Achille Lauro Hijacking. Law Case Study Assignment

Achille Lauro Hijacking
Name:
Course:
Date
Introduction
On 3rd October 1985, the Italian Achille Lauro liner was hijacked by four men associated with the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF). The liner was sailing from Egypt to Israel. The hijackers held the passengers as hostages and diverted the vessel to Syria. Additionally, the terrorists also made demands before releasing the hostages and abandoning the liner; they demanded the release of all Palestinians held in Israel prisons. The hijackers who were aligned with the Palestine Liberation Front, which is linked to the Palestine Liberation organization had threatened to kill the passengers in the vessel if their demands were not fulfilled. In facts, the terrorists killed Leon Klinghoffer, a chair wheel bound passenger, by shooting him to the forehead and then dumping his body to the sea.
Additionally, it was noted that throughout the hijacking, the criminals were received a transmission from a shore contact and it was presumed that the person who was issuing commands was Mohammed Abbas Zaidan, the leader of Palestine Liberation Front Organization. It was clear that Egypt was noting going to prosecute or extradite them; Egypt had made a contract with the hijackers that they would be provided with safe passage and immunity from prosecution. Additionally, because the majority of the hostages were American tourists, President Ronald Reagan deployed different agencies, including Navy’s SEAL Team Six, among others for possible rescue attempts. In 10th October the same year, the United States military managed to intercept the Egyptian airliner, which carried the terrorists and forced it to land in a NATO base in Sicily, where the hijackers were arrested and prevented from flying to their freedom. This incident shows the actions that a country can undertake under international law to detain suspected criminals who are not within its jurisdiction.[Tracey E. Madden, "An Analysis of the United States' Response to the Achille Lauro Hijacking." Boston College Third World Law Journal 8, no. 11 (1988): 137-149.]
Facts
The armed Palestinians who captured the Italian cruise held about 400 passengers and crew members as hostages. The hijacking started after the ship left Alexandria for Port Said when the terrorists seized the control of the vessel. Additionally, the hijackers were spotted by a waiter who saw them cleaning their weapons in one of the vessel’s cabin. Most importantly, the terrorists had boarded the ship in Genoa, and their primary intention was to attack the port of Ashdod in Israel, they, however, aborted that mission thus seizing Achille Lauro. The attack on the vessel was retaliation by the Palestinians for the attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia. The terrorists had demanded the leader of Israel to free nearly fifty Palestinians who were held in jails in Israel. After diverting the vessel to Syria and Cyprus, where it was denied the port rights, the terrorist went back to Egypt, where it anchored at port Said. Additionally, it was after getting back to Egypt that the hijackers negotiated with various parties, including ambassadors from both Italy and West-Germany, the advisor to Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and other leaders associated with the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF). After being promised safe passage out of Egypt, the hijackers surrendered to the authorities on 9th October (Jeffrey Allan McCredie).[Jeffrey D. Simon,"The Implications of The Achille Lauro Hijacking for the Maritime Community." 1987: 1-10.] [McCredie, Jeffrey Allan. "Contemporary Uses of Force Against Terrorism: The United States Response To Achille Lauro-Questions Of Jurisdiction and its Exercise." Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 16, no. 435 (1986): 435-467.]
Most importantly, it was after surrendering and the release of the hostages that it was discovered that Leon Klinghoffer, an American passenger, had been killed and his body thrown overboard. It is critical to note that although there were rumors that a few Americans had been killed by the terrorists before the negotiation took place, authorities in Egypt maintained that they were not aware of any killings before negotiations had completed and hijackers surrendered. The captain had reported that every person in the vessel was safe. Besides, the criminals had also denied that they had committed murder; however, Klinghoffer was discovered along the Syrian coast with gunshot wounds and provided to the United States agencies.[Andrew L. Liput, "An Analysis of the Achille Lauro Affair: Towards an Effective and Legal Method of Bringing International Terrorists to Justice." Fordham International Law Journal 9, no. 2 (1985): 328-372.] [Andrew L. Liput, 334.]
The hijackers had surrendered the ship after being guaranteed safe passage to an undisclosed location. However, the gunmen were only to be released after it was confirmed that all passenger in the vessel were safe and that no one had been killed. It is critical to comprehend that after the news of the killing was discovered while the terrorists were still in custody. Egyptian authorities expressed their interest to stick to the deal they had made with the hijackers instead of turning them to either the United States or Italy. On 10th October, the criminals, Palestinian officials, and several other Egyptians nationals boarded an Egyptian airliner from Cairo destined for Tunisia where the hijackers would be taken to the PLO’s base. The airplane was denied permission to land in both Tunisia and Athens. Several American fighter planes instead intercepted the airliner over the international waters north of Egypt and directed it to NATO base in Sicily. The United States was focused on transporting criminals to the United States, where they would be tried. However, Italy insisted that it would be more appropriate if it retained the custody of the hijackers. The hijackers and other Palestinian officials were flown to Rome, but Egypt bargained the release of the officials, maintaining that they were visitors.[Andrew L. Liput, 336.]
Later, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak asserted that the use of military force by the United States violated and breached international law. Such views were supported on the bases that American has intercepted the airplane and arrested the hijackers beyond its borders an act that would not be acceptable. Different countries expressed different opinions regarding whether the United States actions would be justified as legitimate acts of promoting self-defense against the terrorists. Additionally, this Egypt’s actions were also questionable since the prevailing activities would have been prevented had the leaders applied and adhered to the principles of the international law which the country has bound itself. Additionally, it is necessary to understand that both the United States and Egypt have signed a treaty that allows the exchange of convicted individuals for prosecution. America had exhausted all possible measures leaving it with no other remedy against Egypt. Some Muslim countries had, however, expressed their dissatisfaction with United States operations and had perceived the interception of Egyptian airplane as misuse of power under international law.[Mark D. Larsen, "The Achille Lauro Incident and the Permissible Use of Force." 1987: 481-497.]
Issue/question
Bases on the case of Achille Lauro, there are critical questions that should be addressed; these may include, what was Egypt required to do to the hijackers? Was it right for the United States to hijack the Egyptian plane? It is critical to note that Egypt would have to undertake different actions that are accepted internationally. Under the Hostage Convention, Egypt authorities would have prosecuted the criminals or extradite them to America in line with the United States-Egypt Extradition treaty. Although Egypt had a strong basis for trying the hijackers, it decided to let the criminals out of the country for national interests. Additionally, the United States’ decision to use abduction was accepted as an alternative to extradition because of factors such as lack of clear guidelines about the abandonment of the extradition treaty. Besides, in the case of Achille Lauro, there was no universally-accepted definition of terrorism.[Andrew L. Liput, 353]
Moreover, it would also have appropriate to examine whether the plans and activities of the United States that were aimed towards capturing the plane and arresting the passengers would be determined as an offence against humanity. It would be argued that America violated the sovereignty of independent countries, Egypt and Italy when it captured Egyptian’s plane and landed its military carriers in Italy with without permission and also tried to force the ...