• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Air Law and Commerce >THE WEST CARIBBEAN CONUNDRUM: THE UNITED STATES VERSUS FRANCE ON THE AVAILABILITY OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS UNDER THE MONTREAL CONVENTION OF 1999
【24h】

THE WEST CARIBBEAN CONUNDRUM: THE UNITED STATES VERSUS FRANCE ON THE AVAILABILITY OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS UNDER THE MONTREAL CONVENTION OF 1999

机译：西加勒比海概念：1999年蒙特利尔公约下，美国与法国有关论坛非公约的可用性

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Although the Cour de Cassation's intervention has given U.S. courts some food for thought about how FNC might operate in a case where the alternative forum is France, the position adopted by U.S. courts on the fundamental issue of the availability of the doctrine under MC99 still takes its lead from Judge Ungaro's opinion in In re West Caribbean Airways. It was cited approvingly in 2016 by an Indiana district court in Dordieski v. Austrian Airlines and in 2018 by an Illinois district court in Garcia v. Aerovias de Mexico. It was noted above that Judge Ungaro asked the wrong question in In re West Caribbean Airways. Instead of asking whether the reference in Article 33(4) of MC99 to "questions of procedure" was intended by the drafters to include the doctrine of FNC, the question should be whether Articles 33(1) and 33(2) of MC99 were intended to create a substantive right granting plaintiffs the absolute and exclusive option to choose their forum from those available under MC99. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then Article 33(4) must be read in a manner consistent with that substantive right, i.e., as only including rules of procedure to the extent that they do not conflict with the substantive provisions of Articles 33(1) and 33(2). With regard to the Warsaw Convention, the courts in Milor and Hosaka correctly determined that this was the correct understanding of the relationship between Article 28(1) and 28(2). The question now is whether it remains the correct understanding in the case of MC99.
机译：虽然Cour de Cassation的干预给我们法院给了一些食物，以思考FNC在替代论坛是法国的情况下，美国法院通过基本问题通过MC99下的学说的基本问题的职位仍然需要它从Ungaro法官在Re West Caribbean Airways中引导。它在2016年由印第安纳地区法院在Dordieski V.奥地利航空公司和2018年由Garcia v的伊利诺伊州地区法院批准被引用。Aerovias de Mexico。上面有人指出的是，Ungaro法官在Re West Caribbean航空公司询问了错误的问题。起草人旨在包括FNC的教义，提出了MC99的“程序”第33（4）条关于“程序”第33（4）条的参考，而不是CNC的教义，所述问题应该是33（1）和33（2）所述的MC99旨在创造一个实质性权利，授予原告的绝对和独家选项，以从MC99下提供的那些人选择他们的论坛。如果这个问题的答案是肯定的，那么第33（4）条必须以与实质权利一致的方式读，即仅包括议事规则，以便他们与实质性规定不冲突第33（1）和33（2）条。关于华沙公约，迈尔和霍卡的法院正确地确定这是对第28（1）和28（2）条之间关系的正确了解。现在的问题是在MC99的情况下它是否仍然是正确的理解。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号