<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>KluwerLawOnline.com - Air and Space Law</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/Journals/Air+and+Space+Law/18</link>
<description>Provides a forum for practitioners and scholars who are dealing with the international legal aspects of air and space law. The focus is on the study and practice of relevant law, aviation policy, and the civil, commercial, administrative, and criminal aspects of air and space law developments.</description>
<language>en-gb</language>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
<item>
<title>Implications of Chinese Civil Cases on Article 35 of the Montreal Convention 1999 [pre-publication]</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025021</link>
<category>Air and Space Law</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>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
twenteith 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.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 50 Online ISSN 0927-3379</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025021</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Will the Second Trump Administration Cooperate With China in the Space Sphere: An Empirical Approach [pre-publication]</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025020</link>
<category>Air and Space Law</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>This article
investigates whether the second Trump Administration will cooperate with China
in the space sphere through an empirical approach. The main empirical
methodology is drawn from a previous theme-based study by Holland and Burns,
which codes the themes of the US Space Policy papers into five categories:
competition with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (the former
USSR), American prestige, international collaboration, American leadership, and
a new paradigm. The previous study spanned from the Eisenhower Administration
to the Obama Administration. The article adopts the said methodology, provides
certain critiques, and supplements the data from the first Trump administration
and Biden administration, upon which the article further predicts the
orientation of space policymaking in the second Trump administration towards
the angle of international cooperation with China on paper, but flow between
competition and cooperation in practice. In conclusion, the article proposes
that China and the US will enter into a new phase of cooperation and
competition in the new space era. The latest example of China’s Space Station
(CSS) will be taken into consideration<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 50 Online ISSN 0927-3379</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025020</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>European Space Puzzle: Evaluation of the Space-Related Institutional Players in Europe [pre-publication]</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025013</link>
<category>Air and Space Law</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>This paper examines the organizational architecture of the European space activities, to evaluate whether the current status quo can facilitate a ‘United Europe in Space’ and ‘United Space in Europe’, as coined by former European Space Agency (ESA) Director General Jan Wörner. To achieve this goal, the paper compares the purposes and competencies of space-related institutional players in Europe, that is, the ESA, three bodies of the European Union (EU), namely the European Commission (EC), the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), and the Member States of ESA and the EU, and assesses whether their functions adequately address all relevant aspects or result in excessive overlap in their tasks. This paper concludes with the assignment of specific roles to institutional players, a discussion on persisting legal issues and whether there is a need for an overarching consulting mechanism to ensure collective efforts and ultimately help the European continent become a spacepower.&nbsp;</i></p>Volume 50 Online ISSN 0927-3379</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025013</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Article: <i>Marcela Diaz, et al. v. Miami Air Int’l, Inc<i>., No. 3:21-cv-413-YJC-SJH, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2024 WL 4651871(M.D. Fla. 1 Nov. 2024) [pre-publication]</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025014</link>
<category>Air and Space Law</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><font face="AdvOTecfccdcf_I, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><i>A United States federal court in the Eleventh Circuit recently weighed in on the issue regarding recovery of mental injury damages under Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention (MC). In litigation arising from the Miami Air International (MAI) Flight 293 accident in Jacksonville, Florida, the court granted MAI’s motion for partial summary judgment, (No. 3:21-cv-413- TJC-SJH, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2024 WL 4651871 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2024)), holding that mental injury damages are recoverable only when they flow from a physical injury caused by an Article 17 accident. The court joined the majority view in the United States and expressly rejected the outlier opinion in Doe v. Etihad Airways, (870 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2017)), which had interpreted Article 17(1)’s text as allowing recovery for unrelated mental injuries provided the passenger sustains a physical injury.</i></span></font></p>Volume 50 Online ISSN 0927-3379</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025014</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bracing for Impact: The Montreal Convention 1999 a Quarter of a Century Later: An Insurance Perspective [pre-publication] </title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025015</link>
<category>Air and Space Law</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>The year 2024 marked
the twenty-fifth anniversary since the Montreal Convention 1999 was drafted and
opened for signature. The attempts to modernize the Warsaw Convention Regime
have been largely successful. One aspect of the Convention that has received
comparatively less attention has been its interaction with aviation insurers.
From its inception, the Convention has earnestly attempted to ensure continuity
with its predecessor and safeguard its stated objective of legal uniformity in
determining that the liability of an airline to its passengers and shippers is
maintained. This is an important objective for insurers as legal certainty in
assessing such liability and particularly the determination of jurisdiction is
prized by insurers as they analyse, rate the premium, and, in this article’s
context, adjust claims in the aftermath of a loss. At the same time, the
remarkable improvement in the operational safety of air travel has, from an
insurer’s perspective, required consideration of a partial repurposing of the
Convention’s value in addressing the handling and adjustment of the smaller, so-called
every day, claims that airline and their insurers typically face. Together with
the explosion in passenger numbers, heightened consumer awareness and a
re-evaluation of the impact of mental health during the intervening twenty-five
years, it is a repurposing that is necessary to ensure the Convention maintains
its relevance in the future.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 50 Online ISSN 0927-3379</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025015</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Article: S. et al. v. Ukraine International Airlines JSC and the Montreal Convention’s Article 21(2) Defences [pre-publication] </title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025016</link>
<category>Air and Space Law</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>In S. et al. v.
Ukraine International Airlines JSC (2024 ONSC 3303), the Ontario Superior Court
held the airline failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, pursuant to
Article 21(2) of the Montreal Convention, it was not negligent in operating
Flight PS752 that departed Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport (IKA),
Iran on 8 January 2020. Whereafter, Flight PS752 was shot down by surface to
air missiles fired by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 50 Online ISSN 0927-3379</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025016</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Book review: <i>Practical Aviation & Aerospace Law</i>, by J. Scott Hamilton & Sarah Nilsson. (8th edn. Newcastle, Washington, United States:Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc. 2024) [pre-publication]</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025017</link>
<category>Air and Space Law</category>
<description>Volume 50 Online ISSN 0927-3379</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025017</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Book Review: <i>Fundamentals of International Aviation Law and Policy</i>, by Benjamyn I. Scott and Andrea Trimarchi (Series Editor Dr Suzanne Kearns). (Second Edition. Series ‘Aviation Fundamentals’ New York:Routledge. 2025) [pre-publication]</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025018</link>
<category>Air and Space Law</category>
<description>Volume 50 Online ISSN 0927-3379</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Air+and+Space+Law/50.2 [pre-publication]/AILA2025018</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>