In the Federal Court case United States vs. Fawaz Yunis, five men hijacked a Jordanian airliner. Among the passengers were two American citizens who were apparently not the target of the terrorist activity. Hijackers latter released the passengers and blew up the aircraft. The defendant was lured into international waters, arrested and brought to the United States, where he was convicted of conspiracy, hostage taking, and air piracy (1118).
Traditionally, international law was portrayed as a self-executing code that trumps domestic law whenever the two conflict (1120). However, United States vs. Fawaz Yunis, demonstrates a deviation from the norms and principles of customary international law. Yunis case arise the concern over the authority of the United States statutes permitting extraterritorial jurisdiction and application of the United States Constitution to aliens. On appeal, the appellant challenged the courts indictment on the grounds that the “court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction under the general principles of international law” (1119). Therefore, United States courts could not try him because as a foreign national he committed crimes on foreign soil and federal law provided no independent basis for jurisdiction (Clarizo). Motion was denied. The United States contended jurisdiction, found in section 1203 of the Hostage Taking Statute and section 32 of the Aircraft Piracy Statue, adopted from traditional international legal bases of universal and passive personality principle (Emory 116). Thus the appellant’s claims as a matter of international law had no validity in federal court. Congress concern was only “to enforce the Constitution, laws and treatise of the United States, not to conform the law of the land to norms of customary international law” (1120).
Subsection (b) of the Hostage Taking Act sets forth the terms for congress to impose legal responsibility on offenders “the offender is found in the United States” (Emory 117). The appellant argued that he was “not found” in the United States within the meaning of the statue. He was, on the other hand, apprehended and forcibly brought to the United States for trial which he contends blocked any jurisdiction under the statute. Furthermore, bringing someone to the United States by force to be charged with a crime over which the United States had jurisdiction only when he was inside United States territory is unreasonable (Emory 117). In addition, the abduction of the suspect is contrary to the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
In the case of United States vs. Fawaz Yunis, Fawaz Yunis was convicted of conspiracy, hostage taking, and air piracy. He was apprehended in international waters, brought to the United States, and tried in federal court. This case raises questions about the authority of the United States to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by foreign nationals on foreign soil.
Yunis challenged the court's jurisdiction on the basis of international law. He argued that as a foreign national who committed crimes on foreign soil, the United States had no jurisdiction to try him. He also contended that his abduction and forcible transfer to the United States violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
To determine the outcome of this case, it is important to consider the relevant statutes and legal principles. The United States argued that jurisdiction was provided by section 1203 of the Hostage Taking Statute and section 32 of the Aircraft Piracy Statute, which were based on traditional international legal principles such as universal and passive personality principle. These principles allow a country to exercise jurisdiction over a crime committed against its nationals or on board its aircraft, regardless of where the crime took place.
The court examined the language of the Hostage Taking Act, specifically subsection (b), which states that legal responsibility can be imposed on offenders if they are "found in the United States." Yunis argued that he was not "found" in the United States within the meaning of the statute, as he was apprehended and brought by force. He claimed that this blocked any jurisdiction under the statute. Additionally, Yunis argued that forcibly bringing someone to the United States for trial, when they only had jurisdiction over him when he was inside the United States' territory, was unreasonable and violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
Ultimately, the court denied Yunis' motion, stating that the United States had jurisdiction over him. The court found that the statutes provided a valid basis for jurisdiction, as they were adopted from traditional international legal principles. The court also emphasized that Congress's concern was to enforce the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, not to conform to the norms of customary international law.
In summary, the case of United States vs. Fawaz Yunis demonstrated a deviation from traditional international law principles in terms of jurisdiction. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the United States based on the specific statutes and their adoption from international legal principles.