Review the Legal Developments of the Liability System in the Montreal Convention

Authors

1 Ph. D. Student, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In 1929, when the Warsaw Convention was ratified, it was regarded as a success in the air law system. Even now, despite the fact that it lasts for about a century, despite the rapid changes in the air industry, it is a decisive document. Our country has already ratified the Warsaw Document and its amendment, the 1955 Hague Document, but has refused to accede to the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Montreal document was approved with the justification, which is in line with recent advances in the aerospace industry. Additionally, since a number of documents were adopted between 1929 and 1975, there was a tight legal system in aviation. The adoption of the Montreal Convention ended this legal turmoil. Since our country has not approved the Montreal Protocol, this article should be considered. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine some of the rules of the Warsaw Convention, adopted in 1929, and to compare those rules in the Montreal Convention of 1999. We are trying to answer the question as to whether we should approve the Montreal Convention.
 
 

Keywords

References

Caroline. D. (1992), “Air Carrier’s Liability for Emotional Distress Under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention: Can it Still be Invoked?”, Annals of Air & Space Law Vol. XVII-II.
-Chrisholm, V. (1963), “British European airways”, Lloyd’s Rep. 626, Manchester Assisez.
-Grein, V., (1936),” Imperial Airways, Ltd­.,  King’s Bench Division 23 October 1936; Court of Appeals 13 July 1936, see Law Reports.
-Henrik. G. (1987), “Erstatning for skade på passagerer ved flykapringer og andre angreb på flysikkerheden”, U B 312.
-Hjalsted,. F. (1957),­“Luftbefordrerens kontraktansvar i international luftret”, U B 1.
-Husserl, V. (1975),” Swiss Air Transport Company” D. Ct., Supra note 67.
-Jarvis, R.M.  & Straubel, M.S., (1994), “Litigation with a foreign Flavor: A Comparison of the Warsaw Convention and the Hamburg Rules”, Journal of Air Law and Commerce.
-L. Cobbs. L. (1999), “The Shifting Meaning of “Accident” under Art. 17 of the Warsaw Convention: What did the Airline know and what did it do about it?”, Air and Space Law, Vol. XXIV Number 3.
-Milde. M. (1999), “Liability in International Carriage by Air - the new Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999”, Unif. L. Rev.
-Palleroni, V. (1939), S.A. Navigazione Aerea, “Revue Générale de Droit Aérien”, pp. 309-318.
-Ritts, V.  (1949), “American verses Airlines, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 17-18 Jan. see United States aviation Reports, pp.65-71.
-Rosman, V. “Trans World Airlines” (1974), N.Y.A.Ct., 34 N.Y.2d 385, 314 N.E.2d 848, pp.358 N.Y.S.2d 97.
-Verschoor, I. H. P. H. (1997), “The liability of the Carrier under the Warsaw System”, McGill University, Private International Air Law: Cases and Materials, Vol. 1.
-Whalen, T.J. (2000), “The new Warsaw Convention: The Montreal Convention”, Annals of Air & Space Law, Vol. XXV NumberI
Journal of Transportation Research
Volume 15, Issue 4
December 2019
Pages 223-234

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics