We use cookies on this site to provide you with an informative and engaging experience and also to help us to continually improve our site for you. Without allowing cookies certain features of the site will not be available. To learn more about how we use cookies, please view our cookie policy. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, you consent to our use of cookies on this device in accordance with our policy.

Logo of Wolters Kluwer, Kluwer Law Online
Air and Space Law
Search content button

Home > All journals > Air and Space Law > 38(3) >

The Long Arm of the DOT: The Regulation of Foreign Air Carriers Beyond US Borders

Cover image ofAir and Space Law

$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *

$29.00 - Article (PDF) *

*service fee may apply
The Long Arm of the DOT: The Regulation of Foreign Air Carriers Beyond US Borders


Air and Space Law
Volume 38, Issue 3 (2013) pp. 173 – 227

https://doi.org/10.54648/aila2013015



Abstract

The European Union's plan to include foreign air carriers in its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) attracted considerable opposition based upon the ground of extraterritoriality, but it certainly was not the first effort to regulate air transportation beyond national borders. Notably, the United States - one of the most vigorous opponents of the application of ETS to its own air carriers - has a long history of imposing extraterritorial requirements on carriers from other nations. Although many of these proposals previously have been analyzed on an ad hoc basis, there has not been a comprehensive overview of them and their implications. This article contends that, post-deregulation, such proposals have become more common, even while the consequences of extraterritorial regulation may not have been fully considered. In recent years, Congress and Department of Transportation (DOT) often have proposed extraterritorial aviation obligations; the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by contrast, has been more restrained in its approach, although it also has proposed requirements that would reach beyond US borders. In some cases, statutes and regulations have been limited or withdrawn based on extraterritorial concerns, but in others, they have been adopted despite objections from foreign carriers and governments. As a consequence, the United States is now potentially vulnerable to accusations of inconsistency in its opposition to foreign proposals that would have the effect of regulating US-flag carriers.


Extract




Subscribe to this journal

Interested in a subscription? Contact our sales team

Browse by practice area
Share
Stay up to date


RSSETOC