not return the planes to Cuba. Instead, these were ordered to be seized by US courts as compensation for the properties of US businessmen nationalised by the Castro regime.

Second, the retaliatory hijackings inspired or instigated by the Cuban intelligence, involving either US or non-US aircraft carrying a large number of US nationals. Like the CIA, the Cuban intelligence used these hijackings purely as a psychological weapon to have the US discredited.

Third, the emulation of the CIA's covert action technique by the Taiwanese intelligence in its psychological warfare against Beijing by inspiring or instigating hijackings from the mainland to Taiwan.

Four, the beginning of the extensive use of hijackings as a weapon of national liberation or ideological struggle by the various Palestinian organisations and ideological groups supporting the Palestinian cause such as the Baader-Meinhof of West Germany, the Red Army factions of West Germany and Japan etc. after the Arab-Israeli war of July, 1967. The targets of their hijackings were mainly Israeli nationals.

Five, the use of hijackings as a weapon of struggle by other political, religious or ideological organisations or political dissident groups in the rest of the world. Some of these were supported by foreign intelligence agencies such as the support of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan to various anti-Indian groups since 1971, while others were not.

Since the Tokyo Convention of 1963, the International Civil Aviation Organisation had been preoccupied with further tightening the international laws relating to criminal acts against civil aviation and the explosive post-1967 increase led to a review of the CIA's policy in the US and to the adoption of new international conventions against hijacking and other criminal acts against civil aviation such as those of the Hague (1970) and Montreal (1971) making it obligatory for nations to arrest and prosecute hijackers or extradite them to the countries whose aircraft was hijacked.

The second Nixon Administration, which came to office in 1973, ordered the discontinuance by the CIA of the use of hijacking as a covert action weapon against the Castro regime. The Cuban intelligence followed suit. The same year, the two countries reached an agreement for the prosecution or return of the hijackers and the aircraft to each other's country.

The Taiwanese intelligence also followed the CIA's example--vis-à-vis China. In 1977, Havana abrogated the 1973 agreement with the US following an explosion on board a Cuban airline in October, 1976, killing 73 persons, due to a device suspected to have been planted by anti-Castro Cuban exiles. The Cuban authorities suspected that the CIA was aware of their plans to destroy this aircraft, but did not intentionally alert Havana. However, even after discontinuing the agreement, they continued to observe its provisions.

Aircraft Hijacking 7

These measures plus the improvement in Israel's relations with Egypt and Jordan, the renunciation of terrorism by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the on-going peace talks between the PLO and Israel, the collapse of the communist states in East Europe, which reduced the scope for sanctuaries for terrorists, and the more cautious attitude of countries such as Libya and Syria after the US declared them State-sponsors of international terrorism, the collapse of ideological terrorist groups such as the Baader-Meinhof and the Red Army Faction and the tightening of civil aviation security measures by all countries have arrested and reversed the steep upward movement of hijackings.

However, the situation has not returned to the pre 1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be disturbingly high, an average of 18 per annum during the latest 10-year period between 1988 and 1997, as against the pre-1968 average of five. On the brighter side, the number of terrorism-motivated hijackings has significantly decreased, while those motivated by personal reasons such as a desire to migrate abroad have greatly increased.

The discontinuance in 1973 by the involved intelligence agencies except the ISI of Pakistan of the use of hijackings as a weapon against their adversaries, plus the initial security measures at airports, led to a 50 per cent drop in hijackings as could be seen from the following figures for the years preceding and following 1973:

1968 --- 381969 --- 821970 --- 741971 --- 551972 --- 561973 --- 221974 --- 201975 --- 191976 --- 201977 --- 28

As against this, the enactment of stringent laws against hijackings and the further strengthening of the security measures at airports led to only an additional 10 per cent decline in hijackings. It would not, therefore, be an exaggeration to say that the discontinuance of the use of hijackings as a covert weapon by the intelligence agencies contributed significantly to the post-1973 drop in hijackings.

Of the 87 hijackings between 1993 and 1997, only seven, that is less than 10 per cent, were terrorism-motivated. 68 were committed for personal reasons and the remaining 12 were committed for other reasons. 44 per cent of all the hijackings during this period took place in three countries- China (23), Russia (6) and Ethiopia (6).

Geographically, South, South-East and East Asia recorded the highest number of hijackings (33 incidents or 38%), with China and India having the most incidents. West Asia and North

Aircraft Hijacking 8

Africa had the second highest number (16 incidents or 18%), with Saudi Arabia and Sudan each recording four.

The sub-Saharan region had 12 incidents (14%), a half of them in Ethiopia. Europe had 11 incidents (13%), with Germany, Malta and Spain each reporting two hijackings. Eight incidents (9%) were reported from Central Eurasia, 6 of them from Russia. The Latin American and the Caribbean region had 7 incidents (8%), with Brazil having two. North America (the US and Canada) had none.

63 of the 87 hijackings between 1993 and 1997 involved domestic flights and only the remaining 24 involved international flights. The preference of hijackers for domestic flights is due to the fact that the majority of hijackers -- whether they be black-listed terrorists or hijackers for economic or other reasons-- have generally no access to travel documents and hence focus on domestic flights.

India, which is less economically developed than China, has had no hijackings for economic reasons whereas over 90 per cent of the hijackings in China, despite its economic miracle, are for economic reasons (22 out of 23 incidents between 1993 and 1997). This is due to the fact that an under-privileged Indian wanting to migrate abroad to improve his economic prospects has no difficulty in getting travel documents, whereas for an under-privileged Chinese, despite the post-1979 relaxation of travel restrictions, the only way of going to Taiwan or elsewhere through Taiwan is by hijacking a plane.

Despite the authoritarian regime in Beijing, its death penalty for hijackers and long prison sentences for negligent security bureaucrats, one-fourth of all reported hijackings (23 out of 87) in the world during this period were from China. Civil aviation security experts attribute this partly to the poor safety systems technology in Chinese airports, particularly in the interior provinces. It is also possible that many of the Chinese hijackers were not armed, but pretended to be, but precise data on this are not available.

In percentage terms, of all the terrorism-affected countries, India has recorded the highest percentage of over 50 per cent of the hijackings due to terrorism sponsored by an external power (Pakistan)- 7 out of the 13 hijackings since the hijacking of Indian planes by ISI-trained groups started in 1971.

DEVELOPMENT OF LAW RELATING TO HIJACKING

The constant increase in the incidents oh hijacking and acts against the safety of civil aircraft presented a very serious problem before the members of international community and particularly the members of International civil Aviation Organisation (I.C.A.O). In order to solve this problem and ensure punishment to the hijackers, Tokyo Convention was adopted in 1963. It came into force on December 4, 1969. But the Tokyo Convention failed to solve the problem and the number of incidents of hijacking continued to increase.

Aircraft Hijacking 9

One of the shortcomings of the Tokyo Convention was that it failed to declare the act of hijacking to be a crime under International Law. This was mainly because it was agreed during the drafting of the Convention that no attempt would be made to define penal offences.

In December 1970, a Conference was held in Hague and a Convention, known as the Hague Convention, 1970 was signed. After having been ratified by the prescribed number of States, the Hague Convention came into force on October 14, 1971. According to the scheme of this Convention the State parties will get jurisdiction over the hijacker and it will become very difficult for the hijacker to escape the process of law.

Despite this Convention, there was no appreciable decrease in the number of incidents of hijacking. With a view to evolve more effective means to suppress the crime of hijacking, a Conference was held in Montreal from 8th September to 23rd September, 1971. A Convention known as Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts, Against the Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 was signed on 23rd September, 1971. Under this Convention the State parties have undertaken to provide for deterrent punishment for the crime of hijacking.

A protocol supplementary to the Montreal Convention known as Protocol to the Montreal Convention (1988), for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation was adopted on February 25, 1988 by the International Conference on Air Law held at Montreal Headquarters of the I.C.A.O. The Protocol stipulated severe penalties for unlawful international acts of violence against persons at an airport serving international civil aviation which causes or are likely to cause serious injury or death or destruction or serious damage to the facilities or disruption of the service at such airport.

The International Conference on Air Law adopted the Convention on the Making of Plastic Explosives for the purpose of Detection in a Conference held in February 1991 at Montreal Headquarters of the I.C.A.O. The Convention requires countries to prohibit and prevent the manufacture in their territory of unmarked explosives, as well as movement of such explosives into or out of their territory. All plastic explosives have to be marked by manufactures with any one of four ‘detection agents’ agreed upon by the Conference. The Convention also provided that within 3 years, plastic explosives stocks not specifically held for military or police activities are to be destroyed, used or rendered ineffective.

PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF THE CRIME OF HIJACKING

The principle of Universal Jurisdiction is already recognized in respect of the crime of piracy and war crimes. Since hijacking is generally described as ‘aerial piracy’ the principle of Universal Jurisdiction should also apply in respect of the crime of hijacking. The Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention have given a long way to confer Universal Jurisdiction, to a great extent, on all states.

Aircraft Hijacking 10

If an offender or alleged offender is within the territory of a state, both Conventions contain provision for him to be taken into custody and if he is not extradited, for his case to be placed before the prosecution authorities. Although neither Convention creates a duty to extradite or an inescapable duty to prosecute, authorities are nevertheless under a duty to take their decision in the same manner as in the case of an ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that state.

HANDLING HIJACKINGS: PREVENTIVE

The handling of hijackings has the preventive and crisis management aspects. Of all terrorism-related offences, plane hijacking is the easiest to prevent through thorough physical security at the airport. The prevention drill involves evaluation of the psychological profile of the passenger at the time of his checking-in through carefully-framed questions; x-ray of the checked- in baggage and, if necessary, their identification by the passenger before they are loaded; X-Ray of hand baggage; door-frame metal detector tests of passengers; their personal search; and ladder point checking by the airline staff to neutralise dangers due to negligence of the airport security staff or their complicity with the hijackers.

If this security drill is strictly followed, chances of a hijacking could be reduced by 90 per cent. There could still be a 10 per cent threat due to the hijackers somehow managing to take arms inside due to the negligence or complicity of the airport as well as the airline security staff or their intimidating the pilot by pretending to be armed, even though they may not have arms.

To eliminate even this 10 per cent possibility of a hijacking, airlines such as El Al, the Swissair and Air Lanka have well-trained security staff travelling on each flight under the cover of either passengers or cabin crew members. The effectiveness of these in-flight security officers depends on the deniability of their presence. That is why, Israel, Switzerland and other countries, which use Sky Marshals, do not officially admit their doing so. The recent open announcements on this subject by the Govt. of India would reduce the effectiveness of the proposed in-flight security measures.

For in-flight security duties, the El Al takes serving and retired officers of the Shin Bet, the Israeli equivalent of our Intelligence Bureau, and Ya'ma'm, the Israeli equivalent of our National Security Guards. Shin Bet officers under the cover of airline staff are also attached to the traffic counter at the airport to scrutinise the travel documents of the passengers and study their psychological profile.

Those responsible for in-flight security duties are issued with weapons with specially-designed low-intensity, low-impact bullets, which would enter the human body, but not exit. To prevent damage to the aircraft in cross-fire, the fuselage is armour-plated.

Aircraft Hijacking 11

They are also given well-concealable transmitting sets to discreetly transmit to the ground all the happenings in the cabin if the plane is hijacked. The plane has concealed cameras in the cockpit, cabin and toilets.

These security measures have ensured the 100 per cent security of El Al flights. While El Al's airport and off-airport facilities have been subject to frequent terrorist attacks, an El Al flight was successfully hijacked only once in 1968.

This intensive and intrusive security checking has been at the cost of the quality of service to the passengers due to delays in take-offs, the increase in the number of passengers taken to earn additional money to meet the extra expenditure on security etc. It is said that Swissair manages to provide the same tight security on its flights without sacrificing the quality of service.

CRISIS MANAGEMENTThe crisis management drill comes into force if an aircraft is hijacked due to a failure of preventive measures. The drill deals with the management of the relatives, the media, the aircraft and the hijackers, preparation of the groundwork for commando intervention, if it becomes necessary and has operational, psychological and political aspects.

The psychological aspect focusses on keeping up the morale of the relatives of the passengers, encouraging self-restraint in media coverage till the hijacking is terminated and keeping the hijackers engaged in negotiations in order to persuade them to give up the hijacking, if possible, and give time to the commandos to prepare themselves for intervention, if necessary.

The operational aspect focusses on ensuring that the aircraft remains in an airport of our territory, if possible, or otherwise, in an airport of a friendly country and does not go to an airport in a hostile country and collection of intelligence and other inputs needed for commando intervention.

The political aspect relates to winning the co-operation of other countries and our own political parties in terminating the hijacking.

ACTION REQUIRED A thorough post-mortem to identify system and human failures and initiate

disciplinary action against those responsible for the failures. Independent audit of not only airport and airline security, but also infrastructure

security in places such as nuclear and space establishments, oil installations etc. by non-governmental security experts in order to have a second opinion from experts not having a vested interest in the cover-up of existing deficiencies.

A more assertive role by the victims of the failure of protective security arrangements by taking the Government, its officers, airline management etc. to court for heavy damages every time there are such serious breaches of security due to negligence

Aircraft Hijacking 12

FAMOUS AIRCRAFT HIJACKING INCIDENTS

FIRST RECORDED AIRCRAFT HIJACK

The first to be traced episode of an airplane hijack of a commercial aircraft occurred on July 16, 1948. It was actually an unsuccessful attempt, of gaining control of a Cathay Pacific seaplane, which caused it to crash into the sea off Macau.

The airplane was on its routine flight from Macau to Hong Kong, when it was hijacked only a few minutes after its take off. Four men armed with guns, had a motive of robbery and ransom. But it all became confusion and hustle when one of the hijackers demanded the controls of airplane and the pilot refused to give in. The co-pilot also attacked one of the hijackers and it all led to the pilot shot dead, which further headed for an uncontrolled dive and crashing into the sea. The plane consisted of 26 people on board; out of which there was a sole survivor which later on confessed to be one of the hijackers.

THE FAMOUS D.B. COOPER PLANE HIJACK

Like several other American males of that day, he was dressed in a dark suit and a tie with a pearl tie pin, and a white shirt; he also wore a hat, with a dented top and slim frame and held a briefcase in his hand.

It was Dan Cooper, who behaved as a creditable gentleman. But something went odd, just when he gave the young stewardess a note immediately as the plane took off. The note said, “I have a bomb,” after which he even showed to her a glimpse of wires and what looked like dynamite. He further sent the message to the pilot to keep the plane aloft, and things he required be provided to him. His act had worked well, he had threatened and hijacked the airplane 727 with 21 pounds of $20 bills, (an amount of $200,000 he received as ransom) fasten with straps to his chest. A sole man had hijacked a Boeing 727.

He took the money, two backpacks and a parachute and dived from the rear of the plane. It has been more than four decades now, that the devil-in-disguise D.B. Cooper, a name which has never been proven to be his real name too, has only been pondered upon. For all his crimes, he has actually never been caught.

ATLAS JET AIRLINE FLIGHT HIJACKINGAn Atlas jet flight was hijacked on its way from Northern Cyprus to Istanbul. There were 6 crew members and 136 passengers on board when it left the airport in Northern Cyprus. 2 tall, dark skinned men forced their way into the plane’s cockpit stating that they were the members of the al-Qaeda, and demanded that plane be flown to Iran or Syria and that they had bomb. However the pilots made an excuse of refuelling the plane and made an

Aircraft Hijacking 13

emergency landing in Antalya, the southern-Turkish city. One of the pilots claimed that the hijackers were Iranian, whereas the passengers reported that they were Turkish.

On landing at Antalya, the plane was without delay enclosed by police. The hijackers in return threatened the blow up the plane. But the airport authorities convinced them to let the women and children off the plane. While this was being done, the two pilots climbed out of the plane window and other passengers hustled through the doors which created a chaotic situation, forcing the hijackers to surrender. No fatal harm but some injuries were recorded.

LOCKERBIE CASEOn December 21, 1988, a bomb exploded in the cargo hold of Pan Am Flight 103 (London to New York), killing all 259 passengers and crew, as well as eleven residents of the town of Lockerbie where the wreckage of the Boeing 747 crashed 31,000 feet below. After years of negotiations and diplomatic maneuvering, in April 1999, Libya surrendered the two Libyan officials accused of the bombing (Abdelbasset Ali Ahmed Al-Megrahi and Ali Amin Khalifa Fhimah) for trial in the Netherlands before a panel of Scottish judges at a former U.S. military base known as Camp Zeist. The trial began on May 3, 2000.

Though neither country had an extradition treaty with Libya, the United States and United Kingdom both demanded that Libya immediately surrender Al-Meghrahi and Fhimah to them for trial. Citing the "lynch mob atmosphere" prevailing in the United States and United Kingdom concerning this case, as well as its right to undertake its own prosecution of the accused under the Montreal Aircraft Sabotage Convention of 1971, Libya refused to comply with the United States and United Kingdom demands.

In 1992, the UN Security Council responded to Libya's refusal by adopting Resolution 748, which imposes sanctions on Libya until it hands over the two accused for trial, makes compensation to the victims' families, and demonstrates with concrete actions its renunciation of terrorism. As expanded in 1993 with the adoption of Security Council Resolution 883, the sanctions required the members of the United Nations to freeze Libyan government funds in their banks, impose an embargo on military and oil production equipment on Libya, and prohibit flights arriving from or destined for Libya.

Libya responded by offering to extradite Al-Meghrahi and Fhimah to Malta, where their acts allegedly took place. However, the United States and United Kingdom rejected the offer on the ground that Malta was so close geographically to Libya that its judiciary would be susceptible to improper influence. As an alternative, in 1994, Libya proposed trial before a Scottish court, provided it sat in a neutral country such as the Netherlands. At first, the United States and United Kingdom rejected the offer, believing it to be merely a propaganda ploy. During the next few years, however, it became increasingly clear that, despite sanctions, the two Libyans would not be surrendered for trial. Meanwhile, a growing number of countries were expressing their opposition to the sanctions, and enforcement of the sanctions began to erode. Finally, in August 1998, the British Government of Tony Blair persuaded the United States to agree to Libya's plan.

Aircraft Hijacking 14

One of the most important pieces of evidence was the discovery in the Pan Am 103 wreckage of an unaccompanied suitcase, containing clothing that was traced to a shop called "Mary's House" in Malta. The owner of the shop, Tony Gauci, has identified Al-Megrahi as the person who purchased the items in question. The Prosecutor will argue that Al-Megrahi filled the suitcase with this clothing, in addition to the Toshiba radio-bomb, so that it would not appear suspicious to airport security personnel.

After months of searching through the debris of some 10,000 items spread over 850 square miles, the Lockerbie investigators found the most important piece of evidence of all -- a small fragment of a circuit board from the electronic timer that had triggered the bomb. The FBI Lab, headed by Thomas Thurman, matched the fragment, which was smaller than a thumb nail, to a timer seized earlier from Libyan agents in west Africa. That timer was traced to an electronics company in Zurich Switzerland called Mebo, which admitted that it had sold 20 such timers to the Libyans in 1985.

On 7th August, 2002, Libya, for the first time, announced its readiness to discuss compensation for the families of the victims who died in the bombing of Pan American Jumbo that was blown over Lockerbie.

THE MOST FAMOUS 9/11 PLANE HIJACKINGS

They are three most deadly of all aircraft hijackings. 19 terrorists hijacked four planes the American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, and United Airlines Flight 175; out of these four flights, three were used as cruise missile for suicide bombing on buildings.

In the fourth flight, which was to attack the White House building, was diverted by the crew and passengers by attacking the hijackers resulting in a crash but only the people in plane were killed. In all these four hijackings all together, about 3,000 people were killed.

The Pentagon, in common with the nearby White House, was one of the best-protected community buildings in the USA. Eye-witnesses and officials state that the hijacked plane first landed on the ground and then moved and hit straight into the building.

While one plane that crashed into 80th floor of the WTC was hijacked after take off from Boston to Los Angeles, another plane also from Boston crashed on the 60 th floor of the WTC. In Pentagon, hijacked plane from Washington loops back to Washington and crashed into Pentagon West Wing destroying 3 of 5 concentric rings of offices.

The above devastating attacks resulted into the mass destruction and mass disruption and caused deep concern. More than 6000 people lost their lives and thousands of persons suffered dreadful injuries.

Aircraft Hijacking 15

HIJACKINGS IN INDIA

Since hijacking of Indian planes started in January, 1971, when two members of the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) hijacked a plane to Lahore and blew it up with explosives given by the ISI at Lahore after releasing the passengers and crew, there have been 13 hijackings- all of Indian Airlines aircraft. During the training of terrorists, the ISI instructs them to avoid Air India planes lest international concern be aroused due to the presence of a large number of foreign passengers.

Three of these hijackings took place in the 1970s, of which one by Kashmiri extremists was sponsored by the ISI, while the other two were personally-motivated.

There were five hijackings in the 1980s- three of them in 1982- all by Sikh extremists backed by the ISI.

There were five in the 1990s- four of them in 1993, all personally-motivated, and the fifth, the latest of IC- 814, was by an international Islamic jihadi organisation backed by the ISI.

Thus, of the 13 hijackings, seven were by ISI-trained organisations- five by Sikh extremists, all India-based, one by Kashmiri extremists, again India-based, and the seventh by a Pakistan-based international Islamic jihadi organisation.

All these hijackings took place when the military was in power- five under Zia-ul-Haq and one each under Yahya Khan and Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

After a series of five hijackings in quick succession by Sikh terrorists between 1981 and 1984, India managed to get clinching evidence of ISI involvement in 1984 in the form of a West German report that the pistol given to the hijackers of August 24, 1984, at Lahore by the ISI was part of a consignment supplied to the Pakistan Government by the West German manufacturers.

This resulted in a severe warning to Pakistan by Washington and a total discontinuance by the ISI of the use of hijacking as a weapon against India for 15 years till the latest hijacking on December 24, 1999, after Gen. Musharraf seized power on October 12.

SPECIAL FEATURES OF IA 814 HIJACKING

1. This was the first hijacking of an Indian plane by a Pakistan-based international Islamic jihadi organisation, namely the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), previously known as the Harkat-ul-Ansar, which was declared by the US under its laws as an international terrorist organisation in October, 1997, and which, according to the annual reports of the Counter-Terrorism Division of the US State Department, is a member of Osama bin Laden's

Aircraft Hijacking 16

International Islamic Front For Jihad Against the US and Israel and a signatory of his fatwa against US and Israeli nationals.

2. This was the second hijacking in the world by an Islamic fundamentalist organisation of Afghan-war vintage. The first was the hijacking of an Air France flight from Algiers by four terrorists of the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria on December 24, 1994.The French terminated the hijacking at Marseille by killing all the hijackers.

3. This was the first hijacking in India in which the hijackers intentionally and brutally killed one of the passengers in order to intimidate the pilot. In the past hijackings, the terrorists had avoided ill-treating the passengers. In the Air France hijacking too, the Algerian terrorists of Afghan war-vintage had intentionally killed three passengers.

4. This was the second largest terrorist team (five hijackers) to have hijacked an aircraft anywhere in the world. The terrorist team, which hijacked the Air France flight to Entebbe in 1976, had ultimately 7 hijackers, but only four of them had flown by the aircraft and the remaining had joined the team after the aircraft landed at Entebbe. Six terrorists of the Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) had hijacked an Olympic Airlines flight from Athens to Beirut, on July 22, 1970. The Greek authorities accepted the demand of the hijackers for the release of seven terrorists.

A mixed group of five Palestinian and Japanese terrorists hijacked a Japanese Airways flight from Amsterdam to Tokyo on July 20, 1973. The terrorists blew up the plane at Tripoli in Libya after releasing the passengers. All other hijackings of the world involved between one and four hijackers, most of them only one.

When there is only one hijacker, he would generally be in the cockpit. Danger to the passengers from a commando intervention is the least, unless the lone hijacker has explosives. When there are two hijackers, the danger is more, but still manageable since the second hijacker would generally be near the front door, which reduces the danger of deaths of passengers in cross fire. If there are three hijackers, one each would be at the front and rear doors, increasing the risk of cross-fire deaths. The maximum vulnerability of the passengers arises when there are more than three hijackers, with one or more of them stationed in the middle.

5. This was the sixth longest hijacking since 1948 after those of the El Al by the PFLP on July 23, 1968 (40 days), the Air France (Entebbe) by Palestinian and German terrorists on June 27,1976 (8 days), the Pakistan International Airways by the Al Zulfiquar on March 2,1981 (13 days), the TWA by a Shia group on June 14,1985 (18 days), and the Kuwait Airways by a Shia group on April 5,1988 (18 days).

6. This was the sixth major hijacking since 1948 in which the targeted Government conceded the demands of the hijackers, wholly or in part. The others were: the release of seven convicted Palestinian terrorists by the Greek authorities after the hijacking of an Olympic Airways flight on July 22,1970; the release of seven Arab terrorists imprisoned in the UK,

Aircraft Hijacking 17

West Germany and Switzerland after the hijacking of three flights of the Pan-Am, TWA and Swissair by the PFLP on September 6,1970; the release by West Germany of the Arab terrorists arrested for the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics after the hijacking of a Lufthansa aircraft on October 29, 1972, by the Al Fatah; the release of four Arab terrorists arrested for acts of terrorism in Cyprus after the hijacking of a KLM plane on November 25,1973; and the release of nearly 30 political prisoners by the Zia-ul-Haq regime after the hijacking of a PIA aircraft by the Al Zulfiquar on March 2,1981. These were the publicly-admitted instances of conceding the hijackers' demands. There have been other non- reported instances.

REPORTED CASES OF AIRCRAFT HIJACKING IN RECENT DECADE

2000: Ariana Afghan Airlines Boeing 727 is hijacked on an internal flight within Taliban-

controlled Afghanistan, and ended up at London Stansted Airport, where most of the passengers

claimed political asylum.

2000: Philippine Airlines Flight 812 was hijacked en route from Davao City, Philippines to Manila.

The hijacker parachuted from the aircraft while still airborne; his body was later found.

2000, August 18: a VASP Boeing 737-2A1 registration PP-SMG en route from Foz do

Iguaçu to Curitiba-Afonso Pena was hijacked by 5 persons with the purpose of robbing BRL 5

million (approximately USD 2.75 Million) that the aircraft was transporting. The pilot was forced to

land at Porecatu where the hijackers fled with the money. There were no victims.

2000, October 14: Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 115, flying from Jeddah to London was hijacked

en route by two men who claimed they were armed with explosives. The hijackers

commandeered the Boeing 777-200 to Baghdad, Iraq, where all 90 passengers and 15 crew

members were safely released. The two hijackers, identified as Lieutenant Faisal Naji Hamoud

Al-Bilawi and First Lieutenant Ayesh Ali Hussein Al-Fareedi, both Saudi citizens, were arrested

and later extradited to Saudi Arabia in 2003.

2000, 11 November: an Vnukovo Airlines Tu-154 flying from Makhachkala to Moscow was

hijacked by a man demanding it be diverted to Israel. The plane landed at an Israeli military base

where hijacker surrendered. None of 59 people on board were injured.

2001, 15 March: another Vnukovo Airlines Tu-154 flying from Istanbul to Moscow was hijacked by

a three Chechen terrorists demanding it be diverted to Saudi Arabia. After the plane with 174

people on board landed at Medina the terrorist threatened to blow it up unless it would be

refuelled for flying to Afghanistan. The Saudi authorities decided to storm the plane. During the

assault 2 people were killed by Saudi police: one of the passengers (Turkish citizen), and the

leader of the terrorists. The stewardess, Yulia Fomina, was killed during the hijacking, and later

the plane was named after her.

Aircraft Hijacking 18

2001: American Airlines flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, United

Airlines Flight 93, were hijacked on the morning of September 11 by Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic

extremists. Two planes were deliberately crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center,

one was crashed into the Pentagon and one crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Both towers of

The World Trade Center collapsed; in total 2,976 victims and 19 hijackers were killed and over

6000 people were injured. The hijacking leads to The war on Afghanistan.

2006: Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, flying from Tirana to Istanbul, was hijacked in Greek airspace.

The aircraft, with 107 passengers and six crew on board, transmitted two coded hijack signals

which were picked up by the Greek air force; the flight was intercepted by military aircraft and

landed safely at Brindisi, Italy.

2007: an Air West Boeing 737 was hijacked over Sudan, but landed safely at N'Djamena, Chad.

2007: an Air Mauritanie Boeing 737 flying from Nouakchott to Las Palmas with 87 passengers on

board was hijacked by a man who wanted to fly to Paris, but the plane landed in an air base near

Las Palmas and the hijacker, a Moroccan, was arrested.

2007: an Atlasjet MD-80 en route from Nicosia to Istanbul was hijacked by two Arab students,

who said they were Al Qaeda operatives, one trained in Afghanistan, and wanted to go

to Tehran,Iran. The plane landed in Antalya, the passengers escaped and the hijackers were

arrested.[61]

2009: Aero México Flight 576, a Boeing 737-800 flying from Cancún to Mexico City was hijacked

by José Marc Flores Pereira, a Bolivian citizen claiming he had a bomb and demanding to speak

to Mexican president Felipe Calderón. The plane landed at Mexico City International

Airport where it then taxied to a remote stand where the passengers and crew were later

released. Mexican officials stormed the plane where 5 men were taken into custody with only 1

being held. There were no casualties. It was the first hijackings for the airline.

January 2011: Turkish Airlines Flight 1754, flying from Oslo to Istanbul, was in Bulgarian airspace

when, allegedly, an unsuccessful attempt was made to hijack it. The suspect allegedly said that

he had a bomb and that he would blow up the aircraft unless the plane returned to Norway. Some

passengers overpowered the hijacker and the flight safely landed at Atatürk International

Airport at 9:30 p.m. after the pilot notified emergency service. All 60 passengers and seven crew

got off the aircraft; none were injured during the incident. The suspect was arrested.

April 2011: an attempt was made to hijack Alitalia Flight 329, en-route from Charles de Gaulle

Airport, Paris, France to Fiumicino Airport, Rome and divert it to Tripoli International

Airport, Libya. The hijacker, reported to be an advisor to the Kazakhstan delegation to UNESCO,

was subdued by cabin crew and other passengers. He was arrested and taken into custody after

the aircraft made a safe landing at Rome.

Aircraft Hijacking 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

KAPOOR, S.K. International Law & Human Rights, 12th Edition. Allahabad: Central Law Agency, 2003.

E-ARTICLES

B. Raman. “South Asia Analysis Group” at

<http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers2%5Cpaper103.html>

WEBSITES

Famous Air Hijacking Cases at <www.blindloop.com/index.php/.../5-famous-plane- hijacking - cases / >

List of Aircraft Hijackings Till Date at<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1578183.stm>