Air Service Agreement Case

When a contract between two or more contracting parties is to establish general rules on a particular subject, it is tempting to draw general principles from that treaty and thus bring together elements to “fill a gap”, i.e. to resolve issues that have not been expressly resolved. However, the application of such a constructive approach is only permitted if it is truly consistent with the intent of the parties, as it can be established on the basis of specific and consistent evidence. This is not the case when the treaty is silent, not because the parties did not want to establish detailed rules, nor because the negotiators had not done so, nor because of an development that was not foreseen at the time of the agreement, but because there was no unresolved divergence that led to a gap in the agreement. It does not matter that the parties have failed to overcome their differences for reasons of time or because of the seriousness of their differences: the only way they leave them unresolved to resolve the unresolved issue is the subsequent conclusion of an agreement. It is not permissible to substitute for the parties and to try, under general principles, what is practically to legislate if the parties themselves did not adopt such legislation when they were the best qualified to do so. The fact that an arbitral tribunal is not in a position to legislate, even under the pretext of interpretation, does not mean that the question remains unanswered until an endorsement is reached between the parties. This means that the situation is governed by the other relevant rules of international law. (c) that the air services offered by airlines in both countries should be closely linked to the public`s needs for these services. One of the first AAS after World War II was the Bermuda Agreement, signed in 1946 by the United Kingdom and the United States. The characteristics of this agreement have become models for the thousands of agreements that were to follow, although in recent decades some of the traditional clauses of these agreements have been amended (or “liberalized”) in accordance with the “open skies” policy of some governments, particularly the United States.

[2] Considering that there is a different offer conceiving the burden link under the Agreement between France and the United States of America relating to air services, Signe a Paris on 27 March 1946, as amended, and its Annex, as amended (hereafter the Agreement), “Following recent discussions on this subject, the message has since assumed that an agreement had been reached on an exchange of air transit rights in order to grant airlines from both countries The following benefits.