论1999年《蒙特利尔公约》之“事故”解释  

Interpretation of “Accident” in the Montreal Convention of 1999

作　　者：孟小桦 MENG Xiaohua(School of Law,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou,Gansu 730000,China)

机构地区：[1]兰州大学法学院,甘肃兰州730000

出　　处：《南京航空航天大学学报（社会科学版）》2022年第3期110-116,共7页Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics（Social Sciences）

摘　　要：1999年《蒙特利尔公约》第17条第1款的“事故”普遍存在解释分歧,导致司法实践在适用“事故”时无法作出一致裁判,有违统一性和确定性的初衷。解释含有私法性的“事故”,不应完全套用1969年《维也纳条约法公约》的解释方法,可借用法理学中一般法律解释方法进行尝试,最终厘定“事故”的要件。第一,“事故”具有航空运输的独特含义,包括独立价值和工具价值;第二,“事故”必须是不寻常的或意外的事件;第三,“事故”必须是旅客自身原因之外的事件;第四,旅客必须证明“事故”的存在以及“事故”是造成损失的近因;第五,“事故”是否需要与航空运输的固有风险或航空器的操作有关,具有灵活性。There are widespread differences in interpretation of“accident”in Article 17, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Convention of 1999. It leads to the inability of judicial practice to make a unanimous judgment in the application of “accident”, which is contrary to the original intention of unity and certainty. The interpretation of “accident”with private law should not completely apply the interpretation method of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. The general legal interpretation method in jurisprudence can be used to finally determine the elements of“accident”. Firstly,“accident” has a unique meaning of air transportation, including independent value and instrumental value;secondly,“accident”must be an unusual and unexpected event;thirdly,“accident”must be an event caused by other elements except the passengers themselves;fourthly, passengers must prove the existence of “accident”and that “accident” is the proximate cause of loss;and finally, whether the“accident”needs to be related to the inherent risks of air transport or the operation of the aircraft is flexible.

关 键 词：国际私法条约 《蒙特利尔公约》 事故 法律解释 

分 类 号：D993.4[政治法律—国际法学]