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

In accordance with that recommendation and a suggestion of the Chairman of the Legal Committee, the Council, on 6 April 1951, referred the draft Convention to the ATC for consideration and report on the desirability, on economic and policy grounds, of the retention or modi.cation of Chapter III (Security for Operator’s Liability) and Article II (Limits of Liability) and on such other economic aspects as the Committee deemed appropriate for comment. The Council also decided not to request Contracting States to provide material to assist the ATC in its study of the two speci.c questions referred to it; however, on 20 June 1951, a questionnaire was
148See Vol. II, page 13 for the details of the meetings. 149These studies are listed in Vol. II, page 14.
circulated to States in order to obtain further factual information bearing on the
economic aspects of the convention.
The ATC studied the questions referred to it at its session of October–December 1951 during 11 meetings, and reported to the Council, which on 12 December 1951 approved comments on the economic aspects of the draft convention for transmis-sion to States. The Council reserved the possibility of further study of the expres-sion “in .ight” and of comment on other points.150

II. The Rome Convention of 1952
Even prior to ICAO’s coming into being in 1944, there existed a Rome Convention of 1933151
which provided that damage caused by an aircraft in .ight to persons or property on the surface gave rise to a right to compensation on proof only that damage exists and that it is attributable to the aircraft.152
This included damage caused by an object of any kind falling from the aircraft, including in the event of the proper discharge of ballast or of jettison made in case of necessity and instances where damage was caused to any person on board the aircraft. Exceptions were made in the case of an act unconnected with the management of the aircraft which was committed intentionally by a person other than a crew member and where inability of the operator, his servants or agents to prevent such an act was evident. For purposes of the Convention, the aircraft was deemed to be ‘in .ight’ from the beginning of the operations of departure until the end of the operations of arrival.153
The operator, on whom liability devolved, was considered to be any person who had the aircraft at his disposal and who made use of the aircraft for his own account. The Convention, although not based on principles of fault liability, mitigated damages if the person injured was found to have contributed to the damage by his own negligence.
Article 12 of the Convention required every aircraft registered in the territory of a high contracting party to obtain insurance coverage relating to .ight over the terri-tory of a high contracting party, determined upon liability limits set in Article 8 which made the operator liable for each occurrence up to an amount determined at the rate
150No supplementary comment was formulated by the Council.
151Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third
Parties
on
the
Surface,
signed
at
Rome
on
29
May
1933.
Weishaupt
(1979, p. 223). 152Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to Damage Caused by Aircraft to
Third Parties on the Surface, signed at Rome on 29 May 1933, Article 2. 153The meaning imputed to the words “beginning of the operations of departure until the end of the operations of arrival” is debatable. It is interesting that an earlier treaty, the Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention) signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 applies liability for accidents taking place on board the aircraft or any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. The word “on board” has been interpreted judicially in different circumstances. See Abeyratne (2001, pp. 197–198).
　
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(52)