Like Tree37Likes

Belarus hijacks aircraft

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    香港特别行政区
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Elefant&Castle:
    Passengers - minus Roman Protasevich.

    Were they trailing him - or they always have the list of passengers on board? Flight was just crossing Belarus.
    You'd be surprised how easy it is to pull up the loading list for flights. Most airlines are linked together through one of two GDS and they essentially trust each other. The loading list is required to find people who are going to miss connections etc so a lot of low level airport and airline staff have access to this system.
    Elefant&Castle, Morrison and shri like this.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,015

    Agree that state sponsored hijacking of airplanes is despicable and that the Roman guy was perhaps a bit naive.

    But i do fault those Australian journos, of chinese heritage, who return to china for whatever reason and get nabbed, tried in secret and sent to prison for years. I think that they, those journos, are utterly stupid not to see the risk.

    Authoritarian states, Belarus/China etc, depend on controlling information and will take extreme measures to enforce their control. I truly do hope however that this airplane hijacking event is a one-off, forever.

    Can you imagine Thailand forcing planes traveling from India to Hong Kong to land at Bangkok so the Thai govt can grab some internet blogger who speaks of the 'King without morals'?

    shri and AsianXpat0 like this.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,574

    I found this commentary to be a good summary of the state of play, from Monocle.

    OPINION / CHRISTOPHER CERMAK
    Impotent rage
    It’s a familiar pattern by now: a brazen act by an autocratic regime is met with cries by the international community that it “can’t be allowed to happen”. Sanctions are then imposed which, seemingly irrespective of their severity, serve to isolate the autocrat but don’t actually lead to any changes of heart.

    Belarus’s decision to force a Ryanair flight mid-air between two EU nations to land in Minsk, in order to arrest an opposition journalist and activist, is among the most brazen of such actions to date. And yet the inevitable outrage and warnings of consequences from EU leaders – who discussed the incident at a summit in Brussels yesterday – are unlikely to convince Belarus’s leader, Alexander Lukashenko, to change course. As ever, it helps that Lukashenko has an even more powerful and untouchable autocrat in his court: Vladimir Putin (pictured, on right, with Lukashenko).


    Back in the days of the cold war, administrations on both sides of the political aisle in the West appeared more willing to fight fire with fire, if not militarily then through the murky world of intelligence agencies. Since then, such tactics have become more partisan. Just days after the September 11 terrorist attacks, then US vice-president Dick Cheney memorably spoke of the need to operate on the “dark side”. His comments foretold the Bush administration’s aggressive (and arguably illegal) approach to fighting terrorism.

    Those in the political centre and on the left have evolved, believing themselves to be above such tactics. And yet this latest sorry tale involving Belarus once again highlights the new reality of diplomacy today: autocrats can act with impunity because they know that the West can’t play by those same dirty rules (the European Commission is not about to send agents armed with Novichok to poison Lukashenko). Yes, it’s far easier said than done but those who are above playing dirty had better come up with an effective method of keeping autocrats in check before it’s too late.
    shri, Elegiaque, hullexile and 1 others like this.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    7,463

    Not justifying or agreeing with Belarus' action of course, but since the term "state sponsored hijacking" has now been thrown about in the press, it's interesting to ask, does this forced landing technically qualify as a "hijacking"? What is the legal definition of hijacking?


  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Coolboy:
    Not justifying or agreeing with Belarus' action of course, but the term "state sponsored hijacking" has now been thrown about, it's interesting to ask, does this forced landing technically qualify as a "hijacking"? What is the legal definition of hijacking?
    Just the simple definition of hijack + who should be enough no?

    Hijack:
    unlawfully seize (an aircraft, ship, or vehicle) in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes.
    Hijack
    1 Hijacking generally refers to the illegal seizure of a land vehicle, ship, or aircraft in transit and its forcible diversion to a new destination against the will of its crew. In international law, both the hijacking of a ship (Piracy) and an aircraft are recognized as international crimes without controversy
    Who: Belarus Air Force (clearly "State")
    shri and hullexile like this.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    7,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob2020:
    Just the simple definition of hijack + who should be enough no?

    Hijack:


    Hijack


    Who: Belarus Air Force (clearly "State")
    Illegal...according to what is the question. International law? Belarus claimed there was a terrorist onboard. Is that a legitimate excuse...legally?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Coolboy:
    Illegal...according to what is the question. International law? Belarus claimed there was a terrorist onboard. Is that a legitimate excuse...legally?
    That's the whole point isn't it?
    Who defines what is illegal?

    All a matter of perspective..

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    7,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob2020:
    That's the whole point isn't it?
    Who defines what is illegal?

    All a matter of perspective..
    I'm just pointing to an issue of international law. There are no overarching global police to enforce its provision. Or how it is interpreted. The international court rulings can be ignored by the States. So in this case, would this "hijacking" even matter legally? So who gets to call this a hijacking is all a matter of semantics? This points to a bigger issue. Autocrats ignore these provisions at will. And the EU and the West are powerless to do anything, as the earlier article mentioned. So what really are the options available? What is the purpose of international law if it is ignored at will?

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,574

    Agreed.. But that's why countries form "teams" so they can make agreements on which "international laws" they consider valid or not...

    So, when "they" say it's "illegal" it's deemed "illegal" (and generally agreed upon) by those on the same team...

    Not sure we can hope for more really, given you'll never be able to reach global consensus (on pretty much anything!)


  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,964

    @Rob2020 - you must be new here.

    Rob2020 and cookie09 like this.