To represent, lead and serve the airline industry

Liability for Acts of Terrorism:The New Unlawful Interference Convention

McGill University - Institute of Air & Space Law31 October 2009

Michael Gill, Senior Legal Counsel – IATA

2

The search for a fair compromise

IATA advocated a purist approach: States, not airlines, are targets of terrorist activity

We sought a reasonable compromise which would provide:

Legal certainty

Compensation for victims

Protection for the airlines and other industry stakeholders

3

The essential feature - the liability cap

Airline or its employees acted intentionally or recklessly and with knowledgewith knowledge

Act of employee: airline must prove that an appropriate system for selection and monitoring of staff has been established and implemented

Rebuttable presumption that an airline has not acted recklessly if it proves that a system to ensure compliance with Annex 17 of Chicago Convention in its home State has been established and implemented

4

Does the Convention provide balance?

Strict liability for risk of damage which is not aimed at airlines

Liability cap is weak

Airlines are uncomfortable with exclusive remedy + restrictions on recourse

Overall scheme is unfairly weighted against the airlines

5

Operational challenges of the International Fund

Any additional charge on airline tickets/air waybills presents commercial issues

The airline is responsible for remittance of funds: will it be feasible to pass on contributions to passenger/shippers ?

Airlines must weigh up the cost/benefits of the Convention scheme without knowing the exact level at which contributions will be set

6

Entry into force

35 ratifications

Only 7 signatories so far

750,000,000 departing passengers per year

Some scenarios