Abstract
Delay or cancellation of flights due to airline’s bankruptcy will impose some damages on passengers such as the financial burden of purchasing a ticket usually more expensive than the first one, accommodation fees, carfares and other related expenses. In different countries, as well as the european ...
Read More
Delay or cancellation of flights due to airline’s bankruptcy will impose some damages on passengers such as the financial burden of purchasing a ticket usually more expensive than the first one, accommodation fees, carfares and other related expenses. In different countries, as well as the european countries, due to necessity of consumer protection and importance of attracting new passengers, which is the fundamental element and requirement to survive in the aviation industry, finding a support mechanism in order to compensate such passengers is at the forefront.
First category, known as the preventive or precautionary protection, is the responsibility of the governments to provide a proper supervision on two aspects of general financial adequacy of the airline and also airline’s responsibility to provide compensation in case of bankruptcy. Contributory protection, the second category, is for the time of bankruptcy so that the damaged party, in this case the passenger, can receive adequate compensation using insurance policies, mid-airline contracts and credit card policies. Acceptance and implementation of the guideline, as an important and necessary issue in our aviation industry, will protect air passenger rights.
Shahab Jafari Nedoushan; Mohammad Hassan Sadeghi Moghadam
Abstract
Fork in the road clauses and waiver clauses in investment treaties are supposed to minimize the number of parallel proceedings in foreign investment disputes. While, Fork in the road clauses preclude investors from further litigation or arbitration once the first dispute settlement mechanism is triggered, ...
Read More
Fork in the road clauses and waiver clauses in investment treaties are supposed to minimize the number of parallel proceedings in foreign investment disputes. While, Fork in the road clauses preclude investors from further litigation or arbitration once the first dispute settlement mechanism is triggered, in waiver clauses, domestic litigation can be followed by treaty arbitration regarding the same dispute. In waiver clause, the foreign investor may recourse to treaty arbitration only if they waive their rights to adjudicate their claim before national and international litigation and arbitration (contract based or treaty based claims). It can be seen that in the application of the waiver clauses in some of the leading cases, grounds for distinguishing between treaty violation from contract violation in the function of waiver clause is not predicted; this approach is desirable. When it comes to the application of the fork in the road clause, investment arbitration precedent shows that identical cause of action is prerequisite for its function. This interpretation severely curtails the function of the fork in the road clause and is criticized in present article
