The temporal provision
outlined in Article 35 of the Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) and Article 29 of
the Warsaw Convention 1929 (WC29), which establishes a two-year period for the
initiation of legal proceedings and specifies the method for calculating this
period, has been a source of controversy since its introduction in the early twentieth
century. Globally, judicial practices have debated its legal nature,
specifically whether it constitutes a statute of limitations, or a statute of
repose or a condition precedent. Chinese courts generally interpret it as a
statute of limitations. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) in China has
issued a relevant model case concerning a dispute over an international air
carriage contract under MC99, which is remarked as a significant guidance for
the resolution of similar cases. This article delves into Chinese domestic
legal provisions and judicial practices regarding this matter. It begins by
examining the notable Chinese model case, followed by a comparative analysis of
practices in other jurisdictions. Finally, it seeks to identify the underlying
causes and factors that have shaped Chinese legal practice, as well as to
assess the broader implications and impacts of this approach.