X hits on this document

PDF document

The Montreal Convention: The scram jet of aviation law - page 4 / 4





4 / 4

13 This paragraph will undoubtedly result in significant litigation with respect to the meaning and application of the various italicized terms. While an analysis of these issues is beyond the scope of the current article, suffice it to say that a Court will most-likely interpret these provisions similarly to the way in which similar Warsaw Convention provisions were interpreted. See, www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2003, John R. Byerly, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Affairs, Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C., June 17, 2003; see also, Wilson Elser Aviation Newsletter, November 2005, Ground Handling Services and the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, Franklin F. Bass and Adrienne N. Kitchen.

14 15 Olympic Airways v. Hussain, 540 U.S. 644, 124 S. Ct. 1221 (2004). For a general discussion of this issue see, www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/actu/articletxt.gb.asp?ART=26824, Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres (France), Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Deputy Spokesperson, Paris August 1st 2002.

16 See, Pablo Mendes De Leon, The Montreal Convention: Analysis of some aspects of the Attempted Modernization and Consolidation of the Warsaw System, 66 J. Air L & Comm. 1155.

This article is for general guidance only and does not contain definitive legal advice. Contact us at aviation@wilsonelser.com. © 2006 Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Document info
Document views8
Page views8
Page last viewedSat Oct 22 11:56:14 UTC 2016