随着国际民用航空事业的发展，危害国际民用航空安全的犯罪与管辖问题也日渐凸显。本文全面探讨了与危害国际民用航空安全的犯罪有关的刑事管辖权冲突问题以及以人工智能生成物为例研究高新科技危害国际民用航空安全犯罪的制裁问题，并尝试提出相应的解决方案。

第一章首先介绍了危害国际民用航空安全犯罪的特殊性，包括犯罪后果异常严重、犯罪具有国际性、犯罪取证异常困难三个方面；后分别介绍了危害国际民用航空安全的犯罪种类和管辖权种类，犯罪包括非法劫持航空器罪、危害航空器飞行安全罪以及危害国际民用航空机场安全罪三种，管辖权包括一般管辖权和国际民用航空安全领域经过扩展的管辖权。

第二章介绍了国际民航公约对危害国际民用航空安全的犯罪管辖规定，主要是通过分析《东京公约》、《海牙公约》、《蒙特利尔公约》、《蒙特利尔议定书》以及《北京公约》和《北京议定书》来探究公约关于犯罪与管辖权规定的变更，包括对危害国际民用航空安全犯罪种类的规定和管辖权的规定。

第三章介绍了危害国际民用航空犯罪管辖规定的问题。以人工智能生成物为例介绍了高新科技手段危害国际民用航空安全犯罪的制裁问题，主要包括人工智能生成物能否作为刑事责任主体的资格不明、人工智能生成物犯罪的管辖对象不明问题。其次是危害国际民用航空安全的刑事管辖权冲突问题，包括冲突的类型和冲突的原因。管辖权冲突的类型包括积极冲突和消极冲突，本文重点研究的是管辖权的积极冲突问题。管辖权冲突的原因包括国际民用航空安保公约并行管辖原则的实施和国际公约国内化的间接立法模式，

第四章主要提出了解决人工智能生成物危害国际民用航空安全犯罪问题以及危害国际民用航空安全犯罪的管辖权冲突问题的解决方案，并研究为响应联合国关于人工智能的决议号召完善相关国内法和国际法规定应该采取的措施。关于人工智能生成物犯罪问题，笔者认为无论是强人工智能还是弱人工智能，都不能成为刑事管辖权的对象，同时应当明确人工智能生成物犯罪中不同情况下承担刑事责任的主体，根据其他相关法律和公约规定尝试提出了完善国际法和国内法的条款，以期为惩治人工智能生成物危害国际民用航空犯罪提供法律依据；关于管辖权冲突可以确立优先管辖权，本文提出了优先管辖权的确立方案。

With the development of international civil aviation, the criminal and jurisdictional problems that endanger the safety of international civil aviation have become increasingly prominent. This paper comprehensively discusses the conflict of criminal jurisdiction related to crimes against international civil aviation safety, and studies the sanction problem of high-tech crimes against international civil aviation safety by taking artificial intelligence products as an example, and tries to put forward corresponding solutions.

The first chapter firstly introduces the particularity of crimes against international civil aviation security, including three aspects: the consequences of crimes are extremely serious, crimes are international, and crime evidence is extremely difficult. After that, the types and jurisdiction of crimes against international civil aviation safety are introduced respectively, including the crime of illegal hijacking of aircraft, the crime of endangering aircraft flight safety and the crime of endangering international civil aviation airport security. The jurisdiction includes general jurisdiction and expanded jurisdiction in the field of international civil aviation security.

The second chapter introduces the provisions on the jurisdiction of crimes against the safety of international civil aviation in the International Civil Aviation Convention, mainly by analyzing the Tokyo Convention, the Hague Convention, the Montreal Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the Beijing Convention and the Beijing Protocol to explore the changes in the provisions on crime and jurisdiction in the Convention. Including provisions on the types of crimes against the safety of international civil aviation and provisions on jurisdiction.

Chapter three introduces the problems of the jurisdiction of crimes against international civil aviation. Taking artificial intelligence products as an example, this paper introduces the sanctions on the crime of endangering international civil aviation safety by high-tech means, including the unclear qualification of artificial intelligence products as the subject of criminal responsibility and the unclear jurisdiction of artificial intelligence products. The second is the issue of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction endangering the safety of international civil aviation, including the types of conflicts and the causes of conflicts. The types of jurisdiction conflict include positive conflict and negative conflict. This paper focuses on the positive conflict of jurisdiction. The reasons for the conflict of jurisdiction include the implementation of the principle of concurrent jurisdiction of the international Civil Aviation Security Convention and the indirect legislation model of the internalization of the international convention.

The fourth chapter mainly puts forward solutions to solve the problem of crimes of artificial intelligence products endangering international civil aviation safety and the problem of jurisdictional conflict of crimes endangering international civil aviation safety, and studies the measures that should be taken to improve the relevant domestic and international laws in response to the call of the UN resolution on artificial intelligence. On the issue of artificial intelligence product crime, the author believes that neither strong artificial intelligence nor weak artificial intelligence can become the object of criminal jurisdiction, and it should be clear that the subject of criminal responsibility in different cases of artificial intelligence product crime, according to other relevant laws and conventions, try to put forward provisions to improve international law and domestic law. In order to provide a legal basis for punishing the crime of artificial intelligence products harming international civil aviation; As for the priority jurisdiction that can be established in the conflict of jurisdiction, this paper puts forward a plan to establish the priority jurisdiction.