Discuss the jurisdictional complexities that arise when crimes are committed on board international flights. How does international air law address them?

On 30 September 2026, an Indian captain on flydubai flight FZ 1073 was stabbed in the cockpit by his co-pilot, reportedly an Omani national. The UAE carrier was flying to Israel and diverted to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia [1]. At least five States had a link to one crime. This shows why air law must decide who can try an offence committed in the air.

Jurisdictional complexities

• No territory at cruising altitude: Ordinary territorial jurisdiction fails at 35,000 ft, especially over the high seas.
• Competing claims: The State of registration, the operator's State, the landing State, and the States of the offender and victim may all claim the case. This can cause conflict or a jurisdictional vacuum.
• Custody and evidence: In the FZ 1073 case, both pilots were moved from Saudi Arabia to Abu Dhabi, which separated the accused from the place of landing [1].
• Diplomatic sensitivity: The flight landed in a State with no ties to Israel, and a "terror angle" is under investigation. Both factors make cooperation harder [1].
• Extradition gaps: Without a treaty, the offender may escape trial.

How international air law responds

• Tokyo Convention, 1963: Gives jurisdiction to the State of registration. It empowers the aircraft commander to restrain the offender and hand them over at landing [2].
• Hague (1970) and Montreal (1971) Conventions: Add other bases for jurisdiction, including the landing State, the lessee's principal place of business and the State where the offender is found. They impose aut dedere aut judicare, a duty to extradite or prosecute [3]. Montreal covers violence on board that endangers the aircraft [4].
• Montreal Protocol, 2014: Amends Tokyo to give jurisdiction to the State of landing and the State of the operator. It came into force in 2020 [5].
• Domestic law: India gives effect to Montreal through the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 [6].

Residual gaps

• Tokyo assumes the captain is safe and in command. On FZ 1073, the captain was the victim [1][2].
• Ratification of the 2014 Protocol is still uneven [5].

International air law has moved from a single basis of jurisdiction to several overlapping ones, with a duty to extradite or prosecute. Several steps would close the remaining gaps:

• universal ratification of the 2014 Protocol;
• ICAO guidance on threats from inside the cockpit;
• mutual legal assistance treaties;
• an Indian consular SOP for its crew abroad.

Together, these would end impunity in the skies, in line with the SDG 16 goal of access to justice.