Case concerning the Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 between the United States of America and France
Decision of 9 December 1978
Characterization of questions of facts and issues of law—Application of the rule of exhaustion of local remedies in cases of diplomatic protection distinguished from application of the rule in cases of direct injury to States intei se—The relevance of draft Article 22 of the International Law Commission on State responsibility in the determination of the nature ot the local remedies rule—Affirmation of the principle that a treaty must be read as a whole and that its meaning is not to be determined mainly upon particular phrases which, it detached trom the text, may be interpreted in more than one sense—Interpretation ot the concept ot “continuous service” for the purposes of determining permitted and prohibited change of gauge (size ot aircraft) in a designated air service route—Consideration of the fifth-freedom rights in relation to the question of change ot gauge—The relevance of the Convention on International Civil Aviation convened at Chicago 7 December 1944 in the application of the concept of “freedom of the air” as opposed to the concept of national sovereignty of a State over the air space above its territory in the determination of the right of change of gauge in third-party States—The relevance of the formula on the change ot gauge contained in the 1946 Bermuda Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom—The weight to be given to the evidence of the practice of the parties to a treaty in interpretation of the treaty—Consideration of the concept of “counter-measures” and the related rule of “proportionality”—The proper content of the requirement to negotiate, the duty not to aggravate a dispute, and the related question of interim measures of protection.
Arbitral Award
Mr. Willem Riphagen, President;
Mr. Thomas Ehrlich, M. Paul Reuter, Arbitrators;
Mr. Lucius Caflisch, Registrar.
In the case concerning the Air Services Agreement of 27 March 1946 between The United States of America, represented by:
Mr. Lee R. Marks, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State, as Agent; and Ms. Judith Hippler Bello, Department of State, Ms. Lori Fisler Damrosch, Department of State, as Deputy-Agents; assisted by: Mr. James R. Atwood, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Affairs, Department of State, Mr. William A. Kutzke, Assistant General Counsel, International Law, Department of Transportation, Mr. Peter B. Schwarzkopf, Assistant General Counsel, International Affairs, Civil Aeronautics Board, as Advisers; Mr. Norman P. Seagrave, Pan American World Airways, Inc., as Expert-Adviser; Mrs. Cozetta B. Johnson, Department of State, as Secretary;
And The French Republic, represented by:
M. Guy Ladreit de Lacharriere, Minister Plenipotentiary, Director of
Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Agent; M. Noel Mu- seux, Magistrate, Deputy-Director of Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, M. Henry Cuny, Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Office of the Director of Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Deputy-Agents; assisted by: M. Gilbert Guillaume, Maitre des requetes, Conseil d’Etat, M. Michel Virally, Professor of the Faculties of Law, University of Paris, M. Emmanuel du Pontavice, Professor of the Faculties of Law, University of Paris, as Counsel; M. Robert Esperou, Director of Air Transport (Civil Aviation), M. Jean-Baptiste Valle, Head of Department, Air France, as Experts; Mile Solange Challe, as Secretary;
The Tribunal, composed as above, delivers the following Arbitral Award;
By a Compromis of Arbitration signed on 11 July 1978, the text of which is given below, at paragraph 9, the Governments of the United States of America and of the French Republic submitted to the Arbitral Tribunal, composed as above, the following questions:
(A) Does a United States-designated carrier have the right to operate West Coast- Pans service under the Air Services Agreement between the United States and France with a change ol gauge in London (transshipment to a smaller aircraft on the outward journey and to a larger aircraft on the return journey)?
(B) Under the circumstances in question, dtd the Unrted Stales have the right to undertake such action as it undertook under Part 213 of the Civil Aeronautics Board’s Economic Regulations?
The Compromis provided that on Question (A), “the tribunal’s decision . . . shall be binding”, and with respect to Question (B), “the tribunal shall issue an advisory report , . . in accordance with Article X of the Agreement,54 which shall not be binding1‘. It also provided that the Parties were to exchange memorials not later than 18 September 1978, and replies not later than 6 November 1978. It finally specified that oral hearings were to be held at Geneva (Switzerland) on 20 and 21 November 1978.
On 4 September 1978, the French Government appointed M. Guy La- dreit de Lacharriere as its Agent for the case. Mr. Lee R. Marks was appointed as Agent for the United States of America on 18 September 1978.
The Arbitral Tribunal met at Geneva on 17 and 18 November 1978 and, after having consulted the Parties, appointed Mr. Lucius Caflisch as its Registrar. Its inaugural hearing took place on 17 November 1978 in the “Alabama” room of the Geneva City Hall.
The Memorials and Replies having been filed within the prescribed time-limits, the case was ready for hearing on 6 November 1978.
The Arbitral Tribunal held hearings on 20 and 21 November 1978, during which it heard, in the order agreed between the Parties and approved by the Tribunal, the following persons submit oral argument: Mr, Marks on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, M. Ladreit de
Lacharriere, Agent, and MM. Guillaume and Virally, Counsel, on behalf of the Government of the French Republic.
In the course of the oral proceedings, the following final Submissions were made by the Parties:
On behalf of the Government of the United States of America:
On the basis of the Memorial and Reply of the United States, including the Exhibits thereto, and the oral hearings held in Geneva on November 20-21. 1978, including the eight Hearing Exhibits submitted by the United States, the United States respectfully requests the Tribunal to rule as follows:
—On Question A, to answer in the affirmative;
—On Question B. to decline to answer the question, or, in the alternative, to answer in the affirmative.
On behalf of the Government of the French Republic;
May it please the Arbitral Tribunal:
(1) Regarding Question (A),
To adjudge and declare that the Government of the United States was required, before acting on the international level by resorting to arbitration, to wait until the United States company that considers itself injured by the allegedly unlawful act of the French Government had exhausted the remedies open to it under French law; and that, since those remedies have not been exhausted, the Arbitral Tribunal is unable to decide on the question submitted to it;
Subsidiarily,
To adjudge and declare that, for the above-mentioned reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal must postpone its decision on Question (A) until such time as the Pan American World Airways company has either obtained recognition of the rights it claims from the French courts or exhausted the remedies available to it under French law without obtaining satisfaction;
If neither of the above is possible.
To adjudge and declare that a carrier designated by the United States does not have the right, under the Air Services Agreement between France and the United States of Amcnca, to operate a West Coast-Pans service with a change of gauge in London (transshipment to a smaller aircraft on the outward journey and to a larger aircraft on the return journey),
(2) Regarding Question (B),
To adjudge and declare that, under the circumstances in question, the United States Government did not have the right to undertake such action as it undertook undei Part 213 of the Economic Regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Board [1]
The Facts
1. An Exchange of Notes of 5 April 1960 relating to the Air Services Agreement concluded between the United States of America and France on 27 March 1946 authorises air carriers designated by the United States to operate to Paris via London (without traffic rights between London and Paris) services to and from United States West Coast points.[2] A carrier so designated, Pan American World Airways (hereinafter referred to as Pan Am) intermittently operated services over this route until 2 March 1975.
Compromis of arbitration
between
the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the French Republic
The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the French Republic (the “Parties”):
Considering that there is a dispute concerning change of gauge under the Air Services Agreement between the United States of America and France, signed at Paris on March 27, 1946. as amended, and its Annex, as amended (collectively referred to as the “Agreement”),
Recognizing that the Parties have been unable to settle this dispute through consultations;
Considering also that the Government of France has raised a question with respect to the validity of the action undertaken by the Government of the United States under Part 213 of the Civil Aeronautics Board’s Economic Regulations in response to the action of the Government of France;
Noting that the Parties have decided to submit the dispute concerning change of gauge to an arbitral tribunal for binding arbitration;
Noting that the Government of France wishes to submit its question regarding the validity of the action undertaken by the United States to the arbitral tribunal for an advisory report pursuant to Article X of the Agreement;
Noting that in agreeing to ic.sort to arbitration with respect to change of gauge, the French Government reserves its light to argue before the tribunal that all means of internal recourse must be exhausted before a State may invoke arbitration under the Agreement;
Noting also that in agreeing to resort to arbitration with respect to Part 213, the United States Government reserves its right to argue before the tribunal that under the circumstances the issue is not approprrate for consideration by an arbitral tribunal,
Agree as follows:
(1) The arbitral tribunal (“tribunal”) shall be composed of three arbitrators One arbitrator shall be Mr Thomas Ehrlrch If tor any reason Mr Ehrlich becomes unable to act as arbitrator, the Government of the United States shall promptly designate a replacement. Another arbitrator shall be Prof, Paul Reuter. If for any reason Prof Reuter becomes unable to act as arbitrator, the Government of France shall promptly designate a replacement The third arbitrator shall be Prof W. Riphagen, who shall serve as President of the tribunal.
(2) The tribunal is requested to decide the following two questions in accordance with applicable international law and in particular with the provisions of the Agreement:
(A) Does a United States-designated carrier have the right to operate West Coast- Paris service under the Air Services Agreement between the United States and France with a change of gauge in London (transshipment to a smaller aircraft on the outward journey and to a larger aircraft on the return journey)’?
The tribunal’s decision of this question shall be binding
(B) Under the circumstances in question, did the United States have the right to undertake such action as it undertook under Part 213 ot the Civil Aeronautics Board’s Economic Regulations?
The tribunal shall issue an advisory report with respect to this question in accordance with Article X of the Agreement, which shall not be binding
(3) The parties have agreed on interim arrangements that will maintain strict equality of balance between the position of the Government of the United States that Pan American World Airways should be permitted to change gauge during arbitration, and the position of the Government of France that it should not change gauge during thrs period. To this end, and without prejudice to the position of either Party in this arbitration, from the date ot this compromis to December 10, 1978, Pan American World Airways shall be permitted to operate West Coast-Paris service with a change of gauge in London to the extent of 95 London-Paris flights in each direction Such flights may be scheduled at the airline’s discretion; provided, however, that no such service may operate prior to July 17, and that no more than six flights per week may be operated in each direction.
The tribunal shall be competent, in any event, at the request of either Party, to prescribe all other provisional measures necessary to safeguard the rights ot the Parties A Party may make such request in its written pleadings, at oral hearings, or subsequent to the oral hearings, as appropriate
Upon signature of this compromis, the United States Civil Aeronautics Board shall immediately vacate all pertinent orders issued pursuant to Part 213 of its Economic Regulations (Orders 78-5-45, 78-5-106. 78-6-82, and 78-6-202)
(4) Each Party shall be represented before the tribunal by an agent Each agent may nominate a deputy or deputies to act for him and may be assisted by such advisors, counsel, and staff as he deems necessary. Each Party shall communicate the names and addresses of its respective agent and deputy or deputies to the other Party and to the members of the tribunal.
(5) The tribunal shall, after consultation with the two agents, appoint a registrar
(6) (A) The proceedings shall consist ot written pleadings and oral hearings
(B) The written pleadings shall be limited to the following documents:
(i) A memorial, which shall be submitted by each Party to the other Party by September 18, 1978,
(ii) A reply, which shall be submitted by each Party to the other Party by November 6, 1978.
Four certified copies of each document shall be submitted promptly to the registrar.
(C) The tribunal may extend the above time limits at the request of either Party for good
cause shown, provided that the time limits shall not be extended under any circumstances by a total of more than two weeks. The tribunal may if it wishes request supplemental pleadings,
(D) Oral hearings shall be held at Geneva, Switzerland, or at such other place as the Parties may agree, on November 20 and 21, 1978, at a specific time and place to be fixed by the President of the tribunal.
(7) (A) The Parties shall present their written pleadings and oral arguments to the tribunal in English or in French
(B) The tribunal shall arrange for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearings and shall keep a verbatim record of all oral hearings in English and in French,
(8) (A) Subject to the provisions of this compromis, the tribunal shall determine its own procedure and all questions affecting the conduct of the arbitration.
(B) All decisions of the tribunal shall be determined by a majority vote
(C) The tribunal may engage such technical, secretarial, and clerical staff and obtain such services and equipment as may be necessary.
(9) The tribunal shall use its best efforts to render a decision on the change of gauge question and an advisory report on the Part 213 issue as soon as possible, but not later than December 10, 1978. To this end the tribunal shall sit from the date of the opening of the oral hearings until the date its decision and advisory report are rendered. If necessary, the tribunal may render a decision and advisory report limited to the conclusion, on or before December 10, with sufficiently clear guidance to enable the Parties to implement the decision; and issue a full decision and advisory report as soon as possible thereafter. A copy of the decision and of the advisory report, signed by all three arbitrators, shall be immediately communicated to each of the agents
(10) Any dispute between the Parties as to the interpretation of the decision or of the advisory report shall be referred to the tribunal for clarification at the request of either Party within 60 days of receipt of the written decision and report.
(11) (A) One copy each of all written pleadings of the Parties, the decision and the advisory report of the tribunal, and any written clarification thereof shall be submitted by the tribunal to the International Civil Aviation Organization.
(B) One copy of the verbatim record of all oral hearings, in English and in French, shall be submitted by the tribunal to the International Civil Aviation Organization.
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraphs 11 (A) and (B), documents regarded and designated as confidential by a Party and relevant portions of any pleading or record based thereon shall be treated confidentially by both Parties and the tribunal, and shall not be submitted by the tribunal to the International Civil Aviation Organization.
(12) (A) The remuneration of the three arbitrators, their travel and lodging expenses, and all general expenses of the arbitration shall be borne equally by the Parties Each arbitrator shall keep a record and render a final account of all general expenses. The Parties shall agree upon the amount of remuneration and shall confer with each other and the President of the tribunal in all matters concerning remuneration and expenses.
(B) Each Party shall bear its own expenses incurred in the preparation and presentation of its case.
(13) The provisions of Articles 59, 65 to 78 inclusive, 81 and 84 paragraph 1 of the Convention of October 18, 1907 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes shall be applicable with respect to any points which are not covered by the present compromis.
(14) The compromis shall come into force on the date of signature,
10. During the hearing of 21 November 1978, in reply to a question addressed to them, the Agents of the two Parties agreed that the Arbitral Tribunal, if it so chose, could go beyond the 10 December 1978 fixed in point (9) of the Compromis of Arbitration as the final date for the delivery of the operative part of its award, in order to issue a complete award, on the understanding that this would be done as soon as possible.
Summary of the Arguments of the Parties
1. Question (A)
(a) The preliminary issue
(b) The substantive issue
14. France argues that the 1919 Paris Convention and the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation recognise the sovereignty of States over the air space above their territory and that the bilateral air services agreements granting air traffic rights must hence be interpreted strictly, in the sense that, wherever an agreement does not expressly permit changes of gauge—as is the case under Section VI of the Annex to the 1946 Agreement as regards changes in third countries—such changes must be deemed to be prohibited. This interpretation, which corresponds to the clear text and natural meaning of Section VI and which results in an application of the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”, is supported by the application of general principles of treaty interpretation, not only by the above- mentioned rule according to which treaty rules implying limitations on sovereignty must be interpreted res trie tively, but also by the principle according to which the objective and the fundamental provisions of the agreement must be taken into consideration. First, it is the objective of the 1946 Agreement to confer upon the Parties specific and limited rights on a basis of reciprocity, and this objective calls for a strict interpretation; the grant of additional economic advantages, such as the right to change gauge in third countries, would require new negotiations. Second, certain fundamental rules contained in Section IV of the Annex to the Agreement and expressly referred to in Section VI (change of gauge) support the strict interpretation already arrived at. This is true, in particular, of the statement that the Parties wish “to foster and encourage the widest possible distribution of the benefits of air travel”, of the principle under which the designated carriers of one Party operating on authorized routes shall take into account the interests of the carriers of the other Party operating on all or part of the same route, of the rule that the air services offered “should bear a close relationship to the requirements of the public”—and changes of gauge may indeed inconvenience the public—and of the capacity principles contained in letter (d), which provides, inter alia, that the services provided by a designated air carrier
shall retain as their primary objective the provision of capacity adequate to the traffic demands between the country of which such air carrier is a national and the country of ultimate destination of the traffic.
A change of gauge, in London, on the West Coast-Paris route, from a Boeing 747 to a Boeing 727 aircraft means that the capacity offered is geared to the traffic demand on the San Francisco-London segment rather than to the traffic demand existing for the entire San Francisco-Paris service. According to France, a strict interpretation of Section VI of the Annex to the 1946 Agreement is also warranted by the opinions of writers and by the subsequent conduct of the Parties to that Agreement. 2. Question (B)
(a) The preliminary issue
15, In the seventh preambular paragraph of the Compromis, the United States reserved the right to argue that “under the circumstances the issue is not appropriate for consideration by an arbitral tribunal”. The United States submits that the Arbitral Tribunal should decline to answer Question (B). A first argument made in support of this Submission is that neither France nor French carriers suffered any injury as a result of the action taken by the United States under Part 213 of the Economic Regulations of the C.A.B. The Order of 9 May 1978 required Air France and U.T.A. to file their existing and new schedules within specified time-limits, just as United States carriers must routinely file schedules with the French authorities. The Order of 31 May 1978, which was to bar Air France from operating its thrice-weekly Paris-Los Angeles flights, was vacated before its implementation. It follows that, no French air services having been restricted by the two Orders, France has suffered no injury. A second argument put forward by the United States is based on the rule that international tribunals vested with a judicial function should not act when, as in the present case, there is no actual and genuine controversy the resolution of which can affect existing relations between the Parties. A third argument is that the issue addressed by Question (B) did not form the object of the consultation required by Article X of the 1946 Agreement. Finally, in response to a French argument outlined below (paragraph 16), to the effect that the two C.A.B. Orders were deliberately maintained during negotiations with a view to inducing France to accept binding adjudication of Question (A) and to agree to an expedited procedure and to the interim arrangements now contained in the Compromis, the United States observes that these solutions were arrived at, not as a result of undue pressure, but because France, too, was convinced that binding arbitration was the most appropriate method for dealing with Question (A), because the interests in issue called for a prompt solution, and because the interim regime established appeared a fair one.
France contends that it is seeking reparation for the moral damage (“dom- mage moral”) caused to it through the violation of international law and, in particular, of the 1946 Agreement resulting from United States action. In addition, France argues, the C.A.B. Orders did cause material injury to the French carriers. Finally, it states that these two Orders were deliberately maintained by the United States during the negotiations for the purpose of inducing France, which wished to confine its commitments to the obligations established by Article X of the 1946 Agreement (advisory jurisdiction), to accept binding adjudication of Question (A) and to agree to the expedited procedure and the interim arrangements now provided for in the Compromis. As regards the second United States argument—the absence of any actual controversy due to the lack of injury—France insists that it claims reparation for the moral damage inflicted on it, that the reparation claimed consists in a declaration, and that in cases such as the present one, international tribunals are empowered to render declaratory judgments even in the absence of a material injury—which is not the case here. Finally, the reality of France’s interest is evidenced by the fact that both the 1946 Agreement and Part 213 of the C.A.B.’s Economic Regulations continue to be in force; thus, Part 213 may at any future time serve as a basis for new measures against France, either within the framework of the present case or in other situations. France also rejects the third United States argument—the alleged non-compliance with the requirement of consultation contained in Article X of the Agreement—by pointing out that if consultations were not as extended as one might have wished, this is due to the rigidity of the negotiating position of the United States. Moreover, the United States should have voiced its objection prior to the conclusion of the Compromis; the provision included in the seventh preambular paragraph of the Compromis is far too general to be understood as a reference to the obligation of prior consultation. Having thus accepted to submit Question (B) to arbitration, the United States is now estopped from arguing that the issue is not appropriate for consideration by the Arbitral Tribunal.
(b) The substantive issue
17. According to France, the C.A.B. Orders of 9 and 31 May 1978 are unjustified regardless of whether they are characterised as reprisals or considered from the perspective of the law of treaties, within the framework of the exceptio non adimpleti contractus. As regards the theory of reprisals, France first notes that its decision of 14 March 1978 did not run counter to the 1946 Agreement and, hence, could not justify reprisals. In any event, France argues, reprisals may be resorted to only in case of necessity, i.e. in the absence of other legal channels to settle the dispute; plainly this condition was not met, for such channels were available under Article X of the 1946 Agreement. Furthermore, the retaliation procedure should have been preceded by an unsuccessful formal request, as required by international law. Finally, the measures taken by the United States were disproportionate. On the one hand, they affected uncontested rights of French carriers under the 1946 Agreement, while the right of the United States-designated carrier to effect a change of gauge in London is a contested one; on the other hand, the implementation of the C.A.B.’s Order of 31 May 1978, depriving Air
France of its thrice-weekly Paris-Los Angeles flights, would have entailed an economic prejudice far exceeding that suffered by Pan Am as a result of the decision of 14 March 1978. If the question is viewed from the perspective of the law of treaties, it must be pointed out that the suspension of treaty provisions by one Party is not permitted unless the other Party has previously violated the treaty, which France denies having done. In addition, the violation in question must be material, i.e. consist in an unauthorised repudiation of the treaty or pertain to a provision essential to the accomplishment of the treaty’s object or purpose; in the present case, neither condition was fulfilled. Moreover, even if the above-mentioned conditions had been met, suspension could have taken place only if the injured State had had no other means to ensure respect of the treaty; Article X of the 1946 Agreement shows that this was not the case here.
18. According to the United States, the action taken by the C.A.B. was justified under the theory of reprisals and the law of treaties, for both require a prior breach of an international obligation. Such a breach resulted from France’s action at Orly Airport on 3 May 1978 and from its continued refusal to allow Pan Am to operate a change-of-gauge service, regardless of whether the existence of the right claimed by the United States has been confirmed by an arbitral tribunal or not. The measures taken by the United States should not be viewed as a termination of the 1946 Agreement or as a suspension of its application, but rather as steps towards a limited withdrawal of rights of French carriers corresponding to the rights denied the United States carrier. At any rate, France’s conduct amounts to a “serious” or “material” breach of the 1946 Agreement, as is shown by the losses suffered by Pan Am due to the disruption of its operating plans. The United States rejects the French argument that under both the theory of reprisals and the law of treaties no counter-measures may be taken where alternative means of satisfaction exist. The theory of reprisals as represented by France, if correct, applies to armed reprisals only; in the present context, that theory could not be accepted until the institutions of international adjudication have evolved to the point where there are international tribunals in place with the authority to take immediate interim measures of protection, for otherwise the respondent State would lack any incentive to co-operate in the expeditious conclusion of arbitration proceedings. An examination of the rules of the law of treaties leads to a similar conclusion. As far as the French argument on the lack of proportionality is concerned, the United States points out that Air France’s Paris-Los Angeles service is roughly equivalent in fact to the West Coast-Paris service Pan Am proposed to resume; the French carriers moreover neglected the opportunity to complain to the C.A.B. regarding the scope of the proposed counter-measures. The two services are also equivalent in law, for, contrary to the French argument, there can be proportionality between a disputed service and an undisputed service.
Preliminary Issues
19. In the sixth and seventh preambular paragraphs of the Compromir of Arbitration, it is noted
that in agreeing to resort to arbitration with respect to change of gauge, the French Government reserves the right to argue before the tribunal that all means of internal recourse must be exhausted before a State may invoke arbitration under the Agreement,
and
that in agreeing to resort to arbitration with respect to Part 213, the United States Government reserves the right to argue before the tribunal that under the circumstances the issue is not appropriate for consideration by an arbitral tribunal.
For France:
May it please the Arbitral Tribunal:
(I) Regarding Question (A),
To adjudge and declare that the Government of the United States was required, before acting on the international level by resorting to arbitration, to wait until the United States company that considers itself injured by the allegedly unlawful act of the French Government had exhausted the remedies open to it under French law; and that, since those remedies have not been exhausted, the Arbitral Tribunal is unable to decide on the question submitted to it;
Subsidiarily,
To adjudge and declare that, for the above-mentioned reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal must postpone its decision on Question (A) until such time as the Pan American World Airways company has either obtained recognition of the rights it claims from the French courts or exhausted the remedies available to it under French law without obtaining satisfaction;
62
For the United States:
the United States respectfully requests the Tribunal to rule as follows: on Question B, to decline to answer the question
In legal text-books and decisions by the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice, as well as in treaty practice, the application of the rule of .exhaustion of local remedies has always been taken into consideration only in connection with a discussion of the question of the international responsibility ot a State for an unlawful act ( . ) committed on its territory against a national of another State and for a refusal to grant reparation of this unlawful act. vi: , a denial of |ustice ( ) {International Law Reports, vol. 25, 1958-1, p 33. at p 42.)
Annex which can not be settled through consultation shall be submitted for an advisory report to a tribunal of three arbitrators, one to be named by each Contracting Party, and the third to be agreed upon by the two arbitrators so chosen, provided that such third arbitrator shall not be a national of either Contracting Party Each ot the Contracting Parties shall designate an arbitrator within two months of the date of delivery by either Party to the other Party of a diplomatic note requesting arbitration of a dispute; and the third arbitrator shall be agreed upon within one month after such period of two months,
“If either of the Contracting Parties fails to designate its own arbitrator within two months, or if the third arbitrator is not agreed upon within the time limit indicated, the President of the International Court of Justice shall be requested to make the necessary appointments by choosing the arbitrator or arbitrators, after consulting the President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization.
“The Contracting Parties will use their best efforts under the powers available to them to put into effect the opinion expressed in any such advisory report, A moiety of the expenses of the arbitral tribunal shall be borne by each Party ”
postpone its decision on Question (A) until such time as the Pan American World Airways company has either obtained recognition of the rights it claims from the French courts or exhausted the remedies available to it under French law without obtaining satisfaction.
lent result may nevertheless be achieved by subsequent conduct of the State, there is a breach of the obligation only if the aliens concerned have exhausted the effective local remedies available to them without obtaining the treatment called for by the obligation or, where that is not possible, an equivalent treatment ”
United States action under Part 213 did not injure France or French air carriers; (b) the Parties did not consult with respect to the Part 213 issue; and (c) there is no actual controversy to adjudicate, are to be appreciated within the framework of the Compromis as a whole, including in particular its paragraphs (2) (B) and (3).
Upon signature of this compromis, the United States Civil Aeronautics Board shall immediately vacate all pertinent orders issued pursuant to Part 213
Question (A)
Does a United States-designated carrier have the right to operate West Coast-Paris service under the Air Services Agreement between the United States and France with a change of gauge in London (transshipment to a smaller aircraft on the outward journey and to a larger aircraft on the return journey)”
On this question, the decision of the Tribunal shall be binding.
1. The Text of the Agreement Relating to Change of Gauge
(a) For the purpose of the present Section, the term ‘Transshipment’ shall mean the transportation by the same carrier of traffic beyond a certain point on a given route by different aircraft from those employed on the earlier stages of the same route
(ft) Transshipment when justified by economy of operation will be permitted at all points mentioned in the attached Schedules in territory of the two Contracting Parties.
(c) However, no transshipments will be made in the territory of either Contracting Party which would alter the long-range characteristics of the operation or which would be inconsistent with the standards set forth in this Agreement and its Annex and particularly Section IV of this Annex
it is obvious that the Treaty must be read as a whole and that its meaning is not to be determined merely upon particular phrases which, if detached from the context, may be interpreted in more than one sense (Publications of the P C I.J , Series B, No. 2, p. 23),
see also the United States-France Air Arbitration, 1963 (United Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XVI, pp. 46-47).
2. The Text of the Agreement as a Whole
Contracting Parties giant to each other the rights specified in the Annex hereto for the establishment of the international air services set forth in that Annex ….
It is the terms of the Annex, therefore, that must be examined for a consideration of the rights of the Parties and any limitation on those rights.
3. The Context in Which the Agreement Was Negotiated
12 Section V of the Annex to the Bermuda Agreement, which deals with change of gauge, provides the following
“(a) Where the onward carnage of traffic by an aircraft of different size from that employed on the earlier stage of the same route (hereinafter referred to as “change of gauge’) is justified by reason of economy of operation, such change of gauge at a point in the territory of the United Kingdom or the territory of the United States shall not be made in violation of the principles set forth in the Final Act of the Conference on Civil Aviation held at Bermuda from January 15 to February 11, 1946 and, in particular, shall be subject to there being an adequate volume of through traffic
“(b) Where a change of gauge is made at a point rn the territory of the United Kingdom or in the territory of the United States, the smaller aircraft will operate only in connection with the larger aircraft arriving at the point of change, so as to provide a connecting service which will thus normally wait on the arrival of the larger aircraft, for the primary purpose of carrying onward those passengers who have travelled to United Kingdom or United States territory in the larger aircraft to their ultimate destination in the smaller aircraft Where there are vacancies in the smaller aircraft such vacancies may be filled with passengers from United Kingdom or United States territory respectively It is understood however that the capacity of the smaller aircraft shall be determined with primary reference to the traffic travelling in the larger aircraft normally requiring to be earned onward
” . . . ” (United Nations Treaty Series, vol, 3, p. 253 )
that the Bermuda Agreement embodies a position on change of gauge consistent with the judgment expressed in this Award.
4. The Practice of the Parties
Question (B)
Government violated its international obligations by its action, even if it were assumed that it was established after such action, so as to bind the French Government, that the French Government had violated the 1946 Agreement before the United States action was taken.
In a spiril of close collaboration, the aeronautical authorities of the two Contracting Parties will consult regularly with a view to assuring the observance of the principles and the implementation of the provisions outlined in the present Agreement and its Annex.
This Article provides for an obligation of continuing consultation between the Parties. In the context of this general duty, the Agreement establishes a clear mandate to the Parties to make good faith efforts to negotiate on issues of potential controversy. Several other provisions of the Agreement and the Annex state requirements to consult in specific circumstances, when the possibility of a dispute might be particularly acute. Finally, Article X imposes on the Parties a special consultation requirement when, in spite of previous efforts, a dispute has arisen.
For these reasons,
The Arbitral, Tribunal replies as follows to the questions submitted
to it:
Question (A)
Considering that under the sixth preambular paragraph of the Compromis of Arbitration, the French Government,
In agreeing to resort to arbitration with respect to change ot gauge reserves its right to argue before the tribunal that all means of internal recourse must be exhausted before a State may invoke arbitration under (he Agreement,
Considering that the question asked is the following:
Does a United States-designated carrier have the right to operate West Coast-Paris service under the Air Services Agreement between the United States and France with a change of gauge in London (transshipment to a smaller aucralt on the outward journey and to a larger aircraft on the return journey)’
Considering that the Arbitral Tribunal is therefore called upon to pronounce on two points,
The Arbitral Tribunal,
With regard to the first point,
Decides, unanimously, that it is able to decide on Question (A);
With regard to the second point.
Decides, by two votes to one, that the answer to be given on this point is that a United States designated carrier has the right to operate West Coast- Paris service under the Air Services Agreement between the United States and France with a change of gauge in London (transshipment to a smaller aircraft on the outward journey and to a larger aircraft on the return journey), provided that the service is continuous and does not constitute separate services.
Question (B)
Considering that, under the seventh preambular paragraph of the Compromis of Aibitration, the United States Government,
in agreeing to resort to arbitration with rcspect to Part 213 . reserves its right to argue before the tribunal that under the circumstances the issue is not appropriate for consideration by an arbitral tribunal.
Considering that the question asked is the following:
Under the eircumstanccs in question, did the United States have the right to undertake such action as it undertook under Part 213 of the Civil Aeronautics Board’s Economic Regulations’?
Considering that the Arbitral Tribunal is therefore called upon to pronounce on two points,
The Arbitral Tribunal,
With respect to the first point.
Decides, unanimously, to pronounce on Question (B);
With respect to the second point.
Decides, unanimously, that the answer to be given on this point is that, under the circumstances in question, the Government of the United States had the right to undertake the action that it undertook under Part 213 of the Economic Regulations of the C.A.B.
Done in English and French at the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, this 9th day of December 1978, both texts being equally authoritative, in three original copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Arbitral Tribunal, and the two others transmitted to the Government of the United States of America and to the Government of the French Republic, respectively.
(Signed)
Willem Riphagen, President Thomas Ei-irlich, Arbitrator Paul Reuter, Arbitrator Lucius Caflisch, Registrar
M. Paul Reuter appends to the Arbitral Award a statement of his dissenting opinion.
Dissenting opinion of M. Reuter
I accepted the position of the Tribunal on the preliminary objection to Question (A) and on the preliminary objection and the answer on the merits to Question (B); in that connexion I feel bound, however, to make a number of observations and to express certain doubts.
The Parties in the present Arbitration sovereignly determined the questions put to the Tribunal and therefore restricted the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to those questions. An arbitral tribunal like the present one has to comply with that common will. But it is clear, from the documents of the case, that the dispute between the Parties is more extensive than the questions submitted to the Tribunal. The actual choice of questions is, in my view, very artificial. That situation resulted in problems which created difficulties for the Parties themselves since they raised preliminary objections; difficulties may arise for the Tribunal as well. It could thus have been asked whether the difference in legal value attributed to the Tribunal’s replies to Questions (A) and (B) is consonant with the judicial function of a tribunal; it could further have been asked whether, in the circumstances of the case, France could still claim a sufficient legal interest to ask Question (B) after the conclusion of the Compromis. With the Tribunal, I have answered in the negative the preliminary issue raised by Question (B), because a refusal of the Tribunal to answer that Question would only have emphasized further an inequality between the Parties visible elsewhere.
As regards the merits of Question (B), my answer has been that of the Tribunal, but with one observation. I accept the Tribunal’s legal analysis, in particular the idea that, in order to assess the proportionality of the counter- measures, it is necessary to take into account, not only the actual facts, but also the questions of principle raised by them. Those questions should, however, be considered in the light of their probable effects. Hence, proportionality should be assessed on the basis of what actually constituted the dispute rather than exclusively on the basis of the facts before the Tribunal. One may well continue to entertain serious doubts on the proportionality of the counter-measures taken by the United States, which the Tribunal has been unable to assess definitely.
As far as the Tribunal’s reply to Question (A) is concerned, I regret being unable to concur in either the general position adopted by the Tribunal or its reply, and I shall briefly state the reasons for my dissent.
I shall first make two preliminary comments pertaining to the scope of “transshipment” and to the terminology used.
Within the extensive meaning attributed to the term “transshipment” by the 1946 Agreement,[16] the economic scope of this expression varies considerably, from non-existent to considerable, depending on the conditions under which “transshipment” takes place. If an aircraft is replaced by another aircraft whose characteristics are similar, “transshipment” is but a consequence of technical considerations pertaining to air navigation. If, for a specific service, an aircraft is replaced by another aircraft with a different capacity, however, the economic consequences can be significant. If the change of aircraft is accompanied by a combination of services (one aircraft being used to carry the freight or passengers of several others) or a fanning out of services (passenger or freight of one aircraft being distributed among several aircraft with different destinations), the identity and continuity of air services become more questionable, and the reasonably linear character of long-distance air routes is affected.[17]
In this field terminology is very unclear; the same expressions are not always used to describe the same realities, and “transshipment” is not always clearly distinguished from the different operations which can be carried out as a result of “transshipment”. But the interests affected by those operations may be considerable; they vary from one country to another and lead to different agreed solutions reflecting the different types of compromise struck between the interests of the Parties.
There is, in particular, one essential point on which I am unable to concur in the Arbitral Award: it concerns the interpretation to be given to the intention of the Parties as regards the obvious gap in this Agreement which specifically regulates “transshipment” in the territory of the Parties and is pointedly silent on “transshipment” in third countries.
When a treaty between two or several Parties is intended to establish general rules on a specific subject, it is tempting to infer general principles from that treaty and thereby to collect elements which will make it possible to “fill a gap”, i.e. to settle matters which were not specifically resolved. However, the use of such a constructive approach is only permissible if it truly corresponds to the intention of the Parties as is ascertainable from specific and consistent evidence. That is not the case where the treaty is silent, not because the Parties did not want to lay down detailed rules, nor because the negotiators had neglected to do so, nor because of a development which had not been foreseen at the time the Agreement was concluded, but because of the conscious acceptance of an unresolved disagreement which resulted in a gap being left in the Agreement. Whether the Parties were unable to overcome their disagreement because of lack of time or because of the seriousness of their differences is irrelevant: the only way left open by them for settling the unresolved issue is the conclusion of an agreement at a later date. It is not permissible to take the place of the Parties and to attempt, under the cloak of general principles, what practically amounts to legislation when the Parties themselves failed to undertake such legislation although they were the most properly qualified to do so. The fact that an arbitral tribunal cannot legislate in such a case, even under the pretence of interpretation, does not mean that pending the conclusion of a supplementary agreement between the Parties the question remains unanswered. It means that the situation is governed by the other relevant rules of international law.
In the present case, the 1946 Agreement devotes a rather substantial provision to “transshipment” (Section VI of the Annex), The wording of this provision leads the reader to expect a thorough regulation both of “transshipment” in the territory of the Parties and of “transshipment” in the territory of third countries; but the text then fails to fulfil that expectation and remains totally silent on “transshipment” in third countries. It is therefore apparent from the very structure of that text that the matter was not overlooked by the negotiators, that they realised its importance, and that it was intentional that the issue was left unresolved when the Agreement was concluded. Having endorsed, in Article VIII, the principle of close collaboration and regular consultations, the Parties probably did not regard that silence as a final situation, but they must have accepted the fact that pending a new agreement, general rules which had hitherto been applicable between them should remain in force, i.e. the rules of the Convention on International Civil Aviation concluded at Chicago on 7 December 1944 and, in particular, the rule which provides that every State shall have complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory (Article 1). Under these rules, the French Government had to give its agreement to air services relating to French territory in all their aspects (Article 6).
There is no need to seek confirmation of this interpretation of the 1946 Agreement by reviewing the respective positions and interests of the Parties at the time of conclusion of that Agreement. At the time, there existed a strong divergence of views between the United States which, in accordance with its interests, sought maximum “flexibility” in air services, and certain European countries which were not then (and have never been since) in a position to put such flexibility to use. As far as the long-distance character of services and the capacity principles are concerned, France had requirements that were even more stringent than those of the United Kingdom. These requirements are reflected in the Exchange of Notes of 28/29 December 1945 establishing a provisional regime between the United States and France; this Exchange of Notes, which preceded the 1946 Agreement, is quoted in full by the Arbitral Award of 22 December 1963 in the United States-France Air Arbitration.15 They are also reflected in the actual text of the 1946 Agreement, which differs considerably from the text of the Bermuda I Agreement.[18] The absence of any agreement on “transshipment” in third countries acquires its full meaning in the light of those diverging interests. An interpretation overlooking such a failure to agree would not only be unjustified but would introduce into the interpretation of the Agreement an element of imbalance; international law, inspired in this respect by the common law, shows, in connexion with another problem, that it does not favour such imbalances in the law of treaties (Article 44, paragraph 3(c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of 23 May 1969). Indeed, practice taken as a whole, in particular the practice regarding air routes, has interpreted the 1946 Agreement restrictively,77 while other provisions of the Agreement would be given an extensive interpretation which would be unfavourable to the Party which is not in fact in a position to take advantage of that interpretation.
The fact that by remaining silent the 1946 Agreement records a disagreement between the Parties on the “transshipment” regime in third countries, thereby submitting “transshipment” to the authorisation of the other Contracting Party, does not, however, imply that that Party is totally free to refuse such authorisation.
It is indeed necessary, in the first place, to take into account the duties of the Parties regarding air safety and the compliance with the technical constraints of air navigation. The rights of the Parties in this respect are so obvious that the 1946 Agreement did not even mention them in Section VI of its Annex; they derive from the general or specific provisions of the Chicago Convention mentioned earlier (from its Article 25, for instance).
In the second place, the Parties are committed to close collaboration and regular consultations on all matters concerning the application of the Agreement (Article VIII); this is particularly true for a matter on which they failed to agree when the Agreement was concluded. They therefore have to comply with a far more serious and definite obligation to negotiate than under an ordinary obligation to negotiate. Such negotiations, as the International Court of Justice has often stated, must be meaningful, i.e. they must by compromise seek mutually acceptable solutions, and these solutions must respect the balance which was established by the Agreement and on which the Parties have laid great stress in connexion with the United States counter-measures; in the course of such negotiations, the Parties must moreover respect the various objectives of the Chicago Convention, in particular the objective set forth in Article 44 (/) under which each Contracting State is assured of “a fair opportunity to operate international airlines”.
Those are not merely nominal obligations. In fact, because of their scope, the refusal to grant an authorisation for “transshipment” in a third country is justifiable only where such “transshipment” affects the balance of concessions mutually granted by the Parties in the Agreement—in which case a reasonable compensatory concession will restore the balance—or where the legitimate interests of one Party are in serious jeopardy—in which
7 Such is the case, in particular, of the Arbitral Award of 22 December 1963 and of the Decision Interpreting the Award, of 28 June 1964 (Revue generate de droit inter national public, t 69, 1965, p. 259) case appropriate safeguards may also be contemplated. But it can easily be conceded that a great number of “transshipments” carried out in third countries do not belong to these categories and that, consequently, the authorisation to effect them is a right and gives rise to neither compensation nor safeguards.
This interpretation cannot be objected to on the ground that it results in the establishment of two separate regimes of “transshipment”, one for the territory of the Parties and another for third countries. Such an objection would be ill-founded in law.[19] The two regimes do not have the same legal basis; it is for the two Parties alone to give the rules applicable in either case the same legal basis and, possibly, the same content.
One of the ways open to the Parties to the 1946 Agreement was to adopt, at a favourable juncture, by an exchange of letters or by even less formal means, a number of rules governing change of gauge in third countries. It would appear that some understanding was reached on another issue which is also connected with the continuity and identity of air services, i.e. stop-over; but there was no such undertanding over change of gauge in third countries.[20]There is, by contrast, a practice made up of isolated cases where the French authorities defined their position with regard to flight schedules involving change of gauge in third countries. This practice appears to be in consonance with the interpretation set forth here; it should be noted, in particular, that the French authorities authorised services involving change of gauge in third countries through the substitution of a single aircraft of smaller capacity for another aircraft, as long as the long-range characteristics of the service were maintained with respect to the type of aircraft used and to the length of the service as well as to the continuity of the flight; such were in particular the conditions governing change of gauge in Rome and in Barcelona. On the contrary, wherever there was a case of fanning out a service onto several aircraft, under the pretence of “transshipment”, objections were raised and requests were refused (Shannon), or particular agreements were concluded (Exchange of Notes of 28 May 1969).
During the written and oral proceedings, the Parties considered “transshipment” above all within the context of the 1946 Agreement. With regard to the question put to the Tribunal, it is in fact the Exchange of Notes of 5 April 1960 which is specifically at issue. The actual details of the provisions of that Exchange of Notes were only summarily discussed before the Tribunal. It is sufficient for me to state that, in my view, no provision in the Exchange of Notes justifies a conclusion different from the one reached above; quite the contrary.
In conclusion, “transshipment” in London of
avions des Etats-Unis . . . autorises a desservir Paris via Londres (sans droits de trafic entre Londres et Paris) sur Ies lignes qu’ils exploitent apartir de ou a destination de la cote occidentale des Etats-Unis (French text of the Exchange of Notes of 5 April 1960).
was therefore subject to the prior consent of the French Government; negotiations were to be opened for that purpose; it was necessary to establish the precise nature of the operations contemplated under the guise of “transshipment”, as well as the precise nature of the rights which United States aircraft intended to exercise on a segment on which they had no traffic rights; France was entitled to equitable compensation and, possibly, to safeguards. But, as such, the consideration that the aircraft which replaced another aircraft in London had a smaller capacity is only one element in the negotiations and not necessarily the most important one.
It is in that sense, in my view, that Question (A) should have been answered.
(Signed) Paul Reuter
AFFAIRE CONCERNANT L’ACCORD RELATIF AUX SERVICES AERIENS DU 27 MARS 1946 ENTRE LES ETATS-UNIS D’AMERIQUE ET LA FRANCE
Sentence arbitrale du 9 decembre 1978
Caracterisation des questions de faits et des questions de droit—Distinction a etablir entre i’application de la regie de l’epuisement des recours internes dans les cas de protection diplomatique et I’applieation de cette regie dans les cas de dommage direct d’Etat a Etat — Importance du projet d’article 22 de la Commission du droit international sur la res- ponsabilite des Etats pour ce qui est de determiner la nature de la regie de I epuisenient des recours internes—Affirmation du principe qu’un traite doit etre lu dans son ensemble et que Ton ne saurait determiner sa signification sur la base de quelques phrases qui, detachees de leur contexte, peuvent etre interpreters de plusieurs manieres—Interpretation du concept de “service continu” aux lins de determiner les ruptures de charge (change- ments de dimension d’appareils) autorisees ou interdites sur un parcours aerien determine—Examen des droits de cinquieme liberie au regard de la question des ruptures de charge—Importance de la Convention relative a l’Aviation ci lie Internationale signee a Chicago le 7 decembre 1944 dans ^application du principe de la liberie de I air” par opposition au principe de la souverainete nationale d’un Etat sur 1 espace aerien au-dessus de son territoire. pour ce qui est de determiner le droit de proceder a des ruptures de charge sur le territoire d’un Etat tiers—Importance de la disposition sur la rupture de charge figurant dans I’Accord des Bermudes de 1946 entre les Etats-Unis et le Roaume-Um—Valeur a donner a la preuve de la pratique des parties a un traite dans I interpolation du traite— Examen du concept de “contie-mesures” et de la regie connee de la “propoiiionna- lite”—Teneur appropriee de l’obligation de negoeier et du deoir de ne pas aggravei un differend, el question connexe des mesures conservatoires
Sentence Arbitrale[21]M. Willem Riphagen, President; MM. Thomas Ehrlich, Paul Reuter. Arbitres. M. Lucius Caflisch, Greffier.
En 1’affaire relative a I’Accord aerien du 27 mars 1946 entre la Republique frangaise, representee par:
M. Guy Ladreit de Lacharriere, Ministre plenipotentiaire, Directeur des Affaires juridiques au Ministere des Affaires etrangeres, comme Agent; M. Noel Museux, Magistrat, Directeur adjoint des Affaires juridiques du Ministere des Affaires etrangeres, M. Henry Cuny, Secretaire des Affaires etrangeres. Direction des Affaires juridiques du Ministere des Affaires etrangeres, comme Agents adjoints; assistes par: M. Gilbert Guillaume, Maitre des requetes au Conseil d’Etat, M. Michel Virally, Professeur des facultes de droit. Universite de Paris, M. Emmanuel du Pontavice, Professeur des facultes de droit, Universite de Paris, comme Conseils; M. Robert
Esperou, Directeur des transports aeriens (aviation civile), M. Jean-Baptiste Valle, Chef de service a Air France, comme experts; Mille Solange Challe, comme Secretaire;
Et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique, represents par:
M. Lee R. Marks, Conseiller juridique adjoint du Departement d’Etat, comme Agent; Mme Judith Hippler Bello, Departement d’Etat, Mme Lori Fisler Damrosch, Departement d’Etat, comme Agents adjoints; M. James R. Atwood, Deputy Assistant Secretary pour les affaires de transports, Departement d’Etat, M. William A. Kutzke, Conseiller juridique adjoint en matiere de droit international, Departement des transports, M. Peter B. Schwarzkopf, Conseiller juridique adjoint pour les affaires internationales, Civil Aeronautics Board, comme Conseillers; M. Norman P. Seagrave, Pan American World Airways, Inc., comme Expert-conseiller; Mile Cozetta D. Johnson, Departement d’Etat, comme Secretaire;
Le Tribunal, ainsi compose, rend la Sentence arbitrate suivante:
Par un Compromis d’arbitrage signe le 11 juillet 1978, dont le texte est reproduit ci-dessous, au paragraphe 9, les Gouvernements de la Republique franjaise et des Etats-Unis d’Amerique ont soumis au Tribunal arbitral, dans sa composition indiquee ci-dessus, les questions suivantes:
A) Un transporteur designe des Etats-Unis a-t-il le droit, en vertu de l’Accord entre la France et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique relatif aux services aeriens, d’exploiter un service de la Cote Ouest des Etats-Unis a Paris avec rupture de charge a Londres (transbordement sur un plus petit avion a Taller et sur un plus gros avion au retour)?
B) Dans les circonstances de l’espece, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis avait-il le droit d’entreprendre Taction qu’il a entreprise en application de la Section 213 des reglements economiques du Civil Aeronautics Board?
Le Compromis prevoit que “[1] a decision du Tribunal sur [la question A)] sera obligatoire” et que, en ce qui concerne la question B), “le Tribunal rendra, conformement a [‘article X de l’Accord[22], un avis consultatif qui ne sera pas obligatoire”. II dispose en outre que les Parties echangeront des memoires le 18 septembre 1978 au plus tard et des contre-memoires jusqu’au 6 novembre 1978. II precisg enfin que la procedure orale aura lieu a Geneve (Suisse) les 20 et 21 novembre 1978.
Le 4 septembre 1978, le Gouvernement frangais a nomme M. Guy La- dreit de Lacharriere en qualite d’Agent en cette affaire. M. Lee R. Marks a ete designe comme Agent des Etats-Unis d’Amerique le 18 septembre 1978.
Le Tribunal arbitral s’est reuni a Geneve les 17 et 18 novembre 1978 et, apres avoir consulte les Parties, a designe M. Lucius Caflisch comme son Greffier. La seance inaugurale a eu lieu le 17 novembre 1978 a la salle de l’Alabama de 1’Hotel de Ville de Geneve.
Les Memoires et Contre-Memoires ayant ete deposes dans les delais presents, 1’affaire s’est trouvee en etat le 6 novembre 1978.
Le Tribunal arbitral a tenu des audiences les 20 et 21 novembre 1978, durant lesquelles ont ete entendus en leurs plaidoiries, dans l’ordre convenu entre les Parties et agree par le Tribunal: pour le Gouvemement de la Republique fran^aise, M. Ladreit de Lacharriere, Agent, et MM. Guillaume et Virally, Conseils, et, pour le Gouvemement des Etats-Unis d’Amerique, M. Marks, Agent.
Dans la procedure orale, les Conclusions finales suivantes ont ete presentees par les Parties:
Au nom du Gouvemement de la Republique franqaise:
PJaise au Tribunal Arbitral:
1°) Sur la question A)
Dire et juger que le Gouvemement des Etats-Unis etait tenu, avant d’agir sur le plan international en recourant a )’arbitrage, d’attendre que la compagnie americaine qui s’estirne atteinte par l’acte pretendument illicite reproche au Gouvemement frangais ait epuise les voies de recours ouvertes en droit fran^ais; que ces voies de recours n’ayant pas ete epuisees, le Tribunal arbitral n’est pas en mesure de statuer sur la question qui lui a ete posee;
A titre subsidiaire:
Dire et juger que, pour les motifs ci-dessus exposes, le Tribunal arbitral doit ajourner sa decision sur la question A) jusqu’au moment ou la compagnie Pan American World Airways aura, soit obtenu la reconnaissance par les tribunaux fran?ais des droits qu’elle reclame, soit epuise, sans obtenir satisfaction, les voies de droit qui lui sont ouvertes en droit frangais;
A titre tout a fait subsidiaire:
Dire et juger qu’un transporteur designe des Etats-Unis n’a pas le droit, en vertu de 1’accord entre la France et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique relatif aux services aeriens, d’exploiter un service de la cote Ouest des Etats-Unis a Paris avec rupture de charge a Londres (transbordement sur un plus petit avion a Pallet et sur un plus gros au retour);
2°) Sur la question B)
Dire et juger que, dans les circonstances de Tespece, le Gouvemement des Etats-Unis n’avait pas le droit d’entreprendre Taction qu’il a entrepnse en application de la Section 213 des reglements economiques du Civil Aeronautics Board.
Au nom du Gouvemement des Etats-Unis:
Se fondant sur le Memoire et le Contre-Memoire des Etats-Unis, y compris les pieces y jointes, et sur les plaidoiries prononcees a Geneve les 20 et 21 novembre 1978, y compris les huit pieces soumises par les Etats-Unis au cours des audiences, les Etats-Unis de- mandent respectueusement au Tribunal de rendre la decision suivante:
—Repondre affirmativement a la question A),
—Decliner de repondre a la question Bj ou, dans l’altemative, repondre affirmativement a cette question[23].
Les faits
1. Un Echange de notes du 5 avril 1960 portant sur I’Accord relatif aux services aeriens conclu entre les Etats-Unis d’Amerique et la France le 27 mars 1946 autorise les transporteurs aeriens designes par les Etats-Unis a desservir Paris via Londres (sans droits de trafic entre Londres et Paris) sur les lignes qu’ils exploitent a partir de ou a destination de points sur la cote Ouest des Etats-Unis[24]. Un transporteur ainsi designe, Pan American World Airways (ci-apres: Pan Am), avait exploite par intermittence des services sur cette ligne jusqu’au 2 mars 1975.
Compromis d’arbitrage
entre
LE GoUVERNEMENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE FRANfAlSE ET LE GoUVERNEMENT DES ETATS-UNIS D’AMERIQUE
L,e Gouvemement de la Republique franjaise et le Gouvemement des Etats-Unis d’Amerique (ci-apres denommes les Parties).
Considerant qu’il existe un differend conc.einant la ruptuie de charge au regard de I’Accord entre la France et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique relatif aux services aeriens, signe a Paris le 27 mars 1946, tel qu’amende, et de son Annexe, telle qu’amendee (ci-apres denommes I’Accord),
Reconnaissant que les Parties n’ont pu regler ce differend au moyen de negociations;
Consideranl egalement que le Gouvernement de la Republique frangaise a souleve une question concemant la liceite de Taction entreprise par le Gouvernement des Etats- Unis en vertu de la Section 213 des reglements economiques du Civil Aeronautics Board en reponse a Taction du Gouvernement de la Republique frangaise,
Notant que les Parties ont decide de soumettre le differend concemant la rupture de charge a un tribunal arbitral aux fins de decision obligatoire;
Notant que le Gouvernement de la Republique frangaise desire soumettre au tribunal, pour avis consultatif, et conformement a I’Article X de l’Accord, la question de la liceite de Taction entreprise par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis;
Notant qu’en acceptant de recourir a 1’arbitrage en ce qui concerne la rupture de charge, le Gouvernement frangais se reserve le droit de faire valoir devant le tribunal que tous les moyens de recours interne doivent etre epuises avant qu’un Etat ne puisse en appe- ler a 1’arbitrage conformement aux dispositions de l’Accord;
Notant egalement qu’en acceptant de recourir a 1’arbitrage en ce qui concerne la Section 213, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis se reserve le droit de faire valoir devant le tribunal que. dans les circonstances de Tespece, la question n’est pas de celles qui auraient dfl etre soumises a 1’examen d’un tribunal arbitral;
Sont convenus de ce qui suit:
1) Le tribunal arbitral (ci-apres denomme le Tribunal) se composera de trois arbi- tres. L’un sera le Professeur Paul Reuter Si, pour une raison quelconque, le Professeur Reuter se trouve dans Timpossibilite d’assurer ses fonctions, le Gouvernement frangais designera promptement un remplagant. Un autre arbitre sera M Thomas Ehrlich. Si, pour une raison quelconque, M Ehrlich se trouve dans Timpossibilite d’assurer ses fonctions, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis designera promptement un remplagant Le troisieme arbitre sera le Professeur W Riphagen, qui assumera les fonctions de President du Tribunal
2) 11 est demande au Tribunal de statuer, conformement aux regies du droit international applicables et^ en particulier, aux dispositions de [‘Accord, sur les questions suivantes:
A) Un transporteur designe des Etats-Unis a-t-il le droit, en vertu de TAccoid entre la France et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique relatif aux services aeriens, d’exploiter un service de la Cote Ouest des Etats-Unis a Paris avec rupture de charge a Londres (transbordement sur un plus petit avion a Taller et sur un plus gros avion au retour)?
La decision du Tribunal portant sur cette question sera obligatoire
B) Dans les circonstances de Tespece, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis avait-il le droit d’entreprendre Taction qu’il a entreprise en application de [a Section 213 des reglements economiques du Civil Aeronautics Board?
En ce qui concerne cette question, le Tribunal rendra, conformement a [‘Article X de l’Accord, un avis consultatif qui nc sera pas obligatoire
3) Les Parties sont convenues de dispositions inteiimaires qui maintiendront un strict equilibre entre la position du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis, suivant laquelle Pan American World Airways devrait etre autorisee a pratiquer la rupture de charge durant le deroulement de 1’arbitrage, et la position du Gouvernement de la Republique frangaise, suivant laquelle elle ne devrait pas pratiquer de rupture de charge pendant cette periode A cet effet, et sans prejudice de la position de Tune ou I’autre des Parlies a cet arbitrage, a dater du present compromis jusqu’au 10 decembre 1978, Pan American World Airways sera autorisee a exploiter un service de la Cote Ouest des Etats-Unis a Paris avec rupture de charge a Londres jusqu’a concurrence de 95 vols Londres-Paris dans chaque direction. Ces vols peuvent etre programmes au gre de la compagnie aenenne, a condition cependant qu’aucun service de ce genre ne soit exploite avant le 17 juillet et qu’un maximum de six vols par semaine dans chaque direction soit respecte.
Le Tribunal aura competence, en tout etat de cause, pour prescrire, a la demande de Tune ou I’autre des Parties, toutes autres mesures provisoires necessaires pour proteger les droits des Parties Une Partie peut formuler une telle demande dans ses exposes ecrits, au cours de la procedure orale ou posterieurement a celle-ci, ent tant que de besoin
A la signature du present compromis, le Civil Aeronautics Board des Etats-Unis annu- lera immediatement tous les ordres emis en application de la Section 213 de ses reglements economiques (Ordres 78-5-45, 78-5-106, 78-6-82 et 78-6-202)
4) Chaque Partie sera representee devant le Tribunal par un agent Chaque agent pourra nommer un ou plusieurs adjoints pour agir a sa place et etre assiste de conseils, d’experts, et du personnel qu’il jugera necessaires. Chaque Partie communiquera a l’autre Partie et aux membres du Tribunal les nom et adresse de son agent et du ou des adjoints de celui-ci.
5) Le Tribunal designera un greffier, apres consultation avec les deux agents
6) A) La procedure se composera d’exposes ecrits et d’audiences, “B) Les exposes ecrits se limiteront aux documents suivants’
i) Mjn memoire, qui sera soumis par chaque Partie a l’autre Partie le 18 septembre 1978 au plus tard;
ii) un contre-memoire, qui sera soumis par chaque Partie a l’autre Partie le 6 novembre 1978 au plus tard.
Quatre copies certifiees conformes de chaque document seront soumises promptement au greffier.
C) Le Tribunal pouna reporter les dates limites susmentionnees a la requete de 1’une ou l’autre des Parties pour des raisons valables, a condition que le report des dates limites ne depasse en aucun cas un total de deux semaines. Le Tribunal pourra, a son gre, deman- der des exposes ecrits complementaires.
D) Les audiences se tiendront a Geneve (Suisse) les 20 et 21 novembre 1978 ou en tout autre lieu dont les Parties seraient convenues, a 1’endroit et au moment a fixer par le President du Tribunal.
7) A) Les Parties presenteront au Tribunal leurs exposes ecrits et plaidoiries en lan- gue fran^aise ou anglaise.
B) Le Tribunal assurera les services d’interpretation simultanee des plaidoiries et conservera un compte rendu integral de toutes les audiences en frangais et en anglais
8) A) Sous reserve des dispositions du present compromis, le Tribunal decidera de sa propre procedure et de toutes les questions relatives a la conduite de I’arbitrage,
B) Toutes les decisions du Tribunal seront prises a la majorite,
C) Le Tribunal pourra engager les services techniques et de secretariat et s’assurer tous autres services et materiel qu’il jugera necessaires.
9) Le Tribunal s’efforcera de rendre sa decision sur la rupture de charge et de rendre une avis consultatif sur la Section 213 des que possible et au plus tard le 10 decembre 1978. A cet effet, le Tribunal siegera de la date d’ouverture des audiences jusqu’a ce qu’il ait rendu sa decision et son avis consultatif. Si besoin est, le Tribunal pourra le 10 decembre ou avant cette date rendre un decision et un avis consultatif se limitant au dispo- sitif, en formulant des directives suffisamment claires pour permettre aux Parties d’appliquer ladite decision; le Tribunal communiquerait ensuite des que possible le texte complet de sa decision et de son avis consultatif. Un exemplaire du texte de la decision et de l’avis consultatif, signe pai les trois arbitres, sera transmis immediatement a chacun des agents.
10) Tout differend entre les Parties quant a 1’interpretation de la decision ou de l’avis consultatif sera soumis aux fins d’eclaircissement au Tribunal a la requete de 1’une ou l’autre Partie dans les 60 jours qui suivront la reception de la decision ecnte et de l’avis.
11) A) Une copie de tous les exposes ecrits des Parties, de la decision et de l’avis consultatif du Tribunal et de tous eclaircissements ecrits portant sur lesdits avis et decision sera soumise par le Tribunal a l’Organisation international de l’Aviation civile,
B) Une copie des comptes rendus integraux de toutes les plaidoiries en frangais et en anglais sera soumise par le Tribunal a l’Organisation internationale de l’Aviation civile.
C) Nonobstant les dispositions des alineas 11A) et 1 IB), les documents consideres et designes comme etant de nature confidentielle par une Partie et les passages pertinents
de tout expose ecrit ou de toute piece y afferents seront traites confidentiellement par les deux Parties et par le Tribunal et ne devront pas etre soumis par le Tribunal a l’Organisation intemationale de 1’Aviation civile.
12) A) La remuneration des trois arbitres, leurs frais de deplacement et toutes depenses generales entratnes par 1’arbitrage seront supportes a egalite par les Parties Cha- cun des trois arbitres consignera le detail de son temps et de ses depenses et en rendra compte et le Tribunal consignera le detail de toutes les depenses generales et en rendra compte Les Parties conviendront du montant des remunerations et procederont a des consultations entre elles et le President du Tribunal concemant toutes les questions relatives aux remunerations et depenses.
B) Chaque Partie supportera les depenses encourues par elle pour I’elaboration et la presentation de ses positions.
13) Les dispositions des Articles 59, 65 a 78 inclus, 81 et de I’alinea 1 de I’Article 84 de la Convention pour le reglement pacifique des Conflits intemationaux du 18 octobre 1907 s’appliqueront a toute question non reglee par le present compromis
14) Le present compromis entrera en vigueur a la date de sa signature.
Resume des arguments des Parties.
1. Question A
a) La question preliminaire
b) Le fond
14. La France soutient que la Convention de Paris de 1919 et la Convention de Chicago de 1944 relative a 1’aviation civile Internationale recon- naissent la souverainete des Etats sur 1’espace aerien au-dessus de leur territoire et que, en consequence, les accords bilateraux relatifs aux services aeriens conferant des droits de trafic aerien doivent recevoir une interpretation restrictive; cela signifie que, lorsqu’un accord n’autorise pas expressement des ruptures de charge—tel est le cas de la section VI de l’Annexe a l’Accord de 1946 en ce qui concerne les ruptures de charge en pays tiers—il faut considerer que celles-ci sont interdites. Cette interpretation, qui correspond au texte clair et au sens naturel de la section VI et qui se traduit par une application de l’adage “expressio unius est ex- clusio alterius”, est confirmee par I’application des principes generaux en matiere d’interpretation des traites. Cela est vrai non seulement pour la regie qui a deja ete mentionnee et qui prescrit que les regies conventionnelles im- pliquant des limitations de souverainete doivent etre interpretees restrictive- ment, mais aussi pour le principe suivant Iequel l’objet et les regies fonda- mentales d’un accord doivent etre pris en consideration. En premier lieu, l’Accord de 1946 a pour objet de conferer aux Parties des droits specifiques et limites sur une base de reciprocity, de sorte qu’une interpretation restrictive s’impose; l’octroi d’avantages economiques supplementaires, tels que le droit a une rupture de charge en pays tiers, necessiterait de nouvelles negociations. En second lieu, certaines regies fondamentales qui sont conte- nues a la section IV de l’Annexe a l’Accord et auxquelles la section VI (rupture de charge) fait une reference expresse, confirment 1’interpretation restrictive a laquelle on etait deja parvenu. Cela est notamment vrai pour la constatation que les Parties “desirent provoquer et encourager la plus large distribution possible des avantages procures par les voyages aeriens”, pour le principe suivant Iequel les entreprises designees d’une Partie qui exploited des routes autorisees prendront en consideration les interets des entreprises de I’autre Partie exploitant tout ou partie de la meme route, pour la regie selon laquelle les services aeriens offerts devront correspondre “aux besoins du public en matiere de transport aerien”—et des ruptures de charge peuvent effectivement incommoder le public—ainsi que pour les principes relatifs a la capacite contenus a la lettre cl, qui prevoit notamment que les services fournis par une entreprise designee
auiont pour objet essentiel d’offrir une capacite correspondant a la demande de trafic entre le pays auquel ressortit I’entrepnse et le pays dessetvi en dernier lieu.
Une rupture de charge a Londres sur la ligne cote Ouest-Paris avec un trans- bordement d’un avion Boeing 747 a un avion Boeing 727 signifie que la capacite offerte correspond a la demande de trafic sur le segment San Fran- cisco-Londres plutot qu’a celle existant pour le service San Francisco-Paris pris dans son ensemble. La France ajoute qu’une interpretation stricte de la section VI de l’Annexe a I’Accord de 1946 est egalement justifiee lorsqu’on se refere a la doctrine et a la conduite ulterieure des Parties a I’Accord.
2. Question B
a) La question preliminaire
b) Le fond
17. D’apres la France, les Ordonnances du C.A.B. des 9 et 31 mai 1978 sont injustifiees; peu importe, selon elle, que ces Ordonnances soient qualifiees de represailles ou analysees sous Tangle du droit des traites, dans le cadre de Yexceptio non adimpleti contractus. Pour ce qui est de la these des represailles, la France fait d’abord remarquer que la decision du 14 mars 1978, n’etant pas contraire a l’Accord de 1946, ne pouvait justifier des represailles. Quoi qu’il en soit, on ne peut, selon la France, recourir a des represailles qu’en cas de necessite, c’est-a-dire en l’absence d’autres moyens juridiques permettant de mettre fin au differend; il est evident que cette condition n’etait pas remplie puisque l’article X de l’Accord de 1946 prevoit de tels moyens. En outre, la procedure de represailles aurait du etre precedee d’une sommation infructueuse, telle qu’elle est exigee par le droit international. Enfin, les mesures prises par les Etats-Unis etaient disproportionnees. D’une part, elles portaient atteinte a des droits non contestes des entreprises francaises, prevus a l’Accord de 1946, alors que le droit du transporteur designe des Etats-Unis d’effectuer une rupture de charge a Londres est un droit conteste; d’autre part, l’application de l’Ordonnance du C.A.B. du 31 mai 1978 privant Air France de ses trois vols hebdomadaires Paris-Los
Angeles aurait entraine un prejudice economique depassant de loin celui subi par la Pan Am a la suite de la decision du 14 mars 1978. Si la question est consideree sous Tangle du droit des traites, il faut relever que la suspension de dispositions conventionnelles par Tune des Parties n’est permise que si l’autre Partie a precedemment viole le traite, ce que la France nie avoir fait. De plus, la violation dont il s’agit doit etre substantielle, c’est-a-dire consis- ter en un rejet non autorise du traite ou se rapporter a une disposition essen- tielle pour la realisation de l’objet ou du but du traite; en l’espece, ni Tune ni l’autre de ces conditions n’etaient remplies. De plus, meme si elles Tavaient ete, la suspension n’aurait pu avoir lieu que si l’Etat lese n’avait dispose d’aucun moyen pour assurer le respect du traite; Tarticle X de I’Accord de 1946 demontre que tel n’etait pas le cas en l’espece.
18. D’apres les Etats-Unis, Taction prise par le C.A.B. etait justifee sous Tangle de la theorie des represailles aussi bien que sous celui du droit des traites, car tous les deux exigent la violation prealable d’une obligation internationale. Une telle violation resultait de Taction entreprise le 3 mai 1978 par la France a Taeroport d’Orly et du refus persistant de la France d’autoriser la Pan Am a assurer un service avec rupture de charge, et ce independamment du point de savoir si l’existence du droit revendique par les Etats-Unis a ete ou non confirmee par un tribunal arbitral. Les mesures prises par les Etats-Unis ne devraient pas etre considerees comme mettant fin a I’Accord de 1946 ou comme suspendant Tapplication de celui-ci, mais plutot comme des demarches visant a retirer aux entreprises francaises un nombre limite de droits correspondant aux droits qui ont ete refuses au transporter des Etats-Unis. Quoi qu’il en soit, le comportement de la France constitue une violation “serieuse” ou “substantielle” de I’Accord de 1946, comme le demontrent les pertes subies par la Pan Am a la suite de la perturbation de ses plans d’exploitation. Les Etats-Unis rejettent Targument frangais selon lequel la theorie des represailles aussi bien que le droit des traites interdiraient toute contre-mesure lorsqu’il existe d’autres moyens d’obtenir satisfaction. La theorie des represailles presentee par la France, si elle est exacte, s’etend aux seules represailles armees; elle ne pourrait etre appliquee a la situation presente qu’a partir du moment ou les mecanismes juridictionnels internationaux auront evolue jusqu’au point ou il existe des tribunaux internationaux institutionnalises investis du pouvoir de prendre des mesures conservatoires immediates; s’il en etait autrement, rien ne pousse- rait l’Etat defendeur a contribuer a une conduite expeditive de la procedure d’arbitrage. L’Analyse des regies du droit des traites aboutit a une conclusion semblable. Quant a Targument frangais fonde sur Tabsence de propor- tionnalite, les Etats-Unis relevent que, sur le plan des faits, le service assure par Air France correspond a peu pres au service cote Ouest-Paris que la Pan Am se proposait de reprendre; de plus, les entreprises frangaises ont neglige la possibilite de se plaindre aupres du C.A.B. en ce qui concerne la portee des contre-mesures envisagees. Les deux services sont aussi equivalents sur le plan juridique, car, contrairement a ce que pretend la France, il peut y avoir proportionnalite entre un service qui est conteste et un service qui ne Test pas.
Questions preliminaires
qu’en acceptant de recourir a 1’arbitrage en ce qui concerne la rupture de charge, le Gouvernement frangais se reserve le droit de faire valoir devant le Tribunal que tous les moyens de recours interne doivent etre epuises avant qu’un Etat ne puisse en appeler a 1’arbitrage conformement aux dispositions de l’Accord,
et
qu’en acceptant de recourir a 1’aibitrage en ce qui conceme la Section 213, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis se reserve le droit de faire valoir devant le Tribunal que, dans les circonstances de l’espece, la question n’est pas de celles qui auraient du etre soumises a 1’examen d’un tribunal arbitral.
Pour la France:
Plaise au Tribunal arbitral:
1°) Sur la question A
Dire et juger que le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis etait tenu, avant d’agir sur le plan international en recourant a 1’arbitrage, d’attendre que la compagnie americaine qui s’estime atteinte par 1’acte pretendument illicite reproche au Gouvernement frangais ait epuise les voies de recours ouvertes en droit frangais; que ces voies de lecours n’ayant pas ete epui- sees, le Tribunal arbitral n’est pas en mesure de statuer sur la question qui lui a ete posee;
A titre subsidiaue:
Dire et juger que, pour les motifs ci-dessus exposes, le Tribunal arbitral doit ajoumer sa decision sur la question A |usqu’au moment ou la compagnie Pan American World Airways aura, soit obtenu la reconnaissance par les tribunaux frangais des droits qu’elle reclame, soit epuise, sans obtenir satisfaction, les voies de droit qui lui sont ouvertes en droit frangais:
Pour les Etats-Unis:
les Etats-Unis demandent respectueusement au Tribunal de , . . : Decliner de repondre a la question B . , ,m
Dans la doctrine et la jurisprudence de la Cour permanente de Justice intemationale et de la Cour intemationale de Justice, ainsi que dans la pratique en matiere de traites, 1’application de la regie de 1’epuisement des recours internes ne peut etre envisagee qu’en relation avec la question de la responsabilite intemationale d’un Etat pour un acte contraire au droit ( , . ) commis sur son territoire envers un ressortissant d’un autre Etat, et pour le refus de reparer cet acte, c’est-a-dire pour un deni de justice ( . . ) (Tribunal d’Arbitrage et Commission Mixte de l’Accord sur les Dettes exterieures allemandes, Recueil des Juge- ments et des Avis consultatifs 1958, p, 18 )
31. Si l’on fait valoir que, en vertu de la reserve frangaise contenue au sixieme paragraphe du preambule du Compromis, une distinction parallele doit etre operee dans le cas present, la question dont le Tribunal est saisi ne portant pas sur la reparation d’un dommage (ou meme simplement sur sa determination) pretendument cause a un Etat par le comportement ef- fectif d’un autre Etat, une telle distinction ne pourrait se fonder que sur le caractere juridique des regies de droit international que le Tribunal est prie et tenu d’appliquer en statuant sur la question A. A ce propos, il est signifi- catif que l’article 22 du projet d’articles sur la responsabilite des Etats, tel qu’il a ete adopte provisoirement en premiere lecture par la Commission du droit international en 1977[30], souleve l’exigence de l’epuisement des recours internes uniquement s’il s’agit d’une obligation “de resultat”, dont il ressort “que ce resultat ou un resultat equivalent peut neanmoins etre acquis par un comportement ulterieur de l’Etat” et qui est une obligation “concernant le traitement a reserver a des particuliers etrangers”. Independamment du choix effectue dans ce projet d’article en ce qui concerne la qualification de la regie de l’epuisement des recours internes comme une regie de “procedure” ou comme une regie de “fond”—question que le Tribunal considere comme etant sans pertinence en l’espece—il est evident que le caractere juridique des regies de droit international a appliquer dans le cas present est fondamentalement different de celui des regies visees dans le projet d’article cite ci-dessus. En fait, l’article premier de I’Accord relatif aux services aeriens dispose que “[l]es Parties Contractantes s’accordent 1’une a l’autre les droits specifies a 1’Annexe ci-jointe …” (souligne par le Tribunal), et les sections 1 et 11 de 1’Annexe se referent toutes deux au “droit de faire assurer par une ou plusieurs entreprises frangaises de transport aerien [entreprises de transport aerien des Etats-Unis] designees par [cet Etat], des services aeriens …” en tant que droit ac.corde par un gouvemement a l’autre gouvemement. De plus, il est evident que l’objet et le but d’un accord relatif aux services aeriens tel que celui-ci sont I’exploitation de services de transport aerien, 1’obligation correspondante des Parties consis- tant en un devoir d’admettre cette exploitation plutot qu’en une obligation tendant a assurer un “resultat”; encore moins consiste-t-elle en une obligation dont il ressort qu’un “resultat equivalent” peut etre acquis au moyen d’un comportement posterieur au refus d’admettre l’exploitation. Pour les besoins de la question ici examinee, il existe une difference substantielle entre 1’obligation pour un Etat d’accorder a des etrangers admis sur son territoire un traitement correspondant a un certain standard, d’une part, et, d’autre part, l’obligation pour un Etat d’admettre l’exploitation de services de transport aerien a destination, a partir et au-dessus de son territoire. Dans le dernier cas, en raison de la nature meme des services intemationaux de transport aerien, aucune alternative pouvant normalement etre consideree comme “equivalente” ne peut se substituer a l’autorisation effective d’exploiter de tels services.
ajoumer sa decision sur la question A jusqu’au moment ou la compagnie Pan American World Airways aura, soit obtenu la reconnaissance par les tribunaux frangais des droits qu’elle reclame, soit epuise, sans obtenir satisfaction, les voies de droit qui lui sont ouvertes en droit frangais.
A la signature du present compromis, le Civil Aeronautics Board des Etats-Unis annu- lera immediatement tous les ordres emis en application de la Section 213 de ses reglements economiques ( , . ).
37. Dans ces circonstances, le Tribunal est d’avis que les objections elevees contre un avis consultatif relatif a la question B doivent etre examinees dans un contexte qui est sensiblement different de celui ou un tribunal arbitral ou une cour internationale aurait a se prononcer sur une requete unilaterale d’une Partie a un differend visant a faire etablir s’il y a effectivement eu violation d’une obligation internationale et a faire determiner les consequences d’une telle violation.
Question A
Un transporteur designe des Etats-Unis a-t-il le droit, en vertu de l’Accord entre la France et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique relatif aux services aeriens, d’exploiter un service de la Cote Ouest des Etats-Unis a Paris avec rupture de charge a Londres (transbordement sur un plus petit avion a 1 ‘alter et sur un plus gros avion au tetour)?
La decision du Tribunal sur cette question sera obligatoire.
1. La partie de l’Accord se rapportant a la rupture de charge
a) Au sens de la presente Section 1’expression “rupture de charge” a une escale donnee signifie qu’au-dela de ce point le trafic sur la ligne consideree est assure par la meme entreprise avec un appareil different de celui qui a ete utilise sur la meme ligne avant ladite escale
b) Toute rupture de charge justifiee par des raisons d’economie d’exploitation sera ad- mise en tout point du territoire des deux Parties Contractantes mentionne aux tableaux ci- annexes.
c) Toutefois aucune rapture de charge ne pourra intervenir sur le territoire de 1’une ou l’autre des Parties Contractantes dans les cas ou elle modifierait les caracteristiques de l’exploitation d’un service long-courrier, ou setait incompatible avec les principes enonces dans le present Accord et son Annexe et particulierement la Section IV de Iadite Annexe.
il faut evidemment lire [le Traite] dans son ensemble, et l’on ne saurait determiner sa signification sur la base de quelques phrases detachees de leur milieu et qui, separees de leur contexte, peuvent etre interpretees de plusieurs manieres (Publications de la C.P.J I , serie B, n° 2, p. 22);
voir aussi 1’Arbitrage aerien entre la France et les Etats-Unis de 1963 (Revue generate de droit international public, t. 69, 1965, pp. 229-230).
2. Le texte de I’Accord dans son ensemble
C’est done aux termes de l’Annexe qu’il faut se reporter pour examiner les droits des Parties et les limitations auxquelles ces droits sont soumis,
53. La section V a trait aux tarifs a appliquer par les transporters des Parties. La section VI a, bien entendu, deja ete examinee. La section VII permet des modifications de routes par 1’une des Parties sur le territoire de pays tiers — mais pas sur le territoire de l’autre Partie — les seules exigences etant la notification sans delai et la possibility d’une concertation si celle-ci est demandee”. La section VIII, enfin, prevoit l’echange rapide d’informations entre les Parties[36].
3. Le contexte dans Iequel l’Accord a ete negocie.
4. La pratique des Parties
“La section V de l’Annexe a I’Accord des Bermudes, qui porte sur la rupture de charge, est ainsi redigee.
“a) Lorsque, a un stade ulterieur du parcours, le transport est assure, pour des raisons d’economie d’exploitation, par un aeronef n’ayant pas les memes dimensions que I’aeronef qui a ete employe au cours de la premiere etape du parcours (ce qui est appele dans la suite du present texte “rupture de charge”), une telle rupture de charge survenant en un point situe sur le territoire du Royaume-Uni ou sur le territoire des Etats-Unis devra etre con- forme aux principes enonces dans l’Acte final de la Conference de l’Aviation civile tenue aux Bermudes du 15 Janvier au 11 fevrier 1946 et, en particulier, tenir compte de l’existence d’un volume convenable de trafic direct
“b) Dans le cas ou une rupture de charge interviendrait en un point situe sur le territoire du Royaume-Unr ou le territoire des Etats-Unis, I’aeronef le plus petit n’operera en liaison qu’avec I’aeronef le plus grand arrivant au point ou s’effectue la rupture de charge, de maniere a assurer normalement un service de correspondance, a l’arrivee de I’aeronef le plus grand, pour permettre, avant tout, aux passagers voyageant dans I’aeronef le plus grand a destination du territoire du Royaume-Uni ou du territoire des Etats-Unis de pour- suivre leur voyage dans I’aeronef le plus petit S’il y a des places libres dans I’aeronef le plus petit, elles pouriont etre donnees a des passagers venant du territoire du Royaume-Uni ou du territoire des Etats-Unis respectivement II est bien entendu que la capacite de charge de I’aeronef le plus petit sera determinee essentiellement par le volume de trafic transports par I’aeronef le plus grand qui doit normalement faire 1’objet d’un nouveau transport.
“. . .” (Nations Unies, Recueil des Traites, vol 3, p. 253)
celle provisoirement adoptee par le Tribunal sur la base du texte de l’Accord et confirmee par le contexte general dans Iequel l’Accord a ete negocie.
Question B
Dans un esprit d’etroite collaboration, les autorites aeronautiques des deux Parties Contractantes se consulteront regulierement en vue de s’assurer de I’application des principes definis au present Accord et a son Annexe et de leur execution satisfaisante
Cette disposition institue une obligation de consultation continue entre les Parties. Dans le cadre de cette obligation generale, I’Accord impose claire- ment aux Parties un devoir de s’efforcer de bonne foi de negocier la solution de questions susceptibles d’engendrer des conflits. Plusieurs autres dispositions de I’Accord et de l’Annexe prevoient une obligation de consultation dans ces cas specifiques ou l’eventualite d’un conflit serait particulierement a redouter. Enfin, l’article X impose aux Parties un devoir special de consultation au cas ou, malgre leurs efforts anterieurs, un differend surgirait.
Par ces motifs,
Le Tribunal arbitral, donne la reponse suivante aux questions qui lui ont ete soumises:
Question A
Considerant que, aux termes du sixieme paragraphe du preambule du Compromis d’arbitrage, le Gouvernement frangais,
en acceptant de recourir a 1’arbitrage en ce qui concerne la rupture de charge, se reserve le droit de faire valoir devant le tribunal que tous les moyens de recours interne doivent etre epuises avant qu’un Etat ne puisse en appeler a 1’arbitrage conformement aux dispositions de l’Accord.
Considerant que la question posee est la suivante:
Un transporteur designe des Etats-Unis a-t-il le droit, en vertu de l’Accord entre la France et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique relatif aux services aeriens, d’exploiter un service de la cote Ouest des Etats-Unis a Paris avec rupture de charge a Londres (transbordement sur un plus petit avion a J ‘alter et sur un plus gros avron au retour) ?
Considerant que le Tribunal arbitral est ainsi appele a se prononcer sur deux points,
Le Tribunal arbitral,
En ce qui concerne le premier point,
Decide, a l’unanimite, qu’il est en mesure de statuer sur la question A;
En ce qui concerne le second point,
Decide, par deux voix contre une, que la reponse sur ce point est qu’un transporteur designe des Etats-Unis a le droit, en vertu de l’Accord entre la France et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique relatif aux services aeriens, d’exploiter un service de la cote Ouest des Etats-Unis a Paris avec rupture de charge a Londres (transbordement sur un plus petit avion a Taller et sur un plus gros avion au retoui), a la condition qu’il s’agisse d’un service continu et non de services separes.
Question B
Considerant que, aux termes du septieme paragraphe du preambule du Compromis d’arbitrage, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis,
en acceptant de recourir a 1’arbitrage en ce qui concerne la Section 213, . . . se reserve le droit de faire valoir devant le tribunal que, dans les circonstances de l’espece, la question n’est pas de celles qui auraient du etre soumises a l’examen d’un tribunal arbitral,
Considerant que la question posee est la suivante:
Dans les circonstances de l’espece, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis avait-il le droit d’entreprendre [‘action qu’il a entreprise en application de la Section 2)3 des reglements economiques du Civil Aeronautics Board ?
Considerant que le Tribunal arbitral est ainsi appele a se prononcer sur deux points,
Le Tribunal arbitral,
En ce qui concerne le premier point,
Decide, a l’unanimite, de se prononcer sur la question B;
En ce qui concerne le second point,
Decide, a l’unanimite, que la reponse a donner sur ce point est que le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis avait, dans les circonstances de Tespece, le droit d’entreprendre Taction qu’il a entreprise en application de la section 213 des Reglements economiques du C.A.B.
Fait en frangais et en anglais a 1’Institut universitaire de hautes etudes internationales, a Geneve, ce 9 decembre 1978, les deux textes faisant egalement foi, en trois exemplaires originaux, dont un sera depose aux archives du Tribunal arbitral, et dont les deux autres seront transmis respec- tivement au Gouvernement de la Republique frangaise et au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d’Amerique.
(Signe)
Willem Riphagen, President Thomas Ehrlich, Arbitre Paul Reuter, Aibitre Lucius Caflisch, Greffier
M- Paul Reuter joint a la Sentence arbitrate l’expose de son opinion dissidente.
Opinion dissidente de M. Paul, Reuter
J’ai accepte la position du Tribunal en ce qui concerne l’exception preliminaire a la question A, l’exception preliminaire et la reponse au fond a la question B; je dois presenter cependant a ce sujet certaines observations et exprimer certains doutes.
Les Parties a cet arbitrage ont souverainement determine les questions posees au Tribunal et ainsi limite la competence du Tribunal a celles-ci. Un tribunal arbitral comme celui-ci est tenu de respecter cette volonte commune. Mais il apparait clairement dans les actes de la procedure que le litige qui a oppose les Parties est plus large que les questions posees au Tribunal; le choix des questions retenues est, a mon avis, tres artificiel. Cette situation conduit a des difficultes qui ont embarrasse les Parties elles-memes, puisqu’elles ont souleve des exceptions preliminaries; des difficultes peuvent egalement apparaltre pour le Tribunal. On pouvait ainsi se demander si la difference d’autorite juridique assignee a la reponse du Tribunal donnee aux questions A et B est en harmonie avec la fonction judiciaire; on pouvait se demander aussi si, dans les circonstances de 1’affaire, 1’interet invoque par la France pour poser la question B presentait, apres le Compromis, un caractere juridique suffisant. Avec le Tribunal, j’ai repondu negativement a la question preliminaire sur la question B parce qu’un refus du Tribunal n’aurait fait que souligner une inegalite entre les Parties, visible par ailleurs.
J’ai repondu comme le Tribunal a la question B sur le fond, sous le benefice d’une observation cependant. J’accepte l’analyse juridique du Tribunal, et notamment l’idee que l’application de la proportionnalite des con- tre-mesures prenne en compte non seulement les faits realises, mais les questions de principe soulevees a cette occasion. Cependant celles-ci devraient etre prises en consideration a travers leurs effets probables. Une appreciation de la proportionnalite devrait ainsi se fonder sur l’etendue du litige reel et non sur les seuls faits dont le Tribunal est saisi. II est permis de conserver des doutes serieux sur la proportionnalite des contre-mesures des Etats-Unis, qui n’a pu etre en fait appreciee par le Tribunal sur des bases certaines.
Pour ce qui est de la reponse donnee par le Tribunal a la question A, j’ai le regret de ne pouvoir me rallier ni a la position generale du Tribunal, ni a la reponse qu’il a donnee, et je dois exposer brievement les raisons de mon dissentiment.
Deux remarques preliminaries concernent la portee de la rupture de charge et la terminologie.
Dans le sens extensif qui lui est donne par I’Accord de 1946’00, la “rupture de charge” a une portee economique tres variable, tantot nulle, tantot considerable, suivant les conditions ou elle est realisee. Si un aeronef est remplace par un autre aeronef presentant des caracteristiques generales analogues, la rupture de charge repond seulement a des considerations techniques relevant de la navigation aerienne. Si, pour un service determine, on remplace un aeronef par un autre aeronef de capacite difference, les consequences economiques peuvent etre importantes. Si le changement d’aeronef s’accompagne d’une combinaison de services (un aeronef recueil- lant le fret ou les passagers de plusieurs autres) ou d’un eclatement de services (les passagers ou le fret d’un appareil etant repartis sur plusieurs aeronefs ayant des destinations differentes), une atteinte plus serieuse est portee a l’identite et a la continuite des services aeriens, et le caractere raisonnablement lineaire des routes aeriennes long-courriers s’en trouve altere[37].
En la matiere la terminologie est tres confuse; ce ne sont pas toujours les memes expressions qui designent les memes realites, et l’on ne separe pas toujours clairement la “rupture de charge” des differentes operations qu’elle permet de realiser. Mais les interets mis en cause par ces operations peuvent etre considerables, varient d’un pays a un autre et conduisent a des solutions conventionnelles diverses, resultant de la variete des compromis d’interets.
C’est, entre autres, sur un point essentiel que je ne puis me rallier a la Sentence arbitrale : il porte sur 1’interpretation qu’il convient de donner a la volonte des Parties au regard de 1’evidente lacune de cet Accord qui reglemente formellement la rupture de charge sur le territoire des Parties et garde un silence provocant sur la rupture de charge en pays tiers.
Quand un traite entre deux ou plusieurs Parties entend reglementer d’une maniere generale une matiere determinee, on est tente de degager de ce traite des principes generaux et de reunir par cette elaboration des elements qui permettent de “combler une lacune”, de trancher des problemes non resolus formellement. Toutefois, cette methode constructive n’est autorisee que si son emploi repond vraiment a l’intention des Parties telle que l’on peut 1’etablir d’apres des indices precis et concordants. II n’en est pas ainsi lorsque le silence du traite ne releve ni de la volonte des Parties de ne pas descendre a des reglementations de detail, ni d’une imprevoyance des negociateurs, ni d’un developpement qui n’etait pas envisage au moment de la conclusion de l’Accord, mais bien de l’acceptation consciente d’un disaccord non regie se traduisant par une lacune. Peu importe que les Parties n’aient pu surmonter ce disaccord par manque de temps ou a raison de la gravite de leur opposition : la seule voie qu’elles ont Iaisse ouverte pour regler le probleme non resolu est celle d’un accord mutuel a intervenir posterieurement. On ne peut se substituer aux Parties, ni realiser, sous le couvert de principes generaux, une ceuvre quasi legislative que celles-ci, en toute connaissance de cause, n’ont pas elaboree, alors qu’elles etaient mieux que quiconque en etat de l’entreprendre. Si un tribunal arbitral ne peut, dans ce cas, meme sous couleur d’interpretation, legiferer, cela ne veut pas dire que, en attendant la conclusion d’un accord complementaire entre les Parties, la question posee reste sans reponse, mais que s’appliquent les autres regies pertinentes du droit international.
Dans la presente espece, I’Accord de 1946 consacre une disposition as- sez substantielle a la rupture de charge (section VI de l’Annexe); celle-ci est redigee de telle maniere qu’elle fait naitre chez le lecteur l’attente d’une reglementation complete portant a la fois sur la rupture de charge sur le territoire des Parties et sur la rupture de charge sur le territoire des pays tiers; mais dans son developpement, le texte se derobe a cette attente et garde le silence le plus complet sur la rupture de charge en pays tiers. Ainsi, de la structure meme du texte il resulte que ce probleme n’a pas ete ignore des negociateurs, qu’ils en ont mesure l’importance et que c’est en toute conscience qu’ils se sont abstenus de le resoudre au moment de la conclusion de I’Accord. Ayant souscrit, en vertu de Particle VIII, au principe d’une etroite collaboration et a celui de consultations regulieres, les Parties n’ont pas du considerer ce silence comme une situation definitive, mais elles ont necessairement accepte que, en attendant la conclusion d’un nouvel accord, ce soient ces regies generales anterieurement applicables entre les Parties qui continuent a s’appliquer, a savoir celles de la Convention relative a l’aviation civile internationale conclue a Chicago le 7 decembre 1944 et no- tamment la regie consacrant la souverainete complete et exclusive de chaque Etat sur l’espace aerien au-dessus de son territoire (article premier). En vertu de ces regies, le Gouvemement frangais etait appele a consentir a toutes les caracteristiques des services aeriens interessant son territoire (article 6).
II n’est pas necessaire de confirmer cette interpretation de I’Accord de 1946 par une analyse des positions et des interets respectifs des Parties au moment de la conclusion de I’Accord. II y avait une forte opposition entre les Etats-Unis, souhaitant, parce que conforme a leurs interets, une “flexibility maximale des services aeriens, et certains pays europeens qui n’etaient pas (et n’ont jamais ete9depuis) en etat de profiler en fait utilement de cette flexibilite. La France avait meme, en ce qui concerne le caractere long-courrier des services et les principes concernant la capacite, des exigences plus grandes que celles du Royaume-Uni; elles sont refletees dans l’Echange de lettres des 28/29 decembre 1945 instituant entre la France et les Etats-Unis un regime provisoire, Echange qui a precede I’Accord de 1946 et que la Sentence du 22 decembre 1963 issue de VArbitrage aerien entre la France et les Etats-Unis cite in extenso[38] elles se traduisent dans le texte meme de I’Accord de 1946, qui s’eloigne sensiblement de celui du premier Accord des Bermudes’03. L’absence d’accord sur la rupture de charge en pays tiers prend a la Iumiere de cette opposition d’interets toute sa signification. Une interpretation qui ignorerait cette absence d’accord serait non seulement injustifiee, mais elle introduirait dans 1’interpretation de l’Accord un element de desequilibre; le droit international, inspire a cet egard par le common law, montre a propos d’un autre probleme qu’il n’est pas favorable a de tels desequilibres dans le droit des traites (article 44, paragraphe 3, lettre c), de la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traites, du 23 mai 1969). En effet, 1’ensemble de la pratique, notamment en matiere de routes aeriennes, a interprete l’Accord de 1946 d’une maniere restrictive[39], alors que l’on interpreterait d’une maniere extensive d’autres dispositions de l’Accord a l’encontre de la Partie qui ne peut pas en fait profiter de ce Iiberalisme.
Le fait que par son silence l’Accord de 1946 enregistre un disaccord des Parties sur le regime des ruptures de charge en pays tiers et les soumet par la a l’autorisation de I’autre Partie Contractante ne signifie cependant pas que celle-ci dispose d’une complete liberte de refuser cette autorisation.
En effet, il faut en premier lieu tenir compte des obligations qui pesent sur les Parties en ce qui concerne la securite aerienne et le respect des servitudes techniques de la navigation aerienne. Les libertes dont disposent les Parties a cet egard sont tellement evidentes que l’Accord de 1946 a omis de les mentionner dans la section VI de l’Annexe : elles derivent en effet des dispositions generales ou speciales (par exemple l’article 25) de la Convention de Chicago precitee.
En second lieu, pour toutes les questions concemant l’application de l’Accord, les Parties sont tenues a une etroite collaboration et a des consultations regulieres (article VIII); il en est ainsi particulierement en ce qui concerne une question sur laquelle elles ne se sont pas entendues lors de la conclusion de l’Accord. II existe done entre elles une obligation de negocier beaucoup plus etendue et qualifiee qu’une obligation de negocier ordinaire. Une telle negotiation, comme l’a souvent affirme la Cour intemationale de Justice, doit avoir un sens, e’est-a-dire elle doit rechercher par des compromis des solutions mutuellement acceptables dans le respect de cet equilibre de l’Accord dont les Parties ont fait grand cas a propos des contre-mesures prises par les Etats-Unis; de plus, dans de telles negociations les Parties sont tenues de respecter les differents objectifs de la Convention de Chicago, qui assure notamment (a son article 44, lettre/) a chaque Etat Contractant “une possibility equitable d’exploiter des entreprises de transports aeriens interna- tionaux”.
Ce ne sont pas la des obligations purement nominales. En effet, dans la perspective qu’elles commandent, le refus d’une autorisation pour rupture de charge dans un pays tiers n’est justifiable que si cette rupture de charge modifie l’equilibre des avantages que les Parties se sont mutuellement octroyes dans l’Accord, auquel cas une contrepartie raisonnable retablira cet equilibre, ou que si les interets legitimes d’une Partie subissent une atteinte sensible, auquel cas des mesures de sauvegarde appropriees pourront etre egalement envisagees. Mais il est facile d’admettre qu’un grand nombre de ruptures de charge realisees en pays tiers ne presented pas ces caracteres et que par consequent l’autorisation est de droit et n’appelle ni contreparties ni sauvegardes.
On ne saurait opposer a 1’interpretation ici retenue qu’elle conduit a instituer deux regimes differents de la rupture de charge, l’un pour le territoire des Parties et l’autre pour les pays tiers. L’objection manque en droit[40]. Les deux regimes n’ont pas la meme base juridique : l’un releve du traite et l’autre lui est exterieur; il appartient aux deux Parties et a elles seules de donner aux regies applicables dans les deux cas les memes bases juridiques et eventuellement le meme contenu.
Une des voies ouvertes aux Parties a I’Accord de 1946 consistait a adopter a un moment favorable, par voie d’echange de letttes ou meme par une methode encore moins foimelle, quelques regies concernant la rupture de charge en pays tiers; elles ont, semble-t-il, abouti a quelque entente sur un autre probleme qui touche egalement la continuity et l’identite des services aeriens, a savoir le stop-over, mais il n’en a pas ete ainsi pour la rupture de charge en pays tiers’06. II existe en revanche une pratique constitute par des cas isoles dans lesquels les autorites frangaises ont pris position rela- tivement a des programmes de vols comportant une rupture de charge en pays tiers. Cette pratique semble en harmonie avec 1’interpretation ici retenue; on releve notamment que les autorites franchises ont autorise des services comportant rupture de charge en pays tiers avec substitution d’un aeronef a un seul autre d’une capacite inferieure, mais sauvegardant les caracteres d’un service long-courrier, tant en ce qui concerne le type de I’aeronef et la longueur du service assure que la continuity du vol; tels ont ete notamment les cas de rupture de charge a Rome et a Barcelone. En revanche, des qu’il y a eu, sous couvert de la rupture de charge, un eclatement du service entre plusieurs aeronefs, des objections ont ete faites et des refus opposes (Shannon), ou bien des accords specifiques ont ete conclus (Echange de lettres du 28 mai 1969).
C’est sur le plan de la rupture de charge envisagee d’une maniere generale par rapport a I’Accord de 1946 que les Parties se sont avant tout placees au cours de la procedure ecrite et orale. En fait, en ce qui conceme la question posee au Tribunal, c’est l’Echange de lettres du 5 avril 1960 qui est specifiquement mis en cause; les caracteres propres des dispositions de ce dernier n’ont ete que sommairement discutes devant le Tribunal; il me suffira d’indiquer que, a mon avis, aucune disposition de cet Echange de let- tres ne permet de s’ecarter de la conclusion ci-dessus enoncee, bien au con- traire.
En conclusion, la rupture de charge a Londres des
avions des Etats-Unis . . . autorises a desservir Paris via Londres (sans droits de trafic entre Londres et Paris) sur les lignes qu’ils exploitent a partir de ou a destination de la cote occidenlale des Etats-Unis (texte frangais de I’Echange de lettres du 5 avril 1960)
etait done soumise a un agrement prealable du Gouvernement frangais; des negociations devaient etre ouvertes a cette fin; la nature exacte des operations envisagees sous le couvert de la rupture de charge devait etre etablie ainsi que la nature exacte des droits que les aeronefs des Etats-Unis entendaient exercer sur un segment de ligne pour Iequel ils ne beneficiaient pas de droit de trafic; des compensations equitables et eventuellement des sauvegardes pouvaient etre demandees par la France. Mais en tant que telle, la consideration que 1’aeronef substitue a Londres a un autre offrait une capacite moindre que ce dernier ne constitue qu’un des elements et pas necessairement le plus important de la negotiation.
C’est en ce sens qu’il convenait, a mon avis, de repondre a la question A.
(Signe) Paul Reuter
54 Air Services Agreement concluded between the United States of America and France on
27 March 1946. Article X of the Agreement was amended by the Exchange of Notes dated 19 March 1951
62 Translation by the Registry.
75 For the official French text, c/. Revue generate de dioit international public, t, 69, 1965, p. 189.
87 Pour le texte de la section VI, voir plus loin, paragraphe 45
89 Traduction du Greffe.
97 La section VII dispose:
“Toute modification des lignes aeriennes mentionnees aux tableaux ci-annexes qui af- fecterait le trace de ces lignes sur des territoires d’Etats tiers autres que ceux des Parties Contractantes, ne sera pas consideree comme une modification a 1’Annexe, Les autorites aeronautiques de chaque Partie Contractante pourront en consequence proceder unrlateralement a une telle modification sous reserve toutefois de sa notification sans delai aux autorites aeronautiques de l’autre Partie Contractante
“Si ces demieres estiment, eu egard aux principes enonces a la Section IV de la presente Annexe, que les interets de leurs entreprises nationales sont affectes par le fait qu’un trafic est assure entre leur propre territoire et la nouvelle escale en pays tiers par les entreprises de l’autre pays, elles se concerteront avec les autorites aeronautiques de l’autre Partie Contractante afin de parvenir a un accord satisfaisant “
100C’est dans ce sens que le terme sera employe dans la presente Opinion
“”Notamment dans la redaction de la section IV, lettre d, de l’Annexe a I’Accord et dans l’adjonction, aux conditions d’une rupture de charge sur le territoire des Parties Contractantes, de celle relative a la non-modification des “caracteristiques de I’exploitation d’un service long- courrier’ ‘, condition qui vient se rajouter au respect des ‘ ‘principes enonces dans le present Accord et son Annexe et particulierement la section IV de ladite Annexe “
[1] Translation by the Registry.
[2] Part of this Exchange of Notes is reproduced below, p 436, foot-note 67.
[3] For the full text of this provision, see below, paragraph 45
[4] The full text of the Compiomis is reproduced in paragraph 9
6Q For the full text of Article X, see below, p. 429, foot-note 63.
For the text of Section VI, see below, paragraph 45. The full text of Section IV is reproduced below, at p. 436, foot-note 69,
61 Article X of the Agreement, as amended by an Exchange of Notes of 19 March 1951, reads as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or its Annex, any dispute between the Contracting Parties relative to the interpretation or application of this Agreement or its
wThis Article reads:
“When the conduct of a State has created a situation not in conformity with the result required of it by an international obligation concerning the treatment to be accorded to aliens, whether natural or juridical persons, but the obligation allows that this or an equiva-
[9] Throughout this Award, the Tribunal uses the terms “change of gauge” and “rupture de charge” to mean a change in the size of the aircraft
[10] Sections I and II of the Annex read:
‘ ‘Section I
“The Government of the United States of America grants to the Government of the French Republic the right to conduct air transport services by one or mote air carriers of French nationality designated by the latter country on the routes, specified in Schedule I attached, which transit or serve commercially the territory of the United States of America,”
‘ ‘Section II
“The Government of the French Republic grants to the Government of the United States of America the right to conduct air transport services by one or more air carriers of United States nationality designated by the latter country on the routes, specified in Schedule II attached, which transit or serve commercially French territory ”
[11] Part of the Note of 5 April 1960 addressed by the United States Embassy in Pans to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs reads.
“After recent drscussions on this subject, it is the Embassy’s understanding that agreement has been reached on an exchange of air transit rights to accord the following advantages to air carriers of both countries.
“(1) French carriers may serve Los Angeles via Montreal (without traffic rights between Montreal and Los Angeles)
“(2) United States carriers may operate to Paris via London (without traffic rights between London and Paris) for services to and from United States west coast points.”
[12] The full text of Section III is as follows:
“One or more air carriers designated by each of the contracting Parties under the conditions provided in this Agreement will enjoy, in the territory of the other Contracting Party, rights of transit, of stops for non-traffic purposes and of commercial entry and departure for international traffic in passengers, cargo and mail at the points enumerated and on each of the routes specified in the schedules attached at all airports open to international traffic.”
[13] Section IV reads.
“It is agreed by the Contracting Parties:
“(a) That the two governments desire to foster and encourage the widest possible distribution of the benefits of air travel for the general good of mankind at the cheapest rates consistent with sound economic principles; and to stimulate international air travel as a means of promoting friendly understanding and good will among peoples and insuring as well the many indirect benefits of this new form of transportation to the common welfare of both countries
‘ ‘(b) That in the operation by the air carriers of either Contracting Party of trunk serv-
ices described in the present Annex, the interests of the air carriers of the other country shall, however, be taken into consideration so as not to affect unduly the services which the latter provide on all or part of the same route.
“(c) That the air transport services offered by the carriers of both countries should bear a close relationship to the requirements of the public for such services.
“(d) That the services provided by a designated air carrier under this Agreement and its Annex shall retain as their primary objective the provision of capacity adequate to the traffic demands between the country of which such air carrier is a national and the country of ultimate destination of the traffic; and
”—that the right of the air carriers of either country to embark and to disembark at points in the territory of the other country international traffic destined for or coming from third countries at a point or points specified in the Schedules attached, shall be applied in accordance with the general principles of orderly development to which both governments subscribe and shall be subject to the general principle that capacity shall be related
“(1) to traffic requirements between the country of origin and the countries of destination,
“(2) to the requirements of through airline operation, and
“(3) to the traffic requirements of the area through which the airline passes after taking account of local and regional services ”
711 Section VII provides:
“Changes made by either Contracting Party in the routes described in the Schedules attached except those which change the points served by these airlines in the territory of the other Contracting Party shall not be considered as modifications of the Annex. The aeronautical authorities of either Contracting Party may therefore proceed unilaterally to make such changes, provided, however, that notice of any change is given without delay to the aeronautical authorities of the other Contracting Party
“If such other aeronautical authorities find that, having regard to the principles set forth in Section IV of the present Annex, interests of their air carrier or earners are prejudiced by the carriage by the air carrier or carriers of the first Contracting Party of traffic between the territory of the second Contracting Party and the new point in the territory of a third country, the authorities of the two Contracting Parties shall consult with a view to arriving at a satisfactory agreement.” 71 The full text of Section VIII is:
“After the present Agreement comes into force, the aeronautical authorities of both Contracting Parties will exchange information as promptly as possible concerning the authorizations extended to their respective designated air carriers to render service to, through and from the territory of the other Contracting Party This will include copies of current certificates and authorizations for service on the routes which ate the subject of this Agreement and, for the future, such new authorizations as may be issued together with amendments, exemption orders and authorized service patterns ”
[16] In the present Opinion, the term will be used in that sense
[17] The background of the present dispute illustrates the differences in scope of “transshipment” The first Pan Am request clearly contemplated complex operations (combinations of services) which were to be carried out under the cover of a “transshipment” in London (letter of 5 October 1977); the request of 20 February 1978 referred to a “transshipment” on the sole ground of a “lack of equipment owing to the delay in Boeing deliveries”
[18] In particular by the wording of Section IV (rf) of the Annex to the Agreement and by the inclusion, among the conditions applicable to “transshipment” in the territory of the Contracting Parties, of the requirement that “the long-range characteristics of the operation” may not be altered; this constitutes an addition to the requirement that, “the standards set forth in this Agreement and its Annex and particularly Section VI of this Annex” must be respected.
[19] In fact, there is no need here to define the scope of the provisions of Section VI of the Annex to the Agreement, for Question (A) refers to changes of gauge in third countries onJy; I wish to emphasize, however, that I do not accept the interpretation of the principles of the Agreement as given in the Award; nor do I accept the meaning attributed by the Award to the respect of the “long-range characteristics of the operation”.
[20] From the documentation submitted to the Tribunal, it would appear that in their negotiations, the Parties dealt with change of gauge on only one occasion, in connexion with change of gauge in the territory of the Contracting Parties (Minutes of the negotiations of 20 July-5 August 1959), the Minutes clearly reflect France’s opposition to changes of gauge in cases where one aircraft would be replaced by several.
“” Texle soumis (toumi) pai le Department d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amerique
[22] Accord relatif aux services aeriens conclu entre la France et les Etats-Unis le 27 mars 1946, modifie, en ce qui concerne son article X, par un Echange de notes du 19 mars 1951
[23] Traduction du Greffe.
[24] Une partie de eet Echange de notes est reproduite ci-dessous, p. 475, note 94.
[25] Pour le texte integral de cette disposition, voir ci-dessous, paragraphe 45.
1,5 Le texte integral du Compromis est reproduit au paragraphe 9.
[27] Pour le texte complet de [‘article X, voir plus loin, p. 468, note 90
[28] Le texte integral de la section IV est reproduit plus loin, p 476. note 96.
[29]L’article X de I’Accord, tel qu’il a ete modifie par l’Echange de notes du 19 mars 1951, est ainsi con£u:
“Sous reserve des autres drspositions du present Accord ou de son annexe, tout differend entre les Parties contractantes relatif a I’interpretation ou a l’application dudit Accord ou de son annexe qui ne pourrait etre regie par voie de negociations directes sera soumis pour avis consultatif a un tribunal arbitral de trois membres, dont un sera designe par chaque Partie contractante, tandis que le troisieme, qui ne pourra avoir la nationality d’une des Parties contractantes, sera choisi par les deux autres Chaque Partie contractante designera son arbitre dans les deux mois a compter de la remise par 1’une des Parties contractantes a l’autre d’une note diplomatique demandant [‘arbitrage d’un differend; le troisieme arbitre sera choist dans le mois qui suivra cette periode de deux mois
“Si 1’une des Parties contractantes n’a pas designe son arbitre dans le delai de deux mois ou si une entente sur le choix du troisieme arbitre ne peut etre obtenue dans le delai prevu ci-dessus, le President de la Cour de justice intemationale sera prie de proceder aux nominations necessaires en choisissant le ou les arbitres, apres consultation du President du Conseil de l’O A C I.
“Les Parties contractantes feront de leur mieux dans les limites de leurs pouvoirs legaux pour donner effet a l’avis consultatif. Les frais du tribunal arbitral seront supportes a parts egales par chaque Partie contractante.”
” Cet article a la teneur suivante:
“Lorsqu’un comportement d’un Etat a cree une situation non conforme au resultat re- quis de lui par une obligation intemationale concernant le traitement a reserver a des particuliers etrangers, personnes physiques ou morales, mais qu’il ressort de 1’obligatron que ce resultat ou un resultat equivalent peut neanmoins etre acquis par un comportement ulterieur de l’Etat. il n’y a violation de l’obligation que si les particuliers interesses ont epuise les recours internes efficaces leur etant disponsibles, sans obtenir le traitement prevu par l’obligation ou, au cas ou cela n’etait pas possible, un traitement equivalent.”
[31]Tout au long de cette Sentence, le Tribunal utilisera les termes “rupture de charge” et ‘change of gauge” pour designer tout changement de dimension d’appareil.
w Les sections I et II de l’Annexe ont la teneur suivante:
‘ ‘Section I
“Le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d’Amerique accorde au Gouvernement de la Republique frangaise le droit de faire assurer, par une ou plusieurs entreprises frangaises de transport aerien designees par lui, des services aeriens sur les lignes mentionnees au tableau I ci-annexe qui traversent ou desservent le territoire des Etats-Unis d’Amerique.”
“Section II
“Le Gouvernement de la Republique frangaise accorde au Gouvernement des Etats- Unis d’Amerique le droit de faire assurer, par une ou plusieurs entreprises de transport aerien des Etats-Unis designees par lui, des services aeriens sur les lignes mentionnees au tableau II ci-annexe qui traversent ou desservent le territoire frangais ”
9d Voici une partie du texte de la Note adressee le 5 avril 1960 par 1’Ambassade des Etats- Unis a Paris au Ministeie frangais des Affaires etrangeres:
“A la suite des entretiens recents a ce sujet, 1’Ambassade considere qu’un Accord a ete obtenu sur Techange de droits de trafic en matiere aerienne qui accorde les avantages suivants aux aeronefs des deux pays:
“1) Les avions frangais sont autonses a desservir Los Angeles via Montreal (sans droits de trafic entre Montreal et Los Angeles)
“2) Les avions des Etats-Unis sont autorises a desservir Paris via Londres (sans droits de trafic entre Londres et Paris) sui les lignes qu’ils exploitent a partir de ou a destination de la cote occidentale des Etats-Unis.”
[34] Le texte complet de la section III est le suivant:
“L’entreprise ou les entreprises de transport aerien designees par chacune des Parties Contractantes dans les conditions fixees a l’Accord jouiront dans le territoire de I’autre Partie Contractante, aux points enumetes et sur chaque itineraire decrit aux tableaux ci- annexes, du droit de transit, du droit d’escales pour raisons non commerciales et du droit de debarquer et d’embarquer en trafic international des passagers, du courrier et des mar- chandises sur tout aeioport ouvert au trafic international ”
[35] La section IV a la teneur suivante:
“II est entendu entre les Parties Contractantes:
“a) que les deux Gouvemements desirent provoquer et encourager la plus large distribution possible des avantages procures par les voyages aeriens pour le bien general de l’humanite, aux plus bas tarifs compatibles avec de sains principes economiques; et stimu- Ier les voyages aeriens internationaux comme moyen de promouvoir une entente amicale et une bonne volonte commune entre les peuples, et assurer en meme temps les nombreux bienfaits indirects de ce nouveau mode de transport pour le bien-etre commun des deux pays,
“b) que, dans I’exploitation par les entreprises de chacun des deux pays des services long-courriers mentionnes a la presente Annexe, les interets des entreprises de l’autre pays seront toutefois pris en consideration, afin que ne soient pas indument affectes les services que ces demieres assureraient sur tout ou partie des memes parcours;
“c) que les services assures par les entreprises des deux pays devront correspondre aux besoins du public en matiere de transport aerien;
“d) que lesdits services long-courriers auront pour objet essentiel d’offrir une capacite correspondant a la demande de trafic entre le pays auquel ressortit I’entreprise et le pays desservi en demier lieu; et
“<?) que le droit pour les entreprises de chacun des deux pays d’embarquer et de debarquer sur le territorre de l’autre pays, aux points et sur les itineraires specifies aux tableaux ci-annexes, du trafic international a destination ou en provenance de pays tiers sera exerce conformement aux principes generaux de developpement ordonne affirmes par les deux Gouvemements, et dans des conditions telles que la capacite soit adaptee. “1) A la demande de trafic entre le pays d’ongine et les pays de destination; “2) Aux exigences de I’exploitation des services long-courriers; et “3) A la demande de trafic dans les regions traversees, compte tenu des services lo- caux et regionaux.”
[36] Voici le texte complet de la section VIII:
“A partir de 1’entree en vigueur du present Accord, les autorites aeronautiques des deux Parties Contractantes devront se communiquer aussi rapidement que possible les informations concernant les autorisations donnees a leur ou leurs propres entreprises designees pour exploiter les lignes mentionnees aux tableaux ci-annexes ou des fractions desdites lignes. Ces informations comporteront notamment copie des autorisations accordees, de leurs modifications eventuelles ainsi que tous documents annexes.”
“”Les evenements a I’origine du present litige illustrent ces differences de portee de la rupture de charge, Une premiere demande de la Pan Am etait explicite sur les operations complexes (combinaisons de services) qui devaient etre realisees sous le couvert de la rupture de charge a Londres (lettre du 5 octobre 1977); la demande du 20 fevrier 1978 faisait etat d’une rupture de charge motivee seulement “par un manque d’equipement du au retard des livraisons de la societe Boeing”.
[38]Pour le texte officiel frangais, cf. Revue generale de droit international public, t 69, 1965, p. 189.
[39]II en est ainsi notamment de la Sentence arbitrale du 22 decembre 1963 et de la Decision du 28 juin 1964 qui l’a interpret^ (Revue generate de droit international public, t. 69, 1965, p. 259).
[40] En fait, la portee des dispositions de la section VI de l’Annexe a I’Accord n’a pas a etre etablie ici puisque la question A ne porte que sur une rupture de charge en pays tiers; je tiens cependant a souligner que je n’accepte pas 1’interpretation des principes de I’Accord telle que la Sentence du Tribunal la propose, ni le sens qu’elle donne au respect “des caracteristiques de I’exploitation d’un service long-courrier”
1(16Des documents soumis au Tribunal, il apparaitrait que les Parties n’ont aborde le probleme de la rupture de charge dans des negociations qu’une fois et a propos de la rupture de charge sur le territoire des Parties Contractantes (Proces-verbal des negociations du 20 juillet au 5 aout 1959); on y voit formulee 1’opposition frangaise a des ruptures de charge avec substitution de plusieurs appareils a un seul
Nicolas Boeglin, Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR).…
Journal of Conflict Resolution Volume 69 Issue 1, January 2025 ISSN: 0022-0027 Online ISSN: 1552-8766…
Nicolas Boeglin, Professeur de droit international public, Faculté de droit, Université du Costa Rica (UCR).…
Gaza / Israel: a propósito de la solicitud de intervención de Chile en la demanda…
Nicolas Boeglin, Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR).…
El Impacto de los Estudios de Derecho Internacional Público en la Era Digital El Derecho…