Convention on International Civil Aviation

ance at the Conference for more than a month sharing in the work and deliberations of the United States delegation together with its other advisers, consultants, and technical experts. As a result of such participation at the Conference and as one who has been identified with aircraft manufacturing and air transportation since World War I, I wish respectfully to record my personal view, as well as the position of American Airlines, Inc., as favoring the ratification by the Senate of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

In my opinion, history will evaluate the Chicago Conference as the most important gathering of nations to determine appropriate and uniform principles and rules relating to international air navigation, civil aviation and air transport that has yet been convened. The work on these matters accomplished by the Paris Convention in 1919 and the Habana convention in 1928 are but prologues to the comprehensive convention now before you for ratification.

If aviation and air commerce are to develop as they must to become a potent instrument for international peace it is desirable that any general, and for the most part, noncontroversial principles be stated and agreed upon. These principles are embodied in the document you are presently considering.

The highly dynamic nature of air transport in the present state of the aeronautical art and the rapid advance in the technique of flying which has but recently occurred, and which may be expected to accelerate during the coming years in our opinion furnish strong reason for the ratification of this convention by the United States Senate. American Airlines, Inc. endorses the treaty as a progressive and constructive step of considerable importance in the furtherance of international air transportation and as a manifestation of the aviation leadership of this country recognized throughout the world.

Yours sincerely,

R. S. DAMON.,

Senator GEORGE. I also submit for the record a letter from Mr. J. E. Slater, executive vice president of American Export Airlines, Inc. The letter is simply an approval of the convention, itself, without going into any other questions involved.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE,

AMERICAN EXPORT AIRLINES, INC..
New York 4, N. Y., March 22, 1945.

Chairman, Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee,
The United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: With respect to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which was signed at the International Civil Aviation Conference at Chicago, and which now is before your committee for consideration.

I have given this document very careful study from the point of view of its effect upon international civil aviation and American flag operators of international air lines. As a result of this study, I am convinced that this convention represents a very progressive step in international aviation and that its acceptance by the Government of the United States with the consent of the Senate is highly desirable in the public interest and will be beneficial both to the public and to the Americanflag operators of international airlines.

The benefits which it will convey to the American traveling and shipping public, as well as its aid toward orderly operation of international air-line routes, undoubtedly have been shown to your committee. If more detailed evidence, from the point of view of the operators, is required by your committee, I shall be glad to appear to give formal testimony.

Very truly yours,

AMERICAN EXPORT AIRLINES, INC.
J. E. SLATER,
Executive Vice President.

Senator GEORGE. Is there any other witness who wants to be heard this morning?

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Latchford has just called my attention to the fact that a memorandum has been prepared, which is purely factual, showing some of the ambiguities between the old

and the new conventions, which might be of assistance to the committee; so I would like to submit it for the record.

Senator GEORGE. Yes, sir; you may do so.

(The memorandum presented on behalf of the State Department, entitled "Right of Entry and Transit of Civil Aircraft as Dealt With in Articles 5 and 6 of the Chicago Aviation Convention," and setting forth a comparison with certain provisions of the Paris and Habana conventions, is as follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

March 26, 1945.

RIGHT OF ENTRY AND TRANSIT OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT AS DEALT WITH IN ARTICLES 5 AND 6 OF THE CHICAGO AVIATION CONVENTION

(Comparison with certain provisions of the Paris and Habana conventions) The first question presented is whether the Chicago convention and its predecessors the Paris and Habana conventions accorded a general right of entry and of transit for civil aircraft not operated on a regular or scheduled international air transport service without the necessity of obtaining prior permission from the government of the state to be entered by the aircraft. We are here referring to the right of entry and of transit for private flights such as those made by tourists for pleasure or by persons traveling in private aircraft for business or industrial reasons as distinguished from regular or scheduled air transport services. The Paris convention contairs no language specifically stating that the aircraft of a contracting state not operated on regular or scheduled international air transport services have the right to enter the territory of another contracting state without the prior authorization of that state. Therefore, in order to determine the question it has been necessary to rely upon an interpretation of the term "right of invocent passage" granted by article 2 of the Paris convertion. This has been very unsatisfactory since many have thought that when the "right of innocent passage" is obtained it automatically grants the right for aircraft on a regular or scheduled air transport service of one contracting state to transit the territory of another contracting state. In practice the Paris convention has not been interpreted as according any such right for regular or scheduled air transport services. However, the term "right of innocent passage" mentioned in article 2 of the Paris convention has been interpreted as granting a general right of entry and of transit for private aircraft of any contracting state such as those flown by tourists for pleasure or by persons traveling in private aircraft for business or industrial reasons, and for aircraft employed occasionally in the carriage of passengers and cargo on flights made under charter arrangements. Such general right of entry and of transit for the purposes just described is accorded by each contracting state to the aircraft of another contracting state without the latter state being required to obtain prior permission for the entry or transit of its aircraft, but with the understanding that the aircraft operated for the purposes referred to shall comply with the provisions of the convention and with all applicable laws and regulations of the state entered.

As to regular or scheduled air transport services the Paris convention contains a provision which definitely states in the last paragraph of article 15 that "every contracting state may make conditional on its prior authorization the establishment of international airways and the creation and operation of regular air navigation lines, with or without landing, on its territory." Taking advantage of this provision each state, a party to the Paris convention, has invariably required that its prior permission be obtained before there could be an operation into or across its territory by a regular or scheduled international air transport service of another contracting state.

Article 4 of the Habana convention grauts the "right of innocent passage” in the same way as it is granted in the Paris convention and, as in the Paris convention, the right of innocent passage has been interpreted as establishing the right of entry and transit only for private flights such as those made by tourists for pleasure or by persons traveling in private aircraft for business or industrial reasons, and for aircraft employed occasionally in the carriage of passengers and cargo on flights made under charter arrangements. Article 21 of the Habana convention states that aircraft of a contracting state engaged in international air commerce shall be permitted to discharge passengers and cargo from a foreign

destination in the territory of another contracting state and to take on passengers and cargo in such state for a foreign destination. However, in no part of the Habana convention is there any language stating specifically that the prior permission of a contracting state must be obtained for entry into or transit over its territory by aircraft of another contracting state operated on a regular or scheduled air transport service. In practice, however, each country a party to the Habana convention has required its prior consent for operations into or across its territory by regular or scheduled air transport services of the other contracting states.

Having in mind these ambiguities of the Paris and Habana conventions, the delegates to the Chicago Aviation Conference decided to adopt language in the Chicago convention that would leave no doubt as to whether civil aircraft of one contracting state would be permitted to enter territory of another contracting state without the prior authorization of that state. Therefore, it will be found that article 5 of the Chicago convention very definitely states that aircraft of a contracting state not operated on a regular or scheduled service are accorded the right to enter or fly in transit through the territory of another contracting state without the necessity of obtaining prior authorization from the government of the state entered. However, the delegates at Chicago placed certain limitations on this right of entry and transit accorded for private flights, such as those made by tourists for pleasure or by persons traveling in private aircraft for business or industrial reasons, which are very definitely set forth in article 5. They also specified in article 5 that flights such as those made under charter arrangements may be subjected by the state entered to such regulations, conditions, or limitations as such state might consider to be desirable. When the delegates at Chicago dealt in the convention with the right of entry of regular or scheduled air transport services they likewise left no doubt as to what they had in mind since article 6 of the Chicago convention definitely provides that no scheduled international air service may be operated over or into the territory of a contracting state except with the special permission or other authorization of that state, and in accordance with the terms of such permission or authorization.

Senator BREWSTER. Mr. Whitney, there is one other question I would like to ask. In connection with the treaty and the agreements, did I understand you to point out that while the treaty here declares our complete sovereignty of the air, the policies of three and four agreements completely or substantially annihilate that sovereignty? Mr. WHITNEY. Exactly; they are contradictory, inconsistent. Senator BREWSTER. So that it would be an absurdity for the Senate to ratify a treaty and at the same time the executive department was completely nullifying the policy there enunciated?

Mr. WHITNEY. Yes, sir.

Senator GEORGE. If there is no other witness to be heard on this matter, the committee will recess until further notice, Senator Brewster.

Senator BREWSTER. I will be ready at any time you wish.

Senator GEORGE. Yes, sir; we will advise you when. We will take the matter up again. I believe that closes the testimony, so far as the witnesses are concerned.

Senator BREWSTER. I do not know whether I was considered a witness, but I want to be heard.

Senator GEORGE. You will be heard. I mean, other witnessesoutside witnesses.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to