TitleCompliance & Enforcement in International Law: Achieving Global Uniformity in Aviation Safety
AuthorPaul Stephen Dempsey; trans., by Leiyin Wang*
AffiliationPaul Stephen Dempsey, Tomlinson Professor of Global Governance in Air & Space Law, and Director of the Institute of Air & Space Law, McGill University, Canada; Leiyin Wang, University of Vienna, Austria.
关键字航空业 国际民用航空 航空安全 国际法 航空安全法 民用航空组织 芝加哥公约 商业航空 标准和建议实践 美国民用航空安全法案 美国国内法 国家法 国内法规 程序法
KeywordsAviation Industry, International Civil Aviation, Aviation Safety, International Law, Aviation Safety Law, ICAO, Chicago Convention, Commercial Aviation, SARPs, CASA, US Domestic Law, National Laws, National Regulations, Procedures

摘要:无人遵守且无法实施的法律与诗歌无异——虽悦耳动听,但对我们生活的现实世界鲜有影响。现有的研究并未完全把国际规范和遵守国际法律义务统一起来;甚至需要达成广泛共识来实现国际协作的领域,也没有完全达成一致。受各国固有主权、参差不齐的经济发展水平、以及种类繁多的政治优先事项影响,遵守国际义务并不是一件容易的事。本文将考察有关国际航空安全的法律法规,同时也会论及在遵守国际义务中单边及多边所做出的努力。国际商业航空提供了有价值的研究案例,让国际社会在守法的前提下,得以共同探寻互利的可能性。国际习惯法、国际组织颁布的类法律准则,以及国内法规与程序法,增进了我们对复杂国际企业的理解,比如,商业航空公司是如何在国际舞台发挥其影响力的。1944年,国际社会急待通过统一的立法来保障航空安全。这需要一个管理国际航空的组织,其不仅享有制定国际航空安全规则的准立法权,同时也有权强制让成员国通过国内法来执行这些规则。然而,除了主要成员国和国际组织所做的努力,这一目标推进得十分缓慢。因此,把航空安全作为一个典型课题,不仅可以研究国家遵守国际义务的意愿和能力,还可探索激励或强制履行国际义务的方式。这一研究之所以重要,还有一个更加现实的原因,即安全(safety)和保安(security)密切相关。对二者进行规定,除了可以避免人身损害和财产损失,最重要的是可以防止人们失去生命。不过,二者也存在区别。安全的规定用来预防意外伤害,而保安的规定则用来预防故意伤害。正如普通法中过错责任(fault-based negligence)和故意侵权(intentional torts)的区别:后者比前者的过错更大,且会面临更加严格的惩罚。2001年9月11日的悲剧后,保安成为国际航空界最为关心的目标。可实际上,乘客死于航空安全的概率比死于空中恐怖袭击的概率高出10倍。因此,研究航空安全在实践中的重要性,其意义远大于充满感情色彩的航空保安研究。在商业航空中,安全的优先级一定是最高的。统计数据表明,国际航空的安全性近年来显著提升。究其原因,一方面归功于日益进步的技术,另一方面也得益于不断完善的法律。本文关注的是后一个问题。


Law without compliance and enforcement is like poetry – it is pleasing to the ear, but has little to do with the practical world in which we live. The study of efforts to achieve uniformity in international norms and compliance with international legal obligations reveals mixed success, even in areas where there is widespread consensus for the need to have international harmony. Given the inherent sovereignty of states, the heterogeneous levels of economic ability, and the diversity of political priorities, securing compliance with international obligations is rarely an effortless task.
This article addresses legal norms governing international aviation safety, as well as both unilateral and multilateral efforts to achieve state compliance with those international legal obligations. Commercial international aviation provides a useful case study of how the world community seeks to achieve mutual self-interest by securing global harmony in law. The interplay between conventional international law, quasi-legal standards promulgated by international organizations, and national laws, regulations, and procedures offers insights as to how complex international enterprises, such as commercial aviation, play on the world stage. In 1944, the world community acknowledged the need to achieve safety in international aviation through uniformity in law by establishing an organization to govern international aviation, conferring upon it quasi-legislative power to prescribe standards governing international aviation safety, and obliging member states to implement these standards through their domestic laws. Despite the efforts of major aviation nations and international organizations, those goals are only sluggishly being achieved. Thus, aviation safety can serve as a case study to inquire into the ability and willingness, on the one hand, or inability and unwillingness, on the other, of states to conform to their international obligations and the means by which they can be encouraged, or coerced, to comply. This inquiry is important for another less theoretical and more practical reason. Safety and security are two sides of the same coin. The regulation of both is designed to avoid injuries to persons and property, and the deprivation of man’s most valuable attribute – life. Yet the two are quite different, as well. Safety regulation focuses on preventing accidental harm. Security regulation focuses on preventing intentional harm. Like the common law difference between fault-based negligence and intentional torts, the latter involves more culpability than the former, and is deterred by more serious penalties. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, security has become a paramount concern in international aviation community. Yet a passenger is ten times more likely to lose his life in an aviation safety-related accident than in an aviation terrorist event. Hence, the study of aviation safety is of far more practical importance than the more emotionally driven study of aviation security. Safety must be among the highest priorities in commercial aviation. All statistical evidence indicates that international aviation has become decidedly safer in recent decades. Though much of that positive result can be attributed to improvements in technology, much can also be attributed to improvements in the law. It is the latter subject that is the focus of this article.