International Air Private Law

Author: Tang Mingyi / Chen Yu
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-11-01
Features:
§1 Introduction: Conflict and Compromise – The Development Trajectory of Modern International Air Transport Carrier Liability Systems
§1.1 The International Nature of Aviation Law and the Birth of the Warsaw System (1)
§1.1.1 The International Nature of Aviation Activities and the International Nature of Aviation Law (2)
§1.1.2 Two Methods of Resolving Legal Conflicts and the Choice of Aviation Private International Law (3)
§1.1.3 The Nurturing of a Unified International Aviation Transport Rules System (6)
§1.1.4 The Carrier Liability Rules in the 1929 Warsaw Convention (8)
§1.2 From the Hague Protocol to the Montreal Protocol (11)
§1.2.1 The 1955 Hague Protocol (12)
§1.2.2 The 1961 Guadalajara Convention (15)
§1.2.3 The 1966 Montreal Agreement (16)
§1.2.4 The 1971 Guatemala Protocol (21)
§1.2.5 The Four Montreal Protocols (22)
§1.3 The Crisis of the Warsaw System Split (24)
§1.3.1 The Disagreements and Crisis (24)
§1.3.2 Practices Deviating from the Warsaw System (26)
§1.4 Several Contradictions Throughout the Development of the Warsaw System (29)
§1.4.1 The Conflict Between Carriers and Customers (30)
§1.4.2 The Conflict Between Developed and Developing Countries (32)
§1.4.3 The Conflict Between the Two Legal Systems (34)
§1.4.4 New Issues – Strategic Alliances and Technological Development (37)
§1.5 Modernization and Integration Reforms of the Warsaw System (41)
§1.5.1 IATA’s Efforts and Two Agreements with IIA and MIA (42)
§1.5.2 The Destruction of Warsaw System Unity Due to Modernization (45)
§1.5.3 The Role and Mission of ICAO (46)
§1.5.4 Two Socio-Economic Surveys on Carrier Liability Limitation (47)
§1.5.5 Two Reports from ICAO Secretariat Research Groups (50)
§1.5.6 ICAO Legal Committee’s 30th Meeting and the 1999 Diplomatic Conference (53)
§1.5.7 The Carrier Liability Rules in the 1999 Montreal Convention (55)
§2 The Composition of Carrier Liability in International Air Transport
§2.1 International Air Transport and the Scope of the Warsaw System (58)
§2.1.1 International Transport for Remuneration by Air Carrying Persons, Luggage, or Goods (60)
§2.1.2 According to the Agreement of the Parties (67)
§2.1.3 Place of Departure, Place of Destination, and Agreed Stopover (70)
§2.1.4 Continuous Carriers and Indivisible Transport (73)
§2.2 Liability for Passengers, Luggage, and Cargo Transport (75)
§2.2.1 The Composition of Passenger Transport Liability (75)
§2.2.2 Liability for Carriage of Luggage and Cargo (91)
§2.2.3 Delay Liability (104)
§2.3 The Nature and Characteristics of Carrier Liability in Air Transport (111)
§2.3.1 Breach Liability or Tort Liability (111)
§2.3.2 The Cause of Action Debate in Common Law and Civil Law (122)
§2.3.3 Characteristics of Carrier Liability in Air Transport (127)
§3 Principle of Attributability – From Unitary to Binary Attributability
§3.1 Presumed Negligence Liability Principle (130)
§3.1.1 The Provisions of the 1929 Warsaw Convention (130)
§3.1.2 The Establishment of Presumed Negligence Liability (131)
§3.1.3 Application of Presumed Negligence Liability Principle in Air Transport (132)
§3.1.4 Presumed Negligence Liability and "Res ipsa loquitur" (135)
§3.2 Strict Liability Principle and Dual-Gradient Attributability Principle (136)
§3.2.1 The Theoretical Basis of Strict Liability Principle (136)
§3.2.2 Application of Strict Liability in Carrier Liability and the Development of the Warsaw System (138)
§3.2.3 The 1999 Montreal Convention and the Dual-Gradient Attributability Principle (141)
§3.2.4 Some Reflections on the Dual-Gradient Attributability Principle (144)
§4 Discussion on the Justification of Liability Limitation and Its Development
§4.1 Discussion on the Justification of Liability Limitation Principle (146)
§4.1.1 Liability Limitation System in Maritime Law (146)
§4.1.2 Reference from International Aviation Law (148)
§4.1.3 Reflections on the Justification of International Air Transport Carrier Liability Limitation (149)
§4.1.4 Justification Reason One – Reference to the Global Unified Liability Limitation Principle in Maritime Law (149)
§4.1.5 Justification Reason Two – Protection for Industries with Weak Financial Foundations (151)
§4.1.6 Justification Reason Three – Catastrophic Risks Cannot Be Solely Shouldered by Airlines (154)
§4.1.7 Justification Reason Four – Encouraging Carriers or Other Operators to Insure Their Liability Risks (157)
§4.1.8 Justification Reason Five – Increasing the Likelihood of Potential Claimants Purchasing Insurance Themselves (158)
§4.1.9 Justification Reason Six – As a Liability Limitation System Corresponding to the Presumed Negligence Principle (161)
§4.1.10 Justification Reason Seven – Avoiding Litigation Through Rapid and Efficient Resolution (166)
§4.1.11 Justification Reason Eight – Promoting Legal Unification in Compensation Limitation Issues (171)
§4.2 Exceptions to Liability Limitation (1) – Discussion on Article 25 of the 1929 Warsaw Convention (173)
§4.2.1 Drafting History of Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention (174)
§4.2.2 Causation and Compensation Amount (176)
§4.2.3 Clauses That Carriers Cannot Invoke When Violating Article 25 (178)
§4.2.4 British Law’s Understanding of "Intentional or Reckless Misconduct" (181)
§4.2.5 Examples of Intentional or Reckless Misconduct (189)
§4.3 Exceptions to Liability Limitation (2) – Discussion on Article 25 of the 1955 Warsaw-Hague Convention (191)
§4.3.1 Drafting Process of Article 25 of the 1955 Warsaw-Hague Convention (191)
§4.3.2 Doing So Recklessly Despite Likely Causing Damage (193)
§4.3.3 Causing Damage Intentionally (With Intent to Cause Damage) (202)
§4.4 Socio-Economic Analysis of Liability Limitation and the Choice of the 1999 Montreal Convention (204)
§4.4.1 Satisfaction with Current Liability Limits (205)
§4.4.2 Appropriate New Limits (206)
§4.4.3 Potential Impact of Increased Passenger Liability Limits on Insurance Premiums (207)
§4.4.4 Mechanism for Reaching New Limits (209)
§4.4.5 Methods to Overcome Current and Potential Deficiencies of the Warsaw System (210)
§4.4.6 Choice of the 1999 Montreal Convention (211)
§4.5 Reform of Compensation Limits for Domestic Air Transport Carriers in China (213)
§4.5.1 Current Situation of Compensation Limits for Domestic Air Transport Carriers in China (213)
§4.5.2 Necessity and Possibility of Increasing Compensation Limits for Domestic Passenger Transport (214)
§4.5.3 Reform Suggestions for Domestic Passenger Transport Compensation Limits (218)
§5 Defense Reasons for Carrier Liability
§5.1 All Necessary Measures / Impossibility Defense (220)
§5.1.1 Drafting Background and Revisions of Article 20 of the 1929 Warsaw Convention (221)
§5.1.2 Meaning of All Necessary Measures (222)
§5.1.3 Warning of Potential Dangers (Warning) and the Nature of the Risk (The Nature of the Risk) (225)
§5.1.4 Standard Carrier Practice (228)
§5.1.5 Defective Construction and Force Majeure (229)
§5.1.6 Other Issues to Consider (230)
§5.1.7 Impossibility (Impossible) (233)
§5.1.8 Regarding Clause 2 of Article 20 of the 1929 Warsaw Convention (235)
§5.2 Defense of Contributory Negligence (237)
§5.2.1 Regarding the Defense of Contributory Negligence (237)
§5.2.2 Drafting Background and Reform Suggestions for Article 21 (239)
§5.2.3 Application of Contributory Negligence Defense (240)
§5.2.4 Deduction of Amounts (241)
§5.3 Provisions of the 1999 Montreal Convention (242)
§5.3.1 Revision of Existing Defense Reasons (242)
§5.3.2 New Defense Reasons for Cargo Transport (243)
§6 Scope of Compensation, Punitive Damages, and Compensation for Mental Anguish
§6.1 Scope of Compensation (244)
§6.1.1 Calculation of Compensation for Passenger Injury or Death (244)
§6.1.2 Calculation of Compensation for Carriage of Luggage and Cargo (249)
§6.1.3 Compensation Issues for Delay Liability (250)
§6.2 Regarding Compensation for Mental Anguish (251)
§6.2.1 Regarding Mental Anguish and Compensation (251)
§6.2.2 Issues of Mental Anguish in the Warsaw Convention (252)
§6.2.3 The Final Judgment and Development of the U.S. Floyd Case (254)
§6.2.4 Revision of the 1999 Montreal Convention (256)
§6.3 Regarding Punitive Damages (258)
§6.3.1 The Warsaw Convention Prohibits Punitive Damages (258)
§6.3.2 Judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Zicherman Case (260)
§6.3.3 Provisions of the 1999 Montreal Convention (262)
§7 Air Transport Tickets (263)
§7.1 Passenger Tickets, Luggage Tickets, and Air Waybills (263)
§7.1.1 Passenger Tickets and Luggage Tickets (263)
§7.1.2 Issuance of Passenger Tickets (264)
§7.1.3 Content of Passenger Tickets (267)
§7.1.4 Luggage Tickets (269)
§7.1.5 Air Waybills (271)
§7.2 Evidence Value of Transport Tickets (274)
§7.2.1 Evidence Value of Passenger Tickets (274)
§7.2.2 Accuracy of Filled Content in Air Waybills and Evidence Attributes (275)
§7.3 Absence, Non-compliance, or Loss of Transport Tickets (276)
§7.3.1 Consequences of Absence, Non-compliance, or Loss of Tickets (276)
§7.3.2 Consent in Cases of Code Sharing and Continuous Carriers (277)
§7.3.3 Omission of the Hague Declaration (280)
§7.4 Transferability of Air Waybills (281)
§7.4.1 Nature of Air Waybills (281)
§7.4.2 Transferability and Negotiable Instrument – The Case of British Law (282)
§7.4.3