2 Initials of the French name of the organization, Comité International Technique d’’Experts Juridiques Aériens.

2a Resolution VII. For texts of resolutions, agreements and convention adopted at the Chicago Conference, see Final Act and Related Documents of the International Civil Aviation Conference, Department of State, Publications, No. 2282, Conference Series, No. 64.

3 For a fuller description of the functions of CITEJA and a historical description of CITEJA draft conventions on which final action has been taken at periodic diplomatic conferences on private air law, see Latchford, Stephen, “The Growth of Private International Air Law,” in The George Washington Law Review, Volume 13 (1945), page 276 Google Scholar; also “Private International Air Law,” in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XII (1945), page 11.

4 For a translation of the draft as adopted at Bern in September 1936, see Department of State, Treaty Information Bulletin, No. 92 (May 1937), p. 30; The Journal of Air Law, Vol. VIII (1937), p. 320; and published report of United States delegation to the Fourth International Conference on Private Air Law, Brussels, , 1938 Department of State, Conference Series, No. 42, p. 48 Google Scholar.

See also Knauth, Arnold W. , “Aviation and Admiralty,” in Air Law Review, Vol. VI (1935), p. 226 Google Scholar, in which the proposed CITEJA Collisions Convention is discussed.

It is of interest to compare the CITEJA draft with the Maritime Collisions Convention, signed at Brussels on September 23, 1910 (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1911, p. 19 and Department of State, Treaty Information Bulletin, No. 21 (June, 1931), p. 22.

5 United States currency equivalents under the proposed collisions convention at the present time on the basis of $.066335 to the franc and the 1934 valuation of the dollar are:

francs ………………………….. $ 16.58

600,000 francs ………………………… 39,801.00

2,000,000 francs ………………………… 132,670.00

The French franc as referred to elsewhere in this article has the same United States currency equivalent as that given above.

6 For a description of the Warsaw and Rome Conventions see “The Growth of Private International Air Law,” in The George Washington Law Review, Volume 13 (1945), page 276.

7 The unsettled political situation arising from the Munich Conference and the desire of the delegates to leave Brussels at the earliest possible moment appear to have been important factors in the decision to postpone consideration of the draft convention. As of interest in this connection, the United States delegates to the Brussels Conference concluded their report to the Secretary of State with the following observation:

While it is not within our province as delegates to an international air-law conference to make comments on questions of a political nature, it is believed that we might appropriately make the observation that the Delegates to the Brussels Air-Law Conference were in session at a time when there was a tense situation in Europe, due to the threatened outbreak of war, and that this situation was in striking contrast with the spirit of cooperation and goodwill exhibited by the assembled delegates at Brussels, representing nations in many parts of the world, in their successful efforts to reach an amicable agreement on outstanding questions of international importance.

8 Also referred to as a “global limitation,” whereby there would be a decrease of the total liability under two or more private air law conventions in connection with a single accident.

9 See V. S. Aviation Reports, 1937, page 296, for report of United States delegation on the Bern session.

10 This has reference to a draft convention on assistance and salvage of aircraft and by aircraft at sea, developed by CITEJA, on which final action was taken at the Fourth International Conference on Private Air Law, held at Brussels in September, 1938.

11 See Knauth, Arnold W. , “The CITEJA meeting in Paris in January, 1939,” in The Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. X (1939), p. 167, in which Mr. Knauth commented on the discussions concerning land salvage.Google Scholar

For a translation of a preliminary draft on land salvage prepared for consideration by the Third Commission in Paris in May, 1937, see The Journal of Air Law, Vol. VIII (1937), p. 350 and U. S. Aviation Reports, 1937, p. 376. Modifications of this draft were subsequently made by the Third Commission.

11a The Interim Council of the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organization (PICAO) provided for at the Chicago Aviation Conference, now functioning at Montreal, Canada, has divided Annex L into two sets of international standards and recommended practices, one set relating to investigation of accidents, and the other to search and rescue activities.

12 For a translation of the convention see The Journal of Air Law, Vol. VIII (1937), p. 339; U. S. Aviation Reports, 1937, p. 394.

13 The number has not yet been determined.

14 Article 1 reads: “For the purposes of this Convention, navigating personnel shall mean any persons (including the aircraft commander) who are assigned to the handling of the aircraft or to perform other services on board, and who are hired and paid for such purposes.”

15 For a translation of the preliminary draft convention on the legal status of the navigating personnel prepared for consideration at the meeting of the Fourth Commission in Paris in May, 1937, see The Journal of Air Law, Vol. VIII (1937), p. 342. This draft was considerably modified at sessions of the Fourth Commission.

16 Registration, or recording, under the draft convention, unless otherwise indicated, is to be distinguished from registration under public air law, by which the nationality of aircraft is determined. For the purpose of clarity the aeronautic register which is the subject of this Convention might be described as the aircraft property record.

17 For a translation of the draft convention as adopted by the CITEJA in 1931, see Department of State, Treaty Information Bulletin, No. 40 (January 1933), p. 38; see also The Journal of Air Law, Vol. VIII (1937), p. 325.

18 Resolution No. V in the Final Act of the Chicago Conference.

19 The word “privileges” as used in the convention relates to preferred claims or liens.

20 At its Thirteenth Session in Brussels in 1938 the CITEJA decided to reconsider the draft convention on aerial mortgages.

21 Section 503 of the United States Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended (52 Stat. 1006; 54 Stat. 1235; 49 U.S.C. 523) provides for the recording of all conveyances affecting title to or interest in any civil aircraft of the United States or any portion thereof, in order to be valid against third parties taking in good faith. It also provides that the records shall show the interest transferred, the interest of the vendor, if any, and amount of indebtedness secured by the conveyance. It is of interest to compare this section of the 1938 Act with the provisions of the CITEJA draft convention on aircraft mortgages. A translation of the CITEJA draft convention appears in Department of State, Treaty Information Bulletin, No. 40 (January 1933), p. 33; also in The Journal of Air Law, Vol. VIII (1937), p. 330.

21a For a statement as to the present status of this proposed convention see last paragraph of preceding discussion regarding ownership of aircraft and the aeronautic register.

22 An organization, generally referred to as IATA (International Air Traffic Association), composed principally of European air transport operators, concerned with technical questions relating to air traffic and operating problems. This organization has been superseded by the International Air Transport Association organized on April 19, 1945 at Habana, Cuba, also referred to as IATA.

23 For a translation of the draft convention on the interpretation and execution of private air law conventions as submitted to the First Commission at Paris in May 1937, see The Journal of Air Law, Vol. VIII (1937), p. 357. This text was submitted to the CITEJA at Bucharest in September, 1937, with a few minor changes, including the substitution of the word “execution” for “application,” and with Article 5 taking the form of a voeu. Article 5 as submitted at Paris in May 1937 read:

To make it possible to follow the application of the international conventions, every signatory government is requested to communicate to the Secretariat General of the CITEJA as soon as possible, every legislative, regulatory, administrative or judicial document, relative to such application.

The following observation by the late Professor John H. Wigmore appears as a footnote to the text appearing in The Journal of Air Law:

The proposal in this Draft is hardly consistent with the traditions of United States law and policy. The amendment of an international convention is a matter for the Governments only. The interpretation of its terms is a matter for judicial decision in either a national or an international tribunal.

24 For a description of these organizations, see Waldo, Richard K. , “Sequels to the Chicago Aviation Conference,” in Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. XI, No. 3 (Winter-Spring 1946), p. 609 Google Scholar; also Colclaser, H. Alberta, “The New International Civil Aviation Organization,” in Virginia Law Review, Vol. 31, No. 2 (March 1945), p. 457.Google Scholar

25 See Latchford, Stephen, “Coördination of the CITEJA with the New International Civil Aviation Organizations,” in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XII (1945), page 310 Google Scholar.