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
Top Related