1 462 F. Supp. 1114 (CD. Cal. 1978).

2 Concluded Oct. 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000 (1934), TS No. 876, 137 LNTS 11.

3 Done Sept. 28,1955,478 UNTS 371. The United States did not adhere to the Hague Protocol, at least in part because its increased limit on liability was regarded as being too low.

4 CAB Order No. E-23680, 31 Fed. Reg. 7302 (1966).

5 684 F.2d 1301, 1308.

6 The court noted that this may be a case where the constitutional rights can be protected only if interested third parties are permitted to raise them. See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 (1965).

7 Defendants’ argument that those plaintiffs who were residents of Australia had no standing, or limited standing, to raise constitutional objections was rejected. The court held that while not all constitutional protections are available to nonresident aliens, “the fifth amendment surely does not permit . . . the application of different rules of decision to residents and nonresidents suing on the same cause of action in the same court.” 684 F.2d at 1308 n.6.

8 Thus, the Supreme Court held in Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 689–90 (1981), that if the executive agreement entered into with Iran to secure the release of the American hostages effected a taking of the claimants’ property, the Tucker Act remedy would be available.

9 684 F.2dat 1311 n.7.

10 450 U.S. 621, 623 (1981).

11 684 F.2d at 1311 n.7 (relying on 450 U.S. at 633 (Rehnquist, J., concurring); id. at 1301 (Brennan, J., dissenting)).

12 The Montreal Aviation Protocols Nos. 3 and 4 (not to be confused with the Montreal Agreement) would also increase the liability limitation to approximately $117,000 and allow an additional $200,000 in payments under a mandatory insurance program. See S. Rep. No. 45, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). See also Leich, , Current Developments Note, 76 AJIL 412 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.