Student: Snduleac Iuliana

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyski University in Warsaw

International Criminal Law

Terrorism in Criminal Law civil aviation

The concept of ,,terrorism derives from the Lation word ,,terror, which means ,,fear, a
terrible thing or news. Etymologically, the term was coined after the verb ,,terrere which
means ,,to terrify. In modern languages, the meaning of the word is twofold: ,,the use of force,
violence and cruelty in order to intimidate and destroy the enemy, and also the effect of such
behaviour, fear, terror.1
The concept goes back to the 19 th century and initially was used interchangeably with the
word ,,terror. Later, both terms were distinguished in that ,,terror became associated with the
activity of the state and its structures, and ,,terrorism with violence used by non-state actors. 2
In the United States, the law defines terrorism as the illegal use of force or violence to
accomplish a political or social goal. In the 1984 the U.S. State Department described terrorism
as a ,,premediatated politically motivated violence committed against noncombatants targets
(civilians) who are not involved in fighting by secret state agents. This definition is important
because she help us to understand the significance of the perceived threat of terrorism and
determin how the government responds to violence. When the World Trade Center in New York
City was bombed in 1993, it was treated as a criminal act.3
Terrorism may be regarded as simply the commission of ordinary, though serious,
criminal acts with a particular purpose. Some States, including the UK, do not have a specific
offence of terrorism in domestic law and use the ordinary criminal law to prosecute serious

1 Krzysztof Wiak, Terrorism and criminal Law, ed. Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin, 2012,
p. 13.
2 Saul B., Defining terrorism in International Law, Oxford, 2006, p. 2.
3 James L. Outman, Elisabeth M. Outman, Terrorism-Almanac, ed. OXL, USA, 2003,
pp. 3-4.

Student: Snduleac Iuliana

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyski University in Warsaw
International Criminal Law
offences of terrorist violence. Some would argue that the categorization of terrorism is positively
dangerous, in that it may encourage counter-measures that disregard human rights.4
One of the earliest attempts at agreeing on an international prohibition of terrorism was
the 1937 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which was negotiated
within the League of Nations following the assassination of King Alexander I of Yugoslavia in
1934. The Convention defined acts of terrorism as criminal acts directed against a State and
intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons, or a group of
persons or the general public and listed acts to be criminalized by States Parties, including those
causing death, serious injury or loss of liberty to heads of State and public officials, damage to
public property of another State, and risk to the lives of members of the public. The Convention
never received sufficient ratifications to enter into force. The United Nations took on the task of
defining and prohibiting terrorism when the General Assembly set up a committee on terrorism
in 1972, but although the committee met until 1979 it failed to reach agreement. There was
disagreement as to whether acts committed by national liberation movements for causes such as
decolonization should be excluded from any definition of terrorism, and there were related
arguments that there should be no international ban on terrorist activities unless at the same time
the causes of terrorism were understood and resolved.5
Seizing control of an airplane in mid-flight and demanding something from the
government in exchange for the passengers lives was one of the most commonly used terrorist
tactics between 1968 and 1980. Terrorists armed with pistols or knives simply had to display the
weapon and threaten to kill or a passenger or crew member or force the pilot to land at an airport,
where the plane and its passengers could be held hostage. The terrorists often demanded the
release of their colleagues from prisons; sometimes they also held the passengers for ransom.6
4 Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson, Elizabeth Wilmshurts, An
introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, second edition,
Cambridge University Press, UK, 2010, p. 337.
5 Ibid., p. 338.
6 James L. Outman, Elisabeth M. Outman, op. cit., p. 33.

Student: Snduleac Iuliana

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyski University in Warsaw
International Criminal Law
On September 11, 2001, the United States of America suffered one of the most brutal acts
of terrorism in history: a hijacked plane flies into the World Trade Center. In that day, terrorists
introduced a new weapon: the airplance itself. Terrorist had long hijacked planes, but September
11 was the first time the planes themselves had been used as bombs. The terrorists hijacked
planes just after take off on flights that were headed across the U.S. and were fully loaded with
jet fuel.7
Hijackings have drawn different responses from governments. Some hijackings have
ended peacefully, with the hijackers forcing a plane to take them to a friendly country and the
passengers flew safely home. In some cases hijackers have gotten governments to give in to their
demands even though there are international treaties and conventions forbidding this. In
September 1970, for example, Palestinian terrorists forced three planes, one British, one Swiss
and one American, to land in Jordan and Cairo and they demanded the release of jailed
Palestinians. After the terrorists took the hostages off the planes and blew up the aircraft, the
involved governments agreed to release the prisoners.8
The need for close collaboration between states aimed to combat certain forms of
terrorism, such as attempts on the lives of heads of state or members of their families, was
acknowledged already in the second half of the 19th century. The level of collaboration within the
UN General Assembly and in the Ad Hoc Committee proved that the international community
should not expect a quick definition of terrorism and identification of measures to counteract it.9
The impossibility of securing international agreement on an unqualified condemnation of
terrorism led to the adoption of a thematic approach to cooperation to prevent and criminalize
terrorist acts. International agreements were negotiated on specific areas of terrorist activity, each

7 Ibid., p. 31.
8 Ibid., p. 34.
9 Krzysztof Wiak, op. cit., p. 58.

Student: Snduleac Iuliana

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyski University in Warsaw
International Criminal Law
separately defined. There are eleven of these agreements, each of them negotiated to deal with
specific kinds of terrorist threats prevalent at the time the agreements were concluded.10
The first international agreements of sectorial character (specific form of terrorism)
addressed air terrorism, in which some documents were adopted under the auspices of the
International Civil Aviation Organization.11
The first one is The Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board
Aircraft signed in Tokyo on 14 September 1963 ratificated by 183 states. The Tokyo Convention
refines the understanding of the act of ,,unlawful seizure of aircraft. In accordance with Article
11(1), such an act is committed by a person on board; ,,who has unlawfully committed by force
or threat there of an act of interference, seizure, or other wrongful exercise of control of an
aircraft in flight or when such an act is about to be committed.12
The Conventions for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft signed at the Hague
on 16 December 1970, the focus was shifted to the detailed description of one particular crime.
The provision of Article 2 of the Hague Convention imposes the obligation on states to recognize
an offence as subject to ,,several penalties, without, howewer supplying a more precise
guidance as to the type of the penalty or its minimum and maximum limit.13
Another convention is The Convention for the Suppression of Unlaw Acts against the
Safety Civil Aviation signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971. This restated the legal
arrangements regarding jurisdiction and extradition adopted in the Hague Convention. Howewer,
it broadened the scope of criminalized acts. In accordance with Article 1(1) of the Montreal
Convention, a person commits an offence if he or she unlawfully and intentionally.14

10 Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson, Elizabeth Wilmshurts, op. cit., p.
339.
11 Krzysztof Wiak, op. cit., p. 58.
12 Ibid, p. 59.
13 Ibid., p. 60.

Student: Snduleac Iuliana

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyski University in Warsaw
International Criminal Law
The Montreal Protocol of 24 February 1988 further broadened the list of offences by prohibited
acts occurring at airports. The protocol adds a new paragraph to complement the array of acts
criminalized under the Montreal Convention. It reads that a person commits an offence if he
unlawfully and intentionally, using any device, substance or weapon:
(a) Performs an act of violence against a person at an airport serving international civil
aviation which causes or is likely to cause serious injury or death.
(b)

Destroys or seriously damages the facilities of an airport serving international civil

aviation or aircraft not in service located thereon or disrupts the services of the airport, if
such an act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at that airport (Article II).15
The fourth document adopted under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation

Organization is The Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports
Serving International Civil Aviation supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971,
done in Montreal on 24 February 1988.16
The solution adopted in these international agreements responded to the exponential increase in
the number of seizures of aircraft in the late 1960s and in the early 1970s (277 aircraft hijacking
incidents between 1969-1972). Their provisions defining the offences and legal measures
designed to combat them were aimed at preventing any behaviour that threatened the safety of
air transport, irrespective of the aims and motivation of the offenders. Their scope was broad and
not limited to counteracting terrorism; it also included the cases of hijacking aircraft for ransom
or with the aim of fleeing the country.17

14 Ibid. p. 61.
15 Ibid., p. 62.
16 Ibid. p. 59.
17 Cherif Bassiouni, International Terrorism and Political Crimes, ed. Springfield,
1975, p. 249.

Student: Snduleac Iuliana

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyski University in Warsaw
International Criminal Law
The fight against terrorism is now multi-faceted and includes measures imposed by the
UN Security Council, including financial sanctions. But the primary paradigm to address
terrorism remains criminal law, and terrorist acts, in one form or another, constitute criminal
offences. There remains the difficulty, for national and international systems alike, of classifying
and defining who is a terrorist and who is not, for the purposes of criminal law. Terrorist acts can
be prosecuted in an international court at present only if they amount to war crimes or crimes
against humanity.18
During the past two centuries, the world has seen hundreds of terrorist attacks in Europe,
the United States, the Middle East, South America and Asia. 19 There is no doubt howewer, that in
the age of tehnological advancement and the lifting of barriers to mobility and communication,
no community can feel free from the menace of a terrorist attack. The legislator ought to take
account of such a threat and prevent it beforehand.20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cherif Bassiouni, International Terrorism and Political Crimes, ed. Springfield, 1975.
Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson, Elizabeth Wilmshurts, An introduction to
International Criminal Law and Procedure, second edition, Cambridge University Press, UK,
2010.
James L. Outman, Elisabeth M. Outman, Terrorism-Almanac, ed. OXL, USA, 2003.
18 Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson, Elizabeth Wilmshurts, op. cit., p.
338.
19 James L. Outman, op. cit., p.8.
20 Krzysztof Wiak, op. cit., p. 12.

Student: Snduleac Iuliana

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyski University in Warsaw
International Criminal Law
Saul B., Defining terrorism in International Law, Oxford, 2006.
Krzysztof Wiak, Terrorism and criminal Law, ed. Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin, 2012.