Investigation and Adjudication of Claims Related to Airline Liability

The expansion of air transportation has demonstrated the necessity of international regulations in aviation. However, the existing regulations in this area have primarily focused on public international air law. With the increasing volume of passenger transportation by air, attention has also turned to private international air law. Although the majority of liability principles within the international legal system have been drafted in a manner acceptable to both common law and civil law countries, the drafters of international instruments have not reached a satisfactory consensus regarding the definition of certain key concepts and terms in the relevant international documents that would be acceptable to both legal systems. Consequently, they delegated the task of defining and interpreting terms such as "accident" to the courts. Therefore, this section of the article aims to clarify that the absence of precise definitions for these terms and concepts reflects the flexibility of the Warsaw–Montreal regime, which has enabled many countries to ratify and implement it. Courts adjudicating claims related to international air transportation are thus permitted to define and interpret the key terms and concepts in international instruments based on the principles of their own legal systems and in consideration of their national conditions. Despite the presence of multiple terms in the Warsaw Convention, a useful jurisprudence has developed over seventy years in the United States and other countries regarding some of these concepts. The Montreal Convention also did not define or clarify these key and general terms, although some aviation legal scholars believe that the Montreal Conference represented a significant opportunity to define such terms, thereby reinforcing uniformity in international regulations. The drafters of the Montreal Convention justified the omission by arguing that comprehensive and exhaustive definitions were not feasible and emphasized that any attempt to define these terms could conflict with established judicial interpretations, potentially causing further difficulties for the courts. They also emphasized that allowing for the clarification of facts and interpretation of relevant issues may lead to legal development in this field. This article examines the process and procedures for adjudicating claims related to airline liability and concludes with relevant findings and conclusions.The expansion of air transportation has demonstrated the necessity of international regulations in aviation. However, the existing regulations in this area have primarily focused on public international air law. With the increasing volume of passenger transportation by air, attention has also turned to private international air law. Although the majority of liability principles within the international legal system have been drafted in a manner acceptable to both common law and civil law countries, the drafters of international instruments have not reached a satisfactory consensus regarding the definition of certain key concepts and terms in the relevant international documents that would be acceptable to both legal systems. Consequently, they delegated the task of defining and interpreting terms such as "accident" to the courts. Therefore, this section of the article aims to clarify that the absence of precise definitions for these terms and concepts reflects the flexibility of the Warsaw–Montreal regime, which has enabled many countries to ratify and implement it. Courts adjudicating claims related to international air transportation are thus permitted to define and interpret the key terms and concepts in international instruments based on the principles of their own legal systems and in consideration of their national conditions. Despite the presence of multiple terms in the Warsaw Convention, a useful jurisprudence has developed over seventy years in the United States and other countries regarding some of these concepts. The Montreal Convention also did not define or clarify these key and general terms, although some aviation legal scholars believe that the Montreal Conference represented a significant opportunity to define such terms, thereby reinforcing uniformity in international regulations. The drafters of the Montreal Convention justified the omission by arguing that comprehensive and exhaustive definitions were not feasible and emphasized that any attempt to define these terms could conflict with established judicial interpretations, potentially causing further difficulties for the courts. They also emphasized that allowing for the clarification of facts and interpretation of relevant issues may lead to legal development in this field. This article examines the process and procedures for adjudicating claims related to airline liability and concludes with relevant findings and conclusions.

کلیدواژه ها:

Adjudication procedure ، claims ، liability ، airlines