مبنای مسئولیت متصدی ‌حمل هوایی در اسناد بین‌المللی: تأملی بر یک ابهام

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار، گروه حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

10.22059/jcl.2025.400605.634794

چکیده

مسئولیت متصدی‌ حمل‌ هوایی از زمان امضای کنوانسیون ورشو تاکنون دستخوش تغییرات اساسی شده است. از دهۀ 1960 با ظهور ایدۀ مسئولیت بدون تقصیر در صنعت هوانوردی، نوعی دوگانگی برای توصیف این نوع از مسئولیت در آثار حقوقی شکل گرفت، به نحوی که در برخی منابع مبنای مسئولیت، محض و در برخی دیگر مطلق توصیف گردید. لذا این سؤال مطرح می‌شود که آیا در حوزۀ هوانوردی، مفاهیم مسئولیت مطلق و محض مترادف قلمداد می‌شوند؟ در صورت عدم ترادف، مسئولیت تعریف‌‌شده در اسناد بین‌المللی خصوصاً کنوانسیون مونترال با کدام‌یک از مفاهیم یادشده سازگارتر است؟ گرچه در برخی منابع، این مفاهیم مترادف محسوب شده‌اند، لیکن مفاهیم پیش‌گفته از حیث میزان دفاعیاتِ قابل ‌استناد و کیفیت رابطۀ سبییت متفاوت‌اند. در مسئولیت محض تمام دفاعیات معمول همچون فورس ماژور در دسترس است، اما در مسئولیت مطلق طبق رویکرد کامن‌لایی هیچ دفاعی قابل ‌استناد نیست. لیکن طبق رویکرد بین‌المللی صرفاً دفاعیات محدود تجویزشده از سوی کنوانسیون یا قانون مربوطه قابل استنادند. همچنین در مسئولیت محض برقراری رابطۀ سببیت باید بین فعل شخص مسئول و خسارت برقرار باشد، ولی در مسئولیت مطلق وجود رابطۀ سببیت بین شرایط مقرر و خسارت الزامی است. نگارندۀ پژوهش حاضر مبنای مسئولیت متصدی‌ حمل را در چارچوب کنوانسیون مونترال با مفهوم مسئولیت مطلق سازگارتر می‌داند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Basis of Air Carrier Liability in International Documents: A Reflection on an Ambiguity

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohammad Arian
Assistant Prof., International Commercial Law Dept., Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The air carrier liability system has undergone fundamental changes since the signing of the Warsaw Convention. Since the 1960s, with the emergence of the idea of liability without fault in the aviation industry, a kind of duality has been created to describe this type of liability in legal writing and judicial decisions, in a way that in some sources the basis of liability was described as strict and in others as absolute. This situation raises the question of whether the concepts of absolute and strict liability are considered synonymous in the field of aviation? If not, which idea is more appropriate to describe the liability defined for the air carrier in international documents, especially the Montreal Convention? Although in some sources, the concepts are considered synonymous, they differ in terms of the number of available defenses and the quality of the causal link. In strict liability, all the usual defenses, including force majeure, are available, but in absolute liability, according to the common law approach, no defense can be invoked, but according to the international approach, only limited defenses prescribed by the relevant convention or law can be invoked. Also, in strict liability, a causal link must exist between the act of the responsible person and the damage, while in absolute liability, a causal relationship between the prescribed conditions and the damage is mandatory. This research considers the basis of air carrier liability within the framework of the Montreal Convention to be more consistent with the concept of absolute liability.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Air Carrier
  • Aviation Industry
  • Strict Liability
  • Absolute Liability
  • Liability without Fault

مراجع

  1. Books
    1. Abeyratne Ruwantissa (2019). Legal Priorities in Air Transport. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
    2. Ashworth Andrew & Horder Jeremy (2013). Principles of Criminal Law. 7th, Oxford University Press.
    3. Clarke Malcolm (2010). Contracts of Carriage by Air. 2nd, Informa Law Publication.
    4. Dempsey Paul Stephen & Milde Michael (2005). International Air Carrier Liability: The Montreal Convention of 1999, McGill University press.
    5. Drion H. (1954). Limitation of Liabilities in International Air Law. Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
    6. Elliott Catherine & Quinn Frances (2017). Tort Law. 11th, Pearson Education Limited.
    7. Epstein Richard A., & Sharkey Catherine M. (2020). Cases and Materials on Torts. 12th, Aspen Publishing.
    8. Goedhuis D. (1937). National Air Legislations and the Warsaw Convention. Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
    9. Gray Anthony (2021). The Evolution from Strict Liability to Fault in the Law of Torts. Hart Publishing.
    10. Harakas Andrew John (2017). Air Carrier Liability for Passenger Injury or Death Occurring during International Carriage by Air: An Overview of the Montreal Convention of 1999, in Andrew John Harakas (ed.), Litigating the Aviation Case, 4th, ABA Book Publishing.
    11. Harpwood Vivienne (2000). Principles of Tort Law. 4th, Cavendish Publishing Limited.
    12. Horner Robert C. & Kegrez Didier (1975). Second International Conference on Private Aeronautical Law: Minutes. Fred B. Rothman & Co. publications.
    13. Leloudas George (2009). Risk and Liability in Air Law. Informa Law Publication.
    14. Mankiewicz Rene H. (1970). Yearbook of Air and Space Law-1967. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
    15. McDougal Myers S. & Lasswell Harold D. (1963). Law and Public Order in Space. Yale University Press.
    16. Miller Georgette (1977). Liability in International Air Transport: The Warsaw System in Municipal Courts, Kluwer Publication.
    17. Pearson Michael W. & Riley Daniel S. (2015). Foundation of Aviation Law, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
    18. Schmalenbach Kirsten (2023). Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. in Peter Gailhofer et Al. (eds), Corporate Liability for Transboundary Environmental Harm: An International and Transnational Perspective, Springer Publications.
    19. Williams Glanville (1976). Foundations of the Law of Tort. London, Butterworths.

     

    • Articles
    1. Abafat Rasoul (1397). Air Transport Contract in Iranian Legal System. Civil Law Knowledge Journal, 7 (2),11-27. DOI: 30473/clk.2018.5420 (In Persian).
    2. Abdollahi Mohsen & Hosseini Seyed Mohamad (2015). International Responsibility of States for Damages Caused by Space Debris and the Dispute Resolution Mechanism thereof, Public Law Studies Quarterly, 45 (4), 533-562. DOI: 22059/jplsq.2016.56439 (In Persian).
    3. Andemariam Senai W. (2006). Does the Montreal Convention of 1999 Require That a Notice Be Given to Passengers- What Is the Validity of Notice of a Choice of Forum Clause under Montreal 1999. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 71 (2), 251-294.
    4. Baden Naneen K. (1996). The Japanese Initiative on the Warsaw Convention. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 61 (2), 437-466.
    5. Badini Hassan & Jafari Chaleshtori Mahmood (2018). An Analytical and Critical Analysis of International Instruments Governing Liability and Compensation of Oil Pollution Caused by Maritime Transport. International Law Review, 35 (58), 89-113. DOI: 22066/cilamag.2018.31684 (In Persian).
    6. Barnes David H; Gebo Mark G. & Myers Thomas D. (1976). The Warsaw Convention: A New Look at Jurisdiction under Articles 17 and 28 and the Problem of Manufactures’ Liability. Cornell International Law Journal, 9 (2), 251-297.
    7. Bin Othman Mohd Bahrin (2001). The Warsaw Convention 1929: Limitation of the Air Carrier's Liability in Death & Personal Injury of the Passenger. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, (28),87-100.
    8. Booth Dean (1974). The Guatemala Protocol Amendments and Other Affects at the Warsaw Convention. International Business Lawyer, 2 (1), 78-87.
    9. Boyle Robert P. (1975). The Guatemala Protocol to the Warsaw Convention. California Western International Law Journal, 6 (1), 41-85.
    10. Buff Andrea L. (1997). Reforming the Liability Provisions of the Warsaw Convention: Does the IATA Intercarrier Agreement Eliminate the Need to Amend the Convention. Fordham International Law Journal, 20 (5), 1768-1838.
    11. Cahn Jeffrey A. (1985). Saks: A Clarification of the Warsaw Convention Passenger Liability Standards. University of Miami Inter American Law Review, 16 (3), 539-558.
    12. Cha Lincoln H. (1936). The Air Carrier's Liability to Passengers in International Law. Air Law Review, 7 (1), 25-65.
    13. Cheng Bin (1981). A Reply to Charges of Having Inter Alia Misused the Term Absolute Liability in Relation to the 1966 Montreal Inter-Carrier Agreement in My Pleas for an Integrated System of Aviation Liability. Annals of Air and Space Law, (6), 3-14.
    14. Cheng Bin (1990). Sixty Years of the Warsaw Convention: Airline Liability at the Crossroads (Part II). German Journal of Air and Space Law, 39 (1), 3-39.
    15. Cheng Bin (1993). Air Carriers’ Liability for Passenger Injury or Death: The Japanese Initiative and Response to the Recent EC Consultation Paper. Air and Space Law Journal, 18 (3), 109-122.
    16. Cheng Bin (2004). A New Era in the Law of International Carriage by Air: From Warsaw (1929) to Montreal (1999). International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53 (4), 833-860.
    17. Christol Carl Q. (1980). International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. American Journal of International Law, 74 (2), 346-371.
    18. Cohen David (1983). Montreal Protocol: The Most Recent Attempt to Modify the Warsaw Convention. Air and Space Law Journal, 8 (3), 146-168.
    19. Dashab, Mehryar; Mohammadi Mehrdad & Najafi Vahideh (2018). The Liability of Air Carrier in International Law. Moaʹhede Legal Research Quarterly, 2 (3), 31-53 (In Persian).
    20. Debusschere Andre G. (1994). Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. Journal of International Law and Practice, 3 (1), 97-110.
    21. De Leon Pablo Mendes & Eyskens Werner (2001). The Montreal Convention: Analysis of Some Aspects of the Attempted Modernization and Consolidation of the Warsaw System. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 66 (3), 1155-1185.
    22. DesBois L. Cameron (1997). The New IATA Intercarrier Regime on Passenger Liability: From a Canadian Perspective. Annals of Air and Space Law, (22), 71-76.
    23. Dolan Thomas J. (1984). Warsaw Convention Liability Limitations: Constitutional Issues. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 6 (3), 896-929.
    24. Field Andrew (2005). Air Travel, Accidents and Injuries: Why the New Montreal Convention Is Already Outdated, Dalhousie Law Journal, 28 (1), 69-98.
    25. Fincher James N. (1997). Watching Liability Limits under the Warsaw Convention Fly Away, and the IATA Initiative. Transnational Lawyer, 10 (2), 309-330.
    26. FitzGerald Gerald F. (1971), The Guatemala City Protocol to Amend the Warsaw Convention, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 9,217-251.
    27. Fitzgerald Gerald F. (1976). The Four Montreal Protocols to Amend the Warsaw Convention Regime Governing International Carriage by Air. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 42 (2), 273-350.
    28. Gardiner Richard (1998). Revising the Law of Carriage by Air: Mechanisms in Treaties and Contract. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 47 (2), 278–305.
    29. Goldie L.F.E. (1985). Concepts of Strict and Absolute Liability and the Ranking of Liability in Terms of Relative Exposure to Risk. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, (16), 175–248.
    30. Hardy Michael (1963). The Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 12 (3), 778-788.
    31. Jabbari Mansour & Shoarian Ebrahim (2011). Legal Aspects for Iran to Ratify the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air. International Journal of Humanities, 18 (2), 1-18.
    32. Kaftal Andre (1934). Liability and Insurance: The Relation of Air Carrier and Passenger. Air Law Review, 5 (2), 157-166.
    33. Koning Ingrid (2008). Liability in Air Carriage: Carriage of Cargo Under the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions. Air & Space Law Journal, 33 (4-5), 318-345.
    34. Kreindler Lee S. (1973). Recent Developments in Aerial Hijacking: The Issue of Liability. Akron Law Review, 6 (2), 157-161.
    35. Larsen Paul B. (1967). The Effect of the Montreal Agreement on the Consolidation of Private Air Law Conventions. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 33 (4), 633-642.
    36. Latchford Stephen (1935). The Warsaw Convention and the C.I.T.E.J.A.. Journal of Air Law, 6 (1), 79-93.
    37. Lee Maria (2000). Civil Liability of the Nuclear Industry. Journal of Environmental Law, 12 (3), 317-332.
    38. Lorenz Fritz G. (1940). German Air Law: A Case History. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 11 (3), 218-277.
    39. Lowenfeld Andreas F. & Mendelsohn Allan I. (1967). The United States and the Warsaw Convention. Harvard Law Review, 80 (3), 497-602.
    40. Mankiewicz René H. (1972). Warsaw Convention: The 1971 Protocol of Guatemala City. American Journal of Comparative Law, 20 (2), 335-342.
    41. Masoudi Naser & Abafat Rasoul (1394). Comparative Study of Air Carrier Liability in International Documents and Islamic Law. Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law Quarterly, 8 (3), 79-102 [In Persian]
    42. Mazaroff Stanley (1969). Exonerations from Liability for Damage Caused by Space Activities. Cornell Law Review, 54 (1), 71-96.
    43. McKay Jennifer (2002). The Refinement of the Warsaw System: Why the 1999 Montreal Convention Represents the Best Hope for Uniformity. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 34 (1), 73-101.
    44. McCoy Harold V. (1975). Yes or No to Guatemala Protocol -Con. Forum, 10 (2), 739-770.
    45. Mendelsohn Allan I. (2011). Foreign Plaintiffs, Forum Non Conveniens, and the 1999 Montreal Convention. Air and Space Law, 36 (4), 293-303.
    46. Mercer Anthony G. (1994). The Montreal Protocols and the Japanese Initiative: Can the Warsaw System Survive? Air & Space Law Journal, 19 (6), 301-316.
    47. Milde Michael (1999). Liability in International Carriage by Air: The New Montreal Convention. Uniform Law Review, 4 (4), 835-862.
    48. Naboush Eman & Alnimer Raed (2020). Air Carrier’s Liability for the Safety of Passengers during COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Air Transport Management, (89),1-9.
    49. Neville Jonathan L. (1999). The International Air Transportation Association's Attempt to Modify International Air Disaster Liability: An Admirable Effort with an Impossible Goal. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 27 (3), 571-605.
    50. Nut Kathryn M. (1986). Air France v. Saks: An Accidental Interpretation of the Warsaw Convention. American University International Law Review, 1 (1), 195-213.
    51. Oner Joseph N. (1967). The Montreal Agreement and Enterprise Liability. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 33 (4), 603-606.
    52. Palmer Vernon (1988). General Theory of the Inner Structure of Strict Liability: Common Law, Civil Law, and Comparative Law. Tulane Law Review, 62 (6), 1303-1356.
    53. Panel Discussion (1995). The Japanese Initiative: Absolute Unlimited Liability in International Air Travel. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 60 (3), 819-868.
    54. Pastor M. Veronica (1993). Absolute Liability under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention: Where Does It Stop. George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, 26 (3), 575-596.
    55. Pereterski J. S. (1933). The Air Code of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Air Law Review, 4 (2), 153-165.
    56. Qabuli Dorafshan Sayyed Mohammad Mahdi & Rezadoost Vahid (2015). Comparative Study of Determining the Responsible Person and the Basis of Compensation in Civil Liability Results from Events Related to Nuclear Facilities in Iran and French Law and International Instruments. Comparative Law Review, 6 (2), 725-750. DOI: 22059/jcl.2015.55786 (In Persian).
    57. Ravage Maurice et al. (1959). Report on the Warsaw Convention as Amended by the Hague Protocol. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 26 (3), 255-268.
    58. Reis Herbert (1978). Some Reflections on the Liability Convention for Outer Space. Journal of Space Law, 6 (2), 125-128.
    59. Reukema Barbara (1984). No New Deal on Liability Limits for International Flights. International Lawyer, 18 (4), 983-998.
    60. Sack Alexander N. (1933). International Unification of Private Law Rules on Air Transportation and the Warsaw Convention. Air Law Review, 4 (4), 345-388.
    61. Sincoff Milton G. (1966). Absolute Liability and Increased Damages in International Aviation Accidents. American Bar Association Journal, 52 (12), 1122-1125.
    62. Sipos Attila (2020). The Air Carrier's Liability for Damage Caused to Cargo, Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eotvos Nominatae: Sectio Iuridica, (59), 155-186.
    63. Sizer Biilent (1979). Consolidation of the Warsaw/Hague System, McGill Law Journal, 25 (2),217-235.
    64. Stephen John E. (1967). The Montreal Conference and International Aviation Liability Limitations. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 33 (4), 554-593.
    65. Strantz N. J. (1992). Beyond R.v. Sault Ste. Marie: The Creation and Expansion of Strict Liability and the Due Diligence Defense. Alberta Law Review, 30 (4),1233-1257.
    66. Szasz Paul C. (1971). The Convention on the Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 2 (3), 541-570.
    67. Taghi Zadeh Ebrahim (2006). The Basis of the Carrier's Liability in Islamic law. Journal of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Law, (4), 131-142 (In Persian).
    68. Weigand Tory A. (2000). The Modernization of the Warsaw Convention and the New Liability Scheme for Claims Arising out of International Flight. Massachusetts Law Review, 84 (4), 175-190.
    69. Wilberforce R. O. (1947). The International Technical Committee of Experts in Air Law. International Law Quarterly, 1 (4), 498-513.
    70. Winfield Percy H. (1926). The Myth of Absolute Liability. Law Quarterly Review, 42 (1), 37-51.
    71. Woodside II Frank C. et al. (2003). Why Absolute Liability under Rylands v. Fletcher Is Absolutely Wrong. University of Dayton Law Review, 29 (1), 1-36.
    72. Wright Davis L. (2001). Flying the Overly Friendly Skies: Expanding the Definition of an Accident under the Warsaw Convention to Include Co-Passenger Sexual Assaults. Villanova Law Review, 46 (2), 453-486.
    73. Yazdanian Alireza & Habibian Hedieh (2011). Some Considerations on the Compensation for the Nuclear Damages Based on International Conventions of Nuclear Civil Liability. Journal of Legal Research, 10 (19), 59-86 (In Persian).

     

    • Cases
    1. Air Fr. v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985).
    2. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871 (Alaska 1979).
    3. Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983 932 F.2d 1475.
    4. Lunt v. Brady Manufacturing Corp., 13 Ariz. App. 305 (1970).
    5. Maas v. Dreher, 10 Ariz. App. 520 (1969).
    6. Morrow v. Trailmobile, Inc., 12 Ariz. App. 578 (1970).
    7. O'ROURKE v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. 553 F. Supp. 226 (N.D.N.Y. 1982).
    8. Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868).
    9. Saks v. Air France, 724 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1984).
    10. Vineyard v. Empire Machinery Co., 119 Ariz. 502 (Ct.App.1978).
    11. Wallace v. Korean Air 214 F.3d 293 (2d Cir.2000), cert. denied, 69 U.S.L.W 3281 (U.S. Feb.20, 2001) (No.00-560);
    12. Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co., 402 N.E.2d 194 (1980).

     

    • Other References
    1. Council Regulation (EC) No.2027/97 on Air Carrier Liability in the Event of Accidents (9 Oct., 1997), Official Journal of the European Communities, L 285, 17/10/1997. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31997R2027.
    2. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), The 1997 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage- Explanatory Texts, IAEA Publications, 2020. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1906_web.pdf .
    3. IAEA, Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-liability-conventions/vienna-convention-on-civil-liability-for-nuclear-damage.
    4. International Atomic Energy Agency, Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, Official Records, International Conference, Vienna, 29 April-19 May 1963, 11 (IAEA Doc. Legal Series No. 2) (1964). https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub54web.pdf.
    5. International Expert Group on Nuclear Liability (INLEX), A Collective View on the First Two Decades, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2024. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/p15494-PUB2086_web.pdf.
    6. Report by the UNCTAD secretariat, Carriage of Goods by Air: A Guide to the International Legal Framework, Doc. No. UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/2006/1, 27 June 2006. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/sdtetlb20061_en.pdf.
    7. United States Senate, Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects: Analysis and Background Data, Staff Report for the Use of Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 16، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 32
پاییز و زمستان 1404
دی 1404
صفحه 409-432

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار