DOCSLIB.ORG

Implementation of International Civil Aviation Agreements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Implementation of International Civil Aviation Agreements Implementation of International Civil Aviation Agreements If a valid reciprocal arrangement has been entered into between the United States and a foreign country, the Civil Aeronautics Authority is authorized under existing law to grant to a foreign aircraft a permit to fly across the United States without landing or a permit to land for non-traffic purposes. February 6, 1945 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL* The State Department has requested the informal advice of the Attorney Gen- eral on a question that has arisen in connection with the International Air Services Transit Agreement, commonly called the “Two Freedoms Agreement,” and the International Air Transport Agreement, frequently referred to as the “Five Freedoms Agreement,” drawn up at the International Civil Aviation Conference held in Chicago in the fall of 1944. These agreements grant to the signatory powers certain privileges with respect to “scheduled international air services.” It is in connection with these privileges that the following question has risen: Assuming that reciprocal rights have been granted by some valid arrangement between the United States and a foreign country, is the Civil Aeronautics Authori- ty authorized under existing law to grant to aircraft of the foreign country a license or certificate (1) to fly across United States territory without landing; and (2) to land in the United States for non-traffic purposes (e.g., refueling)? The State Department has not asked this Department to examine the details of these agreements, or to comment on the Convention on Civil Aviation or the Interim Agreement on Civil Aviation drawn up at Chicago. The State Department has not asked us to consider whether the agreements require ratification by the Senate or may be executed as executive agreements. The only question that has been put to us relates to the construction of the statutes regulating civil aviation and we shall confine the discussion in this memorandum to that point. The question of statutory construction, however, does have a bearing on the question whether the agreements may properly be executed as executive agreements for the following reason: If the agreements required or contemplated action by the Civil Aeronautics Authority or any other agency of the government that was unauthor- * Editor’s Note: The cover memorandum attached to this memorandum opinion states that “Mr. Acheson [presumably Dean Acheson, then Assistant Secretary of State, later Secretary of State under President Truman] is very eager to get our views on this; he has called me twice in the past week. It may be that you will wish to submit a copy of my memorandum to Mr. Acheson for his comments before you decide whether you agree with the conclusion reached in the memorandum.” The cover memorandum states further: “The State Department has not asked us for a formal opinion, and you will recall that in his conference with us Mr. Acheson said he was not sure that the State Department would make this request.” 106 Implementation of International Civil Aviation Agreements ized or forbidden by domestic law, a serious question might arise as to whether the agreements could be consummated as executive agreements. If it is concluded that the Civil Aeronautics Authority is authorized by existing law to grant to foreign aircraft a license or certificate to fly across United States territory without landing or to land in the United States for non-traffic purposes, the problem of the agreements contemplating action not authorized by existing law does not arise. I. Statutes Involved Section 6 of the Air Commerce Act of 1926, Pub. L. No. 69-254, 44 Stat. 568, 572, as amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, Pub. L. No. 75-706, 52 Stat. 973,1 provides in part as follows: (a) The United States of America is hereby declared to possess and exercise complete and exclusive national sovereignty in the air space above the United States . (b) Foreign aircraft not a part of the armed forces of the foreign na- tion shall be navigated in the United States only if authorized as hereinafter in this section provided. (c) If a foreign nation grants a similar privilege in respect of aircraft of the United States, and/or airmen serving in connection therewith, the Civil Aeronautics Board may authorize aircraft registered under the law of the foreign nation and not a part of the armed forces thereof to be navigated in the United States. No foreign aircraft shall engage in air commerce otherwise than between any State, Territory, 1 Section 1107(i) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 amended section 6 of the Air Commerce Act of 1926. Among other things, section 1107(i) struck out the last part of section 6(a) and added the last sentence of section 6(c) as quoted in the text. In its original form, section 6(c) contained the following language limiting the authority to permit foreign aircraft to be navigated in the United States: “but no foreign aircraft shall engage in interstate or intrastate air commerce.” Pub. L. No. 69-254, 44 Stat. at 572. The Air Commerce Act of 1926 contains the following definitions: That as used in this Act, the term “air commerce” means transportation in whole or in part by aircraft of persons or property for hire, navigation of aircraft in furtherance of a business, or navigation of aircraft from one place to another for operation in the conduct of a business. As used in this Act, the term “interstate or foreign air com- merce” means air commerce between any State, Territory, or possession, or the Dis- trict of Columbia, and any place outside thereof; or between points within the same State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, but through the airspace over any place outside thereof; or wholly within the airspace over any Territory or possession or the District of Columbia. Pub. L. No. 69-254, § 1, 44 Stat. at 568, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 171 (1940). As defined in the 1926 statute, the term “United States” includes the overlying airspace. Id. § 9(b), 44 Stat. at 573, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 179(b) (1940). 107 Supplemental Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 1 or possession of the United States (including the Philippine Islands) or the District of Columbia, and a foreign country. 49 U.S.C. § 176 (1940).2 Section 1 of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 contains the following defini- tions: (3) “Air commerce” means interstate, overseas, or foreign air com- merce or the transportation of mail by aircraft or any operation or navigation of aircraft within the limits of any civil airway or any op- eration or navigation of aircraft which directly affects, or which may endanger safety in, interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce. (16) “Civil airway” means a path through the navigable air space of the United States, identified by an area on the surface of the earth, designated or approved by the Administrator as suitable for inter- state, overseas, or foreign air commerce. (25) “Navigation of aircraft” or “navigate aircraft” includes the pilot- ing of aircraft. (31) “United States” means the several States, the District of Colum- bia, and the several Territories and possessions of the United States, including the Territorial waters and the overlying air space thereof. Pub. L. No. 75-706, 52 Stat. at 977–80, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 401 (1940). 2 The authority conferred by this section was originally vested in the Secretary of Commerce. Pub. L. No. 69-254, § 6(c), 44 Stat. at 572. As amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, § 1107(i)(1), 52 Stat. at 1028, subsection (c) referred to the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Section 7(b) of Reorganization Plan 4 changed the title of the Civil Aeronautics Authority to “Civil Aeronautics Board” and made other changes not relevant here. 5 Fed. Reg. 2421, 2422 (June 29, 1940). The term “Civil Aeronautics Authority” is now used to refer to the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Administra- tor of Civil Aeronautics considered together. In this memorandum we shall use the title “Civil Aeronautics Authority” without discussing whether the authority given by section 6(c) of the Air Commerce Act may be exercised by the Civil Aeronautics Board or by the Administrator or by both. See Permits for Flight of Foreign Aircraft into the United States, 40 Op. Att’y Gen. 136 (Sept. 12, 1941). 108 Implementation of International Civil Aviation Agreements II. Text In section 6 of the Air Commerce Act, the Congress asserted sovereignty over the airspace above the territory of the United States and reserved to American aircraft all rights of “cabotage” (e.g, air traffic between points within a single state, between two states or between the United States and any of its possessions or territories). The section, however, authorizes the Civil Aeronautics Authority to grant certain flight privileges to foreign aircraft. The only question discussed in this memorandum is whether foreign aircraft may be authorized to make non-stop flights over the United States or to land for non-traffic purposes in the United States. In neither case would the foreign aircraft be authorized to pick up passen- gers or freight at any point in the United States, its territories or possessions destined for any other point in the United States, its territories or possessions. The first sentence of section 6(c) authorizes the Civil Aeronautics Authority to permit foreign aircraft “to be navigated in the United States.” In its ordinary meaning and as defined in the act, “navigation” includes any flight by aircraft whether or not a landing is made; both non-stop flight and transit flight with the privilege of landing for non-commercial purposes necessarily involve the naviga- tion of aircraft in the airspace over the United States.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freedoms of the Air” Startupboeing
    International Traffic Rights “The Freedoms of the Air” StartupBoeing The Freedoms of the Air are international commercial aviation agreements (traffic rights) that grant a country's airline(s) the privilege to enter and land in another country's airspace. They were formulated in 1944 at an international gathering held in Chicago (known as the Chicago Convention) to establish uniformity in world air commerce. There are generally considered to be nine freedoms of the air. Most nations of the world exchange first and second freedoms through the International Air Services Transit Agreement. The other freedoms, when available, are usually established between countries in bilateral or multilateral air services agreements. The third and fourth freedoms are always granted together. The eighth and ninth freedoms (cabotage) have been exchanged only in limited instances. (U.S. law currently prohibits cabotage operations.) Copyright © 2009 Boeing. All rights reserved. International Traffic Rights “The Freedoms of the Air” StartupBoeing First Freedom The negotiated right for an airline Country Country from country (A) to overfly another country’s (B) airspace. A B Home Country Second Freedom The right for a commercial aircraft from country (A) to land and refuel (commonly referred to Country Country as a technical stop) in another country (B). A B Home Technical Country Stop Third Freedom The right for an airline to deliver revenue passengers from the airline’s home country (A) to another Country Country country (B). A B Home Country Copyright © 2009 Boeing. All rights reserved. International Traffic Rights “The Freedoms of the Air” StartupBoeing Fourth Freedom The right for an airline to carry revenue passengers from another country (B) Country Country A B to the airline’s home country (A).
    [Show full text]
  • Would Competition in Commercial Aviation Ever Fit Into the World Trade Organization Ruwantissa I
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 61 | Issue 4 Article 2 1996 Would Competition in Commercial Aviation Ever Fit into the World Trade Organization Ruwantissa I. R. Abeyratne Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Ruwantissa I. R. Abeyratne, Would Competition in Commercial Aviation Ever Fit into the World Trade Organization, 61 J. Air L. & Com. 793 (1996) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol61/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. WOULD COMPETITION IN COMMERCIAL AVIATION EVER FIT INTO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION? RUWANTISSA I.R. ABEYRATNE* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 794 II. THE GENESIS OF AIR TRAFFIC RIGHTS ......... 795 A. TiH CHICAGO CONFERENCE ...................... 795 B. THE CHICAGO CONVENTION ..................... 800 C. POST-CHICAGO CONVENTION TRENDS ............ 802 D. THiE BERMUDA AGREEMENT ...................... 805 E. Ti ROLE OF ICAO ............................. 808 III. RECENT TRENDS .................................. 809 A. THE AI TRANSPORT COLLOQUIUM .............. 809 B. POST-COLLOQUIuM TRENDS ...................... 811 C. THE WORLD-WIDE AIR TRANSPORT CONFERENCE. 814 D. SOME INTERIM GLOBAL ISSUES ................... 816 E. OBJECTWES OF THE CONFERENCE ................ 819 F. EXAMINATION OF ISSUES
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations for Efficiency Gains in the Latin American Air Cargo Market
    Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized TP – 35 TRANSPORT PAPERS MARCH 2011 Public Disclosure Authorized Making a Small Market Thrive: Recommendations for Efficiency Gains in the Latin American Air Cargo Market Tomás Serebrisky, Jordan Schwartz, María Claudia Pachón and Andrés Ricover Public Disclosure Authorized 2 MAKING A SMALL MARKET THRIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFICIENCY GAINS IN THE LATIN AMERICAN AIR CARGO MARKET Tomás Serebrisky, Jordan Schwartz, María Claudia Pachón and Andrés Ricover 3 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This volume is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Single African Air Transport Market Is Africa Ready?
    Single African Air Transport Market Is Africa ready? May 2018 Single African Air Transport Market | Is Africa ready? Single African Air Transport Market | Is Africa ready? Executive Summary “In 2017, more than 4 billion The liberalisation of civil aviation in Africa as an impetus to the Continent’s economic integration agenda led to the launch of the Single African Air passengers used aviation to Transport Market (SAATM). The Open Sky agreement, originally signed by 23 out reunite with friends and loved of 55 Member States, aimed to create a single unified air transport market in Africa. ones, to explore new worlds, to do business, and to take advantage of Africa is considered a growing aviation market with IATA forecasting a 5.9% year-on-year growth in African aviation over the next 20 years, with passenger opportunities to improve themselves. numbers expected to increase from 100m to more than 300m by 2026 and Aviation truly is the business of SAATM is a way to tap into this market. The benefits of SAATM to African Countries include job creation, growth in trade resulting to growth in GDP and freedom, liberating us from the lower travel costs resulting to high numbers of passengers. However, is Africa restraints of geography to lead better ready for a Single African Air Transport Market? lives. In Deloitte’s opinion, SAATM needs to consider various aspects in regards to ownership and effective control, eligibility, infrastructure, capacity and frequency De Juniac, IATA (2018) of flights. In this situation, we turn to various international treaties as guideposts where these Open Skies agreement have been done relative success.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hypocrisy Surrounding Transatlantic Commercial Aviation Regulation
    Freedom to Fly THE HYPOCRISY SURROUNDING TRANSATLANTIC COMMERCIAL AVIATION REGULATION By Taylor Strosnider* n the cold morning of February 18, 2015, over 50 flight attendants and employees of the airline Norwegian Air Shuttle stood on the steps of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) offices in Washington, D.C. in protest of the agency’s delay of Norwegian’s foreign air carrier operating permit.1 The sight was an unusual one: not only is it out of the ordinary to see airline personnel protesting outside of the DOT’s headquarters, but Norwegian was, and still is, a carrier with only a handful of flights to and from the U.S. The permit being sought from the Federal Aviation Ad- O ministration (FAA) had been pending for over a year, resulting in the entirety of Norwegian’s U.S. operations being caught in a seemingly endless period of limbo.2 FAA approval for the airline would allow it the long-sought opportunity to expand its transatlantic services to more cities throughout the country—each of them on state-of-the-art Boeing 787s, in contrast to the often decades-old aircraft used by existing carriers.3 However, despite the protest, petition, and lobbying taking place in Washington, Norwegian still sits in limbo today await- ing formal authorization of its foreign air carrier permit. Moreover, a total of 38 U.S. senators signed a letter to the DOT urging the rejection of the airline’s application.4 Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law 105 Despite the fact that increased competition on transat- While the impetus for Anderson’s remarks remains a lantic routes would be an unqualified win for consumers—many mystery, his remarks on whole clearly illustrate the problem pre- of whom pay a minimum of $1,000 to fly across the Atlantic dur- sented by the Gulf Three.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Assessment on the Proposal on Safeguarding Competition in Air Transport, Repealing Regulation
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 8.6.2017 SWD(2017) 182 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on safeguarding competition in air transport, repealing Regulation (EC) N° 868/2004 {COM(2017) 289 final} {SWD(2017) 183 final} EN EN Table of Content 1. General context ............................................................................................................ 7 1.1. EU aviation sector today .............................................................................................. 7 1.2. Legal context ................................................................................................................ 7 1.2.1. Regulation of international air transport ...................................................................... 7 1.2.2. Internal EU air transport market .................................................................................. 8 1.2.3. External dimension..................................................................................................... 10 1.3. Economic context ....................................................................................................... 11 1.4. Political context .......................................................................................................... 13 2. Problem definition ...................................................................................................... 14 2.1. Description of the main problem ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of International Air Service Liberalisation on Chile
    The Impact of International Air Service Liberalisation on Chile Prepared by InterVISTAS-EU Consulting Inc. July 2009 LIBERALISATION REPORT The Impact of International Air Service Liberalisation on Chile Prepared by InterVISTAS-EU Consulting Inc. July 2009 LIBERALISATION REPORT Impact of International Air Service Liberalisation on Chile i Executive Summary At the invitation of IATA, representatives of 14 nation states and the EU met at the Agenda for Freedom Summit in Istanbul on the 25th and 26th of October 2008 to discuss the further liberalisation of the aviation industry. The participants agreed that further liberalisation of the international aviation market was generally desirable, bringing benefits to the aviation industry, to consumers and to the wider economy. In doing so, the participants were also mindful of issues around international relations, sovereignty, infrastructure capacity, developing nations, fairness and labour interests. None of these issues were considered insurmountable and to explore the effects of further liberalisation the participants asked IATA to undertake studies on 12 countries to examine the impact of air service agreement (ASA) liberalisation on traffic levels, employment, economic growth, tourism, passengers and national airlines. IATA commissioned InterVISTAS-EU Consulting Inc. (InterVISTAS) to undertake the 12 country studies. The aim of the studies was to investigate two forms of liberalisation: market access (i.e., liberalising ASA arrangements) and foreign ownership and control.1 This report documents the analysis undertaken to examine the impact of liberalisation on Chile.2 History of Air Service Agreements and Ownership and Control Restrictions Since World War II, international air services between countries have operated under the terms of bilateral air service agreements (ASAs) negotiated between the two countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilateral Air Agreements
    Specific Problems Solved by the Negotiation of Bilateral Air Agreements Ralph Azzie * Three of the main problems which come up for discussion during negotiations are: 1. The "Agreed Services" on "Specified Routes"; 2. The problems of Capacity and Frequencies. 3. The Fares and Rates. 1. EQUITABLE EXCHANGE OF ROUTES. - Each of the parties to an agreement tries to obtain routes and traffic rights which are equivalent to the ones he is giving away in return. The traffic rights on these routes are known as "Freedoms" of the Air. On February 10, 1945, Canada signed and accepted the Inter- national Air Services Agreement concluded at Chicago. This Agree- ment provided inter alia that each Contracting State grants to the other Contracting State what are known as the First and Second Freedoms of the Air: (i) the privilege to fly across the territory without landing; (ii) the privilege to land for non-traffic purposes. 'Subject to certain rules for safety, security and military purposes, the granting of these privileges does not present any difficulty between States who are signatories of the Convention. But the real disputes begin with the three other Freedoms of the Air which do not only constitute privileges but traffic rights subject to an exchange * Chief, International Relations Division, Air Transport Board. Mr. Azzie, in his lectures, centered upon the bilateral air agreement as the pragmatic and popular means of negotiating aviation treaties. The Chicago Convention of 1944 convened with the hope of recognizing the principle of freedom of air commerce, but the majority of interested states, to the exclusion of the powerful United States, favored protectionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation and the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA)
    Published on The Institute for Government (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk) Home > Aviation and the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) UK–EU future relationship: aviation [1] For detail on what was agreed on aviation in the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, please read our analysis of the deal [2]. The aviation sector is a vital part of the UK economy contributing £52 billion to UK gross domestic product (GDP) [3] in 2016 and supporting close to a million jobs. Flights to or from Europe accounted for 63% of all passengers who passed through UK airports in 2016 [4]. What is the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA)? [5] As a member of the EU, UK airlines currently had access to the world’s most liberalised aviation market – the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA). They will continue to have access to the ECAA during the transition period [6], which is due to end on 31 December 2020. The ECAA was created in 2006 as an extension of the Single Aviation Market and is overseen by the European Aviation Safety Agency [7] (EASA), with its legislation enforced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). During the transition period, the UK will continue to be represented at the EASA by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the national aviation regulator – but will no longer play a formal role in any of the decision-making. The EU has also negotiated horizontal agreements with 17 other non-ECAA countries. Horizontal agreements (including the EU–USA Open Skies Agreement and the EU–Canada Air Transport Agreement) cover areas such as access rights for airlines, passenger rights and investment.
    [Show full text]
  • International Air Service Controversies: Frequently Asked Questions
    International Air Service Controversies: Frequently Asked Questions Rachel Y. Tang Analyst in Transportation and Industry May 4, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44016 International Air Service Controversies: Frequently Asked Questions Summary “Open skies” agreements are a form of international civil air service agreement that facilitates international aviation in a deregulated environment. They eliminate government involvement in airline decisionmaking about international routes, capacity, and prices. Since 1992, the United States has reached 114 open skies agreements governing international air passenger and air freight services. There are two ongoing controversies that are related to open skies agreements. One controversy involves some U.S. network airlines’ and labor unions’ opposition to the expansion of three fast- growing airlines based in the Persian Gulf region—Emirates Airline, Etihad Airways, and Qatar Airways. The U.S. carriers allege the subsidies and support that these three Persian Gulf carriers purportedly receive from their government owners contravene fair competitive practices requirements of their home countries’ open skies agreements with the United States. The U.S. carriers have urged the Administration to freeze the number of flights Gulf carriers operate to the United States and to renegotiate the open skies accords with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Similar protests have occurred in Europe, initiated by Lufthansa Group and Air France-KLM, and organized labor. The other controversy concerns Norwegian Air International (NAI), an airline that is registered in Ireland and plans to operate transatlantic flights to U.S. destinations. NAI’s application has met strong opposition from labor groups and some airlines that allege that NAI violates a provision of the U.S.-EU open skies agreement that governs labor standards.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proposed Multilateral Agreement on Commercial Rights in International Civil Air Transport, 14 J
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Southern Methodist University Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 14 | Issue 2 Article 1 1947 The rP oposed Multilateral Agreement on Commercial Rights in International Civil Air Transport John C. Cooper Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation John C. Cooper, The Proposed Multilateral Agreement on Commercial Rights in International Civil Air Transport, 14 J. Air L. & Com. 125 (1947) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol14/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE Volume 14 SPRING, 1947 Number 2 THE PROPOSED MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON COMMERCIAL RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT By JOHN C. COOPER Member, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N. J.; Princeton, A.B., 1909. Member of American Section, CITEJA; consultant on air transport to Library of Congress. Formerly, Vice President, Pan American Airways 1934-45; private practice of law, Jacksonville, Fla. 1911-34; chairman, Committee on Aeronautical Law, American Bar Association 1932-35; chairman, U. S. delegation to Third Inter- national Conference on Private Air Law, Rome 1933; advisor, U. S. delegation, Chicago International Civil Aviation Conference, Nov.- Dec., 1944; chairman, Organizing Committee and Executive Com- mittee, IATA 1945; official observer, first Interim Assembly, PICAO Montreal, May-June 1946.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Transport Services: International Regulation and Future Prospects for Liberalization Renewed Services Trade Negotiations in the WTO
    PREFACE The Industry Trade and Technology Review (ITTR) is a quarterly staff publication of the Office of Industries, U.S. International Trade Commission. The opinions and conclusions it contains are those of the authors and are not the views of the Commission or of any individual Commissioner. The report is intended to provide analysis of important issues and insights into the global position of U.S. industries, the technological competitiveness of the United States, and implications of trade and policy developments. The information and analysis in this series are for the purpose of this report only. Nothing in this report should be construed to indicate how the Commission would find in an investigation conducted under any statutory authority. Inquiries or comments on items appearing in this report may be made directly to the author, or to: Director of Industries Industry Trade and Technology Review U. S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20436 Fax: 202-205-3161 Requests for copies of the ITTR, or to be added to the mailing list, should be address to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, or by fax: 202-205-2104 Quarterly Review Staff Larry Brookhart assisted by Zema Tucker Sharon Greenfield Contributing Authors Joann Tortorice Christopher Melly Robert A. Rogowsky Director of Operations Vern Simpson Director of Industries 12/99 ITC READER SATISFACTION SURVEY Industry, Trade, and Technology Review (ITTR) The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is interested in your voluntary comments (burden < 15 minutes) to help us assess the value and quality of our reports, and to assist us in improving future products.
    [Show full text]