不方便法院说在《蒙特利尔公约》下的适用——一个条约法的视角

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

周亚光¹

1.
西南政法大学国际法学院, 重庆 401120

基金项目:

国家社科基金课题“全球化视野下的国际航空运输责任法研究”（06BFX062）

Research on the Issue of the Applicability of the Doctrine of the Forum Non Conveniens in the Article 33 of Montreal Convention

ZHOU Yaguang¹

1.
School of International Law, Southwest University of Political Science And Law, Chongqing 401120, China

摘要:为统一国际航空运输管辖权规则，1999年《蒙特利尔公约》第33条一方面继承了1929年《华沙公约》第28条规定的4种管辖权规则，排除了不方便法院说等其他普通法系特殊规则的适用；另一方面又加入了旨在保护漫游的美国人的第五管辖权规则。美国法院在最近的判决中却试图割裂两个公约的内在联系，试图通过美国化的解释将不方便法院等特殊规则适用于所有管辖权规则。在条约法的视角下看，无论是从约文对原告在不同管辖权规则下的诉讼权利采取不同的措辞、从条约管辖权规则的统一性及旅客倾斜保护的目的追求、还是从条约的缔结过程对不方便法院说的妥协来看，不方便法院说的适用范围仅限于第五管辖权而不能扩及其他4种管辖权规则。
- 不方便法院说/
- 管辖权/
- 《蒙特利尔公约》
Abstract:For the unity of the rules of Jurisdiction in international air transport, article 33 of Montreal Convention 1999 inherited the article 28 of Warsaw Convention 1929, which prohibits the application of the doctrine of form non conveniens. For the purpose of protecting Americans, the fifth jurisdiction was incorporated in the MC99. In a recent case, U.S. court tried to separate the intrinsic link between the two conventions, holding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens could be applied in all of jurisdiction rules. From the perspective of treaty interpretation, there are four reasons which demonstrate such ruling was wrong. Firstly, the French version of MC99 on the different jurisdiction rules taking different words. Secondly, the purpose of unified jurisdiction and passenger protection and consumer protection show that the doctrine should not apply in four jurisdictions. Thirdly, Travaux Paratories indicated that codifying the doctrine was still suspending. All of the evidences show that the application room of the doctrine is limited to the fifth jurisdiction and can not extend to the other four jurisdictional rules. Thus, the practice of American courts is inconsistent with the MC99,which seriously derogated the unity of the treaty and the pursuit of protecting travelers.
- the doctrine of forum non conveniens/
- jurisdiction/
- Montreal Convention

[1]	Fawcett J J. Declining jurisdiction in private international law[M]. England:Oxford University Press,1995:10.
[2]	Allan I M,Carlos J R.The United States vs. France: article 33 of the Montreal convention and the doctrine of forum non conveniens[J]. Journal of Air Law & Commerce,2012,77(3):467-488.
[3]	Peter martin. Shawcross and beaumont:air law[M]. London:Butterworths Press,1977:412-413.
[4]	George N T.Liability rules applicable to international air transportation as developed by the courts in the United States-from Warsaw 1929 to Montreal 1999[M]. Netherlands:Kluwer Law International Press,2010:248-250.
[5]	Elmar Giemulla (ed).Warsaw convention commentary[M]. Netherlands:Kluwer Law Internatioanl Press,1992,Art.28.
[6]	王瀚. 华沙国际航空运输责任体制法律问题研究[M]. 陕西:陕西人民出版社,1998:307.
[7]	Andreas F L.A walk in the park with hans smit:of forum non conveniens and travaux paratories,of tactics and strategy,and greed[J]. American Review of International Arbitration,2012,23(3):452.
[8]	Pradhan D.Fifth jurisdiction under the Montreal liability convention: wandering American or wandering everybody[J]. Journal of Air Law & Commerce,2003,68(4):717.
[9]	ICAO. Doc. 9775/DC-2[R]. Montreal:ICAO,1999.
[10]	王瀚. 21世纪国际航空私法的新发展——关于1999年《蒙特利尔公约》航空责任运输立法的评论与分析(上)[J]. bob手机在线登陆学报:社会科学版,2011,13(4):76-77.
[11]	Jae W L,Joseph C W.Air carrier liability for delay: a plea to return to international uniformity[J]. Journal of Air Law & Commerce,2012,77(1):43-103.
[12]	Paul Stephen Dempsey. All alone the watchtower,forum non conveniens in international aviation[J]. Annals of Air and Space Law,2011(36):323-375.
[13]	Burke,John J A.Foreclosure of the doctrine of forum non conveniens under the brussels I regulation: advantages and disadvantages[J]. The European Legal Forum,2008,8(3):125.
[14]	Micheal Bogdan.Aircraft accident in the conflict of laws[M]. Netherlands:Martinus Nijihoff Press.1988:133.
[15]	Bin Chen. A new era in the lawf international carriage by air:form Warsaw(1929)to Montreal(1999)[J]. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2004,53(4):851.
[16]	James Bauding.Venue issues against negligent carriers-international and domestic travel:the plaintiff's choice[J]. Journal of Air Law & Commerce,1996,62(1):163.
[17]	Alain C,Julie L. French supreme restates rules on jurisdiction,recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions[J]. Family Law Quarterly 2010,44(1):83-91.
[18]	ICAO. International conference on air law-convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air-Montreal minutes[R]. Montreal:ICAO,2001:33.
[19]	Mendelsohn A I,Ruiz C J. 'US court rebuffs french high court's attack on forum non-conveniens doctrine[J]. Air & Space Law,2012,37(4):325-336.
[20]	Hu Zhen jie. Chinese perspectives on international jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in contractual matters: a comparative study of the relevant provisions of Chinese,Swiss and US Law,of the European conventions and of other international treaties:dissertation[M]. Zurich:Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag Press,1999:20-23.
[21]	David Mackenzie.ICAO: a history of the international civil aviation organization[M]. Toronto:University of Toronto Press,2010:474.

[1]	王金鹏.国家管辖范围外海洋保护区国际造法原理与中国方案. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2021, 23(3): 105-115.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2021.7670
[2]	龚向前.国家管辖范围外海域环境影响评价制度的构建逻辑. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2021, 23(3): 86-95.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2021.9685
[3]	毕文轩.网购收货地侵权管辖地之理论证成. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2020, 22(4): 156-164.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2020.1002
[4]	王俊, 冀洋.论共同正犯“部分实行全部责任”的归属逻辑——以反思“行为共同说与犯罪共同说”为中心. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2017, (2): 123-128,135.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2017.0217
[5]	张超汉, 张宗师.国际航空仲裁制度研究——兼评1999年《蒙特利尔公约》第34条. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2017, (4): 115-120.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2017.1643
[6]	程建.张载“诗说”的诠释特色. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2015, (3): 171-176.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2015.0325
[7]	郑派.论2014年《蒙特利尔议定书》对1963年《东京公约》的修订. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2015, (2): 105-114.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2015.0216
[8]	王国语.空间碎片管辖权及主动清除的法律依据. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2014, (6): 103-109.
[9]	江河, 荣盟.国际航空罪行管辖权的冲突及其变革——兼评《东京公约》管辖权条款的修订. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2014, (5): 114-119.
[10]	肖峰, 郑煜.论欧盟航空排放交易规则下的管辖权冲突——从欧盟法院航空碳税案说起. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2013, (4): 106-111.
[11]	张超汉.航空承运人强制责任保险制度之检讨与反思——纪念1999年《蒙特利尔公约》实施10周年. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2013, (5): 114-121.
[12]	李康斌.《蒙特利尔公约》下之韩国航空承运人责任制度. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2012, (5): 97-102.
[13]	于海防.涉网络合同案件地域管辖法院的确定——从传统理论与现实规范出发. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2011, (1): 101-105.
[14]	王瀚.21世纪国际航空私法的新发展(下)——关于1999年《蒙特利尔公约》航空责任运输立法的评论与分析. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2011, (5): 84-89,95.
[15]	王瀚.21世纪国际航空私法的新发展(上)——关于1999年《蒙特利尔公约》航空责任运输立法的评论与分析. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2011, (4): 76-84.
[16]	王晓怡, 陈君.受教育权及其司法救济. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2006, (3): 33-36.
[17]	赵秀梅.论抵押权的性质. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2005, (6): 50-52.
[18]	姜振颖.高校名称权保护探究. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2004, (4): 47-48.
[19]	廖波, 丛青茹.形象权问题初探. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2004, (6): 28-30.
[20]	李长江, 张玉萍.简论生育权及其立法构想. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2002, (2): 90-92.

点击查看大图

计量

文章访问数:630
HTML全文浏览量:1
PDF下载量:1132
被引次数:0

留言板

不方便法院说在《蒙特利尔公约》下的适用——一个条约法的视角

Research on the Issue of the Applicability of the Doctrine of the Forum Non Conveniens in the Article 33 of Montreal Convention

计量

不方便法院说在《蒙特利尔公约》下的适用——一个条约法的视角

1. 西南政法大学国际法学院, 重庆 401120

English Abstract

Research on the Issue of the Applicability of the Doctrine of the Forum Non Conveniens in the Article 33 of Montreal Convention

1. School of International Law, Southwest University of Political Science And Law, Chongqing 401120, China

目录

作者相关

写作规范

友情链接

留言板

不方便法院说在《蒙特利尔公约》下的适用——一个条约法的视角

Research on the Issue of the Applicability of the Doctrine of the Forum Non Conveniens in the Article 33 of Montreal Convention

计量

出版历程

不方便法院说在《蒙特利尔公约》下的适用——一个条约法的视角

1. 西南政法大学 国际法学院, 重庆 401120

English Abstract

Research on the Issue of the Applicability of the Doctrine of the Forum Non Conveniens in the Article 33 of Montreal Convention

1. School of International Law, Southwest University of Political Science And Law, Chongqing 401120, China

目录

作者相关

写作规范

友情链接

1. 西南政法大学国际法学院, 重庆 401120