Sources of Private International Air Law

British Institute of International and Comparative Law
Sources of Private International Air Law

Author(s): Julian G. Verplaetse
Source: The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Jul., 1958), pp.
405-416
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Institute of
International and Comparative Law
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/755273
Accessed: 19-11-2018 14:27 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press, British Institute of International and Comparative Law

are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The International and
Comparative Law Quarterly
This content downloaded from 223.31.14.149 on Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:27:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The International and
Comparative Law Quarterly
Volume 7 Pt. 3 July, 1958
SOURCES OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL AIR LAW
By
JULIAN G. VERPLAETSE *
IN matters of private law, each State has its usages, customs and
laws which apply to private relations, including those referring to
aerial intercourse. The conflicts between those substantive laws
concerning air activity are part of the conflict of laws or priva
international law. In the sector of air law, those conflicts are
frequent and become steadily more important. Therefore it has
been urged, from the very outset, to regulate those conflicts by
means of international conventions, in such a way that the conflict
disappears, being reconciled in a uniform rule incorporated into the
bodies of law of all the countries, members of such a Union.
A further step has been suggested, by which all the countries
should adapt and harmonise their national law in accordance with
the ruling of the international conventions and eliminate thereby
the duality of international and municipal law as well as conflicting
situations with other States. Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Belgium
and the Netherlands have adopted as municipal law the provisions
of the Warsaw Convention. Great Britain has done so to a large
extent. However, it would not seem that this solution is the
universal key to uniformity, since many parts are not regulated
by international conventions. Even within the field of the con-
ventions, some ground has not been covered, as, for instance, in the
* Doctor of Juridical Science (Harvard).
The author wishes to acknowledge his debt to Mr. S. G. Cooper, Public
Relations Officer of I.C.A.O., for kindly communicating the status of
signatures, ratifications and adhesions of the international conventions.
405
I.C.L.Q.--7 27
406 International and Comparative Law Quarterly [VOL. 7
Warsaw Convention on matters of transportation. It would seem

that uniformity cannot be achieved by the adaptation of the sub-
stantive laws and that only a certain amount of uniformity can be
reached by international convention. Such agreements will
presumably be the chief source for the regulation of private conflicts.
International custom has acquired a modest position in private
international law of the air through the channel of the so-called
"' general conditions of carriage " for passengers and cargo drafted
by I.A.T.A. The airlines, which are members of that organisation,
apply those provisions in their contracts of carriage. Generally
those documents reprint, on the verso, a copy of the " general
conditions." The function of those general conditions is very
similar to that of the famous York-Antwerp Rules in private inter-
national maritime law. The International Air Transport Association
(I.A.T.A.) has also contributed to create an international usage
in the field of insurance, inter alia, by imposing the duty upon the
insurers to renounce any claim for reimbursement against the
author of the damage, when the latter is a dependant not of the
insured company but of another company, being a member of
I.A.T.A., which gives assistance to the former at the different
stopping places. This provision has now become a " clause de style"
in all air insurance contracts. It is wrong, however, to consider
these usages as real customs. First, the usage is common only to
those airlines that are members of I.A.T.A. Secondly and more
important, the binding force of such conditions does not derive
from their own virtue but stems from the fact that they are part
of the contract. In other words the rule is of a contractual and not
of a legal nature.
Substantially, the efforts towards uniformity are clogged with
the hindrances that usually beset conventions on private law.
Widely different legal systems compel bad compromises; imperfect
drafting leads to divergent interpretation; federal States cannot
bind their member-States, which cannot be represented at inter-
national conferences; the facts themselves are so disparate that
often they cannot be reduced to plain rules. But, on the other
hand, such new matters as infrastructure and the use of aircraft
are apt matters for uniform treatment.
There has been some complaint that the procedure of unification
of private air law is too slow and inadequate:
1. Ratification without amendment is hard to get through and
amendments cannot be brought into the procedure or ratification of
multilateral conventions.
407
JULY 1958] Sources of Private International Air Law
2. Contrary to the view sometimes expounded in the period

between the two world wars, an international agreement does not
create rights for individuals. Individual rights are dependent on
State action.
3. The unsettled question of reservations still cripples the r
of law.
In the same context it is pointed out that, except for the Warsaw
Convention, no major convention on private air law has been reall
successful. Quite recently the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (I.C.A.O.) once more called attention to the small
number of ratifications of the Geneva (1948) and Rome (1952)
Conventions.1 Saporta proposes an amendment to article 90 of
the Chicago Convention and the allotment of the necessary powers
to I.C.A.O. in order to make effective, by way of Annexes, some
rules of private law. This could be done by a two-thirds majority,
reserving the rights of the States which have not accepted such
rules.2
As regards methods of unification, the establishing of a uniform
substantive law is generally preferable to the unification of the
rules of conflict. The ideal system would be the drafting of a body
of rules independently of reference to municipal law, a kind of new
law based on principles and comparative law. But this sounds very
unrealistic and some people are rather pessimistic about the outlook.
Riese thinks that there has been a return to the times before the
Second World War. He asserts that the unification of private
international law of the air should not have been entrusted to
I.C.A.O. He indicts the growing importance of American law in
international conventions. When Europeans were predominant in
international conferences, they brought a common outlook into the
discussions, because they were permeated with Roman law. Now
the Americans want to impose their views and are not inclined to
yield when concessions away from their own law are required.3
1 I.C.A.O. Bulletin 1956, No. 78, p. 39.
2 Saporta M., L'Elaboration du Droit International Adrien (Une Proposition
d'Amendement a l'Acte de Chicago), R'.G.A., 1952, pp. 413-421. This proposal,
for various reasons, was not, and could not expect to be, favoured with
approval; Saporta M., La Crise de Croissance du Droit International Aerien,
R.G.A. 1955, 191, at p. 198.
3 Riese 0., Regfexions sur l'Unification Internationale du Droit Aerien, R.F.D.A.
1951, pp. 131 to 148. Saporta M. (Crise de Croissance du Droit International
Aerien, R.G.A. 1955, 191), a!so a supporter of universality, believes that the
way out of the present imbroglio would be a supragovernmental law administered
by a supranational body. He indicts chiefly the Latin-American theory of
conventional reservations, according to which each State may apply, at the
moment of ratification, as many reservations as it deems fit.
However, other authors advise caution, because facts are still in the
making: Lemoine, Les Perspectives d'Avenir du Droit International Adrien,
R.F.D.A. 1948, 121, at p. 132 and A la Recherche du Droit International Adrien,
R.F.D.A. 1955, pp. 1 to 15. He believes that total uniformity is too ambitious
Riese's critique seems justified only insofar as unification is contem-

plated through abstraction and comparison, which may be the ideal,
but is never the normal, way of unification. The legal expression
of concrete needs follows the balance of interests and not the skill
of legal theory.
To our mind a more relevant criticism may be directed to the
techniques used by I.C.A.O. in its administration and management
of international conferences. The use of three languages as equally
authentic is a novel practice in matters of international law
and leads to unavoidable conflicts in the interpretation of the
conventions. If no common meaning is found for the uniform
law, it may be feared that all efforts towards uniformity will fail
and that all methods will limp on account of the divergencies in
their linguistic expressions. The system of simultaneous translation
enhances the importance of this argument, since the delegates are
not able to follow the translation and to correct obvious errors.
The multilateral conventions relating to Private International
Air Law are:
1. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules r

International Carriage by Air. Opened to signature at
Warsaw, October 12, 1929 4
This is a most important convention on the most important
contract of air law, the contract of carriage. International regulation
was urgently required in order to do away with the uncertainty
about the application of numerous points of contact: locus con-
clusionis, locus destinatae solutionis, locus of the delivery, locus
of the country flown over, locus of the stopping place, etc. This was
the first and most successful attempt to eliminate conflicts in matters
of air law and perhaps in the field of private international law in
general.
This convention has been ratified by a considerable number of
States. Even in recent years new adherents have been registered.
If a satisfactory way of coexistence with the Hague Protocol can
be found, it may be expected that this Union on matters of private
an ideal and that one should take the "chemin vicinal," delve into regional
needs and reach regional agreements, which may pave the way to universality.
His argument is focused primarily on situations of public law.
4 Signatories: 32 States. Coming into force: February 13, 1933. Ratifications
and adhesions as of March 1, 1957: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, Czechoslovakia, Denmark and the Faroe
Islands, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany (app'icable both to
Federal Republic and to the Popular Republic), Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Laos, Liberia, Liechten-
stein, Luxemburg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan.
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, U.S.S.R.,
Union of South Africa, United Kingdom (with protectorates and colonies),
United States, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.
JULY 1958] Sources of Private International Air Law 409
law would be the first in legal history to come very close to

universality. Many countries, which used to keep aloof from the
ambit of international commitments, are members of the Warsaw
Convention: the United States, the Soviet Union, Mexico and
Brazil, as well as the Union of South Africa, Australia and Japan.
The Warsaw Convention is divided into five chapters:
(i) Scope and definitions (article 1).
(ii) Documents of carriage (articles 2 to 16).
(iii) Liability of the carrier (articles 17 to 30).
(iv) Provisions relating to combined carriage (article 31).
(v) General and final provisions (articles 32 to 41).
Since 1935 the question of revising the Warsaw Convention has
been a matter of steady attention and discussion by specialised
lawyers and legal bodies such as the Comite International Technique
d'Experts Juridiques Aeriens (C.I.T.E.J.A.) and I.A.T.A. After
the Second World, War the subject was resumed by the Provisional
International Civil Aviation Organisation (P.I.C.A.O.), which
referred it to C.I.T.E.J.A. for study. The latter body having been
dissolved in 1947, the Legal Committee of I.C.A.O. undertook to
continue the study. During the period from 1946 to 1951, research
was further developed in the Legal Committee, and several draft
conventions were elaborated by Major K. M. Beaumont, who, as
rapporteur, performed a difficult task. These drafts, as well as
relevant questionnaires, were transmitted to all contracting States
and other interested governments and international organisations.
In January, 1952, a special sub-committee, appointed by the
Legal Committee of I.C.A.O., prepared at Paris a complete Draft
Convention, which was intended as a substitute for the Warsaw
Convention. This draft was submitted to the Legal Committee at
its Ninth Session in Rio de Janeiro. The majority of the Committee
were of the opinion that, having regard to the widespread
acceptance of the Warsaw Convention, it would not be expedient
to replace it by an entirely new one, the ratification of which
might involve considerable delay; and that, instead, modifications
should be kept within the limits of settling actual difficulties in
the practical application of its provisions. The purpose of such a
revision would aim at a conformity with the developments, economic
and political, which had occurred during the last quarter of a
century. That purpose would be better achieved, it was thought,
by taking, as a basis for discussion, the Warsaw Convention itself,
rather than the Paris draft.
When it convened at Rio de Janeiro in August-September,

1953, the Legal Committee, not without upheaval of the meeting,
whose delegates had been instructed to consider the new con-

vention drafted at Paris, discussed some of the main proposed
amendments to the old Warsaw text. Those main points were:
matters relating to the scope of the convention; the definition of
" High Contracting Party ' and of "Territory "; the matter of
traffic documents; the questions of the negotiability of the air way-
bill or air consignment note, of limits of liability, of carriage of
special cargo, of the concept of wilful misconduct, of the liability of
servants and agents of the carrier, of negligence in navigation
and some minor changes in terminology.
The draft Protocol to amend the Convention for the unification
of certain rules relating to international carriage by air, adopted
at Rio de Janeiro in 1953, served as a basis for the discussion of
the I.C.A.O. meeting at The Hague, from September 5 to
September 28, 1955. The Final Act of the international agreement
was signed as an Amending Protocol on September 28, 1955.5
The Convention, as amended by the Protocol, will apply to
international carriage, as defined in article 1 of the Convention,
provided that the places of departure and destination referred to
in that article are situated either in the territories of the two
parties to the Protocol or within the territory of a single party,
if there is an agreed stopping place within the territory of any
other State (article XVIII).
As between the parties to the Protocol, the Convention and the
Protocol shall be read and interpreted together as one single
instrument and shall be known as the Warsaw Convention as
amended at The Hague, 1955 (article XIX).
Ratification by any State which is not a Party to the Convent
shall have the effect of adherence to the Convention as amended
by the Protocol (article XXI, para. 2), and the Protocol shall
come into force between the parties who have ratified, the ninetiet
day after the deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification.
It shall come into force for each State ratifying thereafter on th
ninetieth day after the deposit of its instruments of ratification
(article XXII, para. 1).
The Protocol has been drafted in three authentic versions, in
the English, French and Spanish languages. In case of inconsistency,
the French text shall prevail. This provision was the result of a
compromise between French prestige, sympathy for Poland and the
paramount practical necessity for the judge to have a yardstick in
5 Signatories: 31 States. It has not yet come into force. Ratifications as of
October 23, 1957: Egypt, Laos, Poland, Salvador. Among the numerous
comments see Beaumont, J.A.L.C. 1955, 414; Garnault, R.F.D.A. 1956, 1:
Bin Cheng, Current Legal Problems 1956, pp. 208 et seq.
case of conflict between the original text and the Protocol, on

the one hand, and the legal and political reality, on the other hand.
Necessity of unity clashed with the actual organisation and
constituency of I.C.A.O., which has three official languages and
those languages had been used, as such, in the major part of the
revisory proceedings and at the final meeting at The Hague. It
is obvious, however, for any observer and even for a superficial
reader that the huge amount of material will not fit into the single
decisive French version. Many discrepancies may be detected in
the authentic texts, whereas it is not always certain that the French
text would provide the right interpretation (e.g., article XVIII in
fine, in the official edition, reveals the Spanish text as the most
accurate).
A second criticism may be directed against the drafting of the
Protocol. The coexistence of the Warsaw Convention and the
Protocol has not been, and could probably not be, peacefully settled
by article XVIII. Conflicts arising from choice of forum, from
reference of both international instruments to municipal law and
from terminology will be a heavy burden on the application o
those agreements, unless the quick and general ratification of the
Protocol can eliminate the old Warsaw text altogether, and, with
it, the possible conflicts.6 The Delegation from Great Britain
were certainly right when they pleaded for a new Convention
instead of an amending Protocol. In order to lessen disparity
resulting from the application by a Protocol-State of Protocol
provisions with Protocol-States and of Convention-provisions with
Warsaw-States, the Hague Diplomatic Conference decided that
thirty ratifications must be deposited before the Protocol coul
come into force (article XXII). Article XXIV, paragraph 3, whic
states that denunciation of the Warsaw Convention shall not be
construed in any way as a denunciation of the Convention as
amended by the Protocol could be interpreted as a veiled invitation
to denounce the Warsaw Convention after the coming into force
of the Protocol. But Mankiewicz has shown, it would seem
6 See Verplaetse, Proposed Changes in the Law of Carriage by Air, B.L.R. 1956,
pp. 95 et seq.
The point of conflicts arising from the choice of jurisdiction has been
extensively developed and conclusively proved by Mankiewicz, Rechtsnormen-
konflikte zwischen Warschauer Abkommen und Haager Protokol, 3 ZLR 1956.
246; Hague Protocol to amend the Warsaw Convention, J.A.L.C. 1956, 78-97;
Conflits entre la Convention de Varsovie et le Protocole de La Haye, R.G.A.
1956, 239-246. The case is an illustration of the general problem of impact
of jurisdiction of courts on the law applicable. According to article 28 of the
Warsaw Convention, which has not been modified by the Hague Protocol,
the action for damages may be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, before
four different courts. The treaty-law applicable in those courts may be
different.
convincingly, that such denunciation would increase the case for

conflict.
2. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the

Precautionary Attachment of Aircraft. Opened for signature
at Rome, May 29, 1933 7
Limitations upon the attachment of aircraft in certain cases
were imposed by article 18 of the Paris Convention of 1919 and
by article 18 of the Madrid Convention of 1926 and by provisions
in certain bipartite treaties. A general international Agreement
was advocated by I.A.T.A. (1929), the International Law
Association (1930) and the I.C.C. (1931). A draft, prepared on
behalf of C.I.T.E.J.A. by O. Riese, led to the signing of the Rome
Convention. Its aim is to protect free air traffic against abusive
measures of so-called creditors of the owners of aircraft.8 The
Chicago Convention in its Recommendation VI urges new con-
sideration of the desirability of ratifying or adhering to this
Convention. This wish has not improved the status of effectiveness.
3. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to

Assistance and Salvage of Aircraft or by Aircraft at sea.
Opened to signature at Brussels, September 29, 1938 9
In international meetings, it was first attempted to regulate
salvage both at sea and on land. But, at the meeting of
C.I.T.E.J.A. at Bern in 1936, it was decided to limit the scope
of research to salvage and assistance at sea.
The Paris Convention of 1919 in its article 23 and the Habana
Convention of 1928 in its article 26 provided that salvage of aircra
wrecked at sea should be governed by the principles of maritime
law, which had been the object of an International Convention,
signed at Brussels in 1910. But it was unanimously conceded that
salvage and assistance by aircraft at sea could not be brough
under the provisions of the Brussels Convention. As to the salva
of aircraft in distress at sea it was a moot point whether maritim
law granted an adequate solution.
A Draft Convention prepared on behalf of C.I.T.E.J.A. by
Professor G. Ripert was discussed at Bern in 1936 and adopted at
7 Signatories: 23 original and 19 additional signatures. Coming into force:
January 12, 1937. Ratifications as of October, 1957: Spain, Germany, Rumania,
Italy, Belgium, Hungary, Poland, Netherlands, Brazil, Denmark, Norway,
Guatemala, Sweden.
8 It is limited to precautionary arrest; attachment under execution has not yet
been regulated.
October, 1957: Guatemala and Italy have ratified the Convention but they have
not deposited their instruments of ratification.
the Fourth International Conference on Private Air Law held at

Brussels in 1938.
As regards salvage and assistance on land there is a Draft
Convention of 1939 which is considered, as obsolescent and the
question of its revision has been under discussion by the Legal
Committee of I.C.A.O. However, it will be noted hereafter that
the topic, which now includes a general revision of all problems
relating to salvage and assistance, stands rather low on the list
of priority.
4. Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Air-

craft. Opened to signature at Geneva on June 19, 1948 10
From 1930 onwards C.I.T.E.J.A. had discussed these matters.
The Chicago Convention of 1944, in its Final Act under Recom-
mendation V, suggested the calling of " an international conference
on private international air law for the purpose of adopting a
Convention dealing with the transfer of title to aircraft and that
such private air law conference include in the basis of discussion two
existing drafts hereafter mentioned."
Indeed, the Geneva Convention is a merger of two C.I.T.E.J.A.
drafts, one on the ownership of aircraft and air register, the other
on hyotheques, suretes reelles and privileges. The Legal Committee
of I.C.A.O. prepared a draft text at its meeting in Brussels in
1947. The draft was subsequently circulated by I.C.A.O. among
all member States for consideration and comment. With some
slight modifications in substance and considerable revision of
language, it became the Geneva Convention. The final text
emphasises security for lenders, leaving aside security on transfer
of title to aircraft.
The main complication seemed to spring from the differences in
legal terminology. For example, in England, register is used for
the public law operation, record for the private law effects; in the
United States, the respective terms are registration and recordation,
while in France the term " registre " is used for both but the verb
is " immatriculer " and " inscrire " for the respective purposes.
10 Signatories: 28 States, some with reservations. Coming into force:
September 17, 1953. Ratifications and adhesions as of October, 1957: United
States of America, Mexico (with reservation), Pakistan, Brazil, Norway,
Sweden, Chile, Laos.
Owing to the increased value of aircraft and the need for credit, the position
of the United States of America with respect to this Convention was one of
keen interest. But other States are still not reconciled to some of its provisions.
Many States would give priority to fiscal claims and to claims based on labour
contracts. Mr. R. 0. Wilberforce has voiced this dissent, in a very able
report, before the International Law Association in 1950. He sums up the
reasons why some States do not ratify and why a revision of some of the
provisions is needed. A draft-Protocol, containing an international formula
of the " hypotheque," is appended to the report.
The underlying idea of the Convention is not the unification

of the substantive norms. In view of the great variety of legal
systems such a method was unsuitable. Therefore, preference was
given to provisions for recognition by each of the contracting
States, with respect to aircraft of other contracting States,
of rights and interests in such aircraft created under the law of
the State whose nationality the aircraft displays. The Convention
deals with the rights of property, of acquisition and possession,
of possession under lease, of mortgage, hypotheques and similar
rights under certain conditions. It does not preclude the recognition
of any rights in aircraft created under the law of any contracting
State, but such recognition shall not take priority over the rights
detailed above.
5. Damage caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on th

Surface
The Habana Convention of 1928, in its article 28, had simply
left this problem to the decision of the law of the country where
the accident occurred. This system is insufficient, notably when
the rule of law in the country where the accident happens requires
fault as a condition of liability. An international regulation was
sought. Three international agreements have attempted to settle
the problems involved,: Rome 1933, Brussels 1938 and Rome 1952.
(A) Convention for the unification of certain Rules relating to
Damage caused by Aircraft to Third Parties on the surface.
Opened to signature at Rome on May 29, 1933.11
At the outset this Convention seemed doomed to failure,
although eventually it came into force after the fifth ratification,
pursuant to its article 24, paragraph 2. Initially, the lack of success
was attributed to the fact that the system of insurance provided
for in article 12 was unsatisfactory. Therefore, in 1935 C.I.T.E.J.A.
recommended the supplementing of the provisions of article 12 by
a new Agreement. This was done by the
(B) Additional Protocol to the Rome Convention of 1933

concerning damage caused by Aircraft to Third Parties on the
Surface. Opened to signature at Brussels on September 29, 1938.12
The Protocol provided in its article 5 that a subsequent
ratification of or accession to the Rome Convention of 1933 should
apply also to the Protocol. Although it filled adequately the gap
11 Signatories: 43 States. Coming into force: February 11, 1942. Ratifications
as of October, 1957: Spain, Rumania, Belgium, Guatemala, Brazil.
October, 1957: Guatemala, Brazil.
which had been the hindrance to the ratification of the Convention,

it never came into force and did not foster ratification of the Rome
scheme. War is alleged to have been the cause of this persistent
failure.
It was expected that, after clearance of the aftermath of war,

the ratification of the Rome-Brussels system would be a matter
of course. But, instead of driving for ratification, the Legal
Committee, much to the surprise of many lawyers, chose to start
a general revision of the rules agreed upon in pre-war days. It
eventually reached a new Agreement classified as
(C) Convention on Damage caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third

Parties on the Surface. Opened to signature at Rome on October 7,
1952. 1
Extensive work of the Legal Committee of I.C.A.O. resulted

in the preparation of a Draft Convention at the Seventh Session
of the Legal Committee in Mexico City in January, 1951. The
Council of I.C.A.O. devoted considerable attention to certain
economic and policy aspects of the Draft, which was present
as final as far as the Legal Committee was concerned. The report
which grew out of this study, was circulated for comment to all
the member States. The final agreement at Rome resumed an
amplified the provisions of the Rome 1933 Convention, but it w
drawn up in three official languages.
The Convention attempts to regulate and establish uniformity
with respect to the liability of aircraft operators to persons on th
surface who sustain injury, death or damage to property as
result of accident caused by foreign aircraft. The problem w
to establish a balance of the legitimate interests and desires of t
aircraft operators, engaged in international air navigation, again
those of the general public who may suffer as third parties from
foreign air activity. It dealt with the limits of liability and with
the security which could be required, of aircraft operators to assu
that their financial means could cope with their liability.
Instead of the compulsory insurance found in the Brussels
Additional Protocol 1938, the Rome Convention 1952, in what wou
seem to be a vain concession to the United States, who suggested
that the insurance provisions be dropped altogether, seek
to secure the protection of the third party on the surface b
13 Signatories: 27 States. It has not yet come into force. Ratifications as
October, 1957: Egypt, Canada, Luxemburg, Spain.
The United States have not even signed this Convention, which has aroused
little interest among the major Air Powers. The reason for this lack of
intprost lies deeper than the one which is now alleged as being the provisio
relating to execution of judgments. The topic itself is not agreeable to th
big international airlines.
ascertaining that in accidents in which he suffers loss, he will be

able to recover, with a minimum of litigation, the full compensation
for damage. It leaves it to the States to require insurance or other
guarantees. Further, the Convention gives a certain choice of forum
by consent and adds two new items: the execution of judgments
and the regulation of the liability of servants and agents.
The coexistence with the Rome Convention of 1933 is settled
by article 29, which provides that, as between contracting State
which have also ratified the Rome 1933 Convention, the pres
Convention, upon its entry into force, shall supersede the ol
Agreement.
The Final Act recommended standard forms for the following
documents: (a) certificate of insurance, (b) certificate of financial
responsibility to be endorsed on or annexed to the certificate of
insurance, (c) certificate of guarantee, (d) certificate of deposit, and
(e) certificate of government guarantee. Although article 15 of the
Convention alludes to these certificates, these forms are not com-
pulsory and their use is left to the free choice of the parties.
When C.I.T.E.J.A. ceased to exist in 1947 it still had ten
subjects on its agenda. I.C.A.O. has inherited those draf
some more from other international bodies.
Drafts of the most important topics are already under discussion.
The Legal Committee has established its list of priority as follows:
(i) Draft Convention on aerial collisions.
(ii) Draft Convention on the legal status of aircraft.
(iii) Charter and hire of aircraft.
(iv) Negotiability of the air waybill.
(v) Legal status of the aircraft commander.
(vi) General average and jettison.
(vii) Problems of assistance on sea and land and remuneration
therefor.
(viii) Global limitation of the liability of the operator.
(ix) Revision of the Convention on precautionary attachment
of aircraft.
(x) Settlement of international private air law disputes in
connection with civil aviation, together with
(1)authority of judgments by competent international
tribunals on conventions in force on air matters;
(2) distribution and allocation of awards.

Sources of Private International Air Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sources of Private International Air Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Sources of Private International Air Law

Cambridge University Press, British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Comparative Law Quarterly

Volume 7 Pt. 3 July, 1958

SOURCES OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL AIR LAW

Warsaw Convention on matters of transportation. It would seem

2. Contrary to the view sometimes expounded in the period

Riese's critique seems justified only insofar as unification is contem-

1. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules r

law would be the first in legal history to come very close to

When it convened at Rio de Janeiro in August-September,

whose delegates had been instructed to consider the new con-

case of conflict between the original text and the Protocol, on

convincingly, that such denunciation would increase the case for

2. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the

3. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to

the Fourth International Conference on Private Air Law held at

4. Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Air-

The underlying idea of the Convention is not the unification

5. Damage caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on th

(B) Additional Protocol to the Rome Convention of 1933

which had been the hindrance to the ratification of the Convention,

It was expected that, after clearance of the aftermath of war,

(C) Convention on Damage caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third

Extensive work of the Legal Committee of I.C.A.O. resulted

ascertaining that in accidents in which he suffers loss, he will be

You might also like