Добавил:
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Carr I., Stone P. International Trade Law 2014-1.pdf
Скачиваний:
39
Добавлен:
20.12.2022
Размер:
6.5 Mб
Скачать

FURTHER READING

| 335

contained in the record preserved by such other means’. Provisions in respect of jurisdiction where cargo claims are involved are no different from the Warsaw regime.

The liability limits are also dealt with sensitively. Although the liability limits for cargo purposes were no different from the Warsaw regime, set at 17 SDRs per kilogram, using the Art 24 provision in the Montreal Convention, which enables periodic review at five-year intervals, the limits have recently been increased to 19 SDRs per kilogram. The flexibility introduced by Art 24 introduces a degree of realism into the instrument.

The Montreal Convention will apply to carriage by air where the place of departure and place of destination are situated in two contracting states. So, carriage by air from the UK to Switzerland (both contracting states) will be subject to the Montreal Convention, but a carriage from a contracting to a non-contracting state (e.g., from the UK to Ethiopia) will not attract its application. However, according to Art 1(2), a carriage within a single contracting state (a round trip originating in a contracting state) with an agreed stopping place in another state, even if it is a non-contracting state, will come within the ambit of the Montreal Convention.

The Montreal Convention has so far received well over 80 ratifications, and there is no doubt that, over time, it will come to replace the Warsaw regime in its entirety. Nevertheless, decisions under the Warsaw regime will continue to play a role in the future in aiding the interpretation of those provisions of the Montreal Convention that are similar, if not identical, to those found in the Warsaw system.

Further reading

Batra, ‘Modernization of the Warsaw system – Montreal 1999’ (2000) 65 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 429.

Buff, ‘Reforming the liability provisions of the Warsaw Convention: does the IATA Intercarrier Agreement eliminate the need to amend the Convention?’ (1997) 20 Fordham International LJ 1768.

Christy, ‘Changes in international air cargo: Montreal Protocol No 4 attains force of law’ (1999) 5 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 531.

Caplan, ‘The modernisation of the Warsaw Convention: the threat from ICAO’ (1997) 5(9) International Insurance LR 267.

Clarke and Yates, Contracts of Carriage by Land and Air, 2008, Informa.

Giemullaw, Schmid, Muller-Rostn, Dettling-Ott & Margo (eds) Montreal Convention, 2006, Wolters Kluwer (looseleaf).

Grant, ‘The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the IATA General Conditions of Carriage – a United Kingdom consumer’s perspective’ [1998] JBL 123.

Jones, ‘The US ratifi es Montreal Protocol No 4: a commentary’, available at www.forwarderlaw

.com.

Mankiewicz, The Liability Regime of the International Air Carrier, 1981, Kluwer.

Mauritz, ‘Current legal developments: the ICAO International Conference on Air Law, Montreal, May 1999’ [1999] Air and Space Law 153.

Mendelsohn and Lieux, ‘The Warsaw Convention Article 28: the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the foreign plaintiff’ (2003) 68 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 75.

Miller, Liability in International Air Transport, 1977, Kluwer. Palmer, On Bailment, 2009, Sweet & Maxwell.

Rueda, ‘The Warsaw Convention and electronic ticketing’ (2002) 67 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 401.

Shawcross and Beaumont, Air Law, loose leaf (3 vols) 1977, Lexis Nexis Butterworths. Whalen, ‘The new Warsaw Convention: the Montreal Convention’ [2000] Air and Space Law 17.

Соседние файлы в предмете Коммерческое право