A legal conundrum?

Question

an englishman murders an egyptian on an american plane flying from paris to tokyo whilst in international airspace. in which country would the trial be held?

Answer 1

good question -dealing with each element:-

the nationalities of the people involved are irrelevant as if you commit a crime in a country other than your own, you are still subject to that country's law. In this case I'm sure the egyptian authorities would get involved, but not the the extent where the murderer would be brought back to egypt to be dealt with under their legal system.

the fact it is an american plane is also irrelevant as this has no bearing on the juristiction that may apply.

which leaves an incident on a plane over international airspace. For cases of "air rage" that have made the news (usually where drunken popstars have assaulted cabin crew) the perpetrator has been arrested and charged in the country where the plane lands -so on this basis it would be japan.

Answer 2

No conundrum.
RRM & others are correct.
Any trial for such a thing is the responsibility of the country operating the aircraft, regardless of which airspace it was occupying.
I jumped out of a French registered 'plane for charity, and had it gone horribly wrong, then the French airline could of been held accountable, even though it was over English soil.
Such seems to be the case.
Bob

Answer 3

If the plane originated in America then that is where the trial would be held, the nationalities of perpetrator and victim are immaterial.

Whilst on an international flight you are bound by the law of either the country you are flying from or, the country in which the aircraft is registered.

Answer 4

I think RRM is right. It used to be that if a flight was in international airspace or a ship in international waters, then the vessel was subject to the law of the operators/ owners country.

I seem to recall there was some debate about where in the channel tunnel jurisdiction would change over from one country to the other.

Answer 5

This is rather like the Lockerbie air bombing http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:7omu310WBx8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103+lockerbie&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1.

Here the Scottish court had jurisdiction, although the flight was an international one from New York to Heathrow, the aircraft was a US one and the perpetrators were Libyans.

Here people seem to have missed the all important point that the USA and Japan both have the death penalty, so this fellow's lawyers would be arguing that it was against his human rights to be tried in either country. That's why I would vote for France on this one.

Answer 6

He would land in Japan, so extradition treaties would have to looked at that point. If for example, Japan refuses to extradite to countries using the death penalty, they wouldn't send him to Egypt. Most likely, he would be sent to the UK to stand trial. As a UK citizen in international airspace, he would still be held accountable to the laws of his native country. If the crime took place in another country, he'd be held accountable to their laws.

Answer 7

I would guess America as the plane would remain American territory as the passengers hadn't been through immigration and admitted to Japan yet but I'm not sure.

Answer 8

America.

Answer 9

If the 'plane crashed exactly on the border between France and Spain, in which country would the survivors be buried?

Answer 10

who cares an Englishman is always right
any way it was only an Egyptian