Reparation of Aerial accidents under International Law with Emphasize On 752 Ukrainian Flight

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Aerospace Research Institute

2 Phd student, Shahid Beheshti University

10.29252/jlr.2021.220599.1841

Abstract

Essentially, according to the law of States responsibility reparation is the consequence of the responsibility. Nonetheless in aerial incidents States practice demonstrates that reparation is of importance which States before or during the institution of proceedings in ICJ as the competent authority, in this case, prefer to settle their dispute through negotiation and determining a sum as reparation. Thus, so far there is no international judicial precedent leading to any judgment regarding the aerial incident and most of the cases resulted in ex gratia payment by the responsible State. Until the adoption of article 3 bis if Chicago Convention, in cases similar to Ukrainian flight, lack of any definition of the wrongful act was a serious barrier for admission of claims before the ICJ. After the adoption of this Article States obligated to refrain from use of force against civil aircraft and respect the safety and security of persons on board which it resolved the problem. But even in cases after that date, the practice of States tended to acceptance of ex gratia payments. In this method the State pays a determined sum without accepting its international responsibility. In regard to flight 752 seems that ex gratia payment can be a practical and faster way for settlement of the dispute between Iran and other countries.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Battistella, E., Sorry about that The Language of Public Apology, London: Oxford University Press, 2014
  2. Corn, G. et al., S. Military Operations: Law, Policy, and Practice, London: Oxford University Press, 2016
  3. Crawford, J., The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, London: Cambridge University Press, 2002
  4. Das, O., Environmental Protection, Security and Armed Conflict: A Sustainable Development Perspective, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013
  5. De Hoon, M. et al., Legal Remedies for Downing Flight MH17, Netherlands: Public International Law and Policy Group, 2016
  6. Martha, Rutsel, The Financial Obligation in international law, London: Oxford University Press, 2015
  7. Simon, graham, Boeing 737 The World's Most Controversial Commercial Jetliner, Air World, 2021

ب- مقالات انگلیسی

  1. Beckman, J.A., “Nation-State Culpability and Liability for Catastrophic Air Disasters: Reforming Public International Law to Allow for Liability of Nation-States and the Application of Punitive Damages”, FIU Law Review, 10, 2, 2015
  2. Dioso-Villa, R., “'Out of Grace': Inequity in Post-Exoneration Remedies for Wrongful Conviction”, University of New South Wales Law Journal, 37, 1, 2014
  3. Dumberry, P., “Satisfaction as a Form of Reparation for Moral Damages Suffered by Investors and Respondent States in Investor-State Arbitration Disputes”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 3, 1, 2012
  4. Duffy, H., “Peaceful Resolution of Disputes and Use of Force, in the war on Terror and the Framework of International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005
  5. Foont, B., “Shooting down Civilian Aircraft: Is There an International Law”, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 72, 3, 2007
  6. Linnan, D., “Iran Air Flight 655 and Beyond: Free Passage, Mistake Self-Defence, and State Responsibility”, The Yale Journal of International Law, 16, 2, 1991
  7. M Chan, J.M., “Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice”, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper, No. 2019/103, 2019
  8. Maier, Harold, “Ex Gratia Payments and the Iranian Airline Tragedy”, The American Journal of International Law, 83, 2, 1989
  9. McLellan, M., “Innocence Compensation: The Private, Public and Prerogative Remedies”, Ottawa Law Review, 45,1, 2014
  10. Morgan, C., “The Downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007”, Yale Journal of International Law, 11, 1985
  11. Nollkaemper, P.A., “Issues of shared responsibility before the International Court of Justice”, in Evolving principles of international law: studies in honor of Karel C. Wellens, Netherlans: Queen Mary studies in international law, 2012

 

ج- پایان نامه انگلیسی

  1. Huskisson, D., The air Bridge Denial Program and the Shootdown of Civil aircraft under International Law, LLM, McGill University, 2004
  2. Sip, David., “Respect in the context of the Iran nuclear deal”, Research Master thesis, Leiden University, 2018

د- آرا و اسناد بین‌المللی

  1. Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), ICJ Application instituting proceedings, 2 June 1955
  2. Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), ICJ Order of 14 March 1956
  3. Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953 (United States of America v. Czechoslovakia), ICJ Order of 14 March 1956
  4. Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), ICJ Judgment of 26 May 1959
  5. Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (United Kingdom v. Bulgaria), ICJ Order of 3 August 1959
  6. Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), ICJ Order of 7 October 1959
  7. Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (United States of America v. Bulgaria) – Discontinuance, ICJ Order of 30 May 1960
  8. Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) – Discontinuance, ICJ Order of 22 February 1996
  9. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), ICJ Judgment of 19 January 2009
  10. British-Mexican Claims Commission (Great Britain, United Mexican States) (8 November 1929 - February 1930), RIAA, Volume V pp. 1-306
  11. Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), ICJ Judgment of 16 December 2015
  12. Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), ICJ Judgment of 15 December 1949
  13. Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session
  14. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) , ICJ Judgment of 25 September 1997
  15. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 2001
  16. Opinion in the Lusitania Cases (1 November 1923), RIAA volume VII pp. 32-44
  17. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010
  18. Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Order of 10 September 2003

د- وبسایت

  1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/30/iran-sets-150000-compensation-for-ukrainian-airlines-victims(last visited on 2/6/21)
  2. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/ukraine-demands-official-apology-from-iran-/1699459(last visited on 2/6/21)
  3. STA Law Firm, “Airplane Crash Liability In International Law”, at: https://www.mondaq.com/aviation/903784/airplane-crash-liability-in-international-law
  4. https://www.britannica.com/event/Malaysia-Airlines-flight-17(last visited on 2/6/21)
  5. https://www.farsnews.ir/news/14000127000480/
  6. https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4971475/جزئیات-جدید-سانحه-هواپیمای-اوکراینی-اعلام-شد
  7. https://per.euronews.com/2020/01/11/iran-acknowledges-accidentally-downing-ukrainian-jetliner(last visited on 2/6/21)
  8. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukrainian-president-says-compensation-offered-by-iran-for-shooting-down-airliner-not-enough/30413066.html(last visited on 2/6/21)
  9. https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/950651/(last visited on 2/6/21)
  10. Pear, Robert, “U.S. Offers Money in Iran Air Case”, at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/18/world/us-offers-money-in-iran-air-case.html(last visited on 2/6/21)
  11. Queensland Government, Department of health, “ex gratia and compensation payment”, at https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/398940/qh-imp-267-1-12.pdf(last visited on 2/6/21)

 

Legal Research Quarterly
Volume 25, Issue 99 - Serial Number 99
December 2022
Pages 369-393

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 08 February 2021
  • Revise Date: 05 September 2021
  • Accept Date: 29 September 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics