Flydubai Incident: Who Has Jurisdiction to Investigate? - Part 3

 

The reported attack aboard Flydubai flight FZ1073 on September 30, 2026, raises a complex question of international aviation law: when an alleged offence occurs aboard a foreign-registered aircraft flying through another country's airspace, which state has the legal authority to investigate and prosecute?

The incident presents an unusual jurisdictional intersection involving Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Israel and India. The aircraft departed Dubai, was registered in the UAE, experienced an alleged violent confrontation in Saudi Arabian airspace and made an emergency landing in Tabuk. 

The captain, an Indian national, reportedly sustained serious injuries, while passengers included Israeli nationals. Saudi authorities conducted an initial investigation with UAE participation, and the UAE subsequently announced that its Attorney-General had established a specialised investigative team, asserting jurisdiction because the aircraft was UAE-registered.

This situation invites comparison with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) proceedings in Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) (1998). However, the Lockerbie judgment must be understood correctly: it concerned the interpretation and application of an international treaty, not a definitive judicial allocation of exclusive criminal jurisdiction between states.

The central argument is that Saudi Arabia has the strongest territorial basis for investigating the alleged offence, while the UAE has an independent and substantial jurisdictional basis through aircraft registration. Israel and India may have legitimate interests and potential jurisdictional claims, but their participation must be distinguished from the primary investigative authority.

The Lockerbie Precedent: Jurisdiction Is Not Exclusive

On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Libya subsequently challenged the United Kingdom and United States before the ICJ, arguing that under the 1971 Montreal Convention, it had the right to prosecute two Libyan nationals suspected of involvement in the bombing rather than surrender them to another jurisdiction.

In its 1998 preliminary objections judgment, the ICJ recognised its jurisdiction to consider the dispute under Article 14(1) of the Montreal Convention. The Court examined the treaty obligations concerning jurisdiction, prosecution and extradition, particularly Articles 5 and 7. It did not, however, determine which country possessed exclusive criminal jurisdiction over the bombing. The proceedings were ultimately discontinued by agreement in 2003 (International Court of Justice [ICJ], 1998, 2003).

The relevance of Lockerbie lies in its demonstration that international aviation offences can generate overlapping jurisdictional claims. The Montreal Convention does not automatically grant exclusive jurisdiction to the country where an aircraft is registered or where an alleged offender is found. Instead, it establishes several jurisdictional grounds and requires states to cooperate in preventing impunity.

The Flydubai incident therefore requires a similar treaty-based analysis, rather than assuming that aircraft registration alone determines the outcome.

Saudi Arabia: The Strongest Territorial Jurisdiction

Saudi Arabia possesses the clearest territorial jurisdiction because the alleged assault occurred while the aircraft was flying through its sovereign airspace, and the aircraft subsequently landed at Tabuk. Under Article 1 of the Chicago Convention 1944, every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory (International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO], 1944).

This territorial principle gives Saudi Arabia a substantial legal basis to investigate an offence committed within its airspace. Its authority is further reinforced by the aircraft's emergency landing and the reported presence of the suspect within Saudi jurisdiction.

Article 3(2) of the 1963 Tokyo Convention also recognises the jurisdiction of the state of aircraft registration over offences committed aboard its aircraft. However, Article 3(3) expressly preserves criminal jurisdiction exercised under national law. 

Article 4 further identifies circumstances in which another contracting state may exercise jurisdiction, including where an offence affects its territory or involves its national. Accordingly, the Tokyo Convention does not remove Saudi Arabia's territorial authority merely because the aircraft is registered elsewhere (ICAO, 1963).

If the alleged perpetrator remains detained in Saudi Arabia, that circumstance strengthens Saudi Arabia's practical ability to secure evidence, interview witnesses and preserve forensic materials. However, detention alone does not automatically establish exclusive jurisdiction or determine where prosecution must occur.

Importantly, the latest publicly available reporting indicates that Saudi Arabia conducted an initial investigation with UAE participation and that the pilots were subsequently returned to the UAE. The precise current custody arrangements and any formal prosecutorial decision should be confirmed through official statements before asserting that Saudi Arabia retains exclusive custody of the suspect.

UAE: Aircraft Registration and the Montreal Convention

The UAE's jurisdictional argument is substantial. The aircraft was registered in the UAE, operated by a UAE-based airline and departed from Dubai. Under Article 3(2) of the Tokyo Convention, the state of registration must establish jurisdiction over offences committed aboard its registered aircraft.

More importantly, the 1971 Montreal Convention provides additional grounds for jurisdiction. Article 1(1)(a) covers unlawful acts of violence against persons aboard an aircraft in flight where the act is likely to endanger the aircraft's safety. Whether the alleged assault satisfies this threshold will depend on the investigation's findings, although the reported rapid loss of altitude and emergency signals make it a serious legal possibility.

Article 5(1) requires contracting states to establish jurisdiction where an offence occurs within their territory, against or aboard an aircraft registered in that state, or where the aircraft lands with the alleged offender still aboard. 

Article 5(2) additionally addresses jurisdiction where an alleged offender is present in a state's territory and that state does not extradite the individual to the jurisdictions identified under the Convention. Article 7 requires a state in which an alleged offender is found, if it does not extradite that person, to submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution (ICAO, 1971).

Consequently, the UAE has a strong independent jurisdictional basis through aircraft registration, notwithstanding that the incident allegedly occurred outside its territorial airspace. Its Attorney-General's decision to establish an investigative team is consistent with asserting this legal basis. Nevertheless, registration does not automatically entitle the UAE to displace Saudi Arabia's territorial investigation.

Israel: Passengers, Destination and National Interest

Israel's interest arises from the aircraft's intended destination, the presence of Israeli passengers and the potential impact on its national security. However, the aircraft had not yet entered Israeli airspace when the alleged incident occurred.

The nationality of passengers alone does not automatically give Israel primary jurisdiction over the offence. Nevertheless, Israel may have jurisdiction under its domestic legislation where an offence is committed against its nationals abroad, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Under Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, states with a special interest in an accident because of fatalities or serious injuries involving their nationals may appoint experts to participate in the investigation. 

These experts have defined rights, including access to relevant factual information approved for public release and the final investigation report. However, this entitlement is not equivalent to the authority of an accredited representative appointed by the state conducting the aviation safety investigation (ICAO, n.d.).

Israel should therefore be permitted to contribute relevant passenger information, witness statements and security intelligence through appropriate cooperation arrangements. Its involvement should not be interpreted as an automatic right to lead the criminal investigation.

India: The Injured Captain and National Jurisdiction

India's position is particularly significant because the captain is an Indian national who reportedly sustained serious injuries while performing his professional responsibilities.

Under international law, nationality may provide a state with a basis for asserting jurisdiction over offences committed against its citizens abroad, commonly known as the passive personality principle. 

However, this principle depends on applicable domestic legislation and international obligations. Indian nationality alone does not automatically establish exclusive jurisdiction over an offence committed within Saudi airspace.

India nevertheless has legitimate grounds to request consular access, medical information, protection of its citizen's interests and cooperation in gathering evidence. If the captain's injuries constitute serious harm, India may also have a special interest under the principles of ICAO Annex 13, should the incident qualify as an accident or serious incident requiring investigation.

Its participation should therefore be distinguished between criminal jurisdiction, diplomatic protection and technical investigative cooperation. India could provide expert assistance, witness testimony and relevant medical evidence without necessarily becoming the lead investigating authority.

Criminal Investigation Versus Aviation Safety Investigation

A crucial distinction must be made between criminal investigation and aviation safety investigation.

The former seeks to establish criminal responsibility, preserve evidence and determine whether prosecution is justified. The latter seeks to identify causal factors and prevent future aviation incidents, without allocating blame or liability.

Under Article 26 of the Chicago Convention, the state where an aircraft accident occurs must institute an inquiry in specified circumstances. ICAO Annex 13 extends the international framework to serious incidents and establishes participation rights for the states of occurrence, registration, operator, design and manufacture.

Accordingly, Saudi Arabia would ordinarily lead the relevant safety investigation as the state of occurrence, subject to the incident's classification and applicable procedures. The UAE could appoint an accredited representative as the state of registration and operator. India and Israel could seek participation under the provisions applicable to states with a special interest. This technical investigation should operate alongside, but remain institutionally distinct from, criminal proceedings.

A Cooperative Jurisdictional Framework Is Essential

The Flydubai incident demonstrates why international aviation law should not be reduced to a competition over which country controls the investigation. Saudi Arabia has territorial jurisdiction; the UAE has aircraft-registration jurisdiction; Israel has legitimate passenger and security interests; and India has a substantial interest in protecting its injured national.

The Lockerbie precedent illustrates that overlapping jurisdictional claims must be addressed through treaty obligations, cooperation and diplomatic engagement rather than unilateral assertions of exclusivity.

The most appropriate arrangement would be for Saudi Arabia and the UAE to coordinate the criminal investigation through a formal evidence-sharing mechanism, while preserving the rights of other interested states. If prosecution is contemplated, the relevant authorities should assess the applicable national laws, extradition arrangements, treaty obligations and evidential requirements.

Ultimately, the objective must be accountability without jurisdictional confrontation. International aviation operates across borders, and its security cannot depend on competing national claims. 

The Flydubai incident offers an important opportunity to demonstrate that international law is capable of reconciling territorial sovereignty, aircraft registration, passenger nationality and the protection of injured crew members through coordinated legal action.

References

Convention on International Civil Aviation, December 7, 1944, 15 U.N.T.S. 295. https://www.icao.int/publications/doc-series/convention-international-civil-aviation-doc-7300

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, September 23, 1971, 974 U.N.T.S. 177. https://www.mcgill.ca/iasl/files/iasl/montreal1971.pdf

Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, September 14, 1963, 704 U.N.T.S. 219. https://www.mcgill.ca/iasl/files/iasl/tokyo1963.pdf

International Civil Aviation Organization. (n.d.). Aircraft accident and incident investigations. https://www.icao.int/operational-safety/contingency-Aircraft-Accident-and-Incident-Investigations

International Civil Aviation Organization. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions: Accident investigation. https://www.icao.int/icao-frequently-asked-questions-4

International Court of Justice. (1998). Questions of interpretation and application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the aerial incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom): Preliminary objections, judgment of 27 February 1998. https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103160

International Court of Justice. (2003). Questions of interpretation and application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the aerial incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom): Order of 10 September 2003. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/88

Reuters. (2026, September 30). Diverted flydubai flight to Israel was not hijacking incident, Israeli prime minister says. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/diverted-flydubai-flight-israel-was-not-hijacking-incident-israeli-prime-2026-09-30/

United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2026, October 1). UAE following incident involving flydubai flight FZ1073. https://www.mofa.gov.ae/en/MediaHub/News/2026/10/1/UAE-fly-dubai

02.10.2026

Kuala Lumpur.

© All rights reserved.