曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
The Council appreciated the fact that those who favoured retaining liability limits approximating those in the Mexico City draft considered the proposed Convention as primarily having been designed to establish a fair relationship between operator and third party in given circumstances. Accordingly, cost to the operator was not the .rst consideration. The nature of the relationship established was the .rst consideration. In this connection they attached importance to the other provisions of the Convention which affected the conditions in which the liability would be liquidated, such as absolute liability, jurisdiction in the country where the damage occurs, limited defence to the operator, and direct access to the insurers in certain cases. They considered that the limits of liability should not be set unneces-sarily high, but at a level which experience and judgment indicated to be adequate to meet all normal cases.
Considerable importance was attached to the information concerning past expe-rience, which in the Council’s view, demonstrated the rarity of accidents affecting third parties; that in such accidents it was property, and not persons, which was damaged in the overwhelming majority of instances; and that moreover in all cases of which information was available, save two in North America, the proposed limits would have been more than adequate. They felt also that account should be taken of varying cost levels in different parts of the world. They noted that it was only in North America that there was any evidence of a case in which the proposed limits would not suf.ce, and in this respect they considered that an equilibrium must be set between the high cost and the low cost areas of the world.
The limits presented an acceptable compromise between the views of various States. They pointed out that the decision taken to raise the limits from those in the original Rome Convention to those in the Mexico City draft had not been unani-mous and that some States favoured lower limits than those now in the Mexico City draft. They considered that the economic evidence brought before Council subsequent to the last meeting of the Legal Committee did not justify any modi.-cation of the decision reached at Mexico City.
The relating of the liability limits for different types of aircraft to the weight of the aircraft concerned, as proposed in the Mexico City draft, was generally agreed to accord approximately with the potential of each type of aircraft to cause damage to third parties on the surface if an accident occurs. It was recognized, however, that this general rule was subject to certain exceptions. Small and medium aircraft, for example, may cause injury and death, as distinct from property damage, in somewhat greater proportion to their weights. Taking account of this fact, the Council agreed that the proportion of weight to liability limit may vary for different classes of aircraft as it does in the scale of limits proposed in the Mexico City draft Convention, but felt it desirable that the limits should increase without abrupt changes throughout the scale of weights. The introduction of the .xed limit for aircraft weighing more than 2,000 but not exceeding 6,000 kg in paragraph (1) (b) of Article II caused an undesirable discontinuity at the 2,000 kg point. Aircraftjustbelow that weight wouldhavea liability limit of 500,000 francs, aircraft just above that weight would have a liability limit of 1,500,000 francs although the difference in the ability to cause damage between the two types of aircraft might be small. The Council agreed that this discontinuity should be removed.
In the course of examining the liability limits in the draft Convention, the Council considered a number of speci.c proposals for modi.cations of these limits. The following proposals were recommended to States as warranting further study since they illustrated the two trends of opinion mentioned above:
Proposal A
(a)
This proposal aimed to retain the general level of limits in the Mexico City draft and merely to eliminate the discontinuity at the 2,000 kg level. It would be achieved by substituting the following for sub-paragraph (b) in paragraph (1) of Article II.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(59)
