←back to thread

137 points samray | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
traceroute66 ◴[] No.45537711[source]
> We affirm our strict adherence to all relevant regulations and service terms throughout this project.

Except if you bypassed payment and used the service in a manner that was not intended, most likely you were by definition not undertaking "strict adherance" to service terms ?

replies(2): >>45537995 #>>45537996 #
CaptainOfCoit ◴[] No.45537996[source]
Say you're on a plane from Canada to Hong Kong (random example), which country's laws would be applicable here? The country where the airplane is registered?
replies(3): >>45538065 #>>45538482 #>>45538558 #
Traubenfuchs ◴[] No.45538482[source]
Same country that would be responsible if you stab your seat neighbor for taking too much space I‘d guess.
replies(1): >>45538692 #
1. traceroute66 ◴[] No.45538692[source]
> if you stab your seat neighbor for taking too much space

IIRC the way it works is that when you land (destination or forced landing elsewhere) the offender is delivered to the local competent authorities.

They then undertake an initial investigation and decide either to exercise their own jurisdiction or undertake extradition proceedings to send the offender to the country of registration of the aircraft.

In a scenario of (attempted)murder, I suspect that it is highly likely it would be dealt with in the local courts unless there was a specific external push for extradition.

The point of the convention is to ensure there is never no jurisdiction, i.e. the country of registration to the aircraft is always there as the ultimate fallback. The wording doesn't seek to strictly define the jurisdiction, which is why in most cases the delivery country has the option to take jurisdiction.