曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

At the 36th Session of the ICAO Assembly held in Montreal from 18 to 28 September 2007, the Assembly adopted Resolution A 36-13 (Consolidated state-ment of continuing ICAO policies and associated practices related speci.cally to air navigation) which superseded Resolution A 35-14 which noted inter alia that the airspace as well as many facilities and services should be used in common by civil aviation and military aviation and resolved that the common use by civil and military aviation of airspace and of certain facilities and services shall be arranged so as to ensure the safety, regularity and ef.ciency of international traf.c.470
With regard to Conventions other than the Chicago Convention, one can see some provisions which are relevant to the discussion on the distinction between civil and military aircraft, the latter of which, by implication, includes UAVs. The Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft (Geneva, 1948),471 the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (Tokyo, 1963),472 the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (The Hague, 1970)473 and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of CivilAviation (Montreal, 1971),474 all contain
468Assembly Resolutions in Force (as of 8 October 2004), ICAO Doc 9848, ICAO Montreal, at
II-2.
469Assembly Resolutions in Force (as of 8 October 2004), ICAO Doc 9848, ICAO Montreal,
at II-12.

470Assembly 36th Session, A 36-TE, Report of the Technical Commission (Report Folder),
Resolution A 36-13, Appendix O at 36-19.
471The Convention entered into force on 17 September 1953. See http://www.mcgill.ca/.les/iasl/
geneva1948.pdf.

472Signed at Tokyo on 14 September 1963. See ICAO Doc. 8364.
473Signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970. See ICAO Doc. 8920.
474Signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971. See ICAO Doc. 8966.

a provision that “this Convention shall not apply to aircraft used in military, customs or police services.” This appears to be a more simple way to indicate the scopeof applicabilityof theseConventions thanthe provisionsof Article3(a)and
(b) of the Chicago Convention, although the end result seems to be the same. Furthermore, the clear implication is that all aircraft not so used would be subject to the provisions of the respective Conventions.
The Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface (Rome, 1952)475 states in Article 26 that, “this Convention shall not apply to damage caused by military, customs or police aircraft.” It should be noted that a “military, customs or police aircraft” is not necessarily the same thing as an “aircraft used in military, customs and police services” although again the expres-sion “military, customs or police aircraft” was left unde.ned. Similarly, other “state” aircraft fall within the scope of the Convention. However, the 1978 Protocol to amend this Convention reverts to more familiar language; it would amend Article 26 by replacing it with, “this Convention shall not apply to damage caused by aircraft used in military, customs and police services.”
The Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to the Precaution-ary Attachment ofAircraft (Rome, 1933) provides that certain categories of aircraft are exempt from precautionary attachment, including aircraft assigned exclusively to a government service, including postal services, but not commercial aircraft. On the other hand, the Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to Assistance and Salvage of Aircraft or by Aircraft at Sea (Brussels), l938 “apply to government vessels and aircraft, with the exception of military, customs and police vessels or aircraft ...”
The Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage By Air (Warsaw, 1929)476 applies, inter alia to all international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward, regardless of the classi.cation of the aircraft. Article 2 speci.cally provides that the Convention applies to carriage performed by the State or by legally constituted public bodies, but by virtue of the Additional Protocol, Parties may make a declaration at the time of rati.cation or accession that Article2(1) shall not applyto internationalcarriage performed directly by the State. The Hague Protocol of 1955 to amend this Convention, in Article XXVI allows a State to declare that the Convention as amended by the Protocol shall not apply to the carriage of persons, cargo and baggage for its military authorities on aircraft, registered in that State, the whole capacity of which has been reserved by or on behalf of such authorities. Identical provisions are contained, mutatis mutandis, in the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 (Article XXIII) the 1975 AdditionalProtocol No.2(Montreal), the 1975 Additional
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(129)