Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Treaty Interpretation and the United States—Italy Air Transport Arbitration

  • Stanley D. Metzger
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Treaty Interpretation and the United States—Italy Air Transport Arbitration
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Treaty Interpretation and the United States—Italy Air Transport Arbitration
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Treaty Interpretation and the United States—Italy Air Transport Arbitration
      Available formats
      ×

Abstract

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 61 A.J.I.L. 496 (1967). The text of the majority and minority opinions has been reproduced in 4 Int. Legal Materials 974 (1965), and digested in 60 A.J.I.L. 413 (1966).

2 61 A.J.I.L. at 511 (1967). Larsen was not so accurate in certain subsidiary observations. His characterization of the majority decision's treatment of “subsequent conduct” of the parties as “never having decisive value” is erroneous. The majority decision actually stated that “The conduct of the parties in their application of the 1948 Agreement is not, of course, in itself decisive for the interpretation of the disputed text,” and then proceeded to assign great persuasive weight to such practice. Again, Larsen states that the Tribunal held that ‘ ‘ only conduct subsequent to the 1948 Agreement is helpful in interpretation“; the Tribunal in fact took account of the pre- 1948 negotiations and events but limited itself to post-1948 conduct only in considering, quite literally, the conduct of the parties “subsequent” to the 1948 Agreement.

3 District of Columbia National Bank v. District of Columbia, 384 F. 2d 808, 810 (1965), 121 App. D.C. 196, 198.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed