skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 63636 Find in a Library
Title: TERRORISM IN THE TERMINAL - AIRLINE LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 17 OF THE WARSAW CONVENTION
Journal: NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW  Volume:52  Issue:2  Dated:(1977)  Pages:283-305
Author(s): ANON
Corporate Author: New York University
Law Review
Managing Editor
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 23
Sponsoring Agency: New York University
New York, NY 10012
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS NOTE CONSIDERS AMERICAN JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 17 OF THE WARSAW CONVENTION GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL AIR CARRIERS' LIABILITY FOR PASSENGER INJURIES AND ENDORSES A LIMITED CONSTRUCTION.
Abstract: CITING TWO TERRORIST ATTACKS AT HELLENIKON AIRPORT, GREECE, AND AT LOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN TEL AVIV, ISRAEL, THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT COURT DECISIONS ARISING OUT OF LITIGATION BY RELATIVES OF THE INJURED PASSENGERS HAS ASSIGNED A WIDER SCOPE TO ARTICLE 17 OF THE WARSAW CONVENTION THAN WAS INTENDED. BOTH THE DAY AND EVANGELINOS DECISIONS FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE SHARED EXPECTATIONS OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE MISCONSTRUED TWO ESSENTIAL CONCERNS: THAT THE PASSENGER BE EXPOSED TO INHERENT RISKS OF AVIATION AT THE TIME OF INJURY AND THAT THE INJURY OCCUR IN AN AREA WITHIN THE AIRLINE'S SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE REVEALS THAT THE WARSAW CONFEREES, RESPONDING TO A RISING INTEREST IN A RISKY INDUSTRY, WERE CONCERNED WITH MAXIMIZING UNIFORMITY IN AN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND LIMITING LIABILITY. WARSAW DELEGATES, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE IDEA OF 'AERODROME TO AERODROME' LIABILITY AND FOCUSED UPON TWO FACTORS: PASSENGER EXPOSURE TO INHERENT AVIATION RISKS AT TIME OF INJURY AND AIRLINE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE AREA WHERE INJURIES OCCURRED. IN ADDITION, THE 1966 MONTREAL AGREEMENT CHANGED THE NATURE BUT NOT THE ORIGINAL SCOPE OF CARRIER LIABILITY--IT NEITHER ADDED TO THE TYPES OF INJURIES COVERED NOR BROADENED THE RANGE OF EVENTS WITHIN AIRLINE RESPONSIBILITY. WHILE HIJACKING AND SABOTAGE, THEREFORE, CAN BE CONSIDERED MODERN EXAMPLES OF INHERENT AVIATION RISKS, TERRORIST ATTACKS SUCH AS THOSE AT ATHENS, CANNOT PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CARRIER NOR WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 17 LIABILITY AS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED AND AMENDED. EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (AOP)
Index Term(s): Aircraft hijacking; Antiterrorist laws; Assassination; Bombings; Greece; Hijacking; International agreements; Israel; Personal Security/Self Protection; Piracy; Sabotage; Urban guerrilla warfare
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63636

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.