| | ISSUE 1 |  |
'The Implications of the EU Accession to the Cape Town Convention', Berend Crans, Issue 1, pp. 1–7 |
infoBerend Crans, 'The Implications of the EU Accession to the Cape Town Convention' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 1–7 | | On 28 April 2009 the European Community deposited an instrument of accession to the Cape Town Convention. To understand the implications thereof, one needs to understand the scope of the powers conferred upon the Community to conclude international agreements. In this case accession by the Community implies that the Member States are bound by the Cape Town Convention to the extent the provisions thereof fall within Community competence. The Community declaration, lodged in conjunction with the accession instrument, indicates that Member States have transferred competence to the Community with respect to matters affecting the Brussels I–Regulation, the Insolvency Regulation and the Rome I–Regulation. In practice it will, however, still be difficult to determine which provisions of the Convention fall within Community competence. The Community’s accession to the Cape Town Convention is perhaps mainly to be seen as paving the way for individual Member States to ratify the Convention. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010001 | 
|
|  | |
'Liability of Aviation Security Service Providers and Responsibility of States', Jane Hong, Issue 1, pp. 9–32 |
infoJane Hong, 'Liability of Aviation Security Service Providers and Responsibility of States' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 9–32 | | Following the events of 9/11, dramatic changes have been implemented in aviation security standards. Along with the changes in public regulation, there was an entity that newly emerged in the eyes of public – the aviation security service providers (ASPs). This article elaborates on the responsibility and liability of ASPs and suggests several options for ASPs to protect the business itself from unlimited third-party liability in case of an act of terrorism. Then it inquires into the responsibility of States in this regard. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010002 |
|
| | |
'Negligent Entrustment of Leased Aircraft and Crew: Some Legal Issues', Ruwantissa Abeyratne, Issue 1, pp. 33–44 |
infoRuwantissa Abeyratne, 'Negligent Entrustment of Leased Aircraft and Crew: Some Legal Issues' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 33–44 | | Negligent entrustment is a civil wrong grounding an action in tort law which arises when one party is held liable for negligence because he negligently provided another party with a an object that could cause harm to another and the latter caused injury to a third party with that object. The cause of action most frequently arises where one person allows another to drive his vehicle. Common law countries apply the The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007, which provides that an organization is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organized causes a person’s death, and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organization to the deceased. The Act applies inter alia to a corporation. The offence is termed ‘corporate manslaughter’, insofar as it is an offence under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland; and ‘corporate homicide’, insofar as it is an offence under the law of Scotland. An organization that is guilty of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide is liable on conviction to a fine and the offence of corporate homicide is indictable only in the High Court of Justiciary. The Act provides, inter alia, that the extent to which the evidence shows that there were attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices within the Organization that were likely to have caused failures in the provision of services by the corporation could be taken into account in determining the culpability of that entity. The possible application of this legislation to air transport is a reality, as exemplified in the Helios trial which opened on 26 February 2009 in Cyprus. The trial pertains to the island’s worst air tragedy, when 121 people perished on a charter plane that slammed into a Greek hillside nearly four years ago. According to reports, at the time of writing, Helios Airways and four airline officials faced charges of manslaughter and reckless endangerment in one of the most complex and high-profile cases in the eastern Mediterranean island’s legal history. Plaintiffs, who are relatives of the dead, have called for criminal action against those deemed responsible when the Helios Airways Boeing 737–300 ran out of oxygen and crashed outside Athens in August 2005. It has also been reported that, although the authorities have not named those to be charged, the accused are known to be officials who held top management positions in the airline at the time of the crash. Against this backdrop, this article analyses the offence of negligent entrustment and draws a link between the offence and the leasing of aircraft and crew. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010003 |
|
| | |
'Aviation Security: Technical and Regulatory Measures against MANPADS', Stefan A. Kaiser, Issue 1, pp. 45–58 |
infoStefan A. Kaiser, 'Aviation Security: Technical and Regulatory Measures against MANPADS' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 45–58 | | The public has paid only little attention to the threat of ‘Man-Portable Air Defence Systems’ (MANPADS) against aviation security. MANPADS are cheap, efficient, portable, and simple to use. They are easily accessible on the international arms markets and thus an ideal ‘poor man’s weapon’ for asymmetric conflicts since they can be used offensively with a devastating effect. In 2004, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) listed over forty MANPAD incidents against civil aircraft, more than half of which were successful, resulting in almost 600 casualties. In the last years, a wave of resolutions and decisions about MANPADS were taken in several international organizations and other fora. Many measures undertaken by States, airlines, and airport operators are kept confidential. This article gives a general overview of these technical and regulatory measures and the underlying rationale of the actors. At the same time, it provides an insight into decentralized international rule making of a subject matter, which States feel compelled to act upon, but for reasons of their own national defence, they do not agree on an internationally legally binding agreement. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010004 |
|
| | |
'Report on the 21st Annual Conference of the European Air Law Association', Michel Adam, Issue 1, pp. 59–62 |
infoMichel Adam, 'Report on the 21st Annual Conference of the European Air Law Association' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 59–62 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010005 |
|
| | |
'Sovereignty over Airspace and the Chicago Convention: Northern Cyprus', Mark Franklin, Sarah Porter, Issue 1, pp. 63–70 |
infoMark Franklin, Sarah Porter, 'Sovereignty over Airspace and the Chicago Convention: Northern Cyprus' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 63–70 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010006 |
|
| | |
'Airline Liability for Delays: The Court of Justice of the EU Rewrites EC Regulation 261/2004', John Balfour, Issue 1, pp. 71–75 |
infoJohn Balfour, 'Airline Liability for Delays: The Court of Justice of the EU Rewrites EC Regulation 261/2004' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 71–75 | | Airlines received an unpleasant Christmas present in 2008, in the form of the Court of Justice’s preliminary ruling in Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia, adopting a very strict interpretation of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ defence to claims for compensation in the event of cancellation of flights under EU Regulation 261/2004. On 19 November 2009, the Court of Justice issued an even more stunning ruling interpreting the Regulation, in the joined cases Sturgeon v. Condor and Böck and Lepuschitz v. Air France, on references from courts in Austria and Germany. After giving some clarification on the distinction between delay and cancellation, the Court held that passengers on flights whose arrival at final destination is delayed by three hours or more are entitled to compensation, even though this is not expressly provided for in the Regulation (unlike in the case of cancellation). Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010007 |
|
| | |
'Report from the United States The Montreal Convention and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens', George N. Tompkins, Issue 1, pp. 77–77 |
infoGeorge N. Tompkins, 'Report from the United States The Montreal Convention and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 77–77 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010008 |
|
| | |
'Italian Court Denies Recovery for Cerebral Haemorrhage Following 18.5-Hour Aircraft Journey', Giuseppe Guerreri, Issue 1, pp. 79–80 |
infoGiuseppe Guerreri, 'Italian Court Denies Recovery for Cerebral Haemorrhage Following 18.5-Hour Aircraft Journey' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 79–80 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010009 |
|
| | |
'Report from Australia', Andrew Tulloch, Marcus Saw, Issue 1, pp. 81–82 |
infoAndrew Tulloch, Marcus Saw, 'Report from Australia' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 81–82 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010010 |
|
| | |
'Aviation Safety through the Rule of Law, ICAO’s Mechanisms and Practices, by Jiefang Huang, Aviation Law and Policy Series (Kluwer Law International, 2009)', Niels van Antwerpen, Issue 1, pp. 83–86 |
infoNiels van Antwerpen, 'Aviation Safety through the Rule of Law, ICAO’s Mechanisms and Practices, by Jiefang Huang, Aviation Law and Policy Series (Kluwer Law International, 2009)' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 83–86 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010011 |
|
| | |
'Beyond Open Skies, by Brian Havel (Kluwer Law International, 2009)', John Balfour, Issue 1, pp. 87–89 |
infoJohn Balfour, 'Beyond Open Skies, by Brian Havel (Kluwer Law International, 2009)' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 1, pp. 87–89 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010012 |
|
| | | |
ISSUE 2 | |
'Regulation (EC) 261/2004 in the Light of the Recent Decisions of the European Court of Justice: Time for a Change?!', Kinga Arnold, Pablo Mendes de Leon, Issue 2, pp. 91–112 |
infoKinga Arnold, Pablo Mendes de Leon, 'Regulation (EC) 261/2004 in the Light of the Recent Decisions of the European Court of Justice: Time for a Change?!' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 91–112 | | Regulation (EC) 261/2004 has been drawn up to protect passengers who are faced with denied boarding, delay, and cancellation of flights. The air transport industry can be regarded as a test case for the implementation of passenger protection measures as similar legislation was passed for rail passengers as late as 2007, and the rights of passengers travelling by bus and coach and by sea and inland waterway are still under discussion. Providers of other modes of transport are not obliged to grant similar protection to their users. Air passengers have become more aware of their rights as have consumers generally. This article will analyse the provisions of Regulation 261/2004 in the light of the most recent jurisprudence, more particularly the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of 19 November 2009, as referred to below. National courts are confused about the interpretation of the provisions of this Regulation. In order to find guidance on the subject, they submit their questions to the Court of Justice of the EU, as they have done in the cases discussed in this article. Arguably, the fragile cohesion resulting from the complex compromise reached between the various parties has not assisted, and indeed has even been prejudiced, by the Court’s decisions. We hope that the second decade of this century will see a more balanced approach towards the European policy objectives while respecting international law and international relations. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010013 |
|
| | |
'Legal Aspects of Cross-Border Service Provision in the Single European Sky', Francis Schubert, Issue 2, pp. 113–155 |
infoFrancis Schubert, 'Legal Aspects of Cross-Border Service Provision in the Single European Sky' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 113–155 | | An airspace structure independent from political boundaries and based on operational performance is a fundamental requirement for the success of the Single European Sky (SES). Achieving such a goal necessarily requires a more extensive use of arrangements for the cross-border provision of Air Traffic Services (ATS). Such practices raise a number of sensitive legal issues related to the nature, scope and effect of the designation, by States, of ATS providers (ATSP). The liability, regulatory and supervisory aspects of cross-border service provision are also the subject of unresolved legal questions. This article investigates the legal aspects of cross-border service provision and the institutional models available to formalize such practices. Under the SES Regulations, the classical ATS delegation model, which establishes a state-to-state relationship, is slowly acquiring historical interest and new kinds of institutional arrangements are proposed. These arrangements are primarily based on a State-to-service provider relationship or even on a relationship between service providers themselves. Within the context of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs) promoted by the European Commission, they may result in a departure from the model based on legacy national service providers and rely on the emergence of common multinational ATSP. Such innovative constructions will also raise a number of legal challenges. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010014 |
|
| | |
'Watchlists in United States and Canada: An Intricate Web', Norberto E. Luongo, Issue 2, pp. 157–166 |
infoNorberto E. Luongo, 'Watchlists in United States and Canada: An Intricate Web' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 157–166 | | After the failed attempt to blow up the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 that departed from Amsterdam on Christmas Eve of 2009, one question arose time after time: how did the alleged bomber manage to board the plane? An extraordinary simple and straight answer is that the suspect was actually included in one of the several currently existing terrorism databases but not particularly in the so-called American ‘No-Fly List’. Indeed, several records are simultaneously kept by the American Government, and although sometimes their contents overlap, sometimes they do not. To achieve a clear outlook of what these lists are and how they work, those databases – along with the one currently in effect in Canada – are revised in this article. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010015 |
|
| | |
'The NW 253 Flight and the Global Framework of Aviation Security', Ruwantissa Abeyratne, Issue 2, pp. 167–181 |
infoRuwantissa Abeyratne, 'The NW 253 Flight and the Global Framework of Aviation Security' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 167–181 | | The attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas day of 2009 has once again issued the ominous reminder that aviation is vulnerable and that there is a compelling need for a global security culture that recognizes and applies uniform global security standards. The first step toward achieving this objective is the realization by the aviation community of new and emerging threats to aviation and the need to share information. Since the event, several countries have imposed stringent security standards at airports and initiated inter-governmental meetings to discuss closer cooperation among States in the hope that such measures will effectively respond to the threat. Both International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Air Transport Association (IATA) took immediate measures after the event in issuing statements and called for a closer look by States at their security measures and a re-assessment of available responses to threats posed to aviation. It is now abundantly clear that collection and sharing of information, improvement of technology, and strengthening of security standards are critical in addressing the problem of unlawful interference with civil aviation. Other aspects such as curbing the financing of terrorism, taking a closer look at the responsibility of States, and increasing vigilance on a global scale are also significant considerations. This article takes a critical look at the issues at hand and makes some suggestions. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010016 |
|
| | |
'Legal and Aeronautical Issues Concerning the Earthquake in Haiti', Ruwantissa Abeyratne, Issue 2, pp. 183–193 |
infoRuwantissa Abeyratne, 'Legal and Aeronautical Issues Concerning the Earthquake in Haiti' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 183–193 | | The earthquake that devastated the capital of Haiti and much of its environs in January 2010, causing massive fatalities and damage to property, could be distinguished from the Tsunami of December 2004 in that the latter left the government infrastructure and machinery intact. The earthquake, on the other hand, crippled the Haitian government and infrastructure, rendering government authorities weak in the running of the country. From an aeronautical perspective, this brought to bear issues of sovereignty within the parameters of relief flights and humanitarian law. Another devastation that was unique to the earthquake was that although the only runway at the airport was undamaged, the rest of the aviation infrastructure lay in a shambles. The flow of the numerous relief flights that came into Haiti after the fact had therefore to be managed with caution and diligence. This article addresses these issues in the backdrop of the applicable principles of public international law and the regulatory regime of international civil aviation. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010017 |
|
| | |
'European Air Law Association: 7th Munich Liability Seminar – Liability and Claims Handling in the Air Transport and Aerospace Industries', Arpad Szakal, Issue 2, pp. 195–198 |
infoArpad Szakal, 'European Air Law Association: 7th Munich Liability Seminar – Liability and Claims Handling in the Air Transport and Aerospace Industries' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 195–198 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010018 |
|
| | |
'ATA and others v. the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (2009)', Pablo Mendes de Leon, Issue 2, pp. 199–200 |
infoPablo Mendes de Leon, 'ATA and others v. the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (2009)' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 199–200 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010019 |
|
| | |
'Risk and Liability in Air Law, by George Leloudas. (London, Informa Law, 2009)', Wybo P. Heere, Issue 2, pp. 201–203 |
infoWybo P. Heere, 'Risk and Liability in Air Law, by George Leloudas. (London, Informa Law, 2009)' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 201–203 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010020 |
|
| | |
'Coming Events', Issue 2, pp. 205–205 |
info'Coming Events' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 205–205 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010021 |
|
| | | |
ISSUE 3 | |
'Montreal v. Brussels: The Conflict of Laws on the Issue of Delay in International Air Carriage', Paul Stephen Dempsey, Svante O. Johansson, Issue 3, pp. 207–224 |
infoPaul Stephen Dempsey, Svante O. Johansson, 'Montreal v. Brussels: The Conflict of Laws on the Issue of Delay in International Air Carriage' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 3, pp. 207–224 | | In recent years, the European Union (EU) has promulgated several ‘consumer protection’ regulations that address a variety of airline passenger issues, including flight delay, cancellation, and denied boarding. The new rules require airlines to grant financial compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding or flight delay or cancellation, assist them in revising their travel plans by giving them the choice between a rescheduling of the ticket or a refund, and pay for their board and lodging. However, both the Warsaw and the Montreal Conventions for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air directly address the issue of air carrier compensation to passengers for damages suffered as a consequence of ‘delay’, and explicitly provide that the remedies specified therein are exclusive. As all Member States of the EU have ratified those Conventions, it would seem that the promulgation of conflicting EU Regulations raises serious legal questions regarding the relation with the international conventions. The overall conclusion the authors draw from the examination of the EU Regulations and the case law they produced is that EU law conflicts with the international conventions and the exclusivity of their application. The position of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in interpreting the EU Regulations does not facilitate a uniform application of different rules. In case after case, the Court has stated that the jurisprudence surrounding the Warsaw and the Montreal Conventions, broadly speaking, is irrelevant when interpreting the Regulations. It is incomprehensible that these Regulations, and their interpretation by the ECJ, would be so fundamentally inconsistent with the explicit provisions of the Conventions. If the Court had taken a more consensual approach, the EU rules might have complemented, rather than conflicted with, the Conventions. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010022 |
|
| | |
'EU-Russia Aviation Relations and the Issue of Siberian Overflights', Johannes Baur, Issue 3, pp. 225–247 |
infoJohannes Baur, 'EU-Russia Aviation Relations and the Issue of Siberian Overflights' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 3, pp. 225–247 | | Since Soviet times, EU carriers have to pay royalties for getting the right to overfly Russian territory on flights from Europe to Asia, in particular Japan, China and South Korea. These payments are not only detrimental to the further development of air services between Europe and Asia, there are also an important trade irritant between the EU and the Russian Federation until today and are considered by the EU as being non-compliant with international standards. This article describes the system of overflight royalties and the history and development of the discussions between the EU and the Russian Federation since the early nineties until the agreement on the ‘Agreed Principles’ from 2006. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010023 |
|
| | |
'Ensuring Regional Safety in Air Transport', Ruwantissa Abeyratne, Issue 3, pp. 249–262 |
infoRuwantissa Abeyratne, 'Ensuring Regional Safety in Air Transport' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 3, pp. 249–262 | | Regional governance under State responsibility is an undeniable necessity in ensuring safety in air transport. However, since international air transport crosses boundaries and all regions of the world, a certain stringent global regulatory system is required, and this objective cannot be reached unless the safety oversight system is decentralized into safety agencies in each region. This is because although air transport is still considered the safest mode of travel, constant and diligent vigilance in ensuring the safety of aviation is required. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is the global forum for aviation, provides this guidance and direction and encourages States to form regional civil aviation bodies in regions where they do not exist. Since almost all regional civil aviation bodies have their own Constitutions, these Constitutions should recognize the need for increased cooperation with ICAO and ICAO should actively seek such an inclusion. Cooperation could include assignment of tasks related to oversight, accident investigation, sharing of information, and the conduct of training in collaboration with ICAO. Some of the measures that are suggested in this article include the initiation by ICAO, where appropriate, of periodic meetings with regional civil aviation bodies and the setting up of panels that include members from ICAO and each regional body on a selective basis. These panels is could recommend and monitor issues of cooperation, including cooperation between the various regional organizations. There is also the compelling need to define the role that regional organizations and regional civil aviation bodies would play in working closely with ICAO; and the adoption of a policy with regard to cooperation with regional organizations and regional civil aviation bodies. ICAO should also ascertain the role to be played by its regional offices in coordinating ICAO cooperation with such bodies. Consideration should be given to providing appropriate resources in regional offices where necessary. This article discusses in some depth the various regional safety oversight organization (RSOO) agencies and examines the legal and regulatory basis of ICAO’s role with regard to the establishment and functions of RSOOs with reference to selected regional oversight organizations around the world. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010024 |
|
| | |
'Regulation of Sub-orbital Space Tourism in Europe: A Role for EU/EASA?', Tanja Masson-Zwaan, Issue 3, pp. 263–272 |
infoTanja Masson-Zwaan, 'Regulation of Sub-orbital Space Tourism in Europe: A Role for EU/EASA?' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 3, pp. 263–272 | | Taking into account that several plans related to sub-orbital space tourism exist within European Union (EU) Member States, the article outlines the European Space Agency’s (ESA) position about this activity and how that may influence the way space tourism will be treated under EU law. The extent of the competence and legislative powers of the EU under the Lisbon Treaty will be addressed according to three scenarios, that is, treating sub-orbital space tourism as tourism, as aviation or as space activity under the Treaty. Observing that sub-orbital space tourism will probably be regarded as aviation within the EU context, the possible involvement of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will then be discussed. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010025 |
|
| | |
'The First International Air Law Moot Court Competition – Delhi, India, 3–6 March 2010', Pablo Mendes de Leon, Issue 3, pp. 273–274 |
infoPablo Mendes de Leon, 'The First International Air Law Moot Court Competition – Delhi, India, 3–6 March 2010' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 3, pp. 273–274 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010026 |
|
| | |
'Air Transport and the European Union (EU). Europeanization and Its Limits, by Hussein Kassim and Handley Stevens. (Palgrave Studies in EU Politics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)', Wybo P. Heere, Issue 3, pp. 275–277 |
infoWybo P. Heere, 'Air Transport and the European Union (EU). Europeanization and Its Limits, by Hussein Kassim and Handley Stevens. (Palgrave Studies in EU Politics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 3, pp. 275–277 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010027 |
|
| | |
'Coming Events', Issue 3, pp. 279–279 |
info'Coming Events' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 3, pp. 279–279 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010028 |
|
| | | |
ISSUE 4/5 | |
'Responsibility and Liability Aspects of the Icelandic Volcanic Eruption', Ruwantissa Abeyratne, Issue 4/5, pp. 281–292 |
infoRuwantissa Abeyratne, 'Responsibility and Liability Aspects of the Icelandic Volcanic Eruption' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 281–292 | | The fallout from the Icelandic volcano in April 2010 brought to bear yet another burden on the airline industry and issues and questions on responsibility for stranded passengers worldwide. The most curious outcome of the closure of airspace over some European States and the subsequent grounding of flights worldwide, resulting in hundreds of thousands of passengers being left to their own devices in instances where the airlines did not, or could not, provide assistance, was the noticeable silence on the part of States concerned with regard to their responsibilities to travelling citizens. Although under ordinary circumstances airlines are liable to look after their passengers, particularly in circumstances within their control, the volcano was completely unexpected and air carriers were faced with State action, which closed the airspace of several European States. This article discusses the nature and effects of a volcanic eruption on aircraft in flight, along with regulatory issues connected thereto and two issues of liability: State liability and air carrier liability, with a focus on European law and practice. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010029 |
|
| | |
'Compensation for Passengers in the Event of Flight Delays', Ludger Giesberts, Guido Kleve, Issue 4/5, pp. 293–304 |
infoLudger Giesberts, Guido Kleve, 'Compensation for Passengers in the Event of Flight Delays' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 293–304 | | In November 2009, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has issued a highly debated decision, which expands air passenger rights in Europe. In extending the compensation provisions to delays in excess of three hours, the court declared passenger rights far beyond the wording of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. Therefore, airlines might be liable to huge compensation in case of flight delays; not only because of the actual volcanic ash crisis, a fact with a broad economical impact. However, the decision of the ECJ raises numerous follow-up questions. This article will firstly examine the limitation of actions. It will be shown that this is subject to national law. Furthermore, this article will conclude that in the case of multi-causal circumstances airlines are only obliged to compensate passengers in the event of the delay being within the scope of responsibility of the air carrier for at least three hours. Finally, it will be shown that airlines are not obliged to compensate for a delay due to a missed connecting flight with the same carrier. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010030 |
|
| | |
'Aircraft Subsidies and WTO Rules: The Airbus Decision', Brendan McGivern, Issue 4/5, pp. 305–315 |
infoBrendan McGivern, 'Aircraft Subsidies and WTO Rules: The Airbus Decision' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 305–315 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010031 |
|
| | |
'Canadian Court Rules that a Disruptive Passenger Is Not Entitled to Receive an Airline’s Investigation File', Adrienne L. Lee, Issue 4/5, pp. 317–319 |
infoAdrienne L. Lee, 'Canadian Court Rules that a Disruptive Passenger Is Not Entitled to Receive an Airline’s Investigation File' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 317–319 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010032 |
|
| | |
'Update on Australian Travel Agent Class Action', Simon Liddy, Robert McGregor, Issue 4/5, pp. 321–323 |
infoSimon Liddy, Robert McGregor, 'Update on Australian Travel Agent Class Action' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 321–323 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010033 |
|
| | |
'Criminalization of Air Accidents: The Solutions May Be Forged in Europe', David Learmount, Issue 4/5, pp. 325–329 |
infoDavid Learmount, 'Criminalization of Air Accidents: The Solutions May Be Forged in Europe' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 325–329 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010034 |
|
| | |
'European Regional Rounds of the Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition 2010, Győr, Hungary, 27–30 April 2010', Michail Vagias, Issue 4/5, pp. 331–332 |
infoMichail Vagias, 'European Regional Rounds of the Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition 2010, Győr, Hungary, 27–30 April 2010' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 331–332 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010035 |
|
| | |
'Report on the International Interdisciplinary Congress on Space Debris', Ram S. Jakhu, Stephan Hobe, Issue 4/5, pp. 333–336 |
infoRam S. Jakhu, Stephan Hobe, 'Report on the International Interdisciplinary Congress on Space Debris' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 333–336 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010036 |
|
| | |
'The International Institute of Space Law in 2010', Peter van Fenema, Issue 4/5, pp. 337–338 |
infoPeter van Fenema, 'The International Institute of Space Law in 2010' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 337–338 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010037 |
|
| | |
'Second International Air Law Moot Court – Dubai, 12–15 March 2011', Pablo Mendes De Leon, Issue 4/5, pp. 339–339 |
infoPablo Mendes De Leon, 'Second International Air Law Moot Court – Dubai, 12–15 March 2011' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 339–339 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010038 |
|
| | |
'Liability Rules Applicable to International Air Transportation as Developed by the Courts in the United States. From Warsaw 1929 to Montreal 1999, by George N. Tompkins. (Kluwer Law International, 2010)', Peter Martin, Issue 4/5, pp. 341–342 |
infoPeter Martin, 'Liability Rules Applicable to International Air Transportation as Developed by the Courts in the United States. From Warsaw 1929 to Montreal 1999, by George N. Tompkins. (Kluwer Law International, 2010)' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 341–342 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010039 |
|
| | |
'Bibliography of Air Law 2009', Wybo P. Heere, Issue 4/5, pp. 343–368 |
infoWybo P. Heere, 'Bibliography of Air Law 2009' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 343–368 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010040 |
|
| | |
'Names Index', Wybo P. Heere, Issue 4/5, pp. 369–371 |
infoWybo P. Heere, 'Names Index' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 369–371 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010041 |
|
| | |
'Subject Index', Wybo P. Heere, Issue 4/5, pp. 373–375 |
infoWybo P. Heere, 'Subject Index' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 373–375 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010042 |
|
| | |
'Coming Events', Issue 4/5, pp. 377–377 |
info'Coming Events' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 4/5, pp. 377–377 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010043 |
|
| | | |
ISSUE 6 | |
'Ownership and Control Restrictions in US Aviation Law', Sheri Linzell, Issue 6, pp. 379–407 |
infoSheri Linzell, 'Ownership and Control Restrictions in US Aviation Law' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 379–407 | | This article compares US ownership and control laws in the aviation and maritime sectors and argues that US aviation ownership and control laws should be modified to more closely resemble those used in the US maritime sector in order to permit greater foreign investment in US airlines. US airlines have faced decades of financial instability and will continue to be hobbled by US ownership and control laws that greatly restrict the amount of foreign capital they can access. In contrast to the financial difficulties facing US airlines, many major foreign airlines have thrived in the increasingly global marketplace by taking advantage of more flexible foreign investment laws and engaging in cross-border mergers. These foreign airlines – as well as the US maritime industry and nearly all other US industries – engage in cross-border mergers and acquisitions and utilize significant amounts of foreign capital. Current ownership and control laws require that carriers wishing to operate aircraft in the United States hold a certificate of public convenience, which will only be issued to individuals who are US citizens;partnerships whose partners are all US citizens; and US corporations of which the president and at least two-thirds of the board of directors and other managing officers are US citizens, which is under the actual control of US citizens, and in which at least 75% of the voting interest is owned or controlled by US citizens. In contrast, many US flag vessels are permitted to be up to 100% owned by foreign stockholders. The liberalization of US aviation ownership and control laws would likely result in increased access to foreign capital for US airlines, more efficiency due to consolidation in the airline industry, and increased cross-border investment, which would help stabilize the volatile US airline industry. Opponents to the liberalization of US aviation ownership and control restrictions argue that such liberalization would result in flags of convenience, national security problems, the loss of American jobs, and the risk that other countries may not follow suit in liberalizing their ownership and control laws. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has attempted to adopt rules that would liberalize the US aviation ownership and control laws, but it has been unsuccessful in its attempts, in part due to significant opposition in Congress. The United States has, however, signed several international agreements that indicate a shift towards the acceptance of less stringent ownership and control laws in the aviation sector. US airlines would likely enjoy greater financial stability, which would also benefit US consumers, if US aviation ownership and control laws were revised to more closely resemble those used in the maritime sector. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010044 |
|
| | |
'Airline Bankruptcy and Consumer Protection in the European Union', Tania Pantazi, Issue 6, pp. 409–421 |
infoTania Pantazi, 'Airline Bankruptcy and Consumer Protection in the European Union' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 409–421 | | Airline bankruptcy is a common phenomenon in Europe, especially in the last decade. A sudden interruption of operations is often the result of air carrier’s financial problems or the revoking of its operating license. The liberalization of air transport industry in Europe, along with other factors, has contributed to the increase in the number of airline bankruptcies. Consumers facing airline bankruptcies, however, are not always protected, as there are cases in which passengers were stranded abroad or not compensated because of lack of assets. The existing legal framework of the European Community does not contain any specialized provision, although there is Community legislation on the monitoring of airline finances, travellers’ rights, and insolvency proceedings. This article examines the relevant legal instruments and discusses potential amendments to legislation, such as mandatory insurance or the creation of compensation funds, in order to provide consumers with effective protection against airline insolvency. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010045 |
|
| | |
'Ruling on Conditions of Carriage by the Federal Court of Justice', Ralf Vogler, Issue 6, pp. 423–431 |
infoRalf Vogler, 'Ruling on Conditions of Carriage by the Federal Court of Justice' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 423–431 | | Almost every airline utilizes conditions of carriage clauses to penalize passengers in case of an insequential use of flight coupons. Usually, those clauses lead to an immediate expiration of the whole ticket. Instances of insequential use of flight coupons can happen in various ways. In most cases, the customer is either involved in a cross-ticketing or a cross-border-ticketing scenario. In Germany, clauses used in the conditions of carriage are subject to a review according to the rules of review for general terms and conditions as per the German Civil Code (sections 305 to 310). With its final instance rulings, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) declared such expiration clauses illegal for most cases. The Federal Court of Justice declared his rulings binding for both cross-ticketing and cross-border-ticketing scenarios. Given the importance of the decisions and the consequences for airlines and consumers alike, it is necessary to discuss the ruling in detail and present options to adapt to the new legal conditions. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010046 |
|
| | |
'The Continuing Development of Montreal Convention 1999 Jurisprudence', George N. Tompkins, Issue 6, pp. 433–440 |
infoGeorge N. Tompkins, 'The Continuing Development of Montreal Convention 1999 Jurisprudence' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 433–440 | | The Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) replaces the 1929 Warsaw Convention (WC29). MC99 was adopted on 28 May 1999 and came into force on 4 November 2003 with the deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification by the United States on 5 September 2003. There are, as of 12 November 2010, nine-seven State Parties to MC99. The drafters of MC99 were vigilant in not changing the substantive wording of the principle liability rules of WC29, so as to preserve the validity of the seventy-five years of WC29 legal precedents for courts when applying the comparable liability rules of MC99. Since MC99 came into force, the courts interpreting and applying the MC99 liability rules have been ever cognizant of this intent of the drafters of MC99. This is the third article summarizing MC99 court decisions for the benefit of the readers of A&SL and this summary will appear each year as court decisions are rendered in the States Party to MC99 applying the MC99 liability rules. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010047 |
|
| | |
'Tenth Beaumont International Aviation Conference', Arpad Szakal, Issue 6, pp. 441–443 |
infoArpad Szakal, 'Tenth Beaumont International Aviation Conference' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 441–443 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010048 |
|
| | |
'EU Competition Law Developments in the Aviation Sector', Geert Goeteyn, Mark English, Issue 6, pp. 445–458 |
infoGeert Goeteyn, Mark English, 'EU Competition Law Developments in the Aviation Sector' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 445–458 | | In the twelve-month period of August 2009 to July 2010, the General Court and European Commission have adopted a number of EU competition law (antitrust and merger control) judgments and decisions in the aviation sector. In the summer of 2010, the General Court gave judgment in the appeals stemming from the prohibited Ryanair/Aer Lingus merger, in which it fully endorsed the Commission’s approach. Against this backdrop of continued judicial approval, the Commission has cleared a number of aviation mergers and alliances, making some conditional upon remedies with slot divestitures as their central feature. Important procedural steps have also been taken and final decisions are awaited in a number of ongoing competition law investigations in the aviation sector within the Commission; these include merger, alliance and cartel cases. The General Court’s judgment is an important judicial endorsement of the Commission’s decisional practice in the aviation sector. The Commission decisions of the past year confirm important refinements to the Commission’s policy with regard to market definition, competition assessment and remedies which the Commission had started to develop in earlier decisions. In this article, we first summarize these judgments and decisions then review in more detail the importance of these from a policy point of view. In so doing we seek to identify and analyse the principal trends and developments in EU competition law (antitrust and merger control) as applied to the aviation sector. This article’s concluding remarks also consider some likely developments for the year to come. Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010049 |
|
| | |
'Environment Protection – Role of Space Law, Air Law, by S. Bhatt. (New Delhi, India: APH Publishing, 2009)', Michel Adam, Issue 6, pp. 459–460 |
infoMichel Adam, 'Environment Protection – Role of Space Law, Air Law, by S. Bhatt. (New Delhi, India: APH Publishing, 2009)' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 459–460 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010050 |
|
| | |
'General Index Volume XXXV', Wybo P. Heere, Issue 6, pp. 461–463 |
infoWybo P. Heere, 'General Index Volume XXXV' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 461–463 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010051 |
|
| | |
'Subject Index', Wybo P. Heere, Issue 6, pp. 465–468 |
infoWybo P. Heere, 'Subject Index' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 465–468 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010052 |
|
| | |
'Abbreviations', Wybo P. Heere, Issue 6, pp. 469–472 |
infoWybo P. Heere, 'Abbreviations' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 469–472 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010053 |
|
| | |
'Coming events', Issue 6, pp. 473–473 |
info'Coming events' (2010) 35 Air and Space Law, Issue 6, pp. 473–473 | | Copyright © 2010 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved ISSN: 0927-3379
ID: AILA2010054 |
|
| |
 You need Acrobat Reader version 6.0 or later to read PDF files. DOWNLOAD HERE »
|
