The movies that I pick to review are not necessarily good or bad. Sometimes I wonder why they are considered so good, like ‘Spotlight‘, and others because of the (sometimes inaccurate) legal content, such as ‘Eye in the Sky’. There are also movies that peak my interest because of funny legal conundrums in them. ‘The Terminal’, a Tom Hanks movie, is one of those. Edward Snowden, who found himself in a similar transit situation, might have thought it wasn’t all that hilarious to be stuck in the international transit area of a major airport.
’Welcome to the United States — almost.’
The legal conundrum is conveniently spelled out in the beginning. During his flight to New York, Victor Navorski’s fictional country Krakhozia undergoes a military coup. Without being able to speak English, Victor is advised that his own country has invalidated all Krakhozian passports. And the US State Department withdrew his visa. He is called a ’citizen of nowhere’ by his nemesis throughout the movie, Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci), the head of airport security. Victor is stuck. He can’t go home, but he is not allowed to enter the US. ’Welcome to the United States — almost.’ Only when his passport becomes valid again will he be able to go home, and to the New York if he gets issued a visa. But that is not happening and Victor needs to survive in the International Transit Lounge to the increasing annoyance of Dixon. Victor proves himself to be the ultimate law-abiding citizen and declines some illegal ways to enter New York anyway, and does all the right things during his stay in the airport. And there is a love interest there, but let’s not dwell on the performance of the actors. And he gets to fulfill his goal in New York.
Stuck in the transit
An international transit area is an area within an airport in which passengers can freely roam in order to connect to another international flight. No visas required, but a passenger cannot leave the transit area except for that connecting flight. This arrangement facilitates international air travel and connecting flights by eliminating the need for arranging legal entry into a transit country before being able to connect to the other flight. Note: not all airports have such transit areas. From what I gather, Victor Navorski’s tale is based on Mehran Karimi Nasser. He had lost his Iranian passport and lived at Charles De Gaulle Airport for 18 years until 2006. But perhaps more to the point, NSA leaker Edward Snowden got stuck in Moscow’s international transit area for 39 days in 2013. The US State Department had cancelled his passport when he flew from Hong Kong to Russia, en route to Havana, Cuba.
The law
The law involved is solely the national law of the state in which airport and transit area are located. Every state can determine whether its airports have transit areas at all. Moreover, states determine under what conditions a person in Navorki’s and Snowden’s position can be allowed to leave the transit area and enter the country despite not having the right paper work. International law is only involved when it comes to applying for asylum. And often, the latter is the only way out. In ’The Terminal’, rule-fetisjist Frank Dixon tries to coax Victor into expressing a fear of prosecution in his war-torn country. That way, Victor applies for asylum and he can be handed over to federal authorities and taken out of the airport. Dixon later tries to convince authorities that Victor is a national security threat, but fails to do so. The issue is resolved by allowing Victor to break the law.
General observations
Of course, the movie is full of legal inaccuracies that I cannot help but tell you about. These mistakes are made by equating factual consequences of an action with legal consequences. On different occasions, the authorities equate the state with its government and the nature of statehood itself. So, early in the movie, Victor is advised that his ’country was annexed from inside’. That is of course hogwash, because annexation has nothing to do with a change of government, as was the case in the movie. Later, it is even said that his country doesn’t exist anymore. Equally nonsense. After a revolution or coup, or even a collapse of a government, the state as a legal entity continues to exist. And when Victor’s passport was invalidated, he remained a citizen of Krakhozia. He was just not able to travel internationally. He was not ’a citizen from nowhere’.
Often in the movies, the law breaker or the person who is trapped by the application of the law is the hero of the movie. He or she will ultimately prevail against the rules. Conversely, the one who is supposed to enforce the law is the bad guy who applies the law rigidly. This is a theme that fascinates me to no end. Through this conflict, filmmakers paint a picture – sometimes a caricature – of the rigidity of the law and law enforcers. Sometimes unfairly so. Seldom is a lawyer portrait of being in personal and professional conflict when confronted with the law’s absurd consequences.
Do you know of a movie in which that conflict is accurately portrayed? Any suggestions for movies along these lines? Let me know in the comments below, or through Facebook or Twitter.
