217Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to Damage Caused by Aircraft to
Third Parties on the Surface, signed at Rome on 29 May 1933, Article 2. 218The meaning imputed to the words “beginning of the operations of departure until the end of the operations of arrival” is debatable. It is interesting that an earlier treaty, the Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention) signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 applies liability for accidents taking place on board the aircraft or any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. The word “on board” has been interpreted judicially in different circumstances. See Abeyratne(2001a, pp. 197–198).
219It is worthy of note that the Chicago Conference of 1944 did not make any reference to the Rome Convention of 1933 although the Conference encouraged States to give consideration to the early calling of an international conference on private air law for the purpose of adopting a convention dealing with transfer of title to aircraft and to ratify or adhere to a Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to the Precautionary Attachment of Aircraft, also done in Rome in 1933. Following the Chicago Conference, the Interim Assembly of PICAO in 1946 also made no mention of the Rome Convention of 1933 relating to damage caused by aircraft to third parties on the surface.
220Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, signed at Rome on 29 May 1933, Weishaupt(1979, p. 223).
caused to any person on board the aircraft.221 Exceptions were made in the case of an act unconnected with the management of the aircraft which was committed intentionally by a person other than a crew member and where inability of the operator, his servants or agents to prevent such an act was evident. For purposes of the Convention, the aircraft was deemed to be ‘in .ight’ from the beginning of the operations of departure until the end of the operations of arrival.222 The operator, on whom liability devolved, was considered to be any person who had the aircraft at his disposal and who made use of the aircraft for his own account. The Convention, although not based on principles of fault liability, mitigated damages if the person injured was found to have contributed to the damage by his own negligence.
In adopting the General Risks Convention there were several considerations that were taken into account by the ICAO member States other than the need to modernize the Rome Convention.223 The States Parties also recognized the impor-tance of ensuring protection of the interests of third-party victims and the need for equitable compensation, as well as the need to enable the continued stabilityof the aviation industry. They saw a compelling need for the orderly development of international air transport operations and the smooth .ow of passengers, baggage and cargo in accordance with the principles and objectives of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, done at Chicago on7December 1944.224 Furthermore, they were convinced that collective State action for further harmonization and codi.cation of certain rules governing the compensation of third parties who suffer damage resulting from events involving aircraft in .ight through a new Convention is the most desirable and effective means of achieving an equitable balance of interests.
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(74)
