Content area
Full Text
INTRODUCTON
The airline liability regime known as the "Warsaw System" has governed international air travel since the early days of the industry. The Warsaw System includes the original Warsaw Convention of 1929, along with several other protocols and agreements amending it. Over 135 countries currently adhere to the Warsaw Convention or one of its revised forms.1 One of the primary goals of the Warsaw Convention is to create uniformity in the rules governing international carriage by air.2 However, mounting evidence demonstrates that the scheme set out by the Warsaw Convention has been largely unsuccessful in meeting this goal. It remains unclear whether true uniformity is actually realistic with so many countries involved. Resolving the inconsistencies between the many agreements in the Warsaw System will create a greater degree of uniformity in the application of the rules governing international air transport. This Note argues that signatories to the Convention should adopt the 1999 Montreal Convention, the most recent attempt at unifying all previous Warsaw treaties and agreements.
Section II of this Note reviews the history of the Warsaw System, pointing out how liability rules evolved through amended versions of the Warsaw Convention. Section III presents several inconsistencies within the Warsaw System, and the reasons for the lack of uniformity in the application of key provisions. Section IV identifies the consequences of disuniformity within the Convention. Finally, Section V evaluates the potential impact of the proposed revisions to the Convention and argues that the 1999 Montreal Convention, the newest set of rules, will ultimately foster the goal of uniformity.
I. HISTORY OF THE WARSAW SYSTEM
The Warsaw System is a "patchwork of liability regimes."3 People commonly refer to "the Warsaw Convention" without realizing there are actually several amendments and agreements that make up this complex system of rules. Since the introduction of the original Convention in 1929, member countries and private airlines have made repeated attempts to revise various provisions, particularly with respect to liability. The result is a tangled network of at least ten different agreements and protocols. Some of these documents' provisions overlap, while other provisions conflict with each other. Several countries belong to vastly different regimes within the system, causing unpredictability and many contradictions. Before exploring these inconsistencies, it is first necessary to become...