Cross-Border Prosecution of ‘Ghost Flights’ Used for Illicit Transport: An International Criminal Law Vacuum

Introduction

The rapid expansion of global civil aviation has created new vulnerabilities that criminal networks exploit with increasing sophistication. Among the most under-regulated and least understood of these threats are “ghost flights”—unregistered, covert, or deliberately misreported aircraft movements used to transport persons, weapons, drugs, wildlife, laundered cash, or sanctioned goods across international borders. Unlike conventional aviation operations, ghost flights operate outside formal air-traffic control systems, often flying without transponders, filing false flight plans, or using fraudulent aircraft registration numbers. Their clandestine nature makes them ideal for transnational organized crime syndicates, terrorist organisations, human traffickers, and sanctions violators.

Despite the severe international risk posed by such flights, the international criminal law (ICL) framework remains fragmented, inconsistent, and often ineffective, resulting in a regulatory and prosecutorial vacuum. This research explores the characterization of ghost flights, the challenges in asserting cross-border jurisdiction, the inadequacies of aviation security conventions, and the implications for global criminal accountability.

Characterization of Ghost Flights

Definition

A ghost flight refers to any aircraft movement that intentionally avoids detection or violates legal aviation requirements. These flights may:

• Operate without valid registration;
• Use forged or cloned tail numbers;
• Fly without transponder codes or disable ADS-B;
• Bypass customs and immigration checks;
• Take off/land at unauthorized airstrips;
• Use misleading or falsified flight plans.

Ghost flights differ from ordinary aviation irregularities: their defining feature is deliberate concealment for illicit purposes.

Purpose

Ghost flights are primarily used for:

Actors Involved

Ghost flights typically involve multiple actors:

• Aircraft owners using shell companies in offshore jurisdictions;
• Corrupt aviation officials facilitating false documentation;
• Aircrew hired specifically for illicit missions;
• Criminal syndicates and rebel groups;
• Brokers and flight planners producing fraudulent documents.

The transnational character of this ecosystem makes attribution of criminal responsibility exceptionally difficult.

The International Criminal Law Problem

Despite the global nature of ghost flights, no single international instrument expressly criminalises or defines them. Instead, states rely on a patchwork of aviation security conventions (Tokyo 1963, Hague 1970, Montreal 1971, Montreal 1999), which were drafted long before the emergence of modern clandestine aviation networks.

The Jurisdictional Vacuum

Ghost flights expose several weaknesses in international law:

Lack of Universal Jurisdiction

Aviation offences such as drug trafficking or smuggling are not subject to universal jurisdiction unless linked to piracy, hijacking, or terrorism. Ghost flights often involve none of these, allowing offenders to exploit jurisdictional gaps.

Flag-State Dependency

A key principle of aviation law is that the state of aircraft registration exercises jurisdiction.

Ghost flights frequently clone or falsify registration numbers, making it impossible to ascertain the responsible state, and enabling criminals to evade prosecution.

Territorial Limitations

Many ghost flights operate:

• In international airspace,
• Between failed states, or
• To/From unmonitored airstrips.

Territorial jurisdiction is therefore ambiguous or practically unenforceable.

Fragmented Domestic Legislation

States criminalize aviation-related offences differently. A flight that qualifies as illegal in one jurisdiction may not be recognized as an offence in another.

This inconsistency allows criminals to exploit “safe havens.”

Inadequacies of Existing International Frameworks

Icao Instruments

ICAO standards (SARPs) under the Chicago Convention are not self-executing and do not impose criminal obligations. Annex 17 (Security) focuses on passenger aviation terrorism—not covert illicit flights.

Tokyo, Hague, And Montreal Conventions

These address:

• On-board offences (Tokyo),
• Hijacking (Hague),
• Sabotage and unlawful interference (Montreal).

Ghost flights do not necessarily involve hijacking, sabotage, or violence; therefore, these conventions apply only tangentially.

Untoc (Organized Crime Convention)

Though useful, UNTOC requires dual criminality and domestic implementation. Ghost-flight operations often exploit the fact that many states do not criminalize unregistered flight operations as serious offences, limiting UNTOC’s applicability.

International Humanitarian Law (Ihl) And Sanctions

When ghost flights supply weapons to non-state actors in conflict zones, they may violate UN sanctions or IHL norms. However, sanctions violations are not codified as international crimes, and enforcement is weak.

Practical Enforcement Challenges

Difficulty Of Detection

Ghost flights often operate:

• Without ADS-B or transponder signals;
• At low altitudes;
• Using short takeoff/landing aircraft on makeshift runways.

Radar blind spots, limited surveillance, and corrupt officials facilitate their movement.

Anonymity Through Offshore Ownership

Aircraft are frequently registered in states with:

• Loose corporate transparency laws,
• Minimal oversight,
• Weak aviation enforcement.

Shell companies obscure the identities of true operators.

Evidentiary Constraints

Cross-border investigations require:

• Access to flight logs,
• Navigation evidence,
• Communication records.

Ghost flight operators often destroy or manipulate all such data.

Non-Cooperation By States

Some states benefit economically or strategically from covert aviation, facilitating clandestine flights for:

• Political allies,
• Militant groups,
• Sanctioned governments.

Extradition or prosecution becomes nearly impossible.

The Need For A New International Criminal Law Approach

Defining Ghost Flights As An International Crime

A new legal definition should include:

• Any deliberate evasion of aviation authority supervision;
• Use of forged or misrepresented aircraft registration;
• Flying without proper authorization or falsifying flight plans;
• Purpose linked to illicit transport.

Expanding Universal Jurisdiction

Given the transnational risk, states should adopt universal jurisdiction over:

• Unregistered aircraft operations;
• Flights facilitating trafficking;
• Cross-border aviation fraud.

Summary Table Of Challenges And Legal Gaps