Australia, insurance, car, home, live, holidays

The laws that apply on flights can vary and can affect things like who can be served alcohol.Credit:iStock

Offences committed on international flights fall under the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft,more commonly known as the Tokyo Convention. Under the convention,when the aircraft is in flight,acts that threaten the safe operation of the aircraft,threaten other passengers,or offend or intimidate anyone on an international flight are subject to the relevant laws in the country of registration of the aircraft.

In January 2024,a heavily intoxicated American passenger on an ANA flight from Tokyo to Seattle bit a cabin crew member’s arm. The aircraft was an hour into its flight and could have continued to Seattle,but the pilot chose to return to Japan,the aircraft’s country of registration so that the biter could be dealt with under Japanese law.

In January 2022,an Irish passenger on a Delta flight from Dublin to New York was violent,abusive and disruptive,refusing to wear a mask or a seatbelt,baring his buttocks,violently kicking the seat back of the passenger in front and threatening the captain. The obnoxious behaviour began almost as soon as he was on board,yet the aircraft,registered in the US,continued to New York,where he faced charges under US law.

Since an aircraft on an international route is governed by the laws in its country of registration,the Tokyo Convention creates some curious anomalies. If an 18-year-old travels aboard a Qantas flight between Australia and the US,they can be served alcohol,but if that same teenager flies aboard United Airlines,they can’t since the minimum drinking age in the US is 21.

During the pandemic,when some countries required passengers flying aboard their airlines to wear masks,passengers on other carriers flying the same route could fly mask-free if the country in which the aircraft was registered didn’t require it.

Where the Tokyo Convention falls short

The Tokyo Convention was adopted in 1963,and the increasing frequency of passengers behaving badly in the intervening years exposed a shortcoming. When a violent incident takes place on an international flight,the aircraft might not land at its country of registration to allow the perpetrator to face prosecution.

In that case,law enforcement authorities in the country where the aircraft lands might decline to act if they determine they do not have jurisdiction. That’s more likely to happen in the event of a relatively minor infringement;however,this lack of universal prosecutorial power under the Tokyo Convention became a growing problem as the number of offences rocketed.

To address this defect,the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) expanded the Tokyo Convention with the 2014 Protocol to Amend the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft,also known as the Montreal Protocol 2014,or MP14.

This new protocol extends jurisdiction to the country of landing and third-party countries if a flight is rerouted. That gives states the authority to deal with unruly passengers arriving in their territory,regardless of where the aircraft is registered. So far,44 countries have ratified MP14,and the ICAO is pushing more to follow suit.

Local laws apply on the ground

When an aircraft is on the ground,the Tokyo Convention no longer applies;it’s the local laws that rule the day. Where the aircraft is from,the nationalities on board whether passengers and crew,all are subject to the law of the country they’re in. That means,for example,that irrespective of where they’re from,no carrier can pop the champagne cork for premium-class passengers when they’re on the ground in Saudi Arabia.

This can have unfortunate consequences,as happened in 2020 when female passengers,including 13 Australians,were removed from a Qatar Airways flight at Doha International Airport and required to undergo gynaecological examinations to determine if they were the mother of a newborn baby that had been found in an airport bathroom.

Airport authorities instituted the search,and even if the aircraft crew had been alerted to the horrific scenario about to unfold,they were in no position to refuse. Had it been a Qantas aircraft,the outcome would likely have been the same.

The latest travel news,tips and inspiration delivered to your inbox.Sign up now.

License this article