International Law of the Air / Aviation Law / Airline Law

1.1       Introduction

The thousands of year’s human beings have looked to the skies with hope and admiration. The dreams of achieving artificial flight have occupied the imaginations of thinkers and engineers since the days of ancient Greece right up to the time of Leonardo da Vinci. Although these flights of fancy were ultimately futile, in 1903 Wilbur and Orrville Wright finally turned centuries of dreaming into reality when they flew 120 feet in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina on December 17th, 1903.

Aviation law is the branch of international law that concerns flight, air travel, and associated legal and business concerns. Some of its area of concern overlaps that of admiralty law and in many cases, aviation law is considered a matter of international law due to the nature of air travel.[1] However, the business aspects of airlines and their regulation also fall under aviation law. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] governs applied aspects of flight. In the international realm, the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] provides general rules and mediates international concerns to an extent regarding aviation law.

1.2 Determination of Air Space & Aviation Law

Each State exercises complete sovereignty over its territory which comprises of lands, waters, maritime belts, air space, etc.

      According to the old view watch State exercises sovereignty over its complete air space. In the modern times, this view is subjected to criticism and has been criticized by the jurists. There are several views or theories prevalent in this connection.

According to the first view, air space is available for each State and the aircrafts of each State may pass through it without any obstruction. This view has been vehemently criticized because it is contrary to many international treaties. Each state exercises control over its air space and the aircraf6ts of another state can better in its air space only after seeking its prior permission. In accordance with the second view, each state exercises control over its air space up to unlimited height. It is entitled to exercise complete control over it and may not permit the entry of the aircrafts of other states in this area. This view also does not seem to be correct because in view of the rapid scientific and technological developments aircraft can go to a very high attitude. It is not possible for each state to exercise control over unlimited height. Since it is not possible to exercise control over unlimited air space, this view, has lost much of its relevance.

Thus there is a great controversy in respect of law relating to airspace. But there is general agreement regarding certain matters. There is general agreement that each state exercises over the airspace over its territory. This sovereignty is essential for the defense and security of the state. But at the same time there is need for the freedom of aerial navigation for commercial, scientific and humanitarian purposes. With a view to reconcile these conflicting needs, the concept of functional sovereignty has been suggested. There is also the urgent need of evolving the legal regime of air apace as new branch of international law called Air law or Aviation Law.

1.3       History of Aviation Law

The importance of modern aviation was recognized during World War II, when a conference was convened to discuss regulation of postwar international civil aviation. The resulting Chicago Convention of 1944 codified public international aviation law. Contracting nations adopted international regulations, standards, and procedures for the use of communication systems and air navigation aids; for airport characteristics; for rules of the air and air traffic control; for airworthiness of aircraft; for licensing of operating and mechanical personnel; for aeronautical maps and charts; for log books; and for measures to facilitate air navigation.

The established principle that every nation has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory was reaffirmed. Every civil aircraft in international aviation must be registered, carry the nationality of the country of registration, and bear appropriate identification markings. The convention granted transit rights [that is, the right to fly over another nation’s territory and the right to land there for no traffic purposes, such as refueling] and permitted nonscheduled, charter, and private flights.

A similar arrangement in traffic rights [to pick up and set down passengers, cargo, and mail] was not adopted, and bilateral negotiations had to be carried out to effect such arrangements. The American principle of “freedom of the air” and the British principle of “order in the air” were reconciled in 1946 in Bermuda at a meeting between the U.S. and Great Britain. Subsequent bilateral agreements are based on the so-called Bermuda Principles covering the regulation of routes, capacity, and tariff.

Another outcome of the Chicago conference was the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO], which was formally established in 1947 as an agency of the UN to foster development and promote cooperation in international civil aviation. The organization has a legal committee that is responsible for producing treaties, conventions, and protocols in those areas of aviation in which uniformity is desirable. In 1963 the committee produced the Tokyo Convention, which dealt with offenses committed on aircraft. The many aircraft hijackings after 1968 brought pressure to ratify this agreement, and the U.S. Senate did so in 1969. More stringent security measures for international flights were called for in amendments to the Chicago Convention adopted by the ICAO council in 1985, 1988, and 1992.[2]

An early agreement, the Warsaw Convention of 1929, provided for presumptive but limited liability of an air carrier for personal injury or death of a passenger or damage to goods in international air carriage. Liability for death or personal injury was limited to $8300. The Hague Protocol [1965], a series of amendments to the Warsaw Convention, doubled the liability limit. The U.S. did not adhere to the Warsaw Convention until 1934 and did not ratify or adhere to the Hague Protocol because of dissatisfaction with their low limits of liability. In 1969 the air carriers, under the auspices of the International Air Transport Association [IATA], a trade association, agreed to raise this limit to $75,000 with respect to passengers traveling to or from or passing through the U.S. This so-called Montréal Agreement was then incorporated in airline tariffs, which were accepted by the national Civil Aeronautics Board [CAB]. A new treaty, the Guatemala Protocol to the Warsaw Convention, was enacted. It was signed by the U.S. in 1970. The protocol provided for absolute liability on the part of the airline as well as for an unbreakable limitation of damages to $100,000. The Guatemala Protocol was later amended to provide that the limit would be 100,000 Special Drawing Rights [units of international monetary exchange administered by the International Monetary Fund]. This new treaty, entitled the Montréal Protocols 3 and 4, has been denied ratification by the U.S. Senate since 1983.[3]

2.1       Aerial Navigation

A number of international conventions have been concluded to regulate aerial navigation.[4] The more important of them are given below-

2.1.1    Paris Convention of Aerial navigation 1919-

This convention framed certain rules regarding aerial navigation during peace time. According to the convention, each state exercises complete sovereignty over its air space. Further, during peace, parties to the convention will give innocent passage to the other state parties to the convention. The convention did not frame rules for the period of war. [5]

2.1.2    Havana Convention,

This convention was adopted mainly by the States of American Continent. Several rules regarding aerial navigation were adopted under the convention.

2.1.3    Warsaw Convention, 1923

This convention framed certain rules relating to international transport of traffic and goods.[6]

2.1.4    Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944

Chicago convention is most important of all treaties and convention relation to aerial navigation. It was signed by 53 States. Five Freedoms of air were for the first time declared under this convention.[7]

2.2       Freedoms of the Air

Air transportation is different to most other forms of commerce, not only because of its international components but also because of its governmental participation and the fact that many national airlines or 'flag carriers' are either in large part government owned, or, even if not, are felt by the government to reflect the prestige of their nation.[8]

In addition, nations often feel that they can only rely on their locally owned carriers to have a commitment to providing service to their own country. This is unimportant if you're a small country in Europe with excellent road and rail service to other countries, but if you're a remote island in the Pacific, air service is essential.

And so, for reasons variously good or bad, international air travel has long been subjected to all manner of complicated restrictions and bilateral treaties between nations. One of the main treaties that set out the fundamental building blocks of air transportation regulation - the 'rules of the road' - is the Chicago Convention in 1944.

These 'building blocks' are widely referred to as the "freedoms of the air", and they are fundamental to the international route network we have today. There are five basic freedoms that are, more or less, recognized by all countries, two others less widely accepted, and one hardly accepted at all.

Each is subject to specific conditions, such as establishing the frequency of flights that are determined through bilateral agreements between any two of the countries that are parties to the Convention.[9]

First Freedom

The first freedom is the right to fly over a foreign country without landing. It is also known as the technical freedom. It grants the privilege to fly over the territory of a treaty country without landing. Member states of the International Air Services Transit Agreement grant this freedom [as well as the second freedom] to other member states,[10] subject to the transiting aircraft using designated air routes.

Figure – 01

To over fly one country en-route to another

Country “B”

Country “A”

Home Country

Example: Toronto - Mexico City, over flying the United States.

As of the summer of 2007, 129[11] countries were parties to this treaty, including such large ones as the United States of America, India, and Australia.

However, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, and China never joined, and Canada left the treaty in 1988. These large and strategically located non-IASTA-member states prefer to maintain tighter control over foreign airlines' over flight of their airspace, and negotiate transit agreements with other countries on a case-by-case basis.[12]

Since the end of the Cold War, first freedom rights are almost completely universal, although most countries require prior notification before an over flight, and charge substantial fees for the privilege.

IASTA allows each member country to charge foreign airlines "reasonable" fees for using its airports [which is applicable, presumably, only to the second freedom] and "facilities"[13]; according to IASTA, such fees should not be higher than those charged to domestic airlines engaged in similar international services. Such fees indeed are commonly charged merely for the privilege of the over flight of a country's national territory, when no airport usage is involved.[14]

For example, the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S., an IASTA signatory, as of 2009 charges the so-called enroute fees, of US$33.72 per 100 nautical miles [190 km], of great circle distance from point of entry of an aircraft into the U.S.-controlled airspace to the point of its exit from this airspace.[15] In addition, a lower fee [a so-called oceanic fee] of $15.94 per 100 nautical miles [190 km] is charged for flying over the international waters where air traffic is controlled by the U.S., which includes sections of Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans. Countries that are not signatories of the IASTA charge over flight fees as well; among them, Russia, is known for charging high fees, especially on the transacted routes between North America and Asia, which cross Siberia.

Second Freedom

The second freedom allows technical stops without the enplaning or deplaning of passengers or cargo. It is the right to stop in one country solely for refueling or other maintenance on the way to another country.

Figure – 02

To make a technical stop in another country

Country “B”

Country “A”

Home Country

Example: Toronto - Mexico City with a short-range aircraft that needs to be refueled in the U.S.

The most famous example of the second freedom is Shannon Airport, which was used as a stopping point for most North Atlantic flights until the 1960s. Anchorage was similarly used for flights between Western Europe and East Asia, bypassing Soviet airspace, until the 1980s. Anchorage is still used by some Chinese and Taiwanese airlines for flights to the U.S. and Toronto from China and Taiwan. Also, flights between Europe and South Africa often stopped at Ilha do Sal [Sal Island], off the coast of Senegal, due to many African nations refusing to allow South African flights to over fly their territory during the Apartheid regime. Gander, Newfoundland was also a frequent stopping point for airlines from the USSR and East Germany on the way to the Caribbean, Central America, Mexico and South America.

Because of longer range of modern airliners, second freedom rights are comparatively rarely exercised by passenger carriers today, but they are widely used by air cargo carriers, and are more or less universal between countries.

Third Freedom

The freedom to carry traffic from a home country to another country [A] for purpose of commercial services.

Figure – 03

To carry freight and passengers from the home country to another country.

 

The third freedom was the first commercial freedom.

Example: Carrying passengers from Toronto to Chicago as a Canadian company.

Fourth Freedom.

The freedom to pick up traffic from another country [A] to a home country for purpose of commercial services.

Third and Fourth Freedoms are the basis for direct commercial services, providing the rights to load and unload passengers, mail and freight in another country.

Figure – 04

To carry freight and passengers to the home country from another country.

Country “A”

Example: Carrying passengers from Chicago to Toronto as a Canadian company.

Fifth Freedom

The fifth freedom allows an airline to carry revenue traffic between foreign countries as a part of services connecting the airline's own country. It is the right to carry passengers from one's own country to a second country and from that country to a third country [and so on]. The "unofficial 'seventh freedom'", is a variation of the fifth freedom and allows international services wholly outside of an airline's origin. An example of a fifth freedom flight is a 2004 Emirates Airlines flight originating in Dubai, then going on to Brisbane, Australia, and then from Brisbane to Auckland, New Zealand, where tickets can be sold on any or all sectors, and in the reverse direction if flights are offered. It is also called a connecting flight.

Figure – 05

To carry freight and passengers between two countries by an airline of a third country on route with origin / destination in its home country.

Country “B”

Country “A”

Home Country

Example: A Canadian company flies from Toronto to Chicago, picks up passengers there, and then continues to Mexico City.

Two sub-categories exist. "Beyond fifth freedom" allows the right to carry passengers from the second country to the third country. "Intermediate fifth freedom" allows the right to carry passengers from the third to the second country.

Fifth Freedom rights were instrumental to the economic viability of long-haul flight until the early 1980s when advances in technology and increases in passenger volume allowed the introduction of more non-stop services. It was not uncommon for carriers to schedule multiple stops in foreign countries on the way to a direct flight's final destination, especially those connecting Europe with Africa, South America and the Far East. An example of such multi-stage flying is a mid-eighties Rome—Tokyo Alitalia flight by way of Athens, Delhi, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Such routings in Asia approximated the Silk Road Fifth freedom flights are still highly common in East Asia, particularly routes serving Tokyo and the Bangkok—Hong Kong route, which,

For example, at one point in 2004 was served by at least six airlines not based in either Thailand or Hong Kong. Other major markets which are served by numerous fifth freedom flights include Europe, South America, the Caribbean, the North Atlantic, and the Tasman Sea. Fifth freedom rights are also sought by airlines wishing to take up unnerved and underserved routes, or those airlines whose flights already make technical stops at a location as allowed by the second freedom.

Sixth Freedom

The unofficial sixth freedom combines the third freedom and fourth freedoms and is the right to carry passengers or cargo from a second country to a third country by stopping in one's own country.

Figure – 06

To carry freight and passengers between two countries by an airline of a third country on two routes connecting in its home country

Country “B”

Country “A”

Home Country

Example: A U.S. company flying passengers from Toronto to Mexico while picking up or offloading passengers in Chicago.

Cathay Pacific Airways, Thai Airways, Malaysia Airlines, Singapore Airlines and other airlines in Asia use sixth-freedom rights extensively to fly passengers between Europe and Australasia [also known as the Kangaroo Route]. Likewise, American Airlines connects passengers from Europe and Asia to other countries in the Americas via U.S. ports. Unlike the Kangaroo Route, however, these flights are not direct. For argument's sake, AA 168 from London to JFK ends in JFK. However, AA 290 from JFK to EZE is a different flight number. The point being, on Kangaroo flights one can catch, say, BA 167 from SYD to BKK to LHR on the same flight number. British Airways commonly tickets passengers from America to Asia via London. Iceland air sells tickets between Europe and North America via Iceland; Finnair sells tickets from North America to Asia via Helsinki.

Seventh Freedom

The freedom to base aircraft in a foreign country for use on international services, establishing a de facto foreign hub. Covers the right to operate a passenger services between two countries [A and B] outside the home country.

Figure – 07

To carry freight and passengers between two countries by an airline of a third country on a route with no connection with its home country.

Country “A”

Country “B”

Home Country

Example: A European airline that offers flights between Canada and the U.S. without offering any to Europe.

The seventh freedom is rare because it is usually not in the commercial interest of airlines, except in Europe where an EU open sky has seen many carriers, particularly low cost carriers, operate flights between two points, with neither of them being in their home country. On 2 October 2007, the United Kingdom and Singapore signed an agreement that will allow unlimited seventh freedom rights from 30 March 2008 [along with a full exchange of other freedoms of the air].

Eighth Freedom or Cabotage

The unofficial eighth freedom is the right to carry passengers or cargo between two or more points in one foreign country and is also known as cabotage. It is extremely rare outside of Europe. The main real life example of eighth-freedom rights is the European Union, which has granted such rights between all of its member states. Other examples of an exchange of this right include the Single Aviation Market [SAM] established between Australia and New Zealand in 1996 and the 2001 Protocol to the Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation [MALIAT] between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. Otherwise, such rights have usually only been granted in isolated instances where the domestic air network is very underdeveloped. A notable instance was Pan Am's authority to fly between Frankfurt and West Berlin from the 1950s to 1980s. In 2005, the United Kingdom and New Zealand concluded an agreement granting unlimited cabotage rights.[16] Given the distance between the two countries, the agreement can be seen as a reflecting political principle rather than an expectation that these rights will be taken up in the near future. New Zealand had previously exchanged eighth-freedom rights with Ireland in 1999.

Figure – 08

To carry freight and passengers within a country by an airline of another country on a route with origin / destination in its home country

Country “A”

Home Country

Example: Cathay Pacific flights from Hong Kong to Penang via Kuala Lumpur.

Ninth Freedom

The freedom to carry traffic between two domestic points in a foreign country. Also referred to as "full cabotage" or "open-skies" privileges. It involves the right of a home country to move passengers within another country [A].

Figure – 09

To carry freight and passengers within a foreign country with no connection with the home country.

Country “A”

Home Country

Example: All European airlines may use this right within the EU countries.

Aircraft  Hijacking

3.1       Meaning & Definition of Hijacking

Aircraft hijacking [also known as skyjacking and sky controlling] is the unlawful seizure of an aircraft either by an individual or by a group. In most cases, the pilot is forced to fly according to the orders of the hijackers. However, there have been cases where the hijackers have flown the aircraft themselves. “Aircraft hijacking is a contemporary addition to the roster of international and national crimes and the necessity for its control at international and national level is only beginning to be recounted by states.”[17] In its wide sense hijacking is an act against the safety of civil aviation and resembles piracy.[18]

Article 1 of the Hague Convention of 1970, provide that “Any person who on board an aircraft in flight[19]: [a] unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or by any other from of intimidation, seizes or exercises control of that aircraft or attempts to perform any such act, or [b] is an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform any such act, commits an offence ... ... ...” This provision also does not define the term ‘hijacking’, but simply mentions its essential elements which are following:[20]

(i)                 Unlawful use of force or threat thereof or any other from of intimidation;

(ii)              To do above-mentioned acts with a view to seize that aircraft or to exercise control over it;

(iii)            The said acts should have been committed on board an aircraft in flight;

(iv)            Accomplice of person who performs or attempts to perform the above-mentioned act is also guilty of the offence of hijacking.

(v)               Accomplice of person who performs or attempts to perform the above mentioned act is also guilty of the offence of hijacking.

The wider concept of the offence of hijacking has been incorporated in the Montreal convention, 1971.[21] Article 1 of the Montreal Convention, 1971, provides that any person commits an offence if hr unlawfully and intentionally-

[a]        performs an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if that act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft;

[b]       destroys an aircraft in service or causes damages to such an aircraft which renders it incapable of flight or it is likely to endanger its safety in flight;

[c]        places or causes to be placed on an aircraft in service, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to it which renders it incapable of flight, or to cause damage to it, which is likely to endanger its safety in flight;

[d]       Destroys or damages air navigation facilities or interferes with that operation if any such information which he knows to be false, there by endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight.

Besides this, it is further provided that any person also commits an offence if he attempts to commit any of the offence mentioned earlier or if he is an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit any such offence.

3.2       Reasons behind the Aircraft Hijacking

Unlike the hijacking of land vehicles or ships, skyjacking is usually not perpetrated in order to rob the cargo. Most aircraft hijackings are committed to use the passengers as hostages. Motives vary from demanding the release of certain inmates [notably IC-814] to highlighting the grievances of a particular community [notably AF 8969]. Hijacking may also be carried out so as to use the aircraft as a weapon to target a particular location [notably September 11, 2001 attacks]. Other hijackers may hold the hostages for ransom.

Most hijackings for hostages result in a series negotiation between the hijackers and the authorities, followed by some form of settlement. However, these settlements do not always meet the hijackers' original demands. If the hijackers show no sign of surrendering, armed Special Forces may be used by authorities to rescue the hostages.

The first recorded aircraft hijack took place on February 21, 1931, in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards, flying a Ford Tri-Motor, was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one group member a lift to Lima.

3.3       Development of Law relating to hijacking-

The increase in number of incidents of hijacking and increase in the dangers against the safety of the flights of aircraft presented grave problems before the international community and particularly before the International Civil Aviation Organization [I.C.A.O.]. In order to solve this problem and to punish the hijackers a Convention was adopted in 1963, known as the Tokyo Convention, 1963. Despite the adoption of the Convention the number of incidents continued to increase and this Convention failed to solve the problem.[22]

Hague Convention came into force on October, 1971. Hague Convention is a significant milestone for suppressing the crime of hijacking[23]. As pointed out earlier, the Hague Convention further developed the concept of hijacking.

Undoubtedly, Hague Convention is a great milestone in the field of suppressing the offence of hijacking yet it is subject to some criticism so far as certain provisions relating to jurisdiction of States and extradition of offenders or hijackers are concerned. Moreover, it may also be noted that despite the provisions of Hague Convention, the incidence to hijacking continued to increase. Consequently, a Conference was called at Montreal from 8^th to 23^rd September, 1971. As a result of this conference, a Convention [Known as Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971] was adopted. Under Article 1 of the Convention, the concept of the offence of hijacking was further widened. Under this Convention, the State parties have undertaken that they will provide deterrent, punishment to the hijackers. Other provisions are similar to that of the Hague Convention.

 

3.4       Shooting down aircrafts

Several states have stated that they would shoot down hijacked commercial aircraft if it can be assumed that the hijackers intend to use the aircraft in a 9/11-style attack, despite killing innocent passengers onboard. According to reports, U.S. fighter pilots have been trained to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners should it become necessary. Other countries such as India, Poland, and Russia have enacted laws or decrees that allow the shooting down of hijacked planes.[24]

Law of Aerial Warfare

State Jurisdiction and General Responsibilities of the Aircraft and Airport authority: Case Study

According to Article 1 of the Chicago Convention the contracting states recognized that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory.

5.1       The U-2 Case [25]

On May 1960, a U-2, a US high altitude reconnaissance aircraft was short down at a height of 20000 meters over Soviet territory. The air plane had taken off from Pakistan and was schedule to land Finland after taking aerial photographs while over soviet territory. The USSR protested at the flight. The US did not try to justify its action in terms of international law or protest at the shooting down or of the subsequent trial of the pilot. The lack of protest by US in this case is consistent with the view that intentional trespass by military aircraft may be met by the use of force without warning.[26]

5.2       The Libyan Airlines Tragedy, (1973) [27]

In 1973 a Libyan Airlines aircraft on a schedule commercial flight to Cairo was shot down Israeli fighters after accentually entering sensitive airspace over Israeli occupied Sinai. The aircraft has knowingly ignored instructions to land. Israel apologised and paid compensation on ex gratia basis in respect to the resulting loss of 108 lives.[28]

5.3       The Korean Airlines Flight 007 Incidents (1983) [29]

A Korean Airlines Boeing 747 on a scheduled flight from Alaska to South Korea strayed some 500 kilometers off course over military sensitive USSR territory and was intercepted and than shot down by Soviet Military aircraft in darkness in the vicinity of Sakalin Island in USSR airspace north of Japan. Claims for reparation were lodged with USSR by states in respect of lass of life and damage to property. ICAO fact finding investigation report concluded with the aircraft’s deviation resulted not from equipment failure or an intention to trespass but from the negligence of the crew. Following the report, the ICAO council condemned the USSR “use of armed force”.[30]

5.4       Harnandez V. Air France [31]     

It is generally accepted that the Aircraft’s/carriers liability begins when the passenger put himself in the hands of the employee of the carrier and ends when the passenger enter into the arrival hall at the point of destination. The following case may serve as an example.

Mr. Harnandez was going through the passport control and the baggage area, was not with in the course of any operation of embarking and disembarking in terms of the Warsaw convention when terrorist attacked the baggage area. At the time of the attack, plaintiffs Harnandez had already completed all the steps necessary to boarding the aircraft except (1) undergoing physical and handbag searches, and (2) physically proceeding from the search area to the aircraft some 250 meters away. Immediately after Flight 881 was announced over the Transit Lounge loudspeaker, the passengers were instructed to form two lines in front of Departure Gate 4. And, while all but a handful of passengers were standing in those lines awaiting the search procedure, two terrorists fired bursts of automatic weapons fire in the general direction of the TWA queues and hurled hand grenades, which exploded in the vicinity of the passengers. Accordingly the convention did not apply to the claims for compensation resulting from the attack and the liability of TWA (Trans World Airlines) was exempted. Under the terms of the Warsaw Convention, as modified, TWA is absolutely liable up to a limit of $75,000. Per passenger if an incident which causes passenger injury or death falls within the ambit of Article 17 of the Convention. Article 17 provides:

"The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking."

Conclusion

From the above discussion it has been clear that the Aviation law or the Air law has two kinds of significance

1.                  National and

2.                  International.

The law shows its national significance when it deals with the state territory [aerial] state sovereignty and control over the air space of the country. The law show its international significance when it deals with the aerial navigation from one country to another country. From the previous discussion it has become clear as to the importance of the aviation law. However it is to be mentioned that, more emphasis to be given of on the proper functioning of the aviation law in the international field, as we have already seen that most often aviation law is being violated in the international level. Especially at the time of war the law is violated most frequently. Neither of the belligerent partier shows minimum respect to the law of aerial welfare. Bombing over the civilian people is the most common incident.

Therefore proper steps to be taken as soon as possible to stop such kind of brutal activities. Every country every continent, every concerned international organization, including United Nations have to come forward to make a unanimous decision against the violation of aviation law. Every small country or every less powerful country has to work together. So that they can compel the powerful country to be respectful towards the aviation law.

References

Books

1. S. K. Kapoor, International Law & Human Rights [Nutshell], 12 ed.  [Allahbad: Central Law Agency, 1998].
2. Bijan Vasigh, Tom Tacker, Ken Fleming. Introduction to Air Transport Economics: From Theory to Applications. (UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2008).
3. D. J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 4^th ed. [London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998].
4. Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Fifth Edition, [Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008].

Statutes

1.      The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944.

2. The Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The Hague Protocol [1965].
4. The Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 1971.
5. The Paris Convention of Aerial navigation 1919.
6. The Resulting Chicago Convention of 1944.
7.  The Tokyo Convention, 1963.
8. The Warsaw Convention of 1929.
9. The Warsaw Convention, 1923.
10. The Montreal Convention, 1971.

Journals

1. Alone E. Evans, “Aircraft Hijacking: Its Causes and Cure”, American Journal of International Law, Vol.63 [1969].
2. Sami Shubber, “Is Hijacking of Aircraft Piracy in International Law,”? British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 62( 1968-69].
3. S.C. Chaturvedi, “Hijacking and the Law”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol.11 [1971].
4. Sushma Malik, “Legal Aspects of the Problems of Unlawful Salzure of Aircraft”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, [1969].
5. Sami Shubber, “Aircraft Hijacking under the Hague Convention, 1970 – A New Regime”. I.C.L. Q., Vol.22,  Part 4, [1973].
6. P.P.C. Haanappel, "The Transformation of Sovereignty in the Air". In: The Use of Air and Outer Space Cooperation and Competition: Proceedings of the International Conference on Air and Outer Space at the Service of World Peace and Prosperity, Chia-Jui Cheng ed. ( Beijing: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998).
7. Josef L. Kunz, “The Chaotic Status of the Laws of War and the Urgent Need for Their Revision,” 45 American Journal of International Law [1951].

Web pages

1.      [http://www.resource4aviationlaw.com/topics/historyofaviation.pdf, accessed on at 1^st January 2010].

2.      [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4172487.stm, accessed on 10 January 2010].

3.      [http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1975/nov-dec, accessed on 21 November 2010].

Cases

1.      The U-2 Case, 56 (1960) , A. J. I. L. 135.

2.      The Libyan Airlines Tragedy, (1973).

3.      The Korean Airlines Flight 007 Incident, 33(1984) I.C.L.Q, 712.

4.      Harnandez v. Air France, 1976, 14 Avi, 421.

INDEX

A

Anchorage

Angel Flight

B

Bermuda

Bilateral negotiations

Brisbane

C

Cabotage

Cargo

Caribbean

Chicago Convention

Cold War

Cornucopia

D

E

F

Frankfurt

G

Global Positioning Satellite

H

Hostages

Humanitarian purposes

I

J

Jurists

Jus ad bellum

K

Kangaroo Route

L

Leonardo da Vinci

M

Mexico City

N

Navy

Neutralized zones

Nuclear

O

Open-skies

Ordinarily civilian

Orrville Wright

P

Passenger services

Peace Pact

Protocols

R

Red Cross

Rotor-blade

S

Safety zones

Senate

Skyjacking

Solo flying

T

Takeoff

U

V

W

Wilbur

Insufficiency of this Assignment:

Some points are missing, e.g.

1. Liability of Compensation  

---

[1] [http://www.resource4aviationlaw.com/topics/historyofaviation.pdf, Last visited at 1^st January 2010].

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] I.A.S. [1957], Q.7.

[5] S. K. Kapoor, International Law & Human Rights [Nutshell], 12 ed.  [Allahbad: Central Law Agency, 1998], p.121.

[6] Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Fifth Edition, [Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008], p. 354.

[7] Article 1,2,3,5,6,17,18 of The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944.

[8] P.C.S. [1984] O. 6.

[9] Malcolm N. Shaw, ibid, p. 356.

[10] International Air Services Transit Agreement [IASTA], Article 1, Section 1.

[11] International Air Services Transit Agreement - list of signatory states. The document is not dated, but includes Kazakhstan, which notified the U.S. Secretary of States of its acceptance of the treaty in July 2007.

[12] P.P.C. Haanappel, "The transformation of sovereignty in the air". In: The Use of Air and Outer Space Cooperation and Competition: Proceedings of the International Conference on Air and Outer Space at the Service of World Peace and Prosperity, Chia-Jui Cheng ed. ( Beijing: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998), p.23.

[13] IASTA, Article I, Section 4.

[14] Bijan Vasigh, Tom Tacker, Ken Fleming. Introduction to Air Transport Economics: From Theory to Applications. (Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2008), p.156.

[15] Overflight Fees [FAA].

[16] New Zealand Government: "Agreement allows unlimited UK flights".

[17] Alone E.Evans, “Aircraft Hijacking: Its Causes and Cure”, American Journal of International Law, Vol.63 [1969], p.695.

[18] Sami Shubber, “Is Hijacking of Aircraft Piracy in International Law,”? British Year Book of International Law, Vol. XLii [1968-69], p.193.

[19] S.C. Chaturvedi, “Hijacking and the Law”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning. Vol.11 [1971], p.89.

[20] S. K. Kapoor, ibid, p.309.

[21] The Text of The Montreal Convention: American Journal of International Law, [1971], pp. 742-48.

[22] Sushma Malik, “Legal Aspects of the Problems of Unlawful Salzure of Aircraft”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning. [1969], p. 61 at pp. 65-71; also A. Samuel, “Crimes Committed on Board”.

[23] Sami Shubber, “Aircraft Hijacking under the Hague Convention, 1970 – A New Regime”. I.C.L. Q., Vol.22 Part 4, [1973] p. 687 at p.725.

[24] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4172487.stm, accessed on 10 January 2010].

[25] 56 (1960) , A.J.I.L. 135.

[26] D. J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 4^th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998), p. 241.

[27] Israel was condemned by ICAO Council Resolution of June 4, 1973.

[28] D. J. Harris, ibid, p.241.

[29] 33(1984) I.C.L.Q, 712.

[30] D. J. Harris, ibid, p.242.

[31] 1976, 14 Avi, 421.