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

The Delegation of the United States was of the opinion that this system imposed an unwarranted burden on aviation. This burden was not necessary for the proper protection of the public and was not consistent with the status of aviation which was playing an ever-growing part in the life of everyone, and which should be treated on the same basis as other activities of the same nature. Harold Caplan177
makes the point, referring to modernization of the 1952 Rome Convention, that incredibly the ICAO Working Group is following the analogy of a service to the public (such as a restaurant) with regard to aviation, which is expected to bear its own losses and also pay for the consequences in the event of a terrorist attack.
IV. The Montreal Protocol of 1978
ICAO convened, from 6 to 23 September 1978, an international Conference178
on private air law at is headquarters in Montreal which resulted in a Protocol to amend the Rome Convention of 1952. The Conference was the direct outcome of a request by the ICAO Council, made in 1964 to the Legal Committee, to study the Conven-tion which showed a marked lack of acceptance. Consequent to several sessions of the Legal sub-Committee in 1965 and 1966, the Legal Committee, in 1967 exam-ined issues arising from the sub-Committee’s meetings, particularly regarding the then contentious issue of the sonic boom, and other areas such as nuclear damage and liability. Following the Legal Committee’s work, the International Conference on Air Law in September 1978179
held eight plenary meetings. The main discus-sions of the Conference ranged from increasing the limits of the Rome Convention; making a clearer pronouncement in the Convention on sonic boom; the single
177Caplan (2004, p. 5).
178The Conference was attended by delegates from 58 States and observers from four organizations.
179See ICAO Doc. 9527. The Protocol opened for signature on 23 September 1978.

C. The Rome Convention of 1952
forum for litigation of claims; effect of increasing the limits on the cost of insurance; and achieving speci.city in de.nitions.180

According to FitzGerald, the International Conference on Air Law of 1978 demonstrated the serious dif.culties faced when one attempts to revise existing liability Conventions. He attributed the failure of these dif.culties to the inherent differences between States on economic issues.181

V. Modernizing the Rome Convention
During the 31st Session of the ICAO Legal Committee in September 2000, a formal proposal made by Sweden calling for the modernization of the 1952 Rome Con-vention under the aegis of ICAO received the endorsement of the Committee. Inspiration for initiating the modernization process was drawn from the adoption of the Montreal Convention of 1999,182
which the 30th Session of the Legal Committee in 1997 had initiated and which entered into force on 4 November 2003. The Legal Committee, at its 31st Session had recognized that the Montreal Convention183
enhanced the rights of claimants in respect of death or bodily injury of passengers, and that such rights should also be given formal recognition through treaty with regard to damage to third parties on the surface. Subsequently, in 2002, the Council considered a Secretariat study on the subject and agreed to establish a study group to assist the Secretariat in future work. The Secretariat developed a draft Convention with the assistance of this Study Group.
The draft Convention is similar in scope to the 1952 Convention and 1978 Protocol, and attributes liability to the State of registration of a foreign aircraft if it causes damage over the Exclusive Economic Zone of a State or over the high seas. A prominent feature of the text is that there are two operative systems of liability, one which introduces a two tier liability structure imposing liability for damages not exceeding 100,000 special drawing rights where liability is absolute and the carrier is expressly precluded from denying or limiting his liability, and one, in Chapter III which stipulates various layers of liability based on the weight of the aircraft causing the damage, in case of acts of unlawful interference. This dichotomy prompted one delegation to the 32nd Session of the Legal Committee (Montreal, 15–21 March 2004) to raise the question as to whether it was not preferable to have one basic system for determining all forms of compensation.184
　
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(63)