Who has jurisdiction on an International flight in international airspace in a sexual assault case? This question relates to a recent sexual assault case of a passenger on an airline from Newark, NJ to London, England as published at the Daily Mail. No details are available in this article as to the exact time or location of the airplane while the crime occurred, but based on the fact that allegedly the other passengers were as sleep, it is safe to assume that it occurred deep into the travel, and much earlier than the flight having reached the air of Ireland or the UK. What law would apply in the scenario when this occurs in international air space? Would U.S. and/or New Jersey law apply or international law or charges could be brought on each of these? Is it different if it flies under the flag of the UK? Or if it reached British airspace?
It depends Law in international airspace over international waters is the law of the country the plane is registered in - just like a ship is considered land of the registered/owner's country while in international waters. This is, according to the Britannica, also called the quasi-territorial Jurisdiction. So if this were a Lufthansa Flight, technically everything there happens in Germany under the Tokyo Convention and German Law (StGB §4) and the case can be held in Germany. For United Airlines it means, that the act happened in the US and if it was an Air Japan flight, it would be Japan, no matter in which airspace it happens. However, other laws might also make the law of other countries apply and put the people into the jurisdiction by virtue of law applying globally: if the perpetrator or victim were US citizens, any felony that happens between the two on that flight can also be prosecuted in the US, as they claim jurisdiction in those cases. Similarly, the UK and Germany have similar laws, in the latter case for only a subset of crimes (StGB §5, 6-11a). This is the principle of personal jurisdiction. But technically, the quasi-territorial jurisdiction can override that. And that again is overridden once the plane lands and enters the territorial jurisdiction of the harboring country. All involved countries can elect to prosecute or not, and there is no double jeopardy problem as we have separate sovereigns. Who is most likely to prosecute? Depends on the case, but in the least, the country of registration has Jurisdiction and will usually get the first crack at the case. However, extradition treaties and other treaties between two countries can give preference to the country of the nationals. BTW: we had pretty much the same question for murder on a plane.
Laws are different around the world and you didn't bother to state your location, but typically no- this is not how the system works. What would be the point? There's no defendant. You, the plaintiff would argue against thin air and then what? The court rules in your favour, declares this illegal, and nothing happens because there's no defendant. Is it so you can use this ruling if you find out later? Pretty sneaky. Let's look into how this would actually work. You bring up a case- Jackson vs a mannequin or something. You make your arguments. The defense makes literally no defense. The judge rules in your favour, with a result of nothing as there is no defendent. Next, you find the culprit and bring a case against them. You point out that this is illegal because we came to that decision last week. What's that defendant? An argument against it being illegal? Too bad, the decision has been made. When I posted this answer, it was before the &quot;Nyah, I was ranting about government spying but was deliberately vague- aren't I clever?&quot; comment and I assumed it was against, say, a neighbour but it doesn't really matter. You cannot have a system that makes a judgement without a defendant so it can be applied later.
There are some statutes that have a section that says "any violation of this action is punishable by . . . ." but the INA is not one of them. Generally speaking, the way it would be imposed would be: (1) to deny entry on a departing commercial airplane flight or ship (which is enforced by the private enterprises involved pursuant to Transportation Department regulations that the private enterprises may be sanctioned for not obeying) and (2) to set up presumptions about the reasonableness of, for example, laws requiring someone to have brought a passport to secure embassy access. One of the reasons that no penalty is stated is because the constitutionality of this statute is doubtful. Geographical restrictions on travel in some cases have been upheld as constitutional with regard to specific countries and in war time, but are even then strictly construed. But, no case has upheld the restriction as applied to travel to a country to which geographical restrictions do not apply. Likewise, I doubt that the provision denying entry to U.S. citizens without a passport, even during times of war, would be upheld today. For example, 215(b) was given a narrow construction (disallowing criminal prosecutions when someone went to Cuba and returned via a third-country while holding a valid U.S. passport) in part out of concern for the constitutional right to travel. U.S. v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475, 481 (1967). See also See L. Tribe, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 15-15, at 957 n.22 (1978) (arguing that ‘the power approved in Zemel must be limited to the most extraordinary situations'). For background see, e.g. Right to Travel Abroad, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 184, 195 (1984) (student note published anonymously) and Thomas E. Laursen, Constitutional Protection of Foreign Travel, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 902 (1981). The fundamental right of a citizen is to enter his own country so that he is not stateless with no place he can lawfully be, and that analysis has been developed more in the law now than it had been in 1967. Alternatively, could a judge impose a penalty without a statutory basis (beyond the designation of the act as unlawful)? Historically, some U.S. states provided this authority which was called the power to impose punishment for "common law crimes", and there are some that still do and there are others, such as Michigan that don't define key crimes that were crimes at common law, such as murder, other than in case law and simply set punishments by statute for these otherwise undefined crimes. As recently as 1947, a majority of U.S. states had at least some common law crimes. Many states codified their criminal laws in the wake of the Model Penal Code in the 1960s even though all states adapted it to their local needs and only a minority of states adopted a penal code close based upon it. The Model Penal Code made it easier to think of what had previous been an ill defined and massive legislative task into a more manageable and finite project for ambitious reformist legislators (an attitude and approach that was common in the U.S. in state legislatures in the late 1960s and early 1970s). But, the federal judiciary has never had this authority (as formally determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1812, just 23 years after the current constitution was adopted), in part, because the federal government does not have plenary legislative authority on all matters and federal courts are likewise courts of limited jurisdiction (while all or almost all states have at least one court of general jurisdiction that can handle any matter that no other court has jurisdiction to handle). From Wikipedia: The notion that common law offenses could be enforced in federal courts was found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812). Some have argued that they are inconsistent with the prohibition of ex post facto laws. At the state level, the situation varies. Some states, such as New Jersey, have abolished common law crimes (see State v. Palendrano), while others have chosen to continue to recognize them. In some states, the elements of many crimes are defined mostly or entirely by common law, i.e., by prior judicial decisions. For instance, Michigan's penal code does not define the crime of murder: while the penalties for murder are laid out in statute, the actual elements of murder, and their meaning, is entirely set out in case law.
So, in England and Wales your son assaulted Mario. (From Wikipedia: "Assault is committed if one intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence". I expect Mario expected your son was going to thump him, and that would certainly be unlawful.) You were both trespassers on the property; however it sounds like there was nobody there who could require you to leave, so that probably doesn't matter. Both of these would be true whatever the age of your daughter. Finally, in England and Wales, if you had forced your 16-year old daughter to come with you against her will, you would both have been guilty of kidnapping. (16 is the age at which children become independent in terms of deciding where to go.) She can choose to leave home and live with her boyfriend, and there is nothing you can do to stop her. Edit: The question did not originally mention a jurisdiction. This is an area where the legal situation is likely to be very jurisdiction dependent.
The Vatican City State did this between 1929 and 1984, indeed for all aircraft. The Lateran Treaty of 1929, between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy, said (Article 7, paragraph 3): In conformità alle norme del diritto internazionale, è vietato agli aeromobili di qualsiasi specie di trasvolare sul territorio del Vaticano. In accordance with the provisions of International Law, it is forbidden for aircraft of any kind whatsoever to fly over the territory of the Vatican. The revision of 1984 did not preserve this provision (see its Article 13(1)). The present situation is that Vatican airspace, managed by the Italian national authorities, is subject to flight restrictions preventing low-flying aircraft and drones. So you cannot legally buzz St Peter's Basilica in your helicopter, but you could fly at a higher altitude in the normal way. (The restrictions are for anything below 3500 feet, and for comparison St Peter's is about 450 feet tall.) There are obvious exceptions for papal or other official travel, and Popes have used their own helicopters to travel in and out of the Vatican since 1976. Since 2015, the helipad has also been made available for emergency use by medical helicopters from a nearby children's hospital. That demonstrates the extent to which it is not available for routine travel. Therefore, I think that &quot;flying there for business purposes, flying domestically, or leaving the country by helicopter&quot; are all forbidden, unless you are the Pope or have his permission. You also cannot land or take off in a fixed-wing aircraft, but that's largely a matter of geography, not law: there is no runway.
Turkish airlines states its cancellation policies here – this is what appears to a person in the US, content in Nepal or elsewhere is anyone's guess. The possibility and cost of cancellation depends on whether the ticket is domestic or international, and what the fare class is. For example no cancellation with refund is possible under the international economy promotional fare. There are various charges associated with other fares. So, it is legal for them to refuse to refund a cancelled ticket, depending on the facts. Or there could be some charge for rebooking. An airline does not use force to compel a customers to do things, but they can legally make it inconvenient for you to obtain a refund or rebooking. There is no law requiring that transactions with an airline be concluded by phone call within some number of minutes, or online, or by going into an office. They also provide information on changing someone else's ticket here. Can I travel using a ticket issued in someone else’s name? Topic: Reservations and bookings Last modified: July 03, 2015 No, only the person whose name and surname is written on the ticket can use it to travel or make changes to the booking and route. For this reason, you can only travel using tickets issued in your own name. For more detailed information please visit our booking page. Although you may have paid for the ticket, it is not your ticket. This page also addresses buying tickets on behalf of a third party: I want to buy a ticket for someone living in a different city. Will they be able to collect the ticket in the city where they live? Topic: Reservations and bookings Last modified: July 03, 2015 The person you buy the ticket for can collect the ticket from their nearest Turkish Airlines sales office. This process can also be simplified by using an e-ticket. You can purchase an e-ticket in the other person’s name either online or from our call center. For more detailed information please visit our reservations page. The question about changing logs doesn't have an obvious answer, since said "log" is probably a company-internal record and not a governmentally-regulated record. It would not be legal to falsify evidence in a legal proceeding. In case of legal dispute, you can present whatever evidence you have that tends to support your side of the story, and the court will decide whose version of the story is most credible.
The details published in The Guardian today offer a little (but not much) hope that Competition &amp; Markets Authority will force airlines to refund you. I live in a tier 4 area but was due to fly to Scotland on Wednesday. Can I get a refund? The airlines are only obliged to refund customers if they cancel the flight. The fact you cannot travel by law makes no difference as key workers will still expect to travel and therefore flights are still available. Ryanair is offering those in lockdown and unable to travel between now and Christmas Eve a fee-free switch to a new flight – but only until 15 March 2021. British Airways is offering vouchers to those who decide they no longer wish to travel. EasyJet customers are being offered refunds if the new restrictions mean it would be illegal to take a flight. However, if your airline is refusing a refund, rebooking option or voucher, it is worth notifying the airline that you cannot travel because of the restrictions and that you would like a refund or voucher. This is because the Competition and Markets Authority is investigating whether airlines should be forced to reimburse those in this position. You could find you receive a payout later.
AA &quot;requests&quot; that you remove batteries from checked laptops and put them in carry-on luggage. You must, per their contract of carriage, &quot;comply with airline safety rules&quot;, and they say that they can deny you boarding if you do not comply, which includes &quot;Are uncooperative, abusive, harassing, or show the potential to be while on board&quot;. You might then hope to sue them because you didn't violate any safety policy of theirs but they denied you your seat, but there's nothing in the contract that states &quot;The following is a complete list of policies&quot;. You should discuss this in more detail with your lawyer, but on the face of it there is no legal recourse, except of course a refund.