¹ The PLO is an umbrella organization composed of six main factions, of which Fatah, headed by Yasir Arafat, is the largest. The Palestine Liberation Front is headed by Abul Abbas, who is also a member of. the Executive Committee, the fifteen-member governing body of the PLO. See USA Today, June 22, 1990, at 4A, cols. 5–6.

² The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, opened for signature Mar. 10, 1988, reprinted in 27 ILM 672 (1988). For a discussion of the Convention, see Halberstam, Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy and the IMO Convention on Maritime Safety, 82 AJIL 269 (1988); Halberstam, Terrorist Acts Against and on Board Ships, 19 Israel Y.B. Hum. Rts. 331 (1989);Joyner, Suppression of Terrorism on the High Seas: The 1988 IMO Convention on the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 19 Israel Y.B. Hum. Rts. 343 (1989).

³ Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, Dec. 16, 1970, 22 UST 1641, TIAS No. 7192, 860 UNTS 105 (airplane hijacking); Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, Sept. 23, 1971, 24 UST 564, TIAS No. 7570 (sabotage of airplanes); International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, Dec. 17, 1979, reprinted in 18 ILM 1456 (1979); Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Dec. 14, 1973, 28 UST 1975, TIAS No. 8532.

⁴ See, e.g., Gooding, Fighting Terrorism in the 1980’s: The Interception of the Achille Lauro Hijackers, 12 Yale J. Int’l L. 158 (1987) (piracy); McGinley, The Achille Lauro Affair—Implications for International Law, 52 Tenn. L. Rev. 691 (1985) (piracy); Note, Towards a New Definition of Piracy: The Achille Lauro Incident, 26 Va. J. Int’l L. 723 (1986) (not piracy). See also Halberstam, supra note 2.

⁵ See, e.g., Fenwick, Piracy in the Caribbean, 55 AJIL 426 (1961) (piracy); 4 M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law 666 (1965) (not piracy); Green, The Santa Maria: Rebels or Pirates, 37 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 496 (1961) (not piracy); Franck, “To Define and Punish Piracies’ —The Lesson of the Santa Maria: A Comment, 36 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 839 (1961) (not piracy). Whiteman and Franck based their conclusion that the seizure was not piracy on the “two ship” requirement, not on the “for private ends” requirement.

⁶ See, e.g., In re Piracy Jure Gentium, 1934 App. Cas. 586 (P.C.), reprinted in 3 Brit. Int’l L. Cases 836, 840 (1965). The court held:

When it is sought to be contended, as it was in this case, that armed men sailing the seas on board a vessel, without any commission from any state, could attack and kill everybody on board another vessel, sailing under a national flag, without committing the crime of piracy unless they stole, say, an article worth six-pence, their Lordships are almost tempted to say that a little common sense is a valuable quality in the interpretation of international law.

See also United States v. Brig Malek Adhel, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 210, 232 (1844) (Story, J.).

⁷ See, e.g., 1 L. Oppenheim, International Law 608–09 (Lauterpacht 8th ed. 1955).

⁸ 26 AJIL 749 (Supp. 1932). Professor Bingham, the reporter for the Harvard Draft, stated in the Comment to the Draft:

Acts done with other purposes than robbery also are put under the common jurisdiction, although the typical piracy is usually defined as robbery on the high seas; for there is no good reason why one who does an act with intent to kill, wound, rape, enslave or imprison, or to steal or maliciously destroy property, which would be piracy if done to rob, should not be subjected to more probable retribution through the common jurisdiction of all states, instead of to a lesser chance of apprehension and punishment by a single state (or one of two or three states) which may or may not have the present force, or opportunity or interest to serve the cause of security and order in the locality.

Id. at 786 (emphasis added).

⁹ See Summary Records of the Seventh Session, [1955] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 19, 25, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1955; Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly, 2 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 9), UN Doc. A/3159 (1956), reprinted in [1956] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 253, 282, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1956/Add. 1.

¹⁰ In presenting his draft to the International Law Commission, the rapporteur listed as one of the principles on which it was based “that animus furandi did not have to be present.” [1955] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, supra note 9, at 41.

¹¹ [1956] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, supra note 9, at 282.

¹² Id.

¹³ It is referred to in another context; Cassese states that the Italian police could not board the aircraft because it “was on a special mission for the Egyptian government” (p. 39).

¹⁴ On May 30, 1990, 16 Palestinian terrorists aboard six speedboats attempted to raid four Israeli beaches. Israel captured the boats and aborted the raid. The terrorists were identified as members of the Palestine Liberation Front, which took credit for the attack. See N.Y. Times, May 31, 1990, at A1, col. 2; id., June 5, 1990, at A29, col. 1.

¹⁵ See, e.g., United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056 (1990); United States v. Yunis, 681 F.Supp. 909 (D.D.C. 1988). Yunis, a Lebanese citizen charged in the United States with aircraft piracy and hostage taking, was lured onto a ship in international waters off the coast of Cyprus, then seized.

¹⁶ For a recent article strongly advocating that position, see Lowenfeld, U.S. Law Enforcement Abroad: The Constitution and International Law, Continued, 84 AJIL 444 (1990).

¹⁷ See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056 (1990); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952); Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886).

¹⁸ Some discussion of it may be found in Lowenfeld, supra note 16, at 472–77. If jurisdiction was obtained by violation of international law, it should not matter that the seizure was by the United States and the trial by Italy.

¹⁹ Convention on the High Seas, Apr. 29, 1958, Art. 2,13 UST 2312, TIAS No. 5200,450 UNTS 82.

²⁰ Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, Art. 34, 6 UST 3516, TIAS No. 3365, 75 UNTS 287. See also Art. 3(1)(b).