The Resolution of Inter-State Disputes in Civil Aviation by Luping ZHANG. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. xx + 256 pp. Hardcover: £80.00; eBook available. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780192849274.001.0001

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW
Jae Woon Lee
{"title":"The Resolution of Inter-State Disputes in Civil Aviation by Luping ZHANG. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. xx + 256 pp. Hardcover: £80.00; eBook available. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780192849274.001.0001","authors":"Jae Woon Lee","doi":"10.1017/s2044251322000479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It has been 75 years since the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) began operations in 1947. Since then, the ICAO, which was created by the Convention on International Civil Aviation in 1944 (the Chicago Convention), has developed extensive rules for international law related to aviation. In addition to the ICAO’s rule-making function, Chapter XVIII of the Chicago Convention empowered the ICAO Council to settle any dispute concerning the interpretation of the Convention. Specifically, Article 84 of the Chicago Convention established a three-stage process for resolving disputes between state parties: 1) negotiations, 2) decision by the ICAO Council and 3) appeal to either an arbitral tribunal or the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Zhang’s book systemically investigates the dispute settlement mandate of the ICAO Council and explores how its dispute settlement mechanism should be modernized for international civil aviation. Her empirical research indicates that not only multilateral aviation law treaties, including the Chicago Convention, but also bilateral air services agreements depend on three institutions: the ICAO Council, ad hoc arbitral tribunals, and the ICJ. Although the ICJ has the final say in the adjudication of international aviation disputes, the ICAO Council acts as a ‘court of first instance’ in practice. Yet the ICAO Council is rarely used as a dispute resolution forum. There have been only seven cases thus far, and even in those disputes, the ICAO Council has not issued any decisions on the merits. After analysing the ICAO Council’s deficiencies in regard to the current dispute resolution mechanisms and the limits of ad-hoc arbitration, she concludes that the dispute resolution mechanisms in international civil aviation have failed to meet the increasing demand for a rule-based decision-making process with sufficient transparency and legal reasoning in the current era. Zhang argues that states are looking for more judicialized dispute resolution and recommends two possible routes for reform: the amendment of the ICAO Council’s procedures for dispute resolution and the establishment of an arbitral institution within the ICAO system. Ideally positioned at the intersection of aviation law scholarship and international dispute resolution scholarship, this book effectively fills the academic gap in this area. Since empirical research is rare in the field of aviation law, the data collected and analysed by the author deserves close attention. Interestingly, one of her recommendations is already on the move. The ICAO Legal Committee established a working group in 2019 to review the rules for the settlement of differences. Although the new rules are expected to facilitate the dispute settlement process, they will not bring about fundamental change. Zhang’s bolder recommendation of establishing an arbitral institution at ICAO is both presented persuasively and worth considering. This book exhibits the author’s extensive research in both dispute resolution and aviation law and she has satisfied the needs of both fields.","PeriodicalId":43342,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of International Law","volume":"12 1","pages":"424 - 424"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2044251322000479","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It has been 75 years since the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) began operations in 1947. Since then, the ICAO, which was created by the Convention on International Civil Aviation in 1944 (the Chicago Convention), has developed extensive rules for international law related to aviation. In addition to the ICAO’s rule-making function, Chapter XVIII of the Chicago Convention empowered the ICAO Council to settle any dispute concerning the interpretation of the Convention. Specifically, Article 84 of the Chicago Convention established a three-stage process for resolving disputes between state parties: 1) negotiations, 2) decision by the ICAO Council and 3) appeal to either an arbitral tribunal or the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Zhang’s book systemically investigates the dispute settlement mandate of the ICAO Council and explores how its dispute settlement mechanism should be modernized for international civil aviation. Her empirical research indicates that not only multilateral aviation law treaties, including the Chicago Convention, but also bilateral air services agreements depend on three institutions: the ICAO Council, ad hoc arbitral tribunals, and the ICJ. Although the ICJ has the final say in the adjudication of international aviation disputes, the ICAO Council acts as a ‘court of first instance’ in practice. Yet the ICAO Council is rarely used as a dispute resolution forum. There have been only seven cases thus far, and even in those disputes, the ICAO Council has not issued any decisions on the merits. After analysing the ICAO Council’s deficiencies in regard to the current dispute resolution mechanisms and the limits of ad-hoc arbitration, she concludes that the dispute resolution mechanisms in international civil aviation have failed to meet the increasing demand for a rule-based decision-making process with sufficient transparency and legal reasoning in the current era. Zhang argues that states are looking for more judicialized dispute resolution and recommends two possible routes for reform: the amendment of the ICAO Council’s procedures for dispute resolution and the establishment of an arbitral institution within the ICAO system. Ideally positioned at the intersection of aviation law scholarship and international dispute resolution scholarship, this book effectively fills the academic gap in this area. Since empirical research is rare in the field of aviation law, the data collected and analysed by the author deserves close attention. Interestingly, one of her recommendations is already on the move. The ICAO Legal Committee established a working group in 2019 to review the rules for the settlement of differences. Although the new rules are expected to facilitate the dispute settlement process, they will not bring about fundamental change. Zhang’s bolder recommendation of establishing an arbitral institution at ICAO is both presented persuasively and worth considering. This book exhibits the author’s extensive research in both dispute resolution and aviation law and she has satisfied the needs of both fields.
张路平《民用航空国家间纠纷的解决》。牛津:牛津大学出版社,2022年。xx+256页。精装本:80.00英镑;电子书可用。doi:10.1093/oso/9780192849274.001.0001
国际民用航空组织(ICAO)自1947年成立以来,已有75年的历史。从那时起,根据1944年《国际民用航空公约》(《芝加哥公约》)成立的国际民航组织为与航空有关的国际法制定了广泛的规则。除了民航组织的规则制定职能外,《芝加哥公约》第十八章授权民航组织理事会解决有关《公约》解释的任何争端。具体来说,《芝加哥公约》第84条规定了解决缔约国之间争端的三个阶段程序:1)谈判;2)由国际民航组织理事会作出决定;3)向仲裁法庭或国际法院(ICJ)上诉。本书系统地考察了国际民航组织理事会的争端解决任务,并探讨了国际民航争端解决机制应如何现代化。她的实证研究表明,不仅包括《芝加哥公约》在内的多边航空法条约,而且双边航空服务协定也依赖于三个机构:国际民航组织理事会、特设仲裁法庭和国际法院。虽然国际法院在国际航空争端的裁决中拥有最终决定权,但国际民航组织理事会在实践中充当“一审法院”的角色。然而,国际民航组织理事会很少被用作解决争端的论坛。到目前为止,只有七起案件,即使在这些争端中,民航组织理事会也没有就案情作出任何决定。在分析了民航组织理事会在当前争端解决机制方面的不足和特设仲裁的局限性之后,她得出结论,国际民用航空的争端解决机制未能满足当前时代对基于规则的决策过程的日益增长的需求,这种决策过程具有足够的透明度和法律推理。他认为,各国都在寻求更加司法化的争端解决方式,并提出了两种可能的改革途径:一是修改国际民航组织理事会的争端解决程序,二是在国际民航组织体系内设立仲裁机构。本书理想地定位于航空法奖学金和国际争端解决奖学金的交叉点,有效地填补了这一领域的学术空白。由于航空法领域的实证研究较少,笔者所收集和分析的数据值得关注。有趣的是,她的一项建议已经付诸实施。国际民航组织法律委员会于2019年成立了一个工作组,审查解决分歧的规则。尽管新规则有望促进争端解决进程,但它们不会带来根本性的变化。张提出的在国际民航组织设立仲裁机构的大胆建议既具有说服力,又值得考虑。本书展示了作者在争议解决和航空法方面的广泛研究,她满足了这两个领域的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
58
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信