Despite the somewhat farcical nature of the EgyptAir hijacking, which has now come to a peaceful conclusion, any aeroplane incident is liable to raise more concerns in the mind of the travelling public.
The bombing of the Russian Metrojet airliner in October, and subsequent questions about the efficacy of Egypt’s aviation security, virtually ended the tourism industry in its Red Sea resorts. So Egyptian authorities will doubtless be mightily relieved that Tuesday’s hijacking does not have links to Isis-related terror – as one official told the Guardian, not a terrorist, just an idiot. Had the hijacker proved to be armed, or to havesmuggled aboard the “suicide belt” that he was claiming to wear, there would have been more difficult questions for airport authorities to answer.
But the explosives turned out to be fake, and it is unclear whether the hijacker made it to the A320’s flight deck (cockpit) or simply threatened crew and passengers in the cabin with his purported explosives.
At a brief news conference, authorities stressed they had reacted as if the hijacker “represented the highest possible danger”. Passengers would forgive crew for erring on the side of caution - but the fact that they believed he could have smuggled the belt on board perhaps does not demonstrate enormous faith in security at Alexandria’s new Borg El-Arab airport.
However, an incident like this, experts say, could have happened on any plane. In this scenario, Egypt’s security authorities have no case to answer so far. Philip Baum, author of Violence in the Skies: A history of aircraft hijacking and bombing, said: “Generally it’s up to the captain of the aircraft to determine whether they have someone with suicidal intent. Obviously first you’d try to overpower them if so. But if they feel it could be managed by following his demands, a landing without anyone being hurt, then that’s what you’d do. “It sounds like the 2006 Turkish Airlines hijack from Tirana to Istanbul: you had a lone hijacker claiming to carry explosives, but as it happened he had nothing on him.”
On that occasion, the hijacker managed to get into the flight deck when they were serving coffee, and crew believed his claims that he not only had explosives but colleagues controlling the cabin.
Then there is the question of whose laws he will be tried under. In international aviation, for most laws – more frequently invoked for questions of labour and taxation – a plane is considered part of the territory of the state to which it is registered once the doors have closed at an airport. With a hijacking, primary jurisdiction remains the state where the airline is registered, but international law would consider where the plane is flying, and where it lands, as well as the perpetrator’s nationality - and where appropriate, that of the victims.
In this case – an Egyptian man on an Egyptian airline, hijacking a domestic flight – it clearly is within Egyptian jurisdiction. But Cypriot, and EU law, could also apply – particularly if the hijacker claims asylum. Previous hijackers have been tried and imprisoned in the countries where they have landed, after claiming asylum, such as the Afghans who diverted a Sudan Airways flight to Stansted in 1996, also via Larnaca, one of whom ended up working as a cleaner for British Airways at Heathrow.
Most countries with established air traffic sign up to the international conventions covering hijacking, Tokyo and Montreal, and in general, the state where the aircraft is registered would be most likely to prosecute, said James Healy-Pratt, head of aviation at Stewart’s Law. “Should that state not exercise that jurisdiction, others would be expected to step in.”
Healy-Pratt added: “Cyprus could try him, but would usually accede to Egypt’s request to extradite him and try him, assuming he could get a fair trial.”
An asylum claim would have to be considered, Baum suggested: “If he’s got psychological problems there will be concerns about repatriating him to Egypt.”
No comments:
Post a Comment