Padjadjaran Journal of International Law ISSN: 2549-2152, EISSN: 2549-1296 Volume 4, Number 2, June 2020

Responsibilities of the State and Aircraft Manufacturer on JT610 and Ethiopian ET302 Accidents under International Law

Khansa Aminatuzzahra , Atip Latipulhayat**

Abstract Lion Air JT610 and Ethiopian Airlines ET302 crashes occurred on October 2018 and March 2019 respectively. The main cause of the accident on both flights, which used 737 MAX 8 aircraft, is the defect on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a new anti-stall system of this aircraft model. MAX 8 is produced by Boeing Company which resides in the United States. However, passengers on both accidents could not claim compensation from Boeing Company because there is no international law that regulates aircraft manufacturer responsibilities. This research tries to analyze whether passengers can request for compensation to the United States and whether national court rulings or judgments can fill the gap in international law regarding aircraft manufacturer. The research uses the normative juridical approach with analytical descriptive method. The research uses the library research method, focusing mainly on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal resources. This research found that the current international law could not accommodate the interests of plaintiffs to hold the United States accountable. The usage of forum non conveniens principle at the national courts made it difficult for the plaintiffs to obtain the compensation they are entitled to. Subsequently, the national law applied in each case is different which created a distinction on the compensation received by each plaintiff for the loss they suffered. Author comes into the conclusion that there is a need for the establishment of regulations in international law concerning the responsibilities of aircraft manufacturer.

Keywords: Aircraft Manufacturer, Forum Non Conveniens, State Responsibility

Tanggung Jawab Negara dan Manufaktur Pesawat Terbang dalam Kecelakaan Pesawat Terbang Lion Air JT610 dan Ethiopian Airlines ET302 Berdasarkan Hukum Internasional

Abstrak Kecelakaan pesawat terbang Lion Air JT610 dan Ethiopian Airlines ET302 terjadi pada bulan Oktober 2018 dan Maret 2019 secara berturut-turut. Penyebab utama kecelakaan kedua penerbangan yang menggunakan pesawat terbang Boeing 737 MAX 8 ialah kerusakan sistem Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), sebuah sistem anti-stall terbaru untuk model pesawat terbang ini. Boeing 737 MAX 8 diproduksi oleh Boeing Company yang berkedudukan di Amerika Serikat. Penumpang pada kedua kecelakaan tidak dapat meminta ganti rugi pada Boeing Company karena belum adanya hukum yang dapat mewadahi penggantian rugi serta tanggung jawab manufaktur pesawat terbang dalam hukum internasional. Penelitian ini akan menganalisis apakah penumpang dapat memintakan ganti rugi kepada Amerika Serikat sebagai negara dan apakah putusan pengadilan nasional dapat mengisi kekosongan

PADJADJARAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 4 Issue 2 Year 2020 [ISSN 2549-2152] [e-ISSN 2549-1296] * Paralegal at Farianto & Darmanto Law Firm, Jl. Letjen M.T. Haryono No.Kav. 2-3, 12770, [email protected]. ** Professor on International Law at the International Law Department, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jl. Dipati Ukur No. 35, Bandung, [email protected].

154

Khansa Aminatuzzahra, Atip Latipulhayat Responsibilities of the State and Aircraft Manufacturer on Lion Air JT610 and 155 Ethiopian Airlines ET302 Accidents under International Law

hukum internasional terkait manufaktur pesawat terbang. Penelitian dilakukan menggunakan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi penulisan deskriptif analitis. Tahap penulisan dalam penelitian ini dilakukan menggunakan metode studi kepustakaan bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Hasil penelitian ini menemukan bahwa hukum internasional yang ada saat ini pun belum dapat mewadahi kepentingan penumpang sebagai penggugat untuk dapat meminta pertanggungjawaban kepada Amerika Serikat atas kesalahan manufaktur pesawat terbang. Selain itu, munculnya prinsip forum non conveniens pada level nasional mempersulit penggugat untuk mendapatkan ganti rugi pada pengadilan nasional. Hukum nasional yang diterapkan pada tiap kasus pun berbeda sehingga muncul kesenjangan mengenai ganti rugi yang diperoleh penggugat atas kerugian yang diderita. Melihat situasi ini, peneliti berkesimpulan perlunya pembentukan pengaturan dalam hukum internasional mengenai tanggung jawab manufaktur pesawat terbang.

Kata Kunci: Forum Non Conveniens, Manufaktur Pesawat Terbang, Tanggung Jawab Negara

A. INTRODUCTION read it wrongly that the height could cause a stall so that it automatically lowered the The world of aviation is faced with tragedies angle of the aircraft.2 As far as the that occurred on October 2018 and March investigations were carried out, the 2019. On October 2018, Lion Air Flight JT610 investigators of two accidents confirmed fell and plunged in the Indonesian waters, that there was an error in data input which caused fatalities of 187 passengers. regarding the angle of attack (AOA) by This plane crashed in Jakarta Bay, MCAS so that MCAS became active Karawang, 5 minutes after it took off from automatically and dropped the plane. Soekarno-Hatta International Airport, Before the investigation facts came out, the Tangerang. Lion Air claimed that Boeing 737 family of Lion Air passengers sued the MAX 8 aircraft used in the flight was less for this accident. However, when the than 1 year old and it was lastly used on following accident happened to the same th August 15 2018 before the crash. Based on type of aircraft, the families of the the ongoing investigations, the accident passengers filed a lawsuit against Boeing was caused by the Maneuvering Company in the United States for Characteristics Augmentation System compensation. (MCAS), which used as a system to avoid In fact, the states on both of these stall situation (anti-stall). This system is the accidents were involved in certifying an newest technology that Boeing Company aircraft airworthiness certificate, which was 1 used for Boeing 737 MAX 8. validated by their respective domestic In March 2019, a Boeing 737 MAX 8 authorities. The United States Federal crash occurred for the second time. The Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued an airplane crashed about 5 minutes after airworthiness certificate for Boeing 737 departing from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to MAX 8 in March 2017. In addition, the Nairobi, Kenya and caused fatalities of 157 Acting Director General of Air passengers. Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET320 Transportation of the Ministry of crash was claimed to be similar to Lion Air Transportation of the Republic of Indonesia JT610 crash. This crash was also triggered by (Kemenhub RI) had stated that Boeing 737 MCAS errors in reading and analyzing the MAX 8 was airworthy to operate because it situation, where the pilot raised the had met standards of airworthiness. Not airplane to reach an altitude, but MCAS only that, Ethiopia had also certified Boeing

1 Kompas, “Kronologi dan Fakta Kecelakaan 737 MAX 8 Lion Air JT610”, https://nasional.kompas.com/jeo/kronologi-dan-fakta- kecelakaan-boeing-737-max-8-lion-air-jt-610, accessed on 7th of April 2019. 2 BBC News, “Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Pilots ‘could not stop nosedive’”, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47812225, accessed on 7th April 2019.

156 Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Volume 4, Number 2, June 2020

737 MAX 8 airworthiness before Ethiopian Aircraft manufacturer involvement on Airlines ET302 crash took place.3 airplane crash previously had been Various similar cases have previously researched by Alan H. Collier and Stephanie been resolved by applicable national law N. Brie in a scientific article, "The Battle and international law. In the international Over Air France: Does the Montreal airspace regime, the 1944 Chicago Convention Apply to Manufacturer Claims Convention has been recognized, in which for Carrier Indemnity?". This scientific this set of convention regulates about state article raises the Air France crash which was sovereignty over air space above its sued with a contribution counterclaim territory. Additionally, the 1944 Chicago liability by aircraft manufacturers under the Convention limits its scope to civil aircraft 1999 Montreal Convention. This scientific thus national aircraft belongs to the state article provides two views which can be are not covered by the provisions of this taken as arguments for aircraft Convention.4 The 1944 Chicago Convention manufacturer and air carrier. is also the legal basis for the formation of The article stated that the 1999 the International Civil Aviation Organization Montreal Convention is deemed to have (ICAO)5, which has the authority to establish shifted away from its primary purpose of aviation regulations under the 1944 Chicago protecting air carriers. If the 1999 Montreal Convention on technical and non-technical Convention applies to a claiming third party, matters. These regulations are known as aircraft manufacturers must face the International Standards and Recommended weakness of seeking the contribution of air Practices (SARPs).6 SARPs were later carriers in foreign jurisdictions. However in adopted into Annexes or additional this context, aircraft manufacturers would regulations that became an integral part of benefit for bringing forum non conveniens the 1944 Chicago Convention. principle as their argument, given the lack Moreover, for cases involving of jurisdiction of the United States courts on international air transportation, there are them. If the 1999 Montreal Convention two conventions that have governed does not apply to a claiming third party, the international air carriage law in general, aircraft manufacturer has a huge advantage which are the 1929 Convention and in sharing the liability for losses with the air the 1999 Montreal Convention. These two carrier, but the forum non conveniens conventions regulate the rights and argument is weakened by the emergence of obligations of air carriers and consumers, recognized jurisdiction of US courts over including the settlement of cases and the foreign carriers.8 amount of compensation. The scope of Although the legal subjects discussed consumers in this convention is defined as are broadly similar, the scope of discussion users of air transportation services so in this writing will be much different from consumers are not only defined as the abovementioned scientific article. The passengers, but also consumers who use first issue that will be raised in this research aviation transportation services for delivery is the airworthiness certification of Boeing of goods in the form of cargo.7 737 MAX 8 which was issued by the United

3 Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi Republic of 7 Article 1 Convention for the Unification of Certain Indonesia, Aircraft Accident Investigation Report: Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Preliminary KNKT. 18.10.35.04, 2018, p. 6; Ministry of Convention) 1999. Transport of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 8 Alan H. Collier and Stephanie N. Brie, “The Battle Over Aircraft Accident Investigation Preliminary Report Issue Air France: Does the Montreal Convention Apply to AI-01/19, 2019, p. 25. Manufacturer Claims for Carrier Indemnity?”, 4 Article 1 and 3 Convention on International Civil https://www.fitzhunt.com/sites/default/files/news/T Aviation (Chicago Convention) 1944. he%20Battle%20Over%20Air%20France%20Does%20t 5 Ibid., Part II. he%20Montreal%20Convention%20Apply%20to%20 6 Ibid., Article 37. Manufacturer%20Claims%20for%20Carrier%20Indem nity-Collier-Brie.pdf, accessed on 15th of May 2019. Khansa Aminatuzzahra, Atip Latipulhayat Responsibilities of the State and Aircraft Manufacturer on Lion Air JT610 and 157 Ethiopian Airlines ET302 Accidents under International Law

States, as the country where Boeing certain reasons, especially on the grounds Company is located. Before the emergence that the plaintiff is not a citizen of the of aircraft manufacturers’ responsibilities, United States.10 The use of forum non one should underline that the United conveniens raises the problem that whether States, Indonesia, and Ethiopia have the the decisions of state courts in various authorities to declare the airworthiness of countries can fill the gap on law at the an aircraft to fly within the territory of their international level. countries, including Boeing 737 MAX 8. The case of Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft According to author's view, it is necessary to shows that there is a big role for the state in first investigate whether the passengers determining the airworthiness of an aircraft who were victims of Lion Air JT610 and and the role of aircraft manufacturers in the Ethiopian Airlines ET302 crashes can hold world of air carriage. International the United States accountable as a country regulations on state responsibility in issuing before examining aircraft manufacturers. airworthiness certificates and aircraft Another problem that arises is manufacturer responsibilities are the main regarding the application of court’s focuses of this research. decisions within the scope of national courts regarding aircraft manufacturer. In B. UNITED STATES AS THE STATE UNDER international air carriage law, the scope of INTERNATIONAL LAW FRAMEWORK the 1929 Warsaw Convention and the 1999 Montreal Convention only cover the rights The cause of this accident was the and obligations of air carriers with replacement of the anti-stall system from consumers, both passengers and air cargo the old system to the MCAS software service users. Aircraft manufacturer is not installed on the aircraft. In general, this regulated by these two conventions, hence system is made to avoid a stall that occurs the settlements of similar cases, which have on an airplane because it can cause the occurred before, are settled by certain airplane to be stationary and unable to national laws. move or fly. When an airplane flies in a take- The passengers on various cases, who off state, MCAS reads this situation as a stall are foreigners, had filed their claims to situation, thus this system automatically United States courts because these cases becomes active and lowers angle of the involved aircraft manufacturers which were aircraft. In a preliminary report prepared by domiciled in the United States. In these the Ethiopian Ministry of Transportation's cases, the court judges had decided the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau and cases based on the forum non conveniens the National Transportation Safety principle. Forum non conveniens has the Committee (KNKT) of the Republic of meaning of a court's discretionary power to Indonesia, pilots of Lion Air JT610 and reject its jurisdiction of a case based on the Ethiopian Airlines ET302 had tried to control grounds that the court is not the right court the active MCAS but repeatedly failed and 11 to settle the case.9 This commonly used- caused accidents. doctrine in countries adhering to the Anglo Investigators discovered the fact that Saxon legal system gives the court the Boeing 737 MAX 8 had a valid airworthiness power to decide that a case should be certificate given by FAA at the time the 12 resolved in an appropriate court based on plane crashed. From the final report

9 Karl Hennessee dan David J. Weiner, “International and Justin T. Green, “Using the Forum Non Conveniens Litigation and forum non conveniens: Strategies and Doctrine With Foreign Victims”, New York Law Journal, lessons from the aviation context”, International In- 2011, p. 1. house Counsel Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 7, 2009, p. 1013. 11 Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi Republic of 10 F. M. Manolis (et al.), “The Doctrine of Forum Non Indonesia, Aircraft Accident Investigation Report: Final Conveniens: Canada and the United States Compared”, KNKT. 18.10.35.04, 2019, pp. 19-27. FDCC quarterly, 2009, p. 3 dan 33; Steven R. Pounian 12 Ibid, p. 32.

158 Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Volume 4, Number 2, June 2020 released by KNKT and the report from Joint Company also assumed that flight crews Authorities Technical Review (JATR) Team, had understood the systems on the Model there were several errors that cumulatively 737 and were able to take appropriate occurred and caused Lion Air JT610 action when a failure occurred. This accident. United States law gives FAA the assumption is one of the reasons Boeing authority to delegate its functions so that Company did not provide additional FAA acts as a supervisor, whose authority is information and training regarding the exercised by FAA's Boeing whole MCAS system.18 The factor that Oversight Office (BASOO). FAA's BASOO is worsened the situation was the unrecorded responsible for overseeing Boeing 737 MAX aircraft damage on the previous flight on 8 certification and approval process.13 The the Aircraft Flight Maintenance Log (AFML) body which concludes that airworthiness so the previous error was not known by standards are met is Boeing ODA.14 It can maintenance personnel and could not be be concluded from the delegation from FAA repaired.19 to FAA's BASOO and Boeing ODA that FAA is The JATR team also assessed that FAA unable to independently assess and rules and guidelines on changed product evaluate MCAS. This was also shown by lack rule were deemed to be incompatible with of information regarding MCAS known to developments.20 Boeing Company did not FAA.15 provide a complete Flight Crew Operating FAA has a three-process safety Manual (FCOM) or Flight Crew Training assessment system consisting of several Manual (FCTM), thus pilots or flight crews gradual assessments, namely FHA, FMEA, were unable to mitigate or resolve and FTA, which are carried out on certain problems appropriately when the failure hazard categories. Generally, FHA is carried occurred due to MCAS.21 Of all the factors out to identify hazards before FMEA and that caused Lion Air JT610 accident, there FTA are carried out. However, FMEA and are two legal subjects involved, FAA and FTA assessments are only carried out for Boeing Company. hazards that are categorized as hazardous From the cumulative errors above, it and catastrophic. In this case, MCAS which can be concluded that there are two is categorized as a major hazard does not subjects with their respective mistakes and require FMEA and FTA assessments. are related to one another. Boeing Investigators assessed that both Company had done three main actions: (1) assessments could in fact identify failures did not provide the required that the FHA could not read.16 documentation regarding the latest MCAS Another factor that caused the accident analysis to FAA; (2) did not further evaluate was Boeing Company did not submit the MCAS using FMEA and FTA; and (3) did not proper documentation required by FAA. provide MCAS information on flight crew This was deemed to be a fatal mistake and manuals and training for flight crews. On made FAA not aware of or know about the the other hand, FAA itself: (1) had lack of latest developments or changes to the knowledge of MCAS; (2) did not properly MCAS system. Not only that, FAA did not supervise Boeing ODA; and (3) had properly supervise Boeing ODA.17 Boeing incompatible regulations with existing

13 Ibid, p. 147. 17 Ibid, p. 207. 14 Ibid, p. 50. 18 Ibid, p. 207 and p. 213. 15 Ibid, p. 207; JATR Team, Joint Authorities Technical 19 Ibid, p. 61. Review on Boeing 737 MAX Flight Control System: 20 JATR Team, Op. Cit., p. III-IV. Observations, Findings, and Recommendations, 2019, 21 Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi Republic of p. VII. Indonesia, Aircraft Accident Investigation Report: Final 16 Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi Republic of KNKT. 18.10.35.04, Op. Cit., pp. 199-200. Indonesia, Aircraft Accident Investigation Report: Final KNKT. 18.10.35.04, Ibid, pp. 189-191. Khansa Aminatuzzahra, Atip Latipulhayat Responsibilities of the State and Aircraft Manufacturer on Lion Air JT610 and 159 Ethiopian Airlines ET302 Accidents under International Law

developments. The next question is In general, proof that there is an act of whether the actions of these two agencies violation by a state against other subjects of can be said to be the actions of the United international based on ARSIWA needs to be States and hold the United States proven by the international law subject who responsible. is the victim. In the case of an airplane crash International law recognizes the involving Boeing Company, Lion Air, and concept of internationally wrongful acts, Ethiopian Airlines, the burden of proof lies where an act of the state which violates the within the victims who can be represented obligations of the state results in by the citizenship’s countries, Indonesia and international responsibility and this concept Ethiopia, to file a lawsuit against the United has been accepted as a general principle in States.26 Two conditions for determining international law.22 The concept of whether an act constitutes an responsibility for an action is stated and internationally wrongful act must be met regulated in the Articles on Responsibility of cumulatively. The first condition that needs States for Internationally Wrongful Acts to be fulfilled is whether the actions of FAA (ARSIWA), which is considered a known and Boeing Company in the case of Lion Air principle in international law, in the concept JT610 and Ethiopian Airlines ET302 can be of law in general, and accepted as a source considered as state action in international of customary international law.23 ARSIWA law. regulates that, ARSIWA regulates that the actions of "There is an internationally state organs or individuals or entities that wrongful act of a State when are authorized by national law can be conduct, consisting of an action or categorized as actions taken by the state in omission: international law.27 State organs in this a. is attributable to the State article include all individuals or entities that under international law; and are in the organization of a state and act on b. constitutes a breach of an behalf of the state and are not limited to the international obligation of the central organs of a country, but also include State."24 regional organs acting on behalf of the From this article, it can be concluded central organs.28 This article does not have that the actions of a state must fulfill these certain limits and does not have a specific two conditions in order to be considered as category to define state organs. It can be violation of international obligations: first, concluded that state organs at any level or that such action attributable to the state with any function can be said to have within the scope of international law and committed internationally wrongful act on second, such action constitutes a breach of behalf of that state.29 an international obligations of the state.25

22 Article 1 Articles on Responsibility of States for 24 Article 2 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) 2001; Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) 2001. Malcolm Shaw, International Law (6th Edition), New 25 Ibid. York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 778; Peter 26 La Grand Case (Germany v. USA), 2001 and Avena and Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. USA), 2004, which International Law, New York: Taylor & Francis e- implemented that the state can represent its citizens. Library, 2002, p. 254; James R. Crawford, Brownlie’s 27 Article 4 Articles on Responsibility of States for Principles of Public International Law (8th Edition), Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 539-540. 28 International Law Commission, Commentaries to the 23 Chorzow Factory case, 1928, on Malcolm Shaw, Op. draft articles on Responsibility of States for Cit., p. 781; Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, 2005, on Internationally Wrongful Acts, Supplement No. 10 Michael Feit, “Responsibility of the State Under (A/56/10)chp.IV.E.1, International law for the Breach of Contract https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb8f804.html, Committed by a State-Owned Entity”, Berkeley Journal accessed on 10th of December 2019. of International Law, Vol. 28, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 145- 29 Ibid, pp. 85-86. 146.

160 Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Volume 4, Number 2, June 2020

In this case, FAA as an agency or Court of Justice rejected the lawsuit filed by governmental body that acts on all aviation Belgium because Belgium did not have the administration in the United States is one of legal standing to seek diplomatic protection the state organs. FAA operates under the for shareholders and citizens on Canadian United States Department of company in Spain. The Court emphasized Transportation with the authority to that when the theory of diplomatic regulate and to run administration on protection of shareholders was adopted aviation within the United States, including and applied in this case, it would raise determining aircraft airworthiness and competing claims from different countries issuing airworthiness certificates for eligible and create an unfavorable atmosphere in aircraft. The authority of FAA is clearly international economic relations between regulated in the Federal Aviation Act which states.31 This case is one example where the was issued on 1958. Therefore, it can be international court forum discusses the concluded that FAA is a state organ and its involvement of private subjects, where the actions are attributable to the state. state can represent private companies and Private companies such as Boeing even individuals. However, it must be Company are included in the scope of non- examined to what extent and in what realm state organs, which are regulated in Articles the state can represent private subjects or 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of ARSIWA. Before its citizens in international forums. ARSIWA was made and entered into force, Furthermore, ARSIWA recognizes that the involvement of private companies in a an action carried out by an entity or an case which was then represented by the agency other than a state organ is an act of state and resolved in an international forum the state when the action is protected by had emerged long before this case national law and is considered as duties that appeared. In Barcelona Traction, the have to be carried out as or in the capacity Belgian government asked Spain for of a governmental authority.32 The entities compensation for a Canadian-owned referred to in this article include public company located in Spain, where Belgium companies, public agencies, as well as was involved in this case because its citizens private companies as long as these entities became shareholders in the company which are authorized by the national law of the later went bankrupt. Belgium sued Spain state to act as governmental authority. that Spain was responsible for violations of Generally, these actions are performed by international law which inflicted losses on state organs but the state is the one which the Canadian company and its Belgian delegates the tasks to these entities. shareholders. The questions raised to the This article emphasizes several things, International Court of Justice were whether one of which is regarding the Belgium had jus standi to exercise implementation of elements of diplomatic protection over the governmental authority. There are no shareholders of Canadian company and boundaries regarding governmental whether Belgium had the right and authority and generally, in order to define jurisdiction to sue Spain in court for acts the boundaries of governmental authority, committed by Canadian companies.30 it is necessary to relate to the context of International law provides that when society, its history, and its traditions. there is an illegal act involving foreign Important questions that must be further capital, a lawsuit can only be filed by the investigated are not only regarding the company’s nationality. The International substance of this authority or authority, but

30 Barcelona Traction (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, I.C.J. 32 Article 5 Articles on Responsibility of States for Reports, 1970. Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) 2001. 31 Ibid. Khansa Aminatuzzahra, Atip Latipulhayat Responsibilities of the State and Aircraft Manufacturer on Lion Air JT610 and 161 Ethiopian Airlines ET302 Accidents under International Law

also how it is assigned to other entities, for the existence of effective control by the what purposes this authority is exercised, state on this group. In this case, there was and to what extent this entity is responsible no effective control exercised by the United to the government for its implementation.33 States over Boeing Company so this section In connection with the current case, also cannot be used to hold the United Boeing Company which carries out an action States accountable. to apply for MCAS certification and Then, ARSIWA also regulates that an technology update is seen as a private legal action taken by an individual or a group of subject that does not carry out people is said to be a state action if the governmental authority or the action is not action is considered to be carrying out a protected by the national laws of the United governing authority even though the action States. Applications for MCAS certification is not carried out by the competent and technology updates are made by authority. 36 To use this article in a case, Boeing Company for commercial purposes. three things are need to be proven: (1) the The national laws of the United States have act was an act of a government authority; no bearing on or connection with the (2) acts carried out by entities or individuals actions of Boeing Company other than outside the official authority of that requiring Boeing Company to obtain MCAS country; and (3) the existing circumstances certification that MCAS is eligible for use. necessitated the exercise of that element of Article 7 of the ARSIWA regulates that authority. 37 In this case, Boeing Company when a state organ or entity acts outside or action did not become the act of a exceeds the limits of the governmental governmental authority or exercised the authority that has been given by the state to authority of a particular United States that organ or entity, that action is still said government agency regarding MCAS, hence to be an act of the state. This article this article cannot be used. emphasizes the ultra vires principle which Article 10 ARSIWA regulates that the has the concept that an entity can be actions of a rebellion movement that will allowed to take action outside of its become the new government of a state are capacity or authority given to it. 34 In this said to be the actions of that state in case, it can be seen that Boeing Company international law. This article certainly continues to carry out its duties in cannot be applied to the case that the accordance with the guidance provided by author brought in this study because there FAA, which is further acknowledged by the was no rebellious movement, thus Article report produced by JATR. Furthermore, 10 of ARSIWA is not appropriate to be used Boeing Company did not take any action by in this case. In the last article regarding the the governmental authorities in this case so attribution of a state is Article 11 of that this article cannot be used to say that ARSIWA. This article provides that when the the actions of Boeing Company were acts of state has recognized and adopted the the state. action into its actions, then the action is said Furthermore, ARSIWA regulates that to be the state's action under international the actions of a person or group can be said law regardless of the fact that the action to be state actions in international law if cannot be attributed in accordance with the those actions are indeed carried out under previous articles in ARSIWA. the direction or order or control of the state In this case, no statement was issued by that is supposed to carry out the action. 35 the United States acknowledging that The thing that is emphasized in this article is Boeing Company's actions against

33 International Law Commission, Op. Cit., p. 43. 36 Article 9 Articles on Responsibility of States for 34 International Law Commission, Op. Cit., p. 45. Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) 2001. 35 Article 8 Articles on Responsibility of States for 37 International Law Commission, Op. Cit., p. 49 Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) 2001.

162 Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Volume 4, Number 2, June 2020 airworthiness applications or the FAA's mistake will be seen as the fault of a development of anti-stall technology were state and resulted in compensation of state actions. This article also cannot be state's portion, while Boeing Company’s used that the actions of Boeing Company mistake will be seen as the fault of a private are attributable to the state. From the subject, hence the compensation that must discussion above, it can be concluded that be given will not be greater than the state's the conditions for action of a state within share of compensation. the scope of international law are not The difficulty of suing Boeing Company fulfilled because the actions of Boeing within the scope of international law is Company cannot be considered as actions supported by the absence of regulations of the state in the framework of ARSIWA. regarding aircraft manufacturer. There is no Furthermore, in the second condition of compensation standard that can be used as the existence of internationally wrongful a claim to aircraft manufacturer. Other than acts, it is necessary to prove that the actions that, when the plaintiff wants to file a taken by the subject constitute a breach of lawsuit that there is an error from FAA international obligations. In this case, FAA regulations that are deemed insufficient to which can be said to be a state is governed evaluate MCAS, it is necessary to have by the 1944 Chicago Convention and its standard regulations that can be FAA annex as its derivative regulations. The benchmark. However, MCAS which is author argues that there are no regulations classified as the newest technology in the in the 1944 Chicago Convention or annex, world of aviation certainly does not have a especially Annex 8 that are violated by FAA. standard regulation to evaluate this The author views that FAA's technical technology, so it will be difficult to find a actions do not violate the rules in Annex 8 strong legal basis to state that FAA concerning Aircraft Airworthiness. regulations are lacking. Furthermore, when there are no rules Until now, cases that have been violated by FAA within the scope of the resolved in the International Court of 1944 Chicago Convention, it is necessary to Justice and the decisions of the further investigate lex specialis in air International Court of Justice have not carriage law, the 1929 Warsaw Convention recognized corporations as subjects of and the 1999 Montreal Convention. international law. In addition, proceeding However, the scope regulated by the two with the International Court of Justice has conventions only covers the rights and its advantages and disadvantages. Both obligations of air carriers and consumers. parties must estimate several things, such The legal subjects which are state and as time and cost efficiency. Several cases in aircraft manufacturer are not regulated by the International Court of Justice take long these conventions. The author concludes time to settle so that the settlement in the that there is no breach of international International Court of Justice is not effective obligations committed by FAA and Boeing and efficient for these cases. Company. Another solution that can be taken from If FAA in fact can be sued in front of the this case is to look at the laws that apply to international tribunal forum because it has international air carriage. The international done an internationally wrongful act, this air carriage law framework recognizes equal will cause injustice to FAA because Boeing compensation based on the principle of Company cannot be sued in front of the international tribunal forum, thus the lawsuit against Boeing Company will be settled on national court. The compensation that will be charged to both parties will certainly be different, where Khansa Aminatuzzahra, Atip Latipulhayat Responsibilities of the State and Aircraft Manufacturer on Lion Air JT610 and 163 Ethiopian Airlines ET302 Accidents under International Law

restitution38 that a plaintiff can use to claim or on another carrier’s aircraft pursuant to damages against a defendant. However, the a commercial agreement, and in which that conventions that apply in this regime still carrier conducts its business of carriage of limit its regulations to two legal subjects, passengers by air from premises leased or which are airlines and passengers, so this owned by the carrier itself or by another convention cannot be a strong basis for carrier with which it has a commercial holding Boeing Company, FAA, or the agreement.40 United States accountable. Based on the above considerations, aviation accident C. THE ROLE OF COURT’S DECISIONS IN disputes involving aircraft manufacturer are FILLING THE GAP OF INTERNATIONAL then settled in national courts. AIR CARRIAGE LAW REGARDING The number of cases that exist and are AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER recognized in the national law of the United States regarding the acceptance of aviation In the previous discussion, international air accident cases in the national courts of the transportation law has not specifically United States is another supporting value recognized the legal subject of aircraft that passengers as victims can file a lawsuit manufacturer so that there is a gap in the in the national court. This was also law. This gap is one of the reasons why the supported by the 1929 Warsaw Convention plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the national and the 1999 Montreal Convention, as two court. From the various lawsuits filed by conventions recognized in the international passengers against aircraft manufacturers, air carriage law regime, that victims must author takes several aircraft crash cases determine the jurisdiction they use to settle that were resolved in national courts, the cases. especially the national courts of the United The plaintiff has the authority to choose States. one of the four forums to file the case: (1) In settlement of cases brought by before the court having jurisdiction author, these cases applied the principle of forum non conveniens or the principle that where the carrier is ordinarily resident; gives the court the authority to transfer a (2) the country where the carrier has his case because there is a court or forum that principal place of business; (3) the is more appropriate to settle the case. country has an establishment by which the Generally, the principle of forum non contract has been made; or (4) before the conveniens is put forward by the defendant court having jurisdiction at the place of 39 as an objection to the lawsuit filed by the destination. In contrast to the 1999 plaintiff. Is the principle of forum non Montreal Convention, plaintiffs can submit conveniens granted by the court and how their case to the four pre-arranged forums does the principle of forum non conveniens and the fifth additional forum, the country affect the plaintiffs? Does this principle give in the territory of a state party in which at the plaintiff access to justice or appropriate the time of the accident the passenger has court access or reduce the rights of the his or her principal and permanent plaintiff? residence and to or from which the carrier The first case that the author brings up operates services for the carriage of in this paper is a case involving Piper Aircraft passengers by air, either on its own aircraft, and Reyno.41 Reyno is a foreign plaintiff who

38 Preamble of Convention for the Unification of Certain 40 Article 33 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention) 1999. Convention) 1999. 39 Article 28 Convention For The Unification of Certain 41 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, United States Supreme Court, Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw 1981, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- Convention) 1929. court/454/235.html, accessed on 19th of December 2019.

164 Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Volume 4, Number 2, June 2020 filed a lawsuit against an aircraft case, the District Court is deemed not to manufacturer domiciled in the United have done this.45 States. The basic reason Reyno chose the The principle of forum non conveniens United States court over the Scottish court was also granted by the judge in cases was to sue Piper Aircraft with strict liability involving an Indonesian national plaintiff. so that Reyno could get a bigger amount of Flight 574 accident which crashed compensation. The plaintiff admitted that in Strait, , killed more he chose the United States court because than 100 victims. The victims filed a lawsuit the law was favorable to the plaintiff, in a United States court and sued the especially in laws regarding compensation, aircraft manufacturer and the manufacture capacity to challenge, and liability. In of its components, which encountered addition, Scotland's national law does not forum non conveniens objection that yet recognize strict liability, so victims can Indonesian law provides adequate only claim that there is negligence and legal compensation. However, the plaintiff capacity to sue in Scotland are seen as more replied to this argument with the news that restricted. 42 the Indonesian courts had frequently The judge decided this case based on committed corruption.46 public interest and private interest between This lawsuit was granted by the court the two forums proposed by the plaintiff judge because Indonesia's public and and the defendant43 and the judge was of private interests were considered to be the opinion that the public interest and heavier than the public and private interests private interest in this case were directed of the United States in this case. The judge towards Scotland. The judge argued that focused on witnesses who were domiciled the plaintiff's argument which stated that in Indonesia, as well as the ease of obtaining the substantive law of the forum he chose evidence. In addition, the judge considered was in his favor can be justified. Even that this accident involved transporters and changes in substantive law should not be a passengers who were Indonesian citizens, consideration in forum non conveniens so the possibility of Indonesia's interests discussions.44 The Supreme Court of the being considered far greater than those of United States also supports the statement the United States.47 of the trial court judge that the plaintiff's Not only in these two cases, the choice to settle the case in a foreign forum principle of forum non conveniens was is considered no more convenient for the accepted as an objection to the Helios plaintiff than the forum in the state he is Airways Flight 522 case between from. The Supreme Court views that the passengers as victims against Boeing decision regarding forum non conveniens Company.48 In this case, the investigator can only be rejected when the trial court is found that there was an error from the proven to have abused discretion, in which carrier, Helios Airways, and the aircraft

42 Ibid. 46 In re Air Crash Disaster Over Makassar Strait, United 43 Public and private interests became the basis for States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, judges to decide the cases with forum non conveniens 2011, https://casetext.com/case/in-re-air-crash- for the first time on Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, disaster-over-makassar-strait, accessed on 19th of 1947. This basis is then used by judges as the main December 2019; William V. O’Connor dan William C. basis to settle other cases involving forum non Dalton, “Recent Developments in Aviation Law: conveniens. General”, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 76, 44 Maria A. Mazzola, “Forum Non Conveniens and Foreign Issue 1, 2011, pp. 154-155. Plaintiffs: Addressing the Unanswered Questions of 47 Ibid. Reyno”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 6, 48 In re Air Crash Near , Greece, United States Issue 3, 1982, pp. 580-581; Anita J. Zigman, “Piper District Court, N. D. Illinois, 2007, Aircraft v. Reyno”, NYLS Journal of International and https://casetext.com/case/in-re-air-crash-near- Comparative Law, Vol. 4, Issue 3, 1983, p. 652. athens-2, accessed on 19th of December 2019. 45 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, United States Supreme Court, 1981, Op. Cit. Khansa Aminatuzzahra, Atip Latipulhayat Responsibilities of the State and Aircraft Manufacturer on Lion Air JT610 and 165 Ethiopian Airlines ET302 Accidents under International Law

manufacturer, Boeing Company, thus the Court was more suitable to settle the case. sources to gather the evidence are Some of the passengers forwarded their important for both the plaintiff and the lawsuit to the Martinique Court, but the defendant. All evidences and witnesses lawsuit that was brought was regarding the involved are domiciled in the United States, settlement of cases that had to be resolved but the defendant agrees that all witnesses in the United States.51 and evidences available to him will be Martinique district court approved the brought to an alternative forum. The judge decision of the United States court and the saw that the majority of the victims were Martinique appellate court decision also citizens or were domiciled in or supported the previous decision. The Greece so that private interests were plaintiff also filed an appeal to France Cour considered heavy on the Cypriot or Greek de Cassation and the judge issued a side. The public interest which burdens the different decision. The judge stated that the Cypriot or Greek forum is the interest of lack of connection with the French forum on Cypriot or Greek citizens in the outcome of this case was the reason that the settlement the settlement of cases.49 had to be carried out in the United States. The judge decided that Cyprus was the This decision became the basis for the most suitable forum for settling cases victims to file a lawsuit back in the national compared to the national court forum in the court of the United States, but the judge still United States. The public interest and refused to settle the case because if the private interest on the side of the United settlement was still resolved in the United States were lower than Cyprus. The judge in States, the decision of this case would this case accepted the defendant's weaken the position of the United States objection and transferred the case to the and the United States court forum would court in Cyprus, but he added that the become open for foreign plaintiffs.52 From defendants had to do a number of this case, the principle of forum non conditions in order for to settle the case in conveniens can cause a case to be Cyprus.50 deadlocked or even without a resolution Another case that the author took in due to differences of opinion between two this study was the In re West Caribbean courts of two different countries. Airways case, where the passengers as In contrast to previous court decisions, victims filed a lawsuit against Newvac the principle of forum non conveniens was Corporation and West Carribean Airways. In rejected as objection by US court judges in this case, Newvac Corporation served as the several cases. In McCafferty v. Raytheon company that formed the charter contract Inc., a lawsuit for an accident that occurred with West Caribbean Airways for the tour in Indonesia was filed on a court in package but the aircraft that was used faced Philadelphia regarding negligence in the an accident. The lawsuit was filed in Miami context of product liability. The plaintiff Federal Court which the defendant rejected claims that the defendant was involved in on the principle of forum non conveniens. production or manufacturing activities as This objection was also granted by the court well as the sale of defective aircraft and judge by further stating that the Martinique machines, and the plaintiff made a claim

49 Ibid. International Aviation Disasters”, Journal of Air Law 50 Paul S. Dempsey, “All Along The Watchtower: Forum and Commerce, Vol. 74, Issue 2, 2009, p. 9. Non Conveniens in International Aviation”, 2015, p. 8 51 In re West Carribean Airways, S.A., et.al., United States and pp. 17-18, District Court, S.D. Florida, 2013, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id https://www.leagle.com/decision/20071918619bxfsu =2692669, downloaded on 23rd of August 2019; Don G. pp2d129911843, accessed on 19th of December 2019. Rushing dan Ellen Nudelman Alder, “Some Incovenient 52 Steven R. Pounian and Justin T. Green, “Using the Truths about Forum Non Conveniens Law in Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine With Foreign Victims”, New York Law Journal, 2011, pp. 1-2.

166 Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Volume 4, Number 2, June 2020 regarding product liability. The judge considered that the private interest was considered that the activities of the heavier towards the two forums proposed production of aircraft and machines actually by the defendant and the plaintiff, but the occurred in the United States, hence the public interest was seen as burdening the objections based on forum non conveniens defendant's forum so that the judge were rejected by the judge and the case was rejected forum non conveniens and settled still resolved in the United States.53 the case in Illinois. 56 A similar situation was experienced by The judge also rejected the case filed by Vivas v. Boeing Company, where a US court the plaintiffs brought to the Cessna Caravan judge rejected the defendant's objection 208B case, which was filed by based on forum non conveniens. The judge representatives of the pilots who were considered that Peru's private and public victims against Cessna Aircraft and interests did not support the settlement of Goodrich Corporation. The judge cases in Peruvian courts. In addition, the considered that the public interest was appellate court judge also approved the heavier towards the side of the United decision by the United States district court States because the resolution of this case because this case is a product liability case would affect the regulations in force in the so that all relevant evidence regarding United States regarding aircraft aircraft design and manufacture is in the manufacturer. The judge assessed that the United States. With this, the private private interest related to witnesses and interests of the United States are higher evidence could be brought to a court in than that of Peru. This private interest is Kansas so that the settlement was also supported by the public interest which continued in the court forum submitted by states that Illinois residents have an interest the plaintiff. 57 in resolving product liability disputes In the cases that have been examined against local companies.54 and discussed, all decisions involving forum This principle was also rejected by the non conveniens as the basis for the judge on Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading. 55 A case objections are brought by the defendant to involving a Filipino citizen as a plaintiff was transfer the case to a more appropriate filed in Illinois, United States, against two forum. The author views that there are two corporations based in Illinois. The objection possibilities when forum non conveniens based on forum non conveniens submitted based objections are raised, objections are by the defendant was rejected by the judge accepted or objections are rejected. Both of on the grounds that the defendant's refusal them can provide disadvantages and on the inadequacy of the court settlement advantages for both parties because legal forum in the defendant's forum was differences in the two forums have become considered odd. The judge also considered a debate and have led to forum shopping. In it odd that the defendant ignored the claim the view of the defendant, submitting for compensation made to him regarding forum non conveniens as an objection is a the defective condition of the aircraft way to avoid forum shopping by the plaintiff before the aircraft was given to Air to obtain huge amounts of compensation. Philippines. The defendants in this case did The objection to forum non conveniens was not argue that the source of the evidence motivated by the assumption that the was outside Illinois. The judge then defendant wanted a smaller amount of

53 Paul S. Dempsey, Op. Cit., p. 21. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of- 54 Ibid, p. 20-21. appeals/1266488.html, accessed on 19th of December 55 Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., LLC, Appellate Court of 2019. Illinois, First District, Fifth Division, 2005, 56 Ibid; Paul S. Dempsey, Op. Cit., pp. 19-20. https://casetext.com/case/ellis-v-aar-parts-trading- 57 Don G. Rushing dan Ellen Nudelman Alder, Op. Cit., pp. inc-1-02-3744-illapp-2-4-2005 and 422-423. Khansa Aminatuzzahra, Atip Latipulhayat Responsibilities of the State and Aircraft Manufacturer on Lion Air JT610 and 167 Ethiopian Airlines ET302 Accidents under International Law

compensation than the law proposed by the of one case and another. To keep in mind plaintiff. that the objective of forming the In the case of In re Air Crash Near incorporation of laws into an international Athens, Greece, and in the case of In re Air code is to achieve harmonization and Crash Disaster Over Makassar Strait, judges unification of air transport law. It also in both cases rejected cases based on returns to the principles of international air private interests and public interests which carriage law that the importance of weighed on the defendant's choice of protecting the interests of consumers in air forum. In the case of In re West Caribbean carriage and the need for equal Airways, there was a collision between two compensation based on the principle of different court forum decisions which restitution. From this explanation, it can be resulted in the case not being resolved. In concluded that the absence of uniformity the case of Piper Aircraft v. Reyno also has regarding the responsibility for aircraft differences in law between Scotland and manufacturer is not in line with the the United States, where the plaintiff can principles in international air carriage law. base his lawsuit on strict liability and Hence, it is necessary to establish a law negligence in the United States, but can regarding the responsibility of aircraft only sue negligence in Scotland. manufacturer to passengers in the Private and public interests were also international law framework. considered in the McCafferty v. Case. Raytheon, however, the judge stressed the D. CONCLUSION suit over design flaws filed by the plaintiffs and weighed on the plaintiffs' choice of Passengers who are victims of Lion Air forums. 58 The lawsuit over design flaws JT610 and Ethiopian Airlines ET302 became the basis for the judge's decision in accidents cannot hold the United States the Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading and Vivas v. accountable as a state. This is based on Boeing Company59 and the Cessna Caravan the argument that ARSIWA cannot be 60 208B case which raise the view that the the legal basis for the plaintiff to file a United States has a high public interest claim against Boeing Company because because the decision will have an impact on Boeing Company's actions cannot be the prevailing regulations in the United attributed as the United States’ act. In States. Seeing this situation, it can be this argument, it is not only the actions concluded that the absence of uniformity of Boeing Company that cannot be regarding the responsibility of aircraft attributed as the actions of the state, manufacturer for victims is the main but the elements of internationally problem why forum non conveniens are still wrongful act are not fulfilled. Boeing often used and even become the cause for Company's failure to fulfill its dispute in a case that cannot be settled. In responsibilities to passengers under this discussion, the author concludes that international law does not prevent court decisions and national laws can fill the Boeing Company from being liable gap in law regarding aircraft manufacturer under national law. responsibilities, but differences in the laws The filing of a lawsuit in United used result in gaps between the settlement States courts by foreign plaintiffs is

58 McCafferty v. Raytheon, Inc., United States District https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of- Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 2004, appeals/1403649.html, accessed on 19th of December https://casetext.com/case/mccafferty-v-raytheon-inc, 2019. accessed on 19th of December 2019. 60 Paul S. Dempsey, Op. Cit., p. 21. 59 Vivas v. Boeing Company, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division, 2009,

168 Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Volume 4, Number 2, June 2020 allowed by the 1929 Warsaw t/files/news/The%20Battle%20Over%2 Convention and the 1999 Montreal 0Air%20France%20Does%20the%20M Convention. However, this lawsuit was ontreal%20Convention%20Apply%20to not automatically granted by the court %20Manufacturer%20Claims%20for%2 judge because of the principle of forum 0Carrier%20Indemnity-Collier-Brie.pdf. BBC News, “Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 non conveniens, which is used as the Pilots ‘could not stop nosedive’”, 2019, basis for the arguments for the https://www.bbc.com/news/business- defendant's objection to submitting the 47812225. case to other forum. The assumptions Rushing, Don G. dan Ellen Nudelman Alder, regarding the plaintiffs doing forum “Some Incovenient Truths about Forum shopping and the defendants who Non Conveniens Law in International wanted to reduce their responsibilities Aviation Disasters”, Journal of Air Law also emerged. Various court decisions and Commerce, Vol. 74, Issue 2, 2009. on these cases can be classified into two Manolis, F. M., N. J. Vermette, dan R. F. categories; forum non conveniens can Hungerfold, “The Doctrine of Forum be rejected or accepted. Although Non Conveniens: Canada and the United States Compared”, FDCC national law can fill the gap of quarterly, 2009. international law regarding the JATR Team, Joint Authorities Technical responsibilities borne by aircraft Review on Boeing 737 MAX Flight manufacturers, these two possibilities Control System: Observations, Findings, create other gaps because the national and Recommendations, 2019. laws used in each decision are different Hennessee, Karl dan David J. Weiner, and it gives impacts on their “International Litigation and forum non compensation. conveniens: Strategies and lessons from the aviation context”, International In- REFERENCE house Counsel Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 7, 2009. Books Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi Crawford, James R., Brownlie’s Principles of Republic of Indonesia, Aircraft Accident Public International Law (8th Edition), Investigation Report: Final KNKT. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012. 18.10.35.04, 2019. Malanczuk, Peter, Akehurst’s Modern Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi Introduction to International Law, Republic of Indonesia, Aircraft Accident Taylor & Francis e-Library, New York, Investigation Report: Preliminary KNKT. 2002. 18.10.35.04, 2018. Shaw, Malcolm, International Law, Kompas, “Kronologi dan Fakta Kecelakaan Cambridge University Press, New York, 737 MAX 8 Lion Air JT610”, 2018, 2008. https://nasional.kompas.com/jeo/kron ologi-dan-fakta-kecelakaan-boeing- 737-max-8-lion-air-jt-610. Other Documents Mazzola, Maria A., “Forum Non Conveniens Alan H. Collier dan Stephanie N. Brie, “The and Foreign Plaintiffs: Addressing the Battle Over Air France: Does the Unanswered Questions of Reyno”, Montreal Convention Apply to Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. Manufacturer Claims for Carrier 6, Issue 3, 1982. Indemnity?”, Feit, Michael, “Responsibility of the State https://www.fitzhunt.com/sites/defaul Under International law for the Breach of Contract Committed by a State- Khansa Aminatuzzahra, Atip Latipulhayat Responsibilities of the State and Aircraft Manufacturer on Lion Air JT610 and 169 Ethiopian Airlines ET302 Accidents under International Law

Owned Entity”, Berkeley Journal of https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court- International Law, Vol. 28, Issue 1, of-appeals/1266488.html. 2010. In re Air Crash Disaster Over Makassar Ministry of Transport of Federal Democratic Strait, United States District Court, N.D. Republic of Ethiopia, Aircraft Accident Illinois, Eastern Division, 2011, Investigation Preliminary Report Issue https://casetext.com/case/in-re-air- AI-01/19, 2019. crash-disaster-over-makassar-strait. Dempsey, Paul S., “All Along The In re Air Crash Near Athens, Greece, United Watchtower: Forum Non Conveniens in States District Court, N. D. Illinois, 2007, International Aviation”, 2015, https://casetext.com/case/in-re-air- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf crash-near-athens-2. m?abstract_id=2692669. In re West Carribean Airways, S.A., et.al., Pounian, Steven R. dan Justin T. Green, United States District Court, S.D. “Using the Forum Non Conveniens Florida, 2013, Doctrine With Foreign Victims”, New https://www.leagle.com/decision/200 York Law Journal, 2011. 71918619bxfsupp2d129911843. International Law Commission, Legal Documents Commentaries to the draft articles on Articles on Responsibility of States for Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act (ARSIWA) Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001. Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10) Barcelona Traction, Light and Power chp.IV.E.1, 2001, Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1970. 8f804.html. Convention for the Unification of Certain McCafferty v. Raytheon, Inc., United States Rules for International Carriage by Air District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 2004, (Montreal Convention) 1999. https://casetext.com/case/mccafferty- Convention For The Unification of Certain v-raytheon-inc. Rules Relating to International Carriage Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, United States by Air (Warsaw Convention) 1929. Supreme Court, 1981, Convention on International Civil Aviation https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us- (Chicago Convention) 1944. supreme-court/454/235.html. Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., LLC, Vivas v. Boeing Company, Appellate Court Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, of Illinois, First District, First Division, Fifth Division, 2005, 2009, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il- https://casetext.com/case/ellis-v-aar- court-of-appeals/1403649.html. parts-trading-inc-1-02-3744-illapp-2-4- 2005 and A.