ANTI-TERRORISM

Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol. Changes in the International and Legal Model for Combatting Terrorism

Tomasz Aleksandrowicz ORCID: 0000-0002-3419-5577 Police Academy in Szczytno, Poland

Abstract. The article deals with the issue of the Beijing reform of international criminal . The author analyses the relevant applicable international law and confronts it with the new legal regulations adopted at the International Organisation (ICAO) conference in Beijing in 2010. As a result, the author states that the basic change involves the expansion of the catalogue of acts subject to criminalisation as well as the expansion of the circle of persons participating in or supporting actions involving the commission of acts that pose a threat to the safety of civil aviation; the system also specifies the responsibility of collective entities (the so-called ‘Al Qaeda’ clause). The author is deeply convinced that the development of the Tokyo-Hague-Montreal-Beijing system, which is part of the whole international legal system of combatting terrorism, including its financing, is fully justified. The new regulations also make this system more coherent. It is also worth adding that the adoption of the Beijing Convention and the Beijing Protocol is part of the implementation of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the United Nations. DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.6693 http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.6693

Keywords: , Beijing reform, aviation terrorism, international law

Introduction

Threats to the safety of international civil aviation emerged almost at the same time as international air transport.1 The intensification of such threats at the end of the 1960s resulted in the international community’s response to create interna- tional legal regulations within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) aimed at ensuring the safety of international civil aviation through cooperation between different states in the field of prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes that pose such risks, which involved the introduction of the concept of aviation security.2 Within a quarter of a century (1963–1988), a system called the Tokyo-Hague-Mon- treal system was established.3 It was the international community’s response to ‘the

1 See: Aleksandrowicz T, Liedel K, Zwalczanie terroryzmu lotniczego. Wybrane zagadnie- nia i źródła prawa międzynarodowego. Szczytno, 2010, p. 11. 2 See: Biskup K, Bezpieczeństwo operacji lotniczych w dobie współczesnego świata. Studia z zakresu Prawa, Administracji i Zarządzania UKW, 2013, Vol. 3, pp. 137–150; Myszona- Kostrzewa K, Bezpieczeństwo lotnictwa cywilnego w świetle prawa międzynarodowego. Przegląd Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, 2014, No. 11, pp. 137–150. 3 The name is derived from the names of the three international legal regulations: the , the Hague Convention and together with its

Internal Security, July–December 177 Tomasz Aleksandrowicz proliferation of unlawful acts, in particular acts of terrorism, on aircraft and in rela- tion to aircraft and aviation infrastructure’.4 The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on New York and the Pentagon fun- damentally changed the nature of the threat from aviation terrorism. In 2001, ICAO recommended the preparation of a reform of the Tokyo-Hague-Montreal system, which resulted in the adoption of two new regulations at the Beijing conference on 10 September 2010: The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts affecting the Safety of Civil Aviation (known as the Beijing Convention) and the Additional Protocol to the Hague Convention (Beijing Protocol).5 Primary sources call it the Tokyo-Hague-Montreal-Beijing system.6 The aim of the article is to establish the scope and direction of the changes in the international legal model for combatting terrorism introduced by the Beijing reform. The basic method to achieve this goal is to carry out a legal analysis.

Tokyo-Hague-Montreal system

The Tokyo Convention shall apply to offences under criminal law and to acts which, whether or not they are criminal offences, endanger or are likely to endan- ger an aircraft, persons or property on board, or acts which are contrary to order and discipline on board (Article 1 § 1). The general aim of the Convention was to oblige the Contracting States to take legal action against acts of aircraft terrorism,

Supplementary Protocol. The first one is a Convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft, signed in Tokyo on 14 September 1963. Dz.U. 1971, No. 15, item 147, annex; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 704, No. 10106, ICAO Doc 8364; the second one is the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed in the Hague on 16 December 1970. Dz.U. 1972, No. 25, item 181, annex; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 860, No. 1235, ICAO Doc 8920; the third part of the name comes from Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971. Dz.U. 1976, No. 8, item 37, annex; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 974, No. 14118, ICAO Doc 8966 and Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Vio- lence at Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed in Montreal on 24 February 1988, supplementing the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971. Dz.U. 2006, No. 48 item 348. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1589, No. 14118, ICAO Doc 9518l. 4 Żylicz M, Prawo lotnicze międzynarodowe, europejskie i krajowe, 2nd edition. Warsaw, 2011, p. 99. 5 Convention on The Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation signed in Beijing on 10 September 2010, ICAO Doc 9960; Protocol Supplementary to the Con- vention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed in Beijing on 10 September 2010, ICAO Doc 9959. Texts of the two acts: Electronic source: https://www.icao.int/secretariat/ legal/Pages/TreatyCollection.aspx, accessed: 17.03.2020. 6 Żylicz M, op. cit., p. 95. See: Aleksandrowicz T, Postępowy rozwój prawa międzynarodowego a bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowego lotnictwa cywilnego, [in:] Galicki Z, Myszona-Kostrze- wa K (Eds), 50 lat konwencji tokijskiej — bezpieczeństwo żeglugi lotniczej z perspektywy przestrzeni powietrznej i kosmicznej. Księga dedykowana Profesorowi Markowi Żyliczowi. Warsaw, 2014, pp. 48, 50.

178 Internal Security, July–December Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol. Changes in the International and Legal Model… not to define the concept of the offence of seizure of aircraft. However, despite this approach, in Article 11 §1 of the Convention, which reads ‘When a person on board has unlawfully committed by force or threat thereof 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, Contracting States shall take all appropriate measures to restore control of the aircraft to its lawful commander or to preserve his control of the air- craft’. This convention formulates for the first time the elements of seizure of aircraft. The Hague Convention, unlike the Tokyo Convention, clearly defines constitu- ent elements of the offence covered by this agreement. According to Article 1, ‘an offence is committed by any person who on board an aircraft in flight unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or by any other form of intimidation seizes, or exercises control of, that aircraft, or attempts to perform any such act or is an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform any such act’. The specification of constituent elements of the offence contained in Article 1 of the Hague Convention is similar to that contained in Article 11 of the Tokyo Convention, except for acts of disruption of aircraft operation. However, the Hague Convention goes much further in its effort to determine the constituent elements of the offence. It also criminalises the attempt to seize or take control of an aircraft and complicity with a person who has committed or attempts to commit such an act. In addition, the characteristics of the offence of ‘violence or threat of vio- lence’ (reiterated after the Tokyo Convention) expands to include the use of any other form of threatening behaviour. The Montreal Convention contains the widest catalogue of behaviour consid- ered to be criminal acts. Article 1 defines the offences covered by this agreement as follows: 1. Any person commits an offence if he or she unlawfully and intentionally: a) performs an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if that act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft; or b) destroys an aircraft in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which renders it incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger its safety in flight; or c) places or causes to be placed on an aircraft in service, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to it which renders it incapable of flight, or to cause damage to it which is likely to endanger its safety in flight; or d) destroys or damages air navigation facilities or interferes with their oper- ation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight; or e) communicates information which a person known to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. 2. Any person also commits an offence if he or she: a) attempts to commit any of the offences mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article; or b) is an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit any such offence. The Supplementary Protocol to the Montreal Convention introduces in its Article 1 a new paragraph 1 bis, according to which ‘Any person commits an offence if he or she unlawfully and intentionally, using any device, substance or weapon:

Internal Security, July–December 179 Tomasz Aleksandrowicz

a) performs an act of violence against a person at an serving interna- tional civil aviation which causes or is likely to cause serious injury or death; or 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.’ The Montreal Convention criminalises all acts listed therein — whether acts of violence on board an aircraft in flight (Article 1(a)) or acts of air sabotage (Article 1(b–e)) — subject to the existence of an element common to all of these cases, which is a threat to the safety of the aircraft in flight. The terms in flight and in service used in the abovementioned conventions are relatively precisely defined. Most acts of aviation terrorism occur on board an aircraft in flight or threaten, or may threaten the safety of that aircraft in flight, and therefore the location where the offences to which the rules apply have been committed is essential as a crite- rion for determining their actual scope. At the same time, the criterion of a crime scene under international law is closely linked to the criterion of the time when such an offence is committed. The time element is a kind of supplement to the scene element, appearing in the convention provisions in the form of such concepts as ‘aircraft in flight’ and ‘aircraft in service’. Article 11 of the Tokyo Convention provides as a premise for action by contracting states to restore or maintain control of aircraft by its lawful commander, the unlaw- ful seizure of aircraft in flight or an intention to do so. The convention assumes in Article 1(3) that ‘for the purposes of this convention, an aircraft is considered to be in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of take-off until the moment when the landing run ends’. However, pursuant to Article 5(2) (in the chapter on aircraft captains’ authority), an aircraft is considered to be in flight ‘at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation’. Granting the aircraft’s captain the rights set out in the convention earlier than those set out in Article 1(3) is particularly appropriate here, since Article 11 also concerns preparation for illegal seizure of aircraft. Moreover, for the purposes of the chapter on the privileges of the aircraft’s captain, the convention has further extended the concept of aircraft in flight temporarily, under which: ‘in the case of a forced landing, the provisions of this chapter shall continue to apply with respect to offences and acts committed on board until competent authorities of a state take over the responsibility for the aircraft and for the persons and property on board.’ The Hague Convention has taken the definition of the concept of aircraft in flight from Article 5 § 2 of the Tokyo Convention. However, unlike the Tokyo Convention, this term is not specific and does not refer to just one chapter. Similarly, the rule on forced landing applies to the whole convention. The Montreal Convention defines aircraft in flight by analogy. In addition to the already-known concept of aircraft in flight in aviation law, the Montreal Convention introduces a new concept of ‘aircraft in service’, used as a time criterion for committing offences such as destruction or damage to an aircraft or the placing of equipment or substances causing such effects on it. Article 2(b) provides that ‘an

180 Internal Security, July–December Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol. Changes in the International and Legal Model… aircraft is considered to be in service from the beginning of the preflight prepara- tion of the aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until twenty-four hours after any landing; the period of service shall, in any event, extend for the entire period during which the aircraft is in flight.’ In the Montreal Convention, contrary to the Hague Convention, there is no uniform definition of the location where the offences covered by this agreement are committed. In the case of the Hague Convention, analogous acts, including cooperation, were committed only ‘on board an aircraft in flight’ (Article 1). In turn, the Montreal Convention uses this criterion only for the act specified in Article 1(1) (a), i.e. an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight. Other crimi- nal acts — defined in Article 1 § 1 point b÷e, the attempt to commit them (Article 1 § 2 point a) and cooperation with a person who has committed or is attempting to commit such acts (Article 1 § 2 point b) — have no indication of a place that limits the scope of the crime. Such a definition of criminal acts is an advantage of this agreement, as it strengthens its provisions compared to the Hague Convention. Developed over nearly thirty years, the Tokyo-Hague-Montreal system has shaped the basic international legal mechanisms for combatting aviation terrorism. It should be borne in mind that, although the real aim of the system was primarily to combat acts of terrorism, its provisions apply to all criminal acts that threaten the security of international civil aviation, regardless of the motives of the perpetra- tors. It is therefore a system based on the criminalisation of a terrorist act and the legal procedures applicable to such recognition; it must therefore be regarded as a constituent element of international criminal law.7 Under this scheme, states have made a number of commitments to combat aviation terrorism, in particular: • to oblige states to penalise acts that threaten the security of international civil aviation and severely punish the perpetrators of such acts; • to oblige the state to which the aircraft belongs to establish criminal jurisdic- tion over acts committed on board the aircraft; • to make it possible for the state to exercise jurisdiction over such acts by the state having sovereignty over the airspace, e.g. when the offence has an effect on its land territory or compromises its security; • to oblige states to cooperate in countering these threats, among others, in the form of information exchange and legal assistance, including extra- dition.8 It is worth noting that the abovementioned regulations are part of the so-called sectoral conventions — conventions adopted within the framework of the United Nations which typify particular categories of terrorist attacks (e.g. hostage-taking, attacks on diplomats etc.).9 After all, it is characteristic that these legal norms typi- fied individual crimes in an objective manner, not dealing at all with the subjective side of the act, remaining only when it is stated that these acts must be committed illegally and intentionally. This means that the motives of the perpetrator and his or her actual aims were irrelevant to the existence of the crime; this put terrorist acts 7 See: Królikowski M, Wiliński P, Izydorczyk J, Podstawy prawa karnego międzynarodowego. Warsaw, 2008, p. 140ff. 8 See more: Aleksandrowicz T, Terroryzm międzynarodowy. Warsaw, 2015, pp. 66–69; Aleksandrowicz T, Liedel K, pp. 29–36. 9 Aleksandrowicz T, Terroryzm międzynarodowy, op. cit., p. 66.

Internal Security, July–December 181 Tomasz Aleksandrowicz and acts committed with other motives at one legal level, which made it possible to avoid disputes about the legal definition of a terrorist offence,10 and individual conventions were built almost in the same way, differing only in the modus operandi of the perpetrators. This situation continued until 1999, i.e. until the adoption of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which — for the purposes of the system created by the sectoral conventions — introduced a definition of a terrorist act.11 Article 2 stipulates that the offence is financed by the execution of ‘(a) an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex; or (b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a gov- ernment or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act.’ The annex referred to in paragraph (a) contains a list of the sectoral conventions, i.e: 1. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed in The Hague on 16 December 1970; 2. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971; 3. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internation- ally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973;12 4. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979;13 5. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted in Vienna on 3 March 1980;14 6. 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 24 February 1988; 7. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Mari- time Navigation, signed in Rome on 10 March 1988;15 8. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Plat- forms located on the Continental Shelf, signed in Rome on 10 March 1988;16 9. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.17

10 These disputes prevented the adoption of the General Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism within the United Nations in the 1970s. See: Ibid. 11 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 54/109 of 9 December 1999. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2178, No. 38349. 12 Dz.U. 1983, No. 37, item 168, annex; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1035, No. 15410. 13 Dz.U. 2000, No. 106, item 1123, annex; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1316, No. 21931. 14 Dz.U. 1989, No. 17, item 93, annex; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1456, No. 24631. 15 Dz.U. 2000 No. 129, item 635, annex; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1678, No. 20004. 16 Dz.U. 2000 No. 22, item 211, annex; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1678, No. 20004 (Both the Convention and its Protocol were published in UNTS under the same number). 17 Dz.U. 2007 No. 66, item 438; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2149, No. 35517.

182 Internal Security, July–December Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol. Changes in the International and Legal Model…

It is therefore clear that the Tokyo-Hague-Montreal system is part of a larger whole, the international legal system for combatting terrorism developed within the United Nations.

Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol

The Beijing Convention — while retaining in almost unchanged form the acts included in the Montreal Convention and its Supplementary Protocol — signifi- cantly expands their material scope, obliging states or parties to criminalise new acts. First of all, two issues should be noted: the use of aircraft as a means of com- bat (as in the case of the attack on the World Trade Center) and the use on board of an aircraft in service weapons of mass destruction or explosives, and the dumping or launching of such loads. These issues are covered by the provisions of Article 1(1) (f) to (h) of the Beijing Convention, which says that any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally: uses an aircraft in service of the purpose of causing death, serious bodily injury, or serious damage to property or the envi- ronment; or releases or discharges from an aircraft in service any BCN weapon or explosive, radioactive, or similar substances in a manner that causes or is likely to cause death, serious bodily injury or serious damage to property or the environ- ment; or uses against or on board an aircraft in service any BCN weapon or explosive, radioactive, or similar substances in a manner that causes or is likely to cause death, serious bodily injury or serious damage to property or the environment. In addi- tion, the Convention criminalises acts relating to civil aviation activities that serve other criminal activities, including those of a terrorist nature. Article 1(1)(i) states that any person who unlawfully and intentionally transports, causes to be transported, or facilitates the transport of, on board an aircraft; any explosive or radioactive material, knowing that it is intended to be used to cause, or in a threat to cause, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, death or serious injury or damage for the purpose of intimidating a population, or compelling a gov- ernment or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act; or any BCN weapon, knowing it to be a BCN weapon; or any source material, special fissionable material, or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, knowing that it is intended to be used in a nuclear explosive activity or in any other nuclear activity not under safeguards pursuant to a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency; or any equipment, materials or software or related technol- ogy that significantly contributes to the design, manufacture or delivery of a BCN weapon without lawful authorisation and with the intention that it will be used for such purpose. Subject to punishment is also a person who threatens to commit any of the offences or unlawfully and intentionally causes any person to receive such a threat, under circumstances which indicate that the threat is credible (Article 1(3)). The penalty is also applicable to assistance. Article 1(5)(b) states that the following are offences, when committed intentionally: contributing in any other way to the com- mission of one or more offences by a group of persons acting with a common purpose, and such contribution shall either: be made with the aim of furthering

Internal Security, July–December 183 Tomasz Aleksandrowicz the general criminal activity or purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of an offence; or is made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit an offence. Intentional accompliceship is also considered a crime (Article 1(4)(b): Any person also commits an offence if that person unlaw- fully and intentionally assists another person to evade investigation, prosecution or punishment, knowing that the person has committed an act that constitutes an offence, or that the person is wanted for criminal prosecution by law enforce- ment authorities for such an offence or has been sentenced for such an offence. Not only an attempted offence (Article 1(4)(a)), but also preparation when agreeing with one or more other persons to commit an offence (Article 1(5)(a)) is punishable. As far as phenomenal forms are concerned, the Beijing Convention introduces criminalisation of executive perpetration (Article 1(4)(b): Any person also commits an offence if that person organises or directs others to commit an offence. It should be noted that the provisions concerning threats, preparation, accom- pliceship, abetting, assistance and accessory are regulated in identical terms in both the Beijing Convention and the Beijing Protocol. The Beijing Protocol — apart from the unification of the above issues with the Beijing Convention — extends the scope of the offence of hijacking of an air- craft. Above all, this offence can be committed not only when the aircraft is in flight, but — a much broader concept — also when it is in service. Article 1(1) of the Protocol clearly states that any person commits an offence if that person unlaw- fully and intentionally seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service by force or threat thereof, or by coercion, or by any other form of intimidation, or by any technological means. As Jan Walulik points out that this means that the place where the offence was committed is no longer restricted to the aircraft and that the seizure and exer- cise of control can be carried out not only by various forms of violence, but also by technical means.18 The introduction of such a solution is undoubtedly a response to the threat of remote control over the aircraft, e.g. in the form of hacking into the computer system and blocking the possibility of pilots taking action. In concluding this brief review of the scope of the regulations in question, one cannot overlook the fact that both the convention and the protocol introduce the same ‘Al Qaeda’ clause,19 that is, the rules governing the liability of collective entities (Article 4 of the Convention and Article 4 of the Protocol): 1. Each State Party, in accordance with its national legal principles, may take the necessary measures to enable a legal entity located in its territory or organ- ized under its laws to be held liable when a person responsible for management or control of that legal entity has, in that capacity, committed an offence set forth in Article 1. Such liability may be criminal, civil or administrative.

18 Walulik J, Po reformie pekińskiej — zakres kryminalizacji i wskazania dla ustawodawcy polskiego Galicki Z, Ewolucja konwencji tokijskiej — od Tokio do Pekinu, [in:] Galicki Z, Myszona-Kostrzewa K (Eds), 50 lat konwencji tokijskiej …, op. cit., p. 250. 19 The term ‘Al Qaeda clause’ has already gained citizenship in Polish- and English-lan- guage scientific literature. See: Kuc O, Klauzula Al Kaidy: bezpieczeństwo żeglugi powietrznej a odpowiedzialność podmiotów zbiorowych, [in:] Galicki Z, Myszona-Kostrzewa K (Eds), 50 lat konwencji tokijskiej…, op. cit., pp. 75–84.

184 Internal Security, July–December Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol. Changes in the International and Legal Model…

2. Such liability is incurred without prejudice to the criminal liability of individuals having committed the offences. 3. If a State Party takes the necessary measures to make a legal entity liable in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, it shall endeavour to ensure that the applicable criminal, civil or administrative sanctions are effective, propor- tionate and dissuasive. Such sanctions may include monetary sanctions. The primary sources note in this context that the ratio legis of the introduction of the ‘Al Qaeda’ clause into the international aviation terrorism regime is related to the desire to adapt it to the existing solutions in the fight against terrorism and organised crime. In this context, mention should be made of the provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, already mentioned above, and of the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.20 The ‘Al Qaeda’ clause in the Convention and the Beijing Protocol is equiva- lent (in the same wording) to Article 5 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and Article 10 of the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.21

Principles of the Beijing Convention and Protocol

The Beijing Convention, once it enters into force, will take precedence over the Montreal Convention and its Supplementary Protocol. In turn, the Beijing Pro- tocol will constitute a single instrument with the Hague Convention and both will have to be interpreted together.22 When analysing the principles of both documents and their mutual relations with the conventions in force, it should be noted that the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties apply here.23 This is because it is difficult to exclude a situation in which some states — parties to the existing conventions (i.e. the Hague and Montreal conventions) — do not join the Beijing Convention and the Beijing Protocol, and some states ratify them. International law is created and binding upon the will of states, so a given state is, as a rule, bound by those norms of international law in respect of which it has made a declaration of will to assume the obligations arising from them. This problem is solved by the pro- visions of Article 30 of the Law of the Treaties (Application of successive treaties

20 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations of 15 November 2000. Dz.U. 2005 No. 18, item 158. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2225, No. 39574. 21 See more: Kuc O, op. cit., p. 77ff. 22 See: Postępowy rozwój prawa międzynarodowego…, op. cit., p. 58; Galicki Z, Ewolucja konwencji tokijskiej — od Tokio do Pekinu, [in:] Galicki Z, Myszona-Kostrzewa K (Eds), 50 lat konwencji tokijskiej…, op. cit., p. 27; Walulik J, Po reformie pekińskiej — zakres kryminalizacji i wskazania dla ustawodawcy polskiego, [in:] Galicki Z, Myszona-Kostrzewa K (Eds), 50 lat konwencji tokijskiej…, op. cit., p. 241; Pekińska reforma lotniczego prawa karnego — geneza, istota, rekomendacje. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, Rok LXXV, 2013, Issue 3, p. 42. 23 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties developed in Vienna on 23May 1969, annex; United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, No. 18232.

Internal Security, July–December 185 Tomasz Aleksandrowicz relating to the same subject-matter), in particular, paragraphs 3 and 4. The following provisions shall apply that when all of the parties to the earlier treaty are parties also to the later treaty but the earlier treaty is not terminated or suspended, the earlier treaty applies only to the extent that its provisions are compatible with those of the later treaty. When the parties to the later treaty do not include all of the parties to the earlier one: a) as between states parties to both treaties the same rule applies as in para- graph above; b) as between a state party to both treaties and a state party to only one of the treaties, the treaty to which both states are parties governs their mutual rights and obligations. The entry into force of the Beijing Convention and Protocol does not therefore imply an automatic repeal of the Hague and Montreal Conventions. The applica- tion of the old Roman principle according to which lex posteriori derogat legi priori is related to significant limitations in international law resulting, among others, from the principle par in parem non habet empire.24

Conclusions

The Beijing reform of international criminal aviation law is an almost academic example of a progressive development of international law that is dealt with when there is a gap in a positive international law which, due to the development of the international situation and, as in the present case, new threats to aviation security, requires the adoption of new regulations.25 This finding is confirmed by the pre- amble to the Beijing Convention, which explicitly states that new types of threats against civil aviation require new concerted efforts and policies of cooperation on the part of states; and in order to better address these threats, there is an urgent need to strengthen the legal framework for international cooperation in preventing and suppressing unlawful acts against civil aviation. The adoption of new international regulations analysed in this article has affected the establishment of the Tokyo-Hague-Montreal-Beijing system to combat aviation terrorism. The basic change consists in expanding the catalogue of acts subject to criminalisation, as well as in expanding the circle of persons deemed to be participating in or supporting actions consisting in committing acts that pose a threat to the security of civil aviation; this system also specifies the responsibility of collective entities (the so-called ‘Al Qaeda’ clause). As Marek Żylicz points out, ‘The new convention not only consolidates the pro- visions contained in the former convention and its protocol, but also contains a number of amendments aimed at extending the scope and increasing the effec- tiveness of the prosecution of all unlawful acts detrimental to the safety of air transport, airports and air navigation — other than the hijacking of aircraft. This

24 See more: Shaw M.N, Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Warsaw, 2006, pp. 535–536; Czapliński W, Wyrozumska A, Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Zagadnienia systemowe, 2nd edition. Warsaw, 2004, pp. 477–478. 25 See: Alekandrowicz T, Postępowy rozwój…, op. cit., pp. 48–49.

186 Internal Security, July–December Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol. Changes in the International and Legal Model… takes into account the various activities of criminals using the latest technological developments. Liability shall also cover the various behaviours which encourage the preparation of unlawful acts or the concealment of offenders.’26 In conclusion, it should be emphasised that the system for combatting aviation terrorism constitutes a part of the entire international legal system for combatting terrorism, including the fight against its financing. The new regulations also make the system more coherent. It is also worth adding that the adoption of the Beijing Convention and the Beijing Protocol constitute a part of the implementation of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the United Nations.27 International practice will show whether the new regulations will also increase its effectiveness in prosecuting and punishing perpetrators of terrorist acts.

References

1. Aleksandrowicz T, Postępowy rozwój prawa międzynarodowego a bezpieczeń- stwo międzynarodowego lotnictwa cywilnego, [in:] Galicki Z, Myszona-Ko- strzewa K (Eds), 50 lat konwencji tokijskiej — bezpieczeństwo żeglugi lotniczej z perspektywy przestrzeni powietrznej i kosmicznej. Księga dedykowana Profe- sorowi Markowi Żyliczowi. Warsaw, 2014. 2. Aleksandrowicz T, Terroryzm międzynarodowy. Warsaw, 2015. 3. Aleksandrowicz T, Liedel K, Zwalczanie terroryzmu lotniczego. Wybrane zagad- nienia i źródła prawa międzynarodowego. Szczytno, 2010. 4. Biskup K, Bezpieczeństwo operacji lotniczych w dobie współczesnego świata. Studia z zakresu Prawa, Administracji i Zarządzania UKW, 2013, Vol. 3. 5. Galicki Z, Ewolucja konwencji tokijskiej — od Tokio do Pekinu, [in:] Galicki Z, Myszona-Kostrzewa K (Eds), 50 lat konwencji tokijskiej — bezpieczeństwo żeglugi lotniczej z perspektywy przestrzeni powietrznej i kosmicznej. Księga dedykowana Profesorowi Markowi Żyliczowi. Warsaw 2014. 6. Czapliński W, Wyrozumska A, Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Zagadnienia systemowe, 2nd edition. Warsaw, 2004. 7. Królikowski M, Wiliński P, Izydorczyk J, Podstawy prawa karnego międzynarodowego Warsaw 2008. 8. Kuc O, Klauzula Al Kaidy: bezpieczeństwo żeglugi powietrznej a odpowiedzialność podmiotów zbiorowych, [in:] Galicki Z, Myszona-Kostrzewa K (Eds), 50 lat konwencji tokijskiej — bezpieczeństwo żeglugi lotniczej z pers- pektywy przestrzeni powietrznej i kosmicznej. Księga dedykowana Profesorowi Markowi Żyliczowi. Warsaw 2014. 9. Myszona-Kostrzewa K, Bezpieczeństwo lotnictwa cywilnego w świetle prawa międzynarodowego. Przegląd Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, 2014, No. 11. 10. Shaw M.N, Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Warsaw, 2006. 11. Walulik J, Po reformie pekińskiej — zakres kryminalizacji i wskazania dla usta- wodawcy polskiego, [in:] Galicki Z, Myszona-Kostrzewa K (Eds), 50 lat konwencji

26 Żylicz M, op. cit., p. 85. 27 United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, UN Doc. A/RES/60/288, 20 Septem- ber 2006.

Internal Security, July–December 187 Tomasz Aleksandrowicz

tokijskiej — bezpieczeństwo żeglugi lotniczej z perspektywy przestrzeni powi- etrznej i kosmicznej. Księga dedykowana Profesorowi Markowi Żyliczowi. War- saw 2014. 12. Walulik J, Pekińska reforma lotniczego prawa karnego — geneza, istota, reko- mendacje. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, Rok LXXV, 2013, Issue 3. 13. Żylicz M, Prawo lotnicze międzynarodowe, europejskie i krajowe, 2nd edition. Warsaw, 2011. 14. Konwencja o przestępstwach i niektórych innych czynach popełnionych na pokładzie statku powietrznego, signed in Tokyo on 14 September 1963. Dz.U. 1971, No. 15, item 147, annex; (Convention on off ences and certain other acts committed on aircraft board). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 704, No. 10106, ICAO Doc 8364. 15. Konwencja o zwalczaniu bezprawnego zawładnięcia statkami powietrznymi, signed in the Hague on 16 December 1970. Dz.U. 1972, No. 25, item 181, annex; (Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 860, No. 1235, ICAO Doc 8920. 16. Konwencja o zwalczaniu bezprawnych czynów skierowanych przeciwko bezpieczeństwu lotnictwa cywilnego, developed in Montreal on 23 September 1971. Dz.U. 1976, No. 8, item 37, annex, (Convention for the Suppression of Un- lawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 974, No. 14118, ICAO Doc 8966. 17. Protokół o zwalczaniu bezprawnych czynów przemocy w portach lotniczych obsługujących międzynarodowe lotnictwo cywilne, developed in Montreal on 24 February 1988, supplementing Konwencję o zwalczaniu bezprawnych czynów przeciwko bezpieczeństwu lotnictwa cywilnego, signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971. Dz.U. 2006, No. 48 item 348, (Protocol for the Suppres- sion 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). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1589, No. 14118, ICAO Doc 9518l. 18. Międzynarodowa Konwencja o zwalczaniu fi nansowania terroryzmu przyjęta przez Zgromadzenie Ogólne Narodów Zjednoczonych dnia 9 grudnia 1999. Dz.U. 2003, No. 269, item 2619; (International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 54/109 of 9 December 1999). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2178, No. 38349. 19. Konwencja Narodów Zjednoczonych przeciwko międzynarodowej przestępczości zorganizowanej, przyjęta przez Zgromadzenie Ogólne Narodów Zjednoczonych dnia 15 listopada 2000 r.. Dz.U. 2005 No. 18, item 158; (United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2225 No. 39574. 20. Konwencja Wiedeńska o Prawie Traktatów sporządzona w Wiedniu dnia 23 maja 1969. Dz.U. 1990 No. 74, item 439, annex, (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, No. 18232. 21. Konwencja w sprawie zapobiegania i karaniaprzestępstw przeciwko osobom korzystającym z ochrony międzynarodowej, w tym przeciwko dyplomatom. Dz.U. 1983, No. 37, item 168, annex; (Convention on the Prevention and Punish-

188 Internal Security, July–December Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol. Changes in the International and Legal Model…

ment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 Decem- ber 1973). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1035, No. 15410. 22. Międzynarodowa konwencja o walce z przestępstwem wzięcia zakładników. Dz.U. 2000, No. 106, item 1123, annex. 23. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the Gen- eral Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979. United Nations Trea- ty Series, Vol. 1316, No. 21931. 24. Konwencja o ochronie fi zycznej materiałów jądrowych. Dz.U. 1989, No. 17, item 93, annex. 25. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1456 No. 24631. 26. Konwencja w sprawie przeciwdziałania bezprawnym czynom przeciwko bezpieczeństwu żeglugi morskiej. Dz.U. 2000, No. 129, item 635, annex. 27. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1678, No. 20004. 28. Protokół o zwalczaniu bezprawnych czynów skierowanych przeciwko bezpieczeństwu platform umieszczonych na szelfie kontynentalnym. Dz.U. 2000, No. 22, item 211, annex. 29. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Plat- forms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1678, No. 20004. 30. Międzynarodowa konwencja w sprawie zwalczania terrorystycznych ataków bombowych. Dz.U. 2007, No. 66, item 438. 31. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2149, No. 35517. 32. Convention on The Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civ- il Aviation done at Beijing on 10 September 2010, ICAO Doc 9960. Electronic source: https://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/Pages/TreatyCollection.aspx 33. Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Sei- zure of Aircraft, done at Beijing on 10 September 2010, ICAO Doc 9959. Electron- ic source: https://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/Pages/TreatyCollection.aspx. 34. United Nations Global Counter — Terrorism Strategy, UN Doc. A/RES/60/288, 20 September 2006.

About the Author

Tomasz Aleksandrowicz, Full Professor, Police Academy in Szczytno, Department of Internal Security. Former Dean of the Faculty of Administration of the Aleksander Gieysztor Academy of Humanities. Member of the Centre for Terrorism Research and the Institute of Information Analysis of Collegium Civitas in Warsaw. Former offi cer of the Polish secret service, member of the Advisory Team to the President of Poland, member of the Strategic Team of the National Security Review. Author of over 100 scientifi c papers on various aspects of national and international security, terrorism, information analysis theory. E-mail: [email protected].

Internal Security, July–December 189 Tomasz Aleksandrowicz

Streszczenie. Artykuł poświęcony jest kwestii pekińskiej reformy międzynarodowego prawa lotniczego karnego. Autor poddaje analizie dotychczas obowiązujące przepisy prawa międzynarodowego w tym zakresie konfrontując je z nowymi regulacjami prawnymi przyjętymi podczas konferencji Międzynarodowej Organizacji Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ICAO) w Pekinie w 2010 r. W rezultacie autor stwierdza, że podstawowa zmiana polega na rozszerzeniu katalogu czynów podlegających kryminalizacji, jak też rozszerzeniu kręgu osób uczestniczących czy też wspierających działania polegające na popełnianiu czynów stanowiących zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa lotnictwa cywilnego; w systemie tym znalazło się także miejsce dla określenia odpowiedzialności podmiotów zbiorowych (tzw. klauzula Al Kaidy). W przekonaniu autora zasadne jest zatem stwierdzenie o powstaniu systemu tokijsko — hasko — montrealsko — pekińskiego, który wpisuje się w cały prawnomiędzynarodowy system zwalczania terroryzmu, łącznie ze zwalczaniem jego finansowania. Nowe regulacje powodują także większą spójność tego systemu. Warto też dodać, że przyjęcie Konwencji Pekińskiej i Protokołu Pekińskiego stanowią część implementacji Globalnej Strategii Przeciwdziałania Terroryzmowi przyjętej przez Organizację Narodów Zjednoczonych.

Zusammenfassung. Der Artikel wurde der Reform des internationalen Luftfahrtstrafrechts in Peking gewidmet. Der Autor analysiert die in diesem Zusammenhang bestehenden Bestimmungen des Völkerrechts sowie konfrontiert sie mit den neuen gesetzlichen Bestimmungen, die auf der Konferenz der Internationalen Zivilluftfahrt-Organisation (ICAO) in Peking 2010 verabschiedet wurden. Infolgedessen stellt der Autor fest, dass die grundlegende Änderung darin besteht, den Katalog der Kriminalisierungsakte zu erweitern sowie den Personenkreis zu erweitern oder auch solche Aktivitäten zu unterstützen, die darin bestehen, Handlungen zu begehen, welche eine Bedrohung für die Sicherheit der Zivilluftfahrt darstellen. Dieses System enthält auch einen Ort, an dem die Haftung von kollektiven Einheiten definiert wird (die sogenannte Al-Qaida-Klausel). Nach Ansicht des Autors ist es daher gerechtfertigt zu sagen, dass das System Tokio-Haag-Montreal-Peking geschaffen wurde, das ein Teil des gesamten internationalen Rechtssystems zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus einschließlich seiner Finanzierung wurde. Die neuen Vorschriften machen dieses System auch kohärenter. Es ist auch erwähnenswert, dass die Annahme des Pekinger Übereinkommens und des Pekinger Protokolls ein Teil der Umsetzung der von den Vereinten Nationen verabschiedeten globalen Strategie zur Terrorismusbekämpfung sind.

Резюме. Статья посвящена Пекинской реформе международного уголовного авиационного права. Автор анализирует существующие положения международного права в этой области и сравнивает их с новыми правовыми нормами, принятыми на конференции Международной организации гражданской авиации (ICAO) в Пекине в 2010 году. В связи с этим автор утверждает, что основное изменение заключается в расширении каталога деяний, подлежащих криминализации, а также в расширении круга лиц, участвующих или поддерживающих действия, связанные с совершением деяний, создающих угрозу безопасности гражданской авиации; система также включает определение ответственности коллективных субъектов (так называемая клаузула «Аль-Каиды»). В связи с этим автор убежден, что вполне оправданнной является система токио-хаско-монреальско-пекинской системы, котороя входит в состав всей международно-правовой системы борьбы с терроризмом, в том числе с его финансированием. Новые положения обеспечивают также более эффективную деятельность этой системы. Стоит также добавить, что принятие Пекинской конвенции и Пекинского протокола является частью процесса имплементации Глобальной контртерро- ристической стратегии, принятой Организацией Объединенных Наций.

190 Internal Security, July–December