摘要
为统一国际航空运输管辖权规则,1999年《蒙特利尔公约》第33条一方面继承了1929年《华沙公约》第28条规定的4种管辖权规则,排除了不方便法院说等其他普通法系特殊规则的适用;另一方面又加入了旨在保护漫游的美国人的第五管辖权规则。美国法院在最近的判决中却试图割裂两个公约的内在联系,试图通过美国化的解释将不方便法院等特殊规则适用于所有管辖权规则。在条约法的视角下看,无论是从约文对原告在不同管辖权规则下的诉讼权利采取不同的措辞、从条约管辖权规则的统一性及旅客倾斜保护的目的追求、还是从条约的缔结过程对不方便法院说的妥协来看,不方便法院说的适用范围仅限于第五管辖权而不能扩及其他4种管辖权规则。
For the unity of the rules of Jurisdiction in international air transport, article 33 of Montreal Convention 1999 inherited the article 28 of Warsaw Convention 1929, which prohibits the application of the doctrine of form non conveniens. For the purpose of protecting Americans, the fifth jurisdiction was incorporated in the MC99. In a recent case, U.S. court tried to separate the intrinsic link between the two conventions, holding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens could be applied in all of jurisdiction rules. From the perspective of treaty interpretation, there are four reasons which demonstrate such ruling was wrong. Firstly, the French version of MC99 on the different jurisdiction rules taking different words. Secondly, the purpose of unified jurisdiction and passenger protection and consumer protection show that the doctrine should not apply in four jurisdictions. Thirdly, Travaux Paratories indicated that codifying the doctrine was still suspending. All of the evidences show that the application room of the doctrine is limited to the fifth jurisdiction and can not extend to the other four jurisdictional rules. Thus, the practice of American courts is inconsistent with the MC99,which seriously derogated the unity of the treaty and the pursuit of protecting travelers.
出处
《北京理工大学学报（社会科学版）》
CSSCI
2013年第6期104-111,共8页
Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology：Social Sciences Edition
基金
国家社科基金课题"全球化视野下的国际航空运输责任法研究"(06BFX062)
关键词
不方便法院说
管辖权
《蒙特利尔公约》
the doctrine of forum non conveniens
jurisdiction
Montreal Convention
