Advertisement

Civil Jurisdiction over Aircraft

Chapter
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

In the previous chapters we have seen that the air space above the territory of a particular State is subject to the sovereignty of that State, that the aircraft possesses a nationality and that it must be regarded as movable property sui generis.

Keywords

International Tribunal Advisory Opinion International Court Territorial System Rome Convention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    De Bustamante, “Droit International Public,” III, p. 158. 2 McNair, “The Law of the Air,” p. 109.Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    Bourquin, “Règles générales du droit de la paix,” Rec. 35 (1931, I), p. 128.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Cleveringa, “Het Nieuwe Zeerecht.” 3 See p. 56.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spaight, “Aircraft in Peace and the Law,” p. 17.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lemoine, “Traité de Droit Aérien,” pp. 201–207.Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    Karrer, “Die Einflusz der Souveränität im Luftraum auf die Abgrenzung des Privaatrechts,” Aarau, 1938, p. 92.Google Scholar
  7. 1.
    Lortsch, Revue de Droit Aérien, Vol. 13, 1929, p. 7. De Visscher, “Les Conflicts de Lois en Matière de Droit Aérien,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International à la Haye, 1934, II, p. 352. Coquoz, “Le droit privé international aérien,” p. 291.Google Scholar
  8. 1.
    Hamel, “Nationalité et conflicts de lois du droit aérien,” Revue de droit international privé, 20 (1925), p. 211.Google Scholar
  9. 1.
    See note p. 11.Google Scholar
  10. 2.
    Institut de Droit International, Annuaire 1911, pp. 105–122.Google Scholar
  11. 3.
    Ibid., Annuaire 1910, p. 318.Google Scholar
  12. 1.
    Roper, “La Convention Internationale du 13 octobre portant réglementation de la navigation aérienne” (Paris, 1930), pp. 155–157.Google Scholar
  13. 1.
    Projet de Code International de l’Air du Comité Juridique International de l’Aviation (VI Congrès, Rome 1924), Chapitre VI, De la législation applicable et de la juridiction compétente en matière de locomotion aérienne.Google Scholar
  14. 1.
    Convention on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface, Rome, 1952, ICAO Doc. 7364.Google Scholar
  15. 2.
    Couännier, “De la nationalité et du domicile des aéronefs”, Revue Juridique Internationale de la Locomotion Aérienne, 1910, p. 165.Google Scholar
  16. 1.
    International Law Association, Report of the Thirty-First Conference, Buenos Aires, 1922, p. 211.Google Scholar
  17. 2.
    Ibid., Report of the Thirty-third Conference, Stockholm, 1924, pp. 113 et. seq.Google Scholar
  18. 1.
    See p. 109.Google Scholar
  19. 2.
    International Law Association, Report of the Thirty-first Conference, Buenos Aires, 1922, p. 212.Google Scholar
  20. 3.
    See p. 108.Google Scholar
  21. 4.
    International Law Association, Report of the Forty-fourth Conference, Copenhagen, 1950, pp. 226 et seq.Google Scholar
  22. 5.
    International Law Association, Report of the Forty-fifth Conference, Lucerne, 1952, pp. 113–138.Google Scholar
  23. 1.
    Ibid., p. 114.Google Scholar
  24. 1.
    Ibid., p. 116. 2 Ibid., p. 117.Google Scholar
  25. 1.
    Ibid., p. 109.Google Scholar
  26. 2.
    Ratified by the Netherlands on April 6, 1933 (Statute Book 149) and published by Royal Decree of July 7, 1933 (Statute Book No. 365).Google Scholar
  27. 3.
    The Convention has been ratified by forty six States.Google Scholar
  28. 4.
    Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929.Google Scholar
  29. 5.
    Article 18 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929.Google Scholar
  30. 6.
    Article 19 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929.Google Scholar
  31. 7.
    Article 20 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929.Google Scholar
  32. 1.
    If the Protocol for Revision of the Warsaw Convention (The Hague, September 1955) is ratified, this amount will be increased to 250,000 gold francs (62.000 guilders).Google Scholar
  33. 2.
    Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. 3 Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. 4 Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929.Google Scholar
  34. 1.
    Convention on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface Rome, 1952, ICAO Doc. 7364.Google Scholar
  35. 2.
    Belgium, Rumania, Guatemala, Brazil, Spain.Google Scholar
  36. 3.
    Egypt, Canada.Google Scholar
  37. 1.
    Article 1 of the Rome Convention of 1952. 2 500,000 francs for aircraft weighing 1,000 kilogrammes or less; 500,000 francs plus 400 francs per kilogramme over 1,000 kilogrammes for aircraft weighing more than 1,000 but not exceeding 6,000 kilogrammes; 2,500,000 francs plus 250 francs per kilogramme over 6,000 kilogrammes for aircraft weighing more than 6,000 but not exceeding 20,000 kilogrammes; 6,000,000 francs plus 150 francs per kilogramme over 20,000 kilogrammes for aircraft weighing more than 20,000 but not exceeding 50,000 kilogrammes; 10,500,000 francs plus 100 francs per kilogramme over 50,000 kilogrammes for aircraft weighing more than 50,000 kilogrammes. The francs mentioned here are “gold francs” consisting of 65 milligrammes of gold of millesimal fineness 900. Converted into Dutch currency, the present value of one gold franc is approximately 0,25 guilder.Google Scholar
  38. 3.
    Expressed in Dutch guilders the limit of liability for certain widely used types of aircraft is as follows: Dakota 1,000,000 guilders Dakota 1,000,000 guildersGoogle Scholar
  39. Expressed in Dutch guilders the limit of liability for certain widely used types of aircraft is as follows: Dakota 1,000,000 guilders Convair 240 1,500,000 guildersGoogle Scholar
  40. Expressed in Dutch guilders the limit of liability for certain widely used types of aircraft is as follows: Dakota 1,000,000 guilders Constellation 2,600,000 guildersGoogle Scholar
  41. Expressed in Dutch guilders the limit of liability for certain widely used types of aircraft is as follows: Dakota 1,000,000 guilders Super Constellation 3,000,000 guildersGoogle Scholar
  42. 4.
    ICAO Doc. 6029-LC/126, p.32.Google Scholar
  43. 1.
    Article 20 of the Rome Convention of 1952.Google Scholar
  44. 1.
    Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to the precautionary arrest of aircraft, Rome, May 29, 1933 (published by Royal Decree of Feb. 7, 1938, Statute Book No. 12). This Convention came into force for the Netherlands on April 28, 1938, after the Dutch legislation had been adopted to it by the Act of November 4, 1937 (Statute Book No. 207) through addition of the seventh section a) to the IVth Title of Book III of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. Convention on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface, Rome, May 29, 1933. This Convention has never been ratified by the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  45. 2.
    CITEJA Document 239, 1934. 298, 1936. 334, 1937. 362, 1938. 487, 1946.Google Scholar
  46. 3.
    CITEJA Document 239, 1934. 293, 1936.Google Scholar
  47. 4.
    Drion, “Towards a uniform interpretation of the private air law conventions,” Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 19, Autumn 1952, No. 4, pp. 426–427.Google Scholar
  48. 1.
    Proposal of E. Roguin and A. Darras for the Institute of International Law in 1895 and 1897, Annuaire 1895 and 1897 (XVI), 106, 108. Proposal of Prof, de la Pradelle for the 38th Conference of the International Law Association in 1934 at Budapest, Report of the 38th Conference, pp. 71–75. Carabiber, “Les juridictions internationales de droit privé,” Neuchatel, 1947, pp. 265–279. Gidel, Report to the Institute of International Law, “La Clause Juridictionelle dans les Conventions d’Union notamment celles relatives à la Propriété Industrielle et à la Propriété Artistique et Littéraire,” 39 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, Brussels, 1936, p. 248. Charlier in Compte Rendu des Réunions de la 1ère Commission du CITEJA, Paris, janvier 1946, Doc. No. 487.Google Scholar
  49. 2.
    Prof. R. P. Cleveringa, proposal to set up an international court of arbitration in the field of maritime and air law, submitted to the 2nd Conference of the International Bar Association at The Hague in 1948.Google Scholar
  50. 3.
    See p. 121.Google Scholar
  51. 1.
    Proposal of Prof. P. Chauveau for the conference of the International Law Association at Dubrovnik in 1956.Google Scholar
  52. 2.
    Dutch Statute Book 1935, No. 444. The Protocol was ratified by Belgium, the Netherlands, Esthonia, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.Google Scholar
  53. 1.
    ICAO Doc. 7379-LC/34, p. 56.Google Scholar
  54. 2.
    See p. 121.Google Scholar
  55. 1.
    ICAO Doc. 7379-LC/24, p. 56.Google Scholar
  56. 1.
    Article 84 of the Chicago Convention of 1944, reading as follows: “If any disagreement between two or more contracting States relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention and its Annexes cannot be settled by negotiation, it shall, on the application of any State concerned in the disagreement, be decided by the Council. No member of the Council shall vote in the consideration by the Council of any dispute to which it is a party. Any contracting State may, subject to Article 85, appeal from the decision of the Council to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal agreed upon with the other parties to the dispute or to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Any such appeal shall be notified to the Council within sixty days of receipt of notification of the decision of the Council. 2 Goedhuis, Pacta sunt servanda,” 1952, p. 20.Google Scholar
  57. 1.
    Lemoine, “Traité de Droit Aérien,” p. 206.Google Scholar
  58. 2.
    Institut de Droit International, Annuaire 1910, p. 318. 3 See page 107.Google Scholar
  59. 4.
    Lemoine, “Traité de Droit Aérien,” p. 201.Google Scholar
  60. 1.
    Projet de Code International de l’Air du Comité Juridique International de l’Aviation, Art. 30.Google Scholar
  61. 1.
    Goldstein, “La nouvelle législation aérienne belge,” Revue Française de Droit Aérien, avril-juin 1954, p. 115. Litvine, “Précis Elémentaire de Droit Aérien,” Bruxelles, 1953.Google Scholar
  62. 2.
    McNair, “The Law of the Air,” 1953, p. 122.Google Scholar
  63. 3.
    Shawcross and Beaumont on Air Law, 1951, p. 80.Google Scholar
  64. 1.
    Dicey, “Conflict of Laws” (6th ed., 1949, under the general editorship of J. H. C. Morris).Google Scholar
  65. 2.
    McNair, “The Law of the Air,” 1953, p. 127.Google Scholar
  66. 1.
    Ibid., p. 136.Google Scholar
  67. 2.
    In Godfrey’s Case, 1625 (Latch 11; 82 English Reports 249), the Court of Kings’ Bench confirmed that the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction over contracts made at sea.Google Scholar
  68. 3.
    McNair, “The Law of the Air”, 1953, p. 145.Google Scholar
  69. 1.
    Cleveringa, Int. Bar. Ass., 2nd Conference of the legal profession at The Hague, Aug. 16–21, 1948, p. 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 1956

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations