The Competent Court Related to Air Carrier Liability | ||
| دوفصلنامه علمی دانش حقوق مدنی | ||
| Volume 11, Issue 1 - Serial Number 21, November 2022, Pages 1-12 PDF (448.13 K) | ||
| Document Type: Scientific Research | ||
| DOI: 10.30473/clk.2022.63726.3068 | ||
| Authors | ||
| milad soltani* 1; Bahram Taghipour2; Alireza Salehifar2 | ||
| 1Ph.D. Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Despite the importance and numerous implications of determining a competent court in claims relating to the liability of air carriers, the criteria set forth in the Warsaw and Montreal documents are ambiguous, and each country offers its own internal interpretation that, in addition to the principle of uniformity. These documents are in conflict, making it difficult to determine the competent court. Given that the determination of a competent court leads to the identification of the substantive law and the form governing the litigation, this ambiguity in the court's judgment causes us to be incapable of recognizing the substantive and formal law. Moreover, due to the special requirements of air transport and ideals such as the protection of the users of the industry, it is as if its rules, with a break with tradition, are inconsistent with what is called certain principles. Updated and crystallized. One of these cases is the recognition of a competent court, which ignores the will power of individuals in determining it, and the plaintiff can only sue in limited and predetermined countries. A will that is respected in other modes of transport, including maritime transport rights. Accordingly, it is necessary to first explain the criteria for the place of residence of the carrier, the main place of work of the carrier, the place of work of the contractor and the court of destination; Because their recognition leads to the identification of the formal and substantive law in lawsuits related to the responsibility of the transport operator. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Keyword: The Domicile of the Carrier; Operational Headquarters; A Place of Business; Fifth Jurisdiction | ||
| References | ||
|
جباری، منصور (1389). «نقش تقصیر یا عمد در مسئولیت متصدی حملونقل بینالمللی هوایی». فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق و سیاست، سال دوازدهم، شماره 30، صص 21-46.
شیروی، عبدالحسین (1393). داوری تجاری بینالمللی. تهران: انتشارات سمت. چاپ چهارم.
صفرزاده، نرگس (1390). دادگاه صلاحیتدار در دعاوی حمل و نقل هوایی. پایاننامه برای دریافت درجه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. Aikpitanbi V. Iberia (ED Mich, 2008). 533 F Supp 2d 872, 877. Berner V. (Sup. Ct. 1956). United Airlines. Inc, Misc.2d 260; 149 N.Y.S.2d 335 BlancaI, Rodriguez (2001). “Recent Developments in Aviation Liability Law”. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Volume 66, Issue 1, PP. 21-127. Boyar V. Korean Airlines (DC, 1987). 664 F Supp 1481. Carl E. B. McKenry Jr. (1963). “Judicial Juridiction under the Warsaw Convention”. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp. 205-229. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991). Clarke, Malcolm A. (2009). International Carriage of Goods by air. 5th Edition. London: Informa. Clothier V. (E.D.N.Y.1961). United Air Lines. Inc.,196 F.Supp. 435.
Delta Air Lines. Inc., No. 2:18-cv- 00297-RSL. Devendra Pradhan (2003). “The Fifth Jurisdiction under the Montreal Liability Convention: Wandering American or Wandering Everybody”. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 68 J. Air L. & Com. 717. Duygu Damar (2011). Wilful Misconduct in International Transport Law. Hamburg: Springer. Duygu Damar (2012). Breaking the Liability Limits in Multimodal Transport. Max Planck Private Law Research Paper, No. 13/12, pp. 658-683. Dvaladze V. (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2019). Giulia Carbone (2012). “Interference of the Court of the Seat with International Arbitration”. The Symposium, Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2012, Issue 1, pp. 217-244. Hornsby V. (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2009). Lufthansa German Airlines. No. CV 07-7594, 2009 WL 116962. Hosaka V. (9th Cir. 2002). United Airlines. Inc., 305 F.3d 989. International Conference on Air Law (1999). Doc 9775-DC/2 ,CANADA. Julian D. M. Lew (2009). “Does National Court Involvement Undermine the International Arbitration Processes?”. American University International Law Review, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp. 489-537. Lam V. (SDNY, 1998). Aeroflot. 999 F. Supp 728, 732. Luis F. Ras (No Date). “Warsaw's Wingspan over State Laws: Towards a Streamlined System of Recovery”. 59 J. Air L. & Com. 587, pp. 587- 615. M/S Bremen V. (1972). Zapata Off-Shore Co. 407 U.S. 1. Madison L. George (2020). Pablo Mendes De Leon (2001). “The Montreal Convention: Analysis of Some Aspects of the Attempted Modernization and Consolidation of the Warsaw System”. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp. 1155- 1185. Rotterdamsche Bank N. V. V. (Q.B. 1953). British Overseas Airways Corp. 1 Lloyd's List L.R. 114. SENAI W. ANDEMARIAM (2006). “Does the montreal convention of 1999 require that a notice be given to passengers? what is the validity of notice of a choice of forum clause under montreal 1999?”. 71 J. Air L. & Com, pp. 251- 297. Societe Kenya Airways v Airbus SAS, [2009] ILPr 3. Solanky V. (SDNY, 1987). Kuwait Airways. 20 Avi 18, 150. Stott V. (2014). Homas Cook Tour Operators Limited. UKSC. Uinn V. Iowa Central Ry. Co., 14 Fed. 323, 324 (C.C. S.D. Iowa 1982). Zheng Tang (2011). “Aviation Jurisdiction and Protection of Air Passengers”. European Journal of Consumer Law (Revue Europeenne De Droit De La Consummation), Issue 2, pp 333-357. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 738 PDF Download: 829 |
||