英国assignment指导-International Air Law- this assignment please

International Air Law
2nd Semester 2011
Assignment 2

Part 1

You are a Government lawyer in the Justice Department. Write an advice for your Government’s Ambassador at the United Nations, where the Security Council is meeting to discuss and pass a resolution on the following set of facts. In particular, write an opinion on the legal accuracy of the operative paragraph of the resolution as set out below and draft in its place a paragraph which best represents the law in this situation. (If you feel that the current draft is accurate, please advise accordingly.)

On 17 August 2011, Flight MH111, a Boeing 777 flown by Malaysian Airlines and registered in Malaysia, was flying on a scheduled service between Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur. The plane was carrying some 276 passengers and crew. Some two hours after departing Narita Airport, the aircraft was seized by armed hijackers. Having assumed control of the aircraft, the hijackers radioed Singapore control to advise that they had taken over the aircraft and would cease all transmissions from that point. In closing the message, the hijackers said: “You can tell the Chinese Government that we intend to carry out our threat.”

The Singapore authorities immediately notified the Malaysian authorities of the seizure of the aircraft and the Chinese authorities of this message. Malaysian, Chinese and Singapore air traffic control then monitored the progress of the aircraft on its flight towards Kuala Lumpur. While still over the North Pacific, the plane was detected making a significant change of course towards the Chinese mainland and settled on a course which would take it directly over Shanghai.

At this point, the Chinese Government notified the Malaysian Government that it had received threats some days before from a group described by the Chinese as “reactionary forces” alleging that they would “cause mayhem in Pudong” if China failed to release a number of Uighur nationalists who had been detained by Chinese authorities. (Pudong is a modern area of Shanghai which has, among many architectural sites, one of the world’s highest communications towers as well as modern apartment blocks). The Chinese advised the Malaysian authorities that they believed the hijackers might be intending to attack the Pudong Tower by flying the aircraft into it, and warned that, if the aircraft approached within a 50-kilometre exclusion zone of Shanghai, they would have no choice but to shoot it down before it could crash into the tower and cause massive destruction in the city.

Despite repeated attempts by Malaysian and Chinese authorities to make contact with the aircraft by radio and to warn them of China’s intentions, no acknowledgment of these messages was received. When the aircraft was some 100 kilometres from Shanghai, Chinese fighter aircraft intercepted the Boeing 777 and, in accordance with Annex 2 of the Chicago Convention, attempted to force the aircraft to change course away from Shanghai. Despite exhausting all measures in the Annex, the Boeing refused to change course or to acknowledge any of the warnings or signals.#p#分页标题#e#

The Boeing then flew into the 50 kilometre exclusion zone, at which point the Chinese fighter aircraft fired warning shots across its nose. The Boeing still maintained its course. When it was within 35 kilometres of the city, the Chinese authorities ordered its destruction and the Boeing was shot down. All on board were killed.
The Malaysian Government has drafted a resolution before the Security Council which has been sponsored by a number of states but which has been opposed by others. The main sticking problem in the debate is the following operative paragraph:

The Security Council:

…strongly condemns China for the wanton and unjustified use of force against a civil aircraft in international flight, an action taken in clear breach of the rules of international law which do not allow the destruction of civil aircraft in any circumstances.

Advise your Government on the position it should adopt towards this operative paragraph.

Part 2

You are a solicitor practising law in Brisbane, with responsibility in your firm for compensation claims. Respond to Mrs Smith’s letter by writing an advice to her on her entitlement to compensation.

Mrs Smith is an elderly British national who recently flew to Brisbane from London via Singapore to visit her son and his family for a holiday. She purchased her ticket on Qantas from a British Airways Travel Agent. She had never flown on a transcontinental flight before, the longest trip she had ever made having been a charter flight to Madeira. She boarded the Qantas flight in London and was advised that she would need to join a connecting flight in Singapore. Departure was delayed for some three hours due to congestion caused by snow at Heathrow Airport.. The plane eventually departed for Singapore, but failed to make up any of the lost time. (Please note: there is no issue of Mrs Smith being entitled to compensation for delay here.)

Due to the late arrival in Singapore, Mrs Smith missed her connecting flight to Brisbane. She and other transit passengers were told to proceed to a transfer desk in Terminal 1 at Changi Airport to arrange for alternative flights to their destinations. This she did, but not without some difficulty. Being elderly and tired from the flight, and not knowing her way around the airport, she became lost and confused. She was also carrying a cabin bag which contained some presents for her grandchildren. The bag weighed some 6 kilograms and was not in excess of cabin baggage requirements. Mrs Smith had to carry the bag some 400 metres altogether to the transfer counter because she could not find a trolley to put it on. In trying to carry her bag over such a distance, Mrs Smith strained a back muscle.

After several hours of waiting, Qantas advised Mrs Smith that they had found a seat for her on a Singapore Airlines flight to Brisbane. This necessitated her transferring from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2 on the automated sky-train, which aggravated her back injury and also caused her further anxiety because she was afraid of losing her way between the terminals. Qantas ground staff did not offer her any assistance. She remained very agitated and upset, and was anxious to get to Brisbane to be with her son. She eventually reached the gate lounge at Terminal 2 and was able to board the flight to Brisbane, but her back was, by this time, causing her severe discomfort.#p#分页标题#e#指导英国assignment，澳洲assignment法律作业指导

Several hours after the Singapore Airlines plane left Singapore, Mrs Smith noticed that the ‘fasten seat belts’ sign was off and got up to go to the toilet. While she was walking down the aisle, the aircraft hit severe and unexpected turbulence. Mrs Smith was thrown against the bulkhead of the cabin and ended up falling on the floor very awkwardly. She broke her arm in the incident.

On arrival in Brisbane, Mrs Smith was taken immediately to hospital to have her arm treated. While still in Casualty, she began to experience severe pain in her right leg. Upon mentioning this to hospital staff, she was immediately examined and the examining doctor concluded that she had developed deep vein thrombosis in her leg. She remained in hospital for some time, and was largely incapacitated for her entire holiday.

After discussing the matter with her son, and in an attempt to sort the issue out before she was due to fly back to London, she wrote to Qantas and to Singapore Airlines asking for compensation. Both airlines responded that they did not accept any liability for the injuries suffered. Mrs Smith. As a last resort, has written to you (her son’s solicitor) for legal advice as to her entitlement to compensation.

Advise her.

For the purposes of this assignment please assume that Australia, Singapore and the UK are all parties to the 1999 Montreal Convention and that the Convention has been passed into law in all three jurisdictions.