 Good evening, one and all, and it's always a pleasure to call a professor and that too from a university of an esteemed value within the students and professors as well as amongst lawyers and judicial services. And we all know that the value which National University of Judicial Science, NJUS, Kolkata carries and as they say that once you study from the National University you are in a different space and for that you have to understand the aviation mode. And while taking these things forward we thought why not have a session on the topic itself and overview of the aviation law. So we all know that it's a subject which is catching up off late and rapidly. The speed with which normally the motor vehicles don't carry but the aviation is in a mode and so it's also catching up the way but aviation otherwise it's connected. And amongst us we have a speaker, Professor Dr. Sandeepa Bhatt, a professor of law and the director of center and aviation and space law in NJUS, Kolkata and has an vast experience of taking webinars, seminars and more importantly he's also ranked holders for his LLM, he's a gold medallist and his sessions they also say is worth as, as worth as gold because the way he takes those sessions are different. And for this we have requested him for two sessions on the aviation law and space law and back to back so that there is no space between the two sessions and people can connect it automatically. And he has an experience of research with the World Bank, ISRO, West Bengal Judicial Academy, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. And he has also the distinction of being a member of the International Institute of Space Law. And his resume is such that we can, in fact, same amount of consumption of time as what we will be doing on the webinar itself. We thought that we should cut the resume because people know once you connect that the what quality of speaker would come. And without taking much time I would request Mr. Bhatt to take things forward. They're actually willing to take off the flight mode itself. Over to you, sir. Thank you. Let me just try to share the screen again. Screen share. Allow it. It's allowed. Yeah. And you can see it now. Good evening to all of you friends. And I should thank Beyond Law for giving me an invitation to speak on aviation law today. And I should thank Beyond Law for giving me an invitation to speak on aviation law today. Mr. Bhatt, your video is off. I think it's happening automatically. There is some problem. Okay. Yeah. Nice. Can you see me now? All right. So, okay. Thank you. All right. So let me thank Beyond Law for their kind invitation to deliver this lecture today on aviation law and tomorrow on the Space Law. So, before I start this lecture, let me also admit about air and space law. I think this is very crucial. We have aviation law. We have got space law, but I should say that we don't have air and space law. There is no air and space law, especially because of the reason that aviation law and space law are the two entirely distinct fields of law. There is no interconnection whatsoever, even though in general parlance, we say air and space law and even some of the universities prescribe the syllabus, the form of air and space law. I should say that there is no connection whatsoever between the aviation law and space law. And even when, because contacted me and when he requested me a session on air and space law, I told the same thing that actually there is no connection. So ultimately actually, so he planned for having two different sessions on aviation and space law. I always tell my students that studying air and space law together is nothing but studying criminal law along with the tort law. It is not even actually studying tort law along with the consumer protection, which may go hand in hand, but I should say that it is the tort law along with the criminal law, especially because the principles, concepts, whatever are there under the aviation law are entirely different from space law. Despite the fact that outer space is just next to the air space, there is no interconnection whatsoever between the air law and space law. And in fact, if you look into the different concepts, they are contradictory to each other, like the system of licensing or maybe the system of registration or aspect of liability under aviation law and space law are entirely different and conflicting with each other. So precisely because of that reason, I always insist that aviation law and space law need to be studied separately, and we should not club them together to have one single set of the law. Now this I think probably all of you would be able to understand in these two days session. Today we will be understanding the aviation law. What are the, of course, I'm giving just a brief overview of that. So we have just one hour, which is available at the disposal. So therefore I'll just be giving an overview. And in tomorrow's session, I'll be discussing about the outline of the space law. To start with, historically, aviation laws origin started in 1784 itself. Of course, I'm not telling about some international development. At the municipal level, for the first time in 1784, the Paris police has passed the decree for the purpose of preventing the flying of balloons from Germany over from, especially because they were very, very skeptical about the possibility of any kind of a damage, which might have been caused by the balloons flying over the French territory, some people flying above the territory and throwing something down and causing damage. So in order to prevent that, the Paris police, for the first time, came up with a decree, which was the first decree applicable to the airspace in 1784. That afterwards, some developments were happening in the states, in the municipal level, some rudimentary norms were developing regarding the airspace above the territory. Even the international conferences started to come in towards the end of the 19th century. Some of the conferences have been convened, but none of them have been much successful about bringing a separate law governing the aviation. 1903, engine-powered flights started. And once the engine-powered flights started, it was very clear to the international community that the airspace has to be properly regulated. Otherwise, there would be a lot of problems. And this resulted in, again, multiple conferences before the First World War and even after the First World War. After the First World War, we got the Paris Convention in 1919 itself, primarily on regulating the aviation sector. So the fundamental norms were fortified in the form of Paris Convention, 1919, soon after the First World War. One of the fundamental issues which were there, which was there before the international community at that time, was the debate between the freedom and sovereignty. Should there be a freedom in airspace or should the airspace be subject to the sovereignty of the state which is below that? What has to be made applicable? That was one of the major debates when actually the international aviation law was developing. United States and also a certain set of scholars argued for the freedom of the airspace. In other words, any country can fly the aircraft in any corner of the world, wherever they would like to fly, they should be able to fly. US was basically supporting because it wanted to commercialize as much as possible and get as many airways as possible in different countries. So, therefore, they were advocating for the freedom. But the freedom was found to be problematic. Of course, the freedom theory was based on the grossest theory in the law of the sea, wherein Grossius basically advocated for the freedom of the sea. In his famous book, Marais Libre, he basically argued that the sea should be free for everyone's use. That should not be any sovereignty. But Grossius theory has not been accepted over the period of time in the law of the sea. It has been actually rejected. And we know that the certain parts of the sea are subject to the state that present. So, in the airspace also, the sovereignty theory has been advocated as against the freedom, especially because of the reason that if at all there is complete freedom to fly over any territory, that might be some security threat, which may be opposed to the concerned state. According to Aircraft, flying over the territory, the country might not be knowing what kind of an activity the Aircraft will be involved in. It might be bombing the territory. It might be causing certain damage to the concerned state. So, therefore, the complete freedom theory has been rejected with respect to the application to the airspace. But then, full sovereignty or an absolute sovereignty over the airspace was also really problematic. If at all it is an absolute sovereignty without any limitation, the states might not be allowing other states, especially those states with whom they don't have a good relationship. They might not allow their aircrafts to fly over their territory, which means the different parts of the world might not be connected properly, especially because the airspace may be blocked by the concerned state. So, that's why an absolute sovereignty was also really problematic. And consequently, all these problems, what the international community has accepted for application to the airspace, has been the principle of sovereignty subject to the right of innocent passage. It is a sovereignty. Of course, the states are having the sovereignty over the airspace. You can find in the constitution, the definition of the state would also include the airspace above the territory. But at the same point of time, international treaties have respected the freedom in terms of the right of innocent passage for other countries. Now, the laws which have been developed over the period of time regarding the aviation sector have also been on this particular line. Primarily, we have the municipal laws because the sovereignty of the state applies to the airspace above the territory. So, the states do have their laws applicable to the airspace. But at the same point of time, in order to protect the freedom of other countries in the airspace, there is a requirement of international norms which can ensure the right of other countries. So, that's how the development of laws have taken place with the mixture of both municipal law as well as international law with respect to the aviation sector. This is the background with which the development has taken place with the aviation. Moving forward, if I have to outline the international norm which governs the aviation sector, I should start with the Chicago Convention of 1944. The Chicago Convention is the fundamental aspect. If you look into articles 1 to 42, all of them deal with actually the sources of international law. It basically provides a different kind of provision which will be governing the aviation sector. Like, we have the provisions regarding the scheduled aircraft, non-scheduled aircraft, how should they actually carry on the activities. We have the provisions regarding the registration of the aircraft, licensing of the personnel, documents, the various documents which need to be carried in the aircraft in every flight. Like, all these different aspects are mentioned between articles 1 to 42 of the Chicago Convention. So, therefore, the fundamentals of international aviation law is provided by the Chicago Convention. Chicago Convention also has created an international organization in the second part. If you look into the second part, it creates the ICO, International Civil Aviation Organization, ICCO. So, this has been created under the Chicago Convention which acts as the nodal agency in the international level, which is the major agency regarding all the aviation activities. Over the period of time, ICO has been very much successful in terms of eliminating different kind of economic discrimination in the aviation sector. Of course, it is also a dispute, it has a dispute settlement mechanism as well. If you look into the Chicago Convention, ICO council basically functions as a dispute settlement body under the Chicago Convention. But it has not been very successful as a dispute settlement body, but it has been successful in terms of eliminating the economic discrimination in different countries regarding the aviation sector. Apart from this provision, what is more crucial is the updating of the Chicago Convention norm through the NXS. The Chicago Convention says that there should be NXS with need to be adopted at time and again, wherever there is a requirement of supplementing the provision of the Chicago Convention. It only provides the fundamental principles and then the remaining developments, whatever have taken place over the period of time, in order to cater to them, the NXS can be added and we can find that there are 19 NXS which have been developed over the period of time in the field of the Civil Aviation under the Chicago Convention. We have the NXS like NXS on licensing of the aviation personnel, how the flying personnel need to conduct themselves regarding that we have NXS, aeronautical maps and charts we have the NXS. We have the NXS regarding the airports, how to maintain the airport, what are the essential things which should be there in the airport with respect to all of them, we can find that there are separate NXS which have been entered under the Chicago Convention and these are always kept up to date, whatever new requirements are there, they have been incorporated in these NXS. That's how the Chicago Convention forms as the foundation of international civil aviation. Moving forward. Soon after the First World War, when the civil aviation started, one of the primary questions which has developed at a global level, who should be liable to pay the compensation if at all any damage has been caused to the passenger or to the containers or the consignees in case of the transportation of cargo? Who should be liable and what should be the norms which should be applicable for fixation of the liability, all these things were the crucial questions which popped up after the beginning of the civil aviation, which has been initially settled with the help of the Warsaw Convention, 1929. The Warsaw Convention 1929 was the first instrument with respect to the various liability and in fact, this is the oldest international multinational convention which is still existing at present with respect to the civil aviation, so this is the oldest convention that has put the civil aviation which is still existing at present. Now, when the Warsaw Convention was drafted, they fixed the liability on the carrier, but while fixing the liability on the carrier, the drafters were very, very careful and they have ensured that the carriers are not overburdened. In fact, if you look into the Warsaw Convention, it has got two parts. The first part, article one to article 16, they deal primarily with the different documents of carriage like the requirement of the passenger ticket or the baggage check that is the, with respect to the checked-in baggage, whatever is it is given and then even the airway bill in case of actually the transportation, the goods provided with the airway bill with respect to all of them, you can find the provisions between article one to article 16 of the Warsaw Convention. Seventeen onwards, we can find the provisions on the fixation of liability on the carrier. Seventeen speaks about liability for the injury or the death of the passenger. Eighteen is on the liability for damage caused to the cargo or to the checked-in baggage and nineteen speaks about the liability for damage caused by delay. Any damage, whatever has been caused by the delay, with respect to that, the liability has been fixed under article 19. However, the liability norms under the Warsaw Convention were not strong. It is more in favor of the carriers. If you look, there were a lot of defenses which have been provided. If you look into article 20 and article 21, both of them provide a kind of a blanket defense to the carrier to exonerate themselves from the liability. And over and above that, article 22 of the Warsaw Convention also provided a ceiling of the liability. That is the maximum liability of the carrier. The carrier would not be liable beyond that level. So therefore, there is a ceiling which has also been provided under article 22 and it is very, very low level of ceiling. So it's a very, very lower level. So consequently, the Warsaw Convention has been more favoring the carriers as against the passengers who might have been injured out of the civil aviation accident. Now as the time passed on, of course, why is this so? Let me just tell that before going on to the further development. This is primarily because number one, there has been a strong lobbying by the carriers in the negotiation in 1920 and more importantly, number two, the reason was that the carriers at that particular point of time were not strong like the present scenario. They were all initially investing for the civil aviation. They were all not sound enough to pay the huge amount of compensation. So consequently, a higher level of liability, if it is fixed on the carriers at that time, nobody would have invested in the civil aviation. People who have invested in the civil aviation. So precisely because of this reason, the Warsaw Convention is more oriented towards protecting the carrier's interest in terms of liability rather than the consumers or the passengers. But as the time passed on, the carriers started to become stronger and stronger. They started to make huge amount of profit. They became actually big multinational entities. So at that particular point of time, it was found that there is the requirement of a shift from the carrier oriented regime to the consumer oriented regime. It was found by the international community that the Warsaw Convention limits are very, very low. Carriers' liability is actually at a very, very low better scale. So therefore, a higher liability has to be imposed on the carriers. That's what the understanding of the international community, once the carriers started to become a big multinational company. Consequent to that, amendments started to the Warsaw Convention. In 1955, fake protocol was entered, which basically increased the limit of liability. And also it has taken a certain defences of the carrier. Article 20 defences that has been actually changes made there in certain kinds of defences were cut down under the fake protocol of 1955. Then in 1975, four Montreal protocols were entered, which have also increased the liability of the carrier. There has been a higher level of increase of the carriers' liability in the 1975 Montreal Protocol. But unfortunately, one of the problems with all these convention and protocols was that some of the state who had become parties to the Warsaw Convention did not become part into the fake protocol. But some of them who have become also part into the fake protocol did not become part into the Montreal Protocol. So the consequence was that we had a bifurcated regime. In some countries, only the Warsaw Convention is applicable. Some countries, Warsaw Convention as amended by the hate protocol was applicable. In some other countries, Warsaw as amended by hate protocol, as amended by Montreal protocol, maybe one, two or all one, two, three, four, whatever it may be. So it was dependent on the ratification by the state. And consequently, we had a bifurcated regime applicable across the globe regarding the carriers. In order to sort out this issue and to have a single instrument, there was negotiation in 1990s and ultimately in 1999, Montreal Convention 1999 was entered. A separate convention, the Montreal Convention 1999 was entered, which was for the purpose of organizing all these treaties into a single convention and also to bring in the new norms of the liability. For harmonization as well as development, for that purpose, the 1999 Montreal Convention was entered into. If you look into the Montreal Convention, it brings in a very much liability consumer oriented regime and you can even find no fault liability under the Montreal Convention 1999. Even if the carrier was not at fault, still is liable. It's a kind of a strict liability which has been brought in in the Montreal Convention 1999 and in addition to that, what the 1999 Convention did was to cut down the requirements about the documentation. Earlier, if you look into the Warsaw Convention, there were higher level of requirements regarding the passenger ticket, baggage, airway bill and all those things. Now those have been reduced down, but in terms of liability, stricter norms of the liability has been brought in under the Montreal Convention 1999. So that's how the changes have taken place regarding the carrier's liability. But unfortunately, the intended goal of having a single convention was not achieved, especially because of the reason that all the states who are parties to the Warsaw Convention or its amendments did not become party to the Montreal Convention. At that in the case, we would have got only a single instrument applicable for the carrier's liability at present. But unfortunately, the bifurcated regime continues to exist with all Warsaw Convention, its amendments in the form of a protocol or Montreal protocol and finally the Montreal Convention of 1999. So this is all about the overview of the carrier's liability. Next, another important aspect in the aviation is the product liability. Probably most of you must have heard recently couple of years back that has been two major aviation disasters. Both involved Boeing 737 MAX. Boeing 737 MAX, I think you must have heard it in the TV or the newspaper, wherever it may be, you must have heard about it. It is primarily because the Boeing has not properly tested its new technology. It went ahead with actually the old design and made certain modifications and it did not test it properly. And consequently, 737 MAX, there were two major disasters resulting in the death of more than 300 people, one in Ethiopia and other one in Indonesia. So both of them have resulted in heavy casualties. Subsequent to that, that has been actually the ban on the Boeing Corporation's 737 MAX. It has been all of them have been grounded for almost one and a half years. Ultimately, only very recently, last year actually, the United States once again gave permission for the 737 MAX after all the changes, whatever has been done by the Boeing Corporation. The Boeing Corporation now has to pay a compensation to the extent of 2.5 billion dollars. 2.5 billion dollars. That's for the accident. If there is a death, maybe on board aircraft or maybe outside aircraft on the ground or wherever it may be, what shall be the liability of the producer of the aircraft? That is something very good. And also it becomes very significant to understand is it actually the negligence of the carrier or the operator which has caused the damage or is it that the negligence of the producer in the beginning itself when he has produced the data which has resulted in the accident? So depending on that, the carrier's liability or the product liability issued a step in in the aviation sector. But on the product liability, we don't have any international convention. It is all dealt under the municipal laws. So we know that actually in the municipal law, the product liability regime is different in different jurisdictions. Some of the jurisdictions go for the strict liability. But on the contrary, some jurisdictions go for actually the negligence based liability in case of the product liability. So given that factor in the aviation sector, leaving the product liability to the municipal laws of the different countries is something really problematic. And the scholars are pondering upon that. Is there a possibility of international norms to be developed in terms of product liability in the aviation sector? So that's primarily about the product liability in the aviation. Apart from this, there is also actually another concept which is called as the crash worthiness, the concept of crash worthiness. So which basically says that in a circumstance of any kind of an accident, the aircraft should be built in such a way that the aircraft itself is not going to cause any kind of an injury to the people who are inside that. It will be built in such a stronger way that the aircraft body itself will not be causing any kind of a damage to the people inside. That's what is the concept of crash worthiness. But again, that is debated. How do you how do you find out the crash worthiness of an aircraft? So you can't actually test it for all permutation and combinations. It's not possible to actually find out what kind of accident might occur in the aviation sector. And consequently, how much of the crash worthiness should be there in the aircraft is a debatable issue. Whatever it may be, the product liability ultimately banks on the municipal law. We don't have international norms on it. So there is a search for having international norms being developed on the aspect of the product liability in the city. Next aspect is the liability for surface damage. I have already discussed about the carrier's liability under the Warsaw Convention and its amendment and the model convention. But please keep in mind, friends, all these norms are applicable only with respect to any kind of injury or damage caused to the parties to the contract. That is, in case of actually the passenger flight between the passenger and the carrier, if the passenger gets some kind of an injury, then the Warsaw Convention and the related instruments would be applicable. Or alternatively, in case of the transportation of the goods, the consigners and the consignees would be contracting with the carrier. So if there is any damage caused to either the consigner or consignee, then the Warsaw Convention and the related instruments would be applicable. But in a circumstance wherein the aircraft falls over the territory and causes damage to the third parties on the surface of the earth, then the Warsaw system or its amendment or the model convention, they are not applicable. They are not applicable. So therefore, there is a separate set of the norm which have been tried to be developed in the international level. Initially in 1932, in the form of the Rome Convention, they basically developed a norm for the surface damage. But then subsequently, it has been amended in 1952. We have a new convention, the Rome Convention 1952, which also has got a protocol, the Mortal Protocol of 1978. There's a Mortal Protocol of 1978, which is supplemental to the 1952 Rome Convention. If we look into the Rome Convention or the Mortal Protocol on the surface damage, they speak about the livelihood of the operator. It is the operator of the aircraft who shall be liable to pay the compensation. Of course, operator in many circumstances may be the carrier, but need not be in all circumstances. So there are differences. We have the definition of the operator in the convention itself. Sometimes, the carrier might not be the operator. The owner of the aircraft might become the operator of the aircraft and he will be liable to pay the compensation. So, liability is different. And plus, another important thing is that since the beginning, Rome Convention has gone for the strict liability for any kind of surface damage. Article one of the Rome Convention clearly says that if the aircraft falls over anyone's territory and causes damage therein, the operator will be strictly liable to pay the compensation without any kind of an exception. So, that is how actually the liability for the surface damage is something different or liability for the third parties is something different when you compare that with that of actually the liability for the parties to the contract. Rome Convention and the protocol, they deal with it but unfortunately, both of them are not having adequate ratifications. They have ratified it. Remaining countries, they go by their principle law with respect to the surface damage. It has a limited applicability. We don't have the universal application of the Rome Convention and the model protocol of 1978. Next, aviation insurance. Another very, very significant area. There are three different kinds of the insurance in the aviation sector. They are aviation all insurance, carrier's liability insurance, flying personal insurance. All insurance, it is nothing but the aircraft insurance, the body of the aircraft. The owner of the aircraft entering the aircraft per se. That is nothing but the all insurance. Carrier's liability insurance may be of two fold. On the one hand, it may be for the liability towards the parties to the contract. Arise into the Warsaw Convention or the Model Convention. On the other hand, the liability which may arise against the third parties like the surface damage which I have just discussed in the previous slide. So with respect to both of them, the carriers may take the liability insurance. The carriers may go for the liability insurance. The third type of the liability is the flying personal insurance. That is with respect to those people who are flying in the aircraft and who are the employees of the concerned carrier. Like the pilot, co-pilot or air hostess or any other staff who are the flying personnel. So with respect to them also the insurance coverage can be taken by the concerned owner of the aircraft. So these are the three different kinds of the insurance which are there in the aviation sector. Unfortunately, aviation insurance is not free from problems. There are multiple problems especially in terms of the risk in the aviation insurance. Of course, we would be knowing that investments in the aviation sector is huge. And also after the 9-11 incident we don't know how much of the catastrophic damage might be caused out of an aviation accident. Suppose if an aircraft also were in a densely populated area that would be say on the one hand destruction of the aircraft. Next passengers inside the aircraft would all die. Plus there might also be damage caused on the surface of the earth. Huge scale damage like 9-11 incident where many insurance companies became bankrupt out of the 9-11 accident. So precisely because of that reason there is a lot of problem with the aviation insurance sector. The premiums were going up especially when the risk was actually increasing. If you look into the status soon after the 9-11 many insurance companies they become bankrupt out of that incident. Plus apart from that many other insurance companies withdrew from the market. They simply said that we will not use aviation insurance. Even though they have not paid any amount of compensation the effect of the deterrence was such that all of them said that no more aviation insurance. And even those companies who continued with the aviation insurance sector they stopped to charge because insurance is ultimately on the base of the risk and return factor. They will try to actually have more premium. They will try to get more return out of those kind of risks. So precisely because of that reason aviation insurance has been fluctuating over the period of time. It was not very much stable. The concerns are very much there in this sector. Next another very significant aspect is the civil aviation crisis. Until 1960s much development in terms of the civil aviation crisis. Even though the crimes were starting from 1940 when the first hijacking took place. So several many different sort of the crimes which have been commented. But one of the major problems regarding the civil aviation crime was to exercise the jurisdiction and to apply any law for dealing with the civil aviation crisis. Interestingly probably the the people of the current cannot be knowing. If you go back maybe some say three years or eighty years back we can find that there was a rigid extra territorial rigid norm against the extra territorial application of the criminal law. Of course nowadays we have liberated to a greater extent. We are trying to exercise the jurisdiction on some count. So extra territorial application are tried to be done in a different way. If you look into the earlier practice extra territorial application of the criminal law was completely prohibited. It was a so rigid that in the common law countries the states were not even exercising their criminal jurisdiction over the airspace about the territory. Despite the fact that there is sovereignty available in the airspace the the rigidity of the norm against the extra territorial application was such that the common law countries were reluctant to apply their criminal jurisdiction even above the airspace over their territory. So which was really problematic. Even the civil law countries also to a very very limited extent that is only to the extent of nationality if the offender is their national or if the victim is their national then only they were applying actually their criminal law to any crime committed in the airspace. Otherwise they were not ready to apply their criminal law thinking that it might result in extra territorial application. So that is the very reason why there has been a lot of problems because people would commit a crime in the aircraft or maybe in the airspace and ultimately they will led to one of these countries which would not excite the jurisdiction and they would be caught free. No action would be taken against them. So precisely because of this reason the civil aviation crimes have started to pose greater problem at the international level. Developments regarding the international norms to the civil aviation crimes started in 1960s and 1970s. We had three major conventions during this time 1963 Tokyo Convention came into existence which basically conferred certain powers to the commander of the aircraft that is the chief pilot. So he has been conferred with certain powers to deal with the crime onboard the aircraft. He has the right to confine the person who has committed the crime or who is about to commit the crime. He has the right to deport the passenger so he can land in the next territory and then he may actually ask the passenger to actually deport the flight or even he can hand over the person to the competent authorities of the aircraft. So all these powers were given to the commander under the Tokyo Convention and the respective state wherever the person has been handed over they have been managed to go for the investigation and if necessary prosecution. So that's how the convention set the tone for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction as well as applying the law for dealing with the civil aviation crime. But the Tokyo Convention was found to be insufficient especially with respect to the crimes like hijacking. In the municipal level most of the states did not have a separate law governing hijacking. That means in case of hijacking they used to try those try offensive hijacking under other norms maybe like say unlawful confinement unlawful taking the control of the particular object and confining the people or in case any kind of has been caused to the passenger process of hijacking so hurt or previous hurt all these kind of the provisions were invoked for the purpose of dealing with the previous offense like hijacking. And the punishment used to be very very less by virtue of this. So ultimately the international community started making effort in terms of having a separate convention of hijacking. This resulted in the 1970 state convention a separate convention the state convention where and actually the punishing or prosecuting the offense like hijacking has been brought in even the principle of or detray or to decay that means either you prosecute or you extradite extradite of offender that has been brought in in the hate convention and consequently the serious offense like the hijacking has been dealt with a serious punishment. Then in 1971 one more important convention was entered into that was the mortal convention 1971. This is with respect to any sort of a crime which may be threatening the safety in the civil aviation. Tokyo convention mentioned only about the crime inside the aircraft. State convention mentioned about a serious crime like hijacking that too only inside the aircraft. It did not mention about actually threats from the ground and asking the pilot to actually take the aircraft to some place or maybe doing any other kind of an activity from the ground that has not been covered under the hijacking sorry under the hate convention. So ultimately the mortal convention 1971 was brought in to cover all these kind of crimes even if a person on the ground threatens the the pilot and asks him to land somewhere or the person on the ground fires the missile and discards the aircraft all these kind of things are covered within the habit of the mortal convention 1971 as the offensive. So these three conventions gave the base for dealing with the civil aviation crime and then suddenly in 2010 and 2014 amendments have been done to this convention. 2010 Beijing convention and Beijing protocol have been entered into Beijing convention Beijing convention was for the purpose of substituting the mortal convention 1971 a new convention was brought in in the part of the Beijing convention 2010 then the Beijing protocol was for the purpose of amending the big convention 1970 regarding the hijacking with respect to that the new protocol came into existence the Beijing protocol which basically amends it that's how actually the changes have been introduced in the hijacking convention and the mortal convention has been replaced with the Beijing convention of 2010 if you look into these two instruments what they have primarily done is to expand the scope of offenses Offense like 9.11 that has not been actually covered at the hijacking convention not been covered at the mortal convention in the proper way or offenses like using the BCN weapons biological or nuclear weapons or carrying the biological weapons without the permission all these kind of things were basically not covered under the hijacking convention or the mortal convention they have all been brought within the ambit of the Beijing convention and the protocol finally in 2014 even the Tokyo convention has been amended in the form of the Montreal protocol 2014 the Montreal protocol 2014 which amends the Tokyo convention and also brings a stronger norm even with respect to the normal crimes on board Aircraft it also speaks about the possibility of having having a person maybe the a police person who may be actually helpful in terms of reducing the crimes on board Aircraft just like in the railways also having somebody on board Aircraft all these things have been actually brought into the 2014 protocol that is how actually amendments have been done to the norms governing the civil aviation crimes and currently the stronger regime are brought in for the purpose of dealing with the civil aviation crimes moving forward the next aspect is the Aircraft financing and leasing this is one of the most significant aspects where a lot of practices are happening of course many people might not be knowing especially because the big companies like the Boeing Airbus they are all in the western part of the world plus also the major airlines you can also find it in other countries Indian Airlines most of them are in pricing even in India it is relevant Aircraft financing and leasing has got a lot of issues on the financing one of the major problems is that for the aviation industry as we know the huge amount of financing is required it may be in few billion dollars the investment should be in few billion dollars whenever such a huge investment is there the investors or the owners of the those industries whatsoever it may be they will not be able to have the finances from one single country they have to get the finances from different countries finances will be from different countries ultimately if this owner of the industry pays to pay back the money to all these finances in different countries how exactly these finances are supposed to enforce their right against this particular data how should they enforce their right if you look in the international there is no international financing law we don't have any international financing law so it's all one simple image so even that factor one of the major problems is that how a foreign creditor can enforce his or her right in another country wherever the debtor is residing and again another important aspect is that there will be hundreds of finances from different countries to one single industry whenever there is a debtor to pay back the money to the creditors maybe all the creditors first question which drops up in terms of the interest is that who should be having the priority in getting back the money rule of priority should be first getting back the money and then the sequence what should the sequence of getting back the money that is very very crucial and unfortunately in the absence of international treaty there is no uniform rule of priority and if you go back to the municipal law each of the municipal law would be having their own rule of priority some of them may go for first come first served basis over is the first financier who would get back the money first second third fourth things like that some jurisdictions may make a distinction between the secured creditors and unsecured creditors secured creditors would get first unsecured would get later some other jurisdictions might have some other mechanism like say for example over as finance then the next one like that or maybe the reverse of that so all these are the different norms of the priority which are applicable in different jurisdictions which would all create lot of confusion creditors would not be very clear as to whether they are going to get back the money or not same is the case with the leasing even in leasing also the owners would be having lot of problem in terms of enforcing their right to get back their money from the leasing so precisely a lot of issues which would be arising in the principle in the absence of an international treaty Unitary UNIDROID this is actually the body for the unification of the private law Unitary it has started looking into the unification of the finance law especially with respect to mobile equipment it does not mean our mobile so it means those which move from one jurisdiction which move from one country to another country in that they have primarily focused on three kinds of mobile equipment one among them is the aircraft equipment one among them is the aircraft equipment so they have another two that is the railway and the other one is the space asset so with respect to them also actually they are having the norm which has been developed over the period of time on this what UNIDROID has done is that one of the Cape Town Convention one single convention which would be codifying all the general norms about these mobile equipment and then apart from that there are also area specific protocols which would be governing the specific area like the aircraft equipment railway rolling stock and the space asset there are separate protocols also governing this area and we have to read the base convention along with the area specific protocol for the purpose of understanding the base convention and we should also read the aircraft protocol along with the Cape Town Convention for the purpose of understanding the financing and this system provides the kind of security and predictability to the investors especially because it provides its own mechanism for the enforcement of the rights of the creditor it has its own mechanism it provides its own remedies it has its own rule of priority who will be getting back the money first who will be getting next all those things are mentioned in this system therefore the Unigua system now takes care of aviation financing as well as the leasing norms right and a lot of practices are happening in this particular field so if anyone is interested you can go further in detail with respect to this of course it's a very very complicated system not that easy at the point of time there is a lot of scope for practice in the field of aircraft financing as well as the leasing now the last aspect which I would like to tell you is about the aviation law in India I've discussed about the international development finally let me just briefly touch upon the aviation laws in India of course we had a lot of developments in the aviation sector maybe we should also thank the Britishers to a certain extent with respect to this in that time lot of aircraft came to India despite the fact that in many countries there was not even a single aircraft in India there were many aircraft at that time itself but soon after the independence one of the major issues which started to arise was with respect to the unhealthy competition between the different private airlines the different private airlines were actually coming into the picture and there was unhealthy competition which was developing which was leading to lot of concern at the same point of time there was also problem in terms of the airport administrations connectivity and all because Karachi airport during the partition went to Pakistan and our western gateway was not available so Karachi was the major western gateway for India which was also not available after the independence so therefore lot of problems happened through independence that afterwards the committee was able to look into that with the matter and upon the recommendation of the committee and subsequently also the administration making at the governmental level they came up with an act when the Air Cooperation Act of 1953 for nationalizing the airlines Government of India went out with the nationalization and it created only two airlines Air India and Indian Airlines Air India International with respect to domestic gas and for a period of almost four decades entirely the aviation sector was the government it was completely regulated by the government until 1994 when the Air Cooperation Act has been repealed so once the Air Cooperation Act has been repealed once again the private players have started to re-emerge and they have got a lot of private players coming in and going gas back so many of them have also become so I should say that the Indian aviation industry is not free from concern there is a lot of crisis and especially during this COVID-19 many of the airlines have suffered actually huge losses huge losses so I don't think actually any of the airlines have made profit I mean we know that actually the Kingfisher was grounded Jet Airways was also spiced up was about to be grounded and Air India suffering huge loss and currently there is there is a move for the privatization so all these things are happening so therefore there is a lot of concern in the aviation sector in India as for the loss are concerned we have the Air Cofft Act and the Air Cofft Rules which basically provides the primary norms governing the aviation it includes the norms of registration licensing most of the other things whatever has been mentioned in the Chicago Convention they can all be found in the Air Cofft Act as well as the Air Cofft Rule on the aspect of carrier sliability the Warsaw Convention or its amendment mantle convention with respect to that we have the Carriage by Air Act 1972 as amended in 2009 Carriage by Air Act 1972 as amended in 2009 and in fact the Indian Carriage by Air Act has got three different schedule there are three different schedule especially because India has been a party to the Warsaw Convention then the Hague Protocol 1955 and it is also party to the Model Convention 1999 so all the three norms are implemented in schedule one schedule two and schedule three respective so three schedule are there next on the aviation crimes we have also implemented actually all those international conventions earlier the Tokyo Convention Hague Convention we have implemented and subsequently the changes made in the Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol they have also been implemented and we are we are having the anti-hijacking act that has been actually changes which has been also made in the anti-hijacking act to make it much more stronger than the earlier legislation so civil aviation crimes have also been actually dealt under the separate legislation in India finally we also have the application of Consumer Protection Act for dealing with the aviation any kind of a depictions of service in the civil aviation Consumer Protection Act has been made applicable and if you look many of the cases with the protection of services may be or may be more importantly by the consignors and the consignees have gone to the consumer fora they all gone to the consumer fora and probably the aviation cases have not become very popular many people might not be knowing much about the aviation cases especially because of the reason that many of them don't go to the ordinary court of law rather they would go to the consumer court of law so precisely because if anyone is interested about the number of cases or about different kind of cases whatever has happened in India in the aviation sector one can go to the decisions of different consumer fora so this is all which I would like to say about the aviation law it's just a brief overview in fact actually I told earlier itself that aviation law and space law should not be studied together they should be studied separately in NHS also I offer them separately the one of the reasons is that both aviation law and space law have developed so much that we cannot imagine this is just an overview and this I mean I take at least actually 80 hours to cover this entire aspect if at all actually I am teaching in my university so precisely because of that reason I should say that there has been tremendous development which has taken place over the period of time in the period of aviation law thank you very much that's all from my side if there is any question I would be happy to answer those questions Mr Bhatt you actually we were just feeling that we are in flight mode and we are enjoying the flight you took us to the entire gamut of insurance law of finance and leasing then all the conventions are there and give aircraft finance and leasing and as you rightly said this is what we also said in the outset this is a topic which normally a lot of law students also and universities also do not know about the space law and aviation law there is very less litigation but yes it's different so before we take a question what are the career opportunities and the aviation law as such because a lot of people would actually like to know right yeah unfortunately in India aviation and space law the people are not very much aware of the career opportunities but aviation law practice has started in India also right even though the space law practice is quite limited aviation law practice has started in India also there are a lot of cases as I told actually it has come up with before the consumer fora you can't find them before the ordinary I mean before the ordinary for the plot so therefore people who are practicing in the consumer fora would be able to tell you much about actually what kind of cases are coming up but if I have to tell you primarily the cases which come up are about the liability the carrier's liability in terms of the transportation of baggage or maybe in terms of the transportation of goods any damage whatever has been caused in the transportation for that a lot of cases are coming up but apart from that aviation accidents like the mangrove aircraft air crash case 2010 the mangrove air crash which has resulted in actually a lot of debate currently the case is also before the supreme court how much of the compensation has to be paid all these things are debated and in all probability actually the maximum amount of compensation would be received by the lawyers not by actually any of the victims so that much of actually amount is involved in the aviation sector and apart from that another important aspect which I told already is about the aviation financing and if you look abroad there are certain firms which are practicing exclusively in the field of aviation and they are making multi-million dollars so every year they are making multi-million dollars therefore there is no status of opportunity if at all actually one is expertizing in the aviation a lot of opportunities are available so that's what I can tell about the opportunity this is by advocate Murli Dharan he says Indian international flight place of accident is in India mostly Indian passengers from abroad how to calculate compensation and which convention will apply Indian international flight and the place of accident is in India right passengers are also mostly abroad okay so which country yes which country they belong is very important because at the end of the day it is on the basis of the fact that which common minimum convention is applicable if the passengers are from a country which has not ratified the monthly convention right so in India what is applicable is the monthly convention had it been a situation where in actually it's the domestic flight the monthly convention as per the notification would be applicable but if it is the international flight where in actually the passengers are from abroad then we have to find out what exactly is the law applicable to that what is the passenger's country is it the monthly convention is it the hate protocol or is it the Warsaw convention what is the common minimum convention that talk would be applicable and one question we all discuss restrictions of law and otherwise also about the conventions what is the sanctity and the value in the legal terms if one actually wants to understand these conventions so see as far as the conventions are concerned in international level we have the principle we have to respect our international treaties in good faith and even article 253 of the Indian constitution specifically speaks about that so we have to actually abide by the international treaty obligation but more significantly in case of this liability which actually I mean the question has primarily arisen with respect to the carrier's liability we have already implemented these liability norms out of the carrier act we have schedule 1, schedule 2 and schedule 3 so one is about the Warsaw convention two is about the hate protocol and three is about the mental convention so depending on actually to which country the passenger belongs and whether it has ratified the mental convention or not if it has ratified the mental convention mental convention norms would be applicable and we have to calculate the compensation accordingly or else it should be the hate protocol or the Warsaw convention schedule 2 or schedule 1 I hope you have answered the question yeah in fact these zoom etc have their own challenges sometimes you yourself get muted yeah I can understand that I will just check it out on the facebook as to whether we have any questions we actually took all this session so that people can get it no we don't have so thank you Mr Bhatt it was a session also it was an eye opener like you said as the outset normally when as lawyers also we say there are a lot of challenges and a lot of career opportunities in space law and aviation law and normally you feel that they are to be read together and the way you took us to the entire journey of this it was a a good journey to be enjoyed and it was an insightful session and I am quite sure that people will enjoy it and so friends tomorrow do stay connected with us to have the second part not second part as such today we have on the aviation law tomorrow it will be on the space law and I am quite sure that there was no space left in respect of the aviation law but we will understand the space law tomorrow which is a different topic as Mr Bhatt has applied at the postage everyone stay safe, stay blessed Jai Hind and Mr Bhatt thank you for giving the insightful session thank you so much