Legal Evolution of Carrier Liability in International Aviation Conventions

Salimova Diyorakhon Bakhtiyorjon kizi

doi:10.37547/ijlc/Volume05Issue07-09

International Journal of Law And Criminology

61

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc

VOLUME

Vol.05 Issue07 2025

PAGE NO.

61-66

DOI

10.37547/ijlc/Volume05Issue07-09

Legal Evolution of Carrier Liability in International
Aviation Conventions

Salimova Diyorakhon Bakhtiyorjon kizi

Basic doctoral student, University of World Economy and Diplomacy, 100077, Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Mustaqillik Avenue,
54, Uzbekistan

Received:

31 May 2025;

Accepted:

27 June 2025;

Published:

29 July 2025

Abstract:

In the current global aviation system, the safety, reliability, and legal protection of passenger and cargo

transportation by air are among the top priorities. In this context, the institution of carrier liability holds a central
position. The carrier's liability determines the procedures for compensating damages that occur during air
transportation. This article analyzes the stages of legal development of this institution within the framework of
international aviation conventions. The evolution from the Warsaw system to the Montreal Convention is
thoroughly examined, along with the carrier liability mechanisms based on the provisions of the Guadalajara
Convention and the Montreal Protocols of 1975.

Keywords:

Passenger, carrier, damages, Warsaw Convention, Hague protocol, Montreal Convention, air crash,

liability.

Introduction:

In the 21st century, international air

transport is rapidly developing as an integral part of the
world economy and social relations. According to the
World Bank, more than 4.7 billion passengers were
transported by air worldwide in 2022. In 2024, the total
annual air traffic volume increased by 10.4% compared
to 2023. This is 3.8% higher than the pre-pandemic
(2019) level. Domestic transportation increased by
5.7%. This volume not only increases commercial profit
but also adds to the complexity of legal relations. In this
context, clearly defining carrier liability in passenger
and baggage transportation contracts remains a
pressing issue in the international legal system.
International aviation law aims to regulate relations
between carriers and passengers, with its main task
being to ensure a safe, stable, and fair transport
system. By establishing carrier responsibility, states
protect citizens' rights, foster a culture of safety, and
achieve transparency in commercial practices.

METHODS

The study employed methods of comparative legal
analysis, a systematic approach, historical and legal
analysis, as well as interpretation of regulatory legal
acts. International conventions, their protocols, rules of
international organizations (ICAO, IATA), national

legislation, as well as the scientific views of foreign and
national legal scholars were used as the foundation for
this research.

RESULTS

The article highlights the legal evolution from the
Warsaw system to the Montreal Convention,
emphasizing improved liability frameworks, SDR-based
compensation, and broader protection of passenger
rights

—

though ambiguities on non-material damage

and legal uniformity still persist globally.

ANALYSIS

The issue of liability in passenger and baggage
transportation is primarily based on the principle of
damage compensation. Any transport service involves
inevitable risks, and it is necessary to develop a
mechanism for their legal compensation. International
conventions regulating this field serve as the main legal
foundation in this regard. Within the framework of
these conventions, international transportation is
regulated, but it is not termed international due to the
composition of its subjects. Otherwise, for example,
the legal status of passengers on a single aircraft would
be subject to different regimes, they would have more
or fewer rights in relation to each other, and the carrier

International Journal of Law And Criminology

62

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc

International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)

would have to consider the nationality of each
passenger. This would undoubtedly complicate and
confuse the legal classification of international
transport relations. Unlike other civil law contracts, the
peculiarity of the foreign element in international air
carriage contracts lies in its manifestation when
crossing the border of a foreign state (with the
destination specified).

Thus, air transportation is considered "international"
when the destination and place of departure are
located in the territories of different states, or when
they are located within the territory of one state but
are carried out with an intermediate landing in the
territory of another state (i.e., if such a landing is
stipulated in the contract).

At one time, the liability of international air carriers was
not regulated by interstate agreements, causing
national legal systems to apply conflicting and unequal
conditions.

This

hindered

the

international

development of air transport. Therefore, since the
beginning of the 20th century, states have developed a
system of international conventions to standardize
procedures for ensuring transport safety and
compensation for damages.

Attempts to develop unified international documents
in the field of air transport began in the 1920s. After
World War II, a trend of rapid development in civil
aviation

became

clearly

visible

worldwide.

International flights required a clear and unified legal
framework. As a result, the Convention on
International Civil Aviation was adopted in Chicago in
1944, and this convention played a crucial role in
international air traffic. The convention also
established

the

International

Civil

Aviation

Organization (ICAO), whose unique characteristics and
activities were outlined.

The main set of documents defining airline liability in
international air transportation is called the Warsaw
system. This system:

In addition to the Warsaw Convention of 1929,

Includes the Hague Protocol of 1955 (which entered
into force in 1963),

Convention supplementing the Warsaw Convention for
the unification of certain rules relating to international
carriage by air performed by a person other than the
contracting carrier, signed in Guadalajara on
September 18, 1961 (known as the Guadalajara
Convention),

The Guatemala City Protocol of 1971,

The four Montreal Protocols of 1975 (the Guatemala
City and Montreal Protocols have not entered into
force) are also part of it.

The Warsaw Convention of 1929, as its name suggests,
applies to international air carriage and is considered
the primary document that first systematized aviation
carrier liability on an international scale. According to
paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Convention,
"international carriage" means any carriage in which,
according to the agreement between the parties, the
place of departure and the place of destination are
situated within the territories of two States or within
the territory of a single State if there is an agreed
stopping place within the territory of another State.
Carriage between two points within the territory of a
single State without an agreed stopping place within
the territory of another State is not international
carriage. If stopping is provided for in the territory of
another state, and this state is not a party to the
Convention, such transport shall be recognized as
international.

The main objective of the Convention is to strike a
balance between alleviating the liability of air carriers
and simultaneously protecting passengers' rights. The
Warsaw Convention standardized the regulations
concerning transport documents. The provisions
related to carrier liability are encompassed in Articles
17-30 of the Convention. It is particularly noteworthy
that, according to Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention,
the carrier is liable for a passenger's death, injury, or
any other bodily harm if the accident causing the
damage occurred on board the aircraft or during
passenger embarkation or disembarkation. As per
Articles 17-19, the air carrier is held responsible for
damages resulting from the destruction, loss, or
damage of registered cargo or baggage, as well as for
delays in the air transport of passengers, baggage, and
cargo. If liability arises due to the air carrier's fault, the
burden of proving the presence or absence of fault falls
on the carrier. However, the carrier is exempted from
liability if it can prove that it took all possible measures
to prevent the damage or that it was impossible to take
such measures. Notably, there is no mention of the
carrier's liability for non-material damages. The general
statute of limitations is set at 2 years, and the issue of
determining the court competent to hear cases of
damage has been resolved.

Thus, the main achievement of the Warsaw Convention
was the unification of the rules regarding air carrier
liability. In this case, clearly defined norms of the
carrier's liability limit towards passengers, established
on the basis of international treaty provisions or
through insurance, fully correspond to the economic
guarantees of passengers and increase confidence in
the carrier.

Minor or major accidents can occur multiple times
during travel, but incidents that confirm the air carrier's

International Journal of Law And Criminology

63

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc

International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)

liability are very rare. This is because only events that
meet the criteria established by the Convention are
recognized as accidents. Foreign judicial practice has
developed the following approaches to defining the
concept of "accident" in Article 17 of the Warsaw
Convention. In particular, in the Air France v. Saks case,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985: "Liability under
Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention arises only if the
damage to the passenger is caused by an unexpected
or unusual event or happening that is external to the
passenger. This definition should be applied, with
appropriate modifications, to all circumstances of

passenger injury assessment”

.

According to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention,
only damage caused to the passenger, that is, the
person who concluded the carriage contract, is
compensated. Harm or damage caused to a passenger
without a ticket is compensated based on the general
rules of civil liability applied, taking into account the
conflict of laws norms of the respective state. When
transporting passengers, the carrier's liability for each
passenger is limited. These restrictions do not apply if
it is proven that the damage or harm was caused
intentionally or through gross negligence by the carrier,
its employees, or agents within the scope of their
official duties.

It must be acknowledged that the Warsaw Convention
was a revolutionary document for its time. It was
accepted as a compromise solution in balancing
passenger and commercial interests. However, with
inflation and the increase in transport volume, its limits
no longer meet modern requirements. Through the
creation of additional protocols and conventions, a
number of additions and amendments were made to
the text of the 1929 Warsaw Convention.

The Hague Protocol, adopted in 1955, partially updated
the Warsaw Convention and increased the limits:

•

Up to 250,000 gold francs per passenger

(double the amount under the Warsaw Convention).

•

It maintained baggage and cargo limits at

around 250 francs/kg.

The purpose of the Protocol is to adapt previous limits
to economic growth and further clarify the legal
relationship between the carrier and the passenger.
The Hague Protocol was evolutionary in nature and
modernized the limits in the Warsaw system, while
preserving the basic system - limited liability and the
possibility of exemption from fault (force majeure).

The Republic of Uzbekistan has joined this Warsaw
system: in 1997, it ratified the Warsaw Convention and
the Hague Protocol.

The 1971 Guatemala Protocol introduced the term

"personal injury" instead of "bodily injury" in the
Warsaw Convention. This change was intended to
expand the carrier's scope of liability, covering not only
physical but also psychological and emotional
damages. However, the term "personal injury" has not
gained widespread acceptance due to its varying
interpretations across legal systems. States with
Romano-Germanic legal systems, in particular, faced
difficulties in clearly understanding this concept. Even
in the Russian translation, an accurate equivalent for
this expression was not found, resulting in a return to
the term "physical harm." Due to these ambiguities and
other legal shortcomings, the Guatemala Protocol did
not enter into force.

As previously noted, the Warsaw Convention applies to
contractual relations concerning the international air
transport of passengers, baggage, or cargo. In this
context, the question of who is considered the "carrier"
within the framework of these transportations, i.e.,
who should be the subject of liability, is of crucial
importance. However, the Warsaw Convention does
not clearly define the concept of "carrier" and does not
clarify the status of other persons who are not parties
to the contract, namely those performing the actual
transport operation.

Consequently, the legal gap in the Convention -
especially in complex transport operations involving
various air carriers (codeshare, interline), which are
common in practice - has created difficulties in
determining who bears responsibility. To eliminate
these legal ambiguities and clearly delineate the
institution of carriage, a separate international
document - the Guadalajara Convention - was adopted
in Guadalajara in 1961.

This convention officially established the legal
distinctions between the "contracting carrier" and the
"actual carrier." The contracting carrier is the entity
that assumes the obligation of transportation and
issues the ticket, while the actual carrier is the airline
that actually performs the flight. The Guadalajara
Convention regulated the basic rules regarding the
limits of liability and claim procedures for these two
entities, thereby consolidating the clear legal status of
participants in international air transportation.

As acknowledged in foreign literature, travel agencies,
tour operators, freight forwarders, charterers, and
other individuals may be recognized as contractual
carriers if they have not limited themselves to
concluding a contract on behalf of a third party acting
as an agent, sales manager, or employee, but have also
assumed the obligation to carry out the transportation.

The Guadalajara Convention is a legal solution that
aligns with the modern model of cooperative aviation,

International Journal of Law And Criminology

64

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc

International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)

protecting passenger rights in conflict situations. While
strengthening consumer rights, it also clarifies the
distribution of liability between carriers.

In addition to the Guadalajara Convention, the carrier's
liability under international carriage contracts is also
regulated by other international agreements. As
mentioned above, the limited liability amount in the
Warsaw Convention was doubled by the Hague
Protocol. Nevertheless, by 1965, the US government,
considering the updated liability limits insufficient,
expressed its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw
Convention, signed in 1929, and announced its
withdrawal from the Convention effective May 15,
1966. However, this withdrawal plan was not
implemented, as a compromise agreement - the 1966
Montreal Agreement - was signed between the
authorized bodies of US civil aviation and major air
carriers. According to this document, airlines agreed to
increase liability limits in cases of passenger deaths,
bodily injuries, or other damages by modifying their
transportation conditions.

According to the new agreement, the liability amount
established by airlines is set at $58,000 (excluding legal
expenses) and $75,000 (including legal services).
Notably, the term "personal injury" used in this
agreement deserves special attention, as it is based on
a conceptual notion widely interpreted in the Anglo-
Saxon legal system.

This term, used in the 1966 Montreal Agreement,
encompasses not only physical harm to the div but
also damage to an individual's mental and emotional
state. This has significantly broadened the scope of
carrier liability in practice, making cases of
psychological harm eligible for compensation as well.
From this perspective, the Montreal Agreement
demonstrates a more progressive approach that is
closer to human rights principles compared to the
Warsaw Convention.

It should be emphasized that the Warsaw system has
become outdated from the standpoint of modern
socio-economic requirements, with its liability limits
set at very low levels. The multitude of documents
related to the system (the Warsaw system comprises
more than 10 documents) and the diverse range of
participants complicate its practical application and
hinder the uniform enforcement of the law. The
prolonged nature of disputes, inconsistencies in
contractual freedom, and liability standards prevent
the Warsaw system from being recognized as an
effective mechanism. The fact that some states have
not fully ratified these documents can be explained by
their desire to protect the interests of their airlines in
the context of international competition.

According to the Montreal Protocols adopted in 1975,
which are part of the Warsaw system, the franc
Poincaré currency used in determining carrier liability
in the 1929 Warsaw Convention was deemed obsolete.
In its place, Special Drawing Rights (SDR - Special
Drawing Rights) were introduced, which are stable in
calculations and compatible with international financial
transactions. Simultaneously, these protocols clearly
formulated special rules limiting carrier liability in cases
of emergencies (force majeure).

By the end of the 20th century, the Warsaw system was
recognized as economically and legally outdated.
Additionally, a need for a unified and modern system in
the

international

aviation

market

emerged.

Meanwhile, progress was made in establishing an
interregional legal framework while modernizing the
industry. For instance, in 1997, the European Union
adopted Regulation No. 2027/97 of October 9, 1997,
"On Air Carrier Liability for the Carriage of Passengers
and Their Baggage," which promoted the equalization
of air transportation between EU member states to
domestic transportation. The main objective of this
document was to achieve the application of legal
procedures established by European Union legislation
by increasing liability limits and updating the insurance
system. When the new international Montreal
Convention, aimed at worldwide recognition, was
"born"

in

1999,

the

Regulation

underwent

corresponding amendments.

On May 28, 1999, at the conclusion of the International
Conference on Air Law (May 10-29, 1999) held in
Montreal at the initiative of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO), a new document was
adopted - the "Convention for the Unification of
Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air" - known
as the Montreal Convention. This convention aimed to
harmonize legal norms in air transport, incorporating
international experience, especially in expanding
carriers' liability limits.

As a result, the Montreal Convention now serves as the
primary legal basis for international air transportation.
The Convention entered into force on November 4,
2003. However, our country is not yet a member of it.
The IATA organization supports Uzbekistan's accession
to this convention and urges its prompt ratification.

Its main achievements are the increase in liability
amounts in line with the modern economy: the concept
of unlimited liability and the establishment of a two-
tier liability system. In accordance with Article 21 of the
Convention:

•

First tier: liability up to 100,000 SDRs

(approximately $135,000) regardless of fault (strict
liability).

International Journal of Law And Criminology

65

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc

International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)

•

Second tier: for damage exceeding this limit,

the carrier is not liable if it proves that it was not at
fault. (liability is not limited)

At the first level, according to paragraph 1 of Article 17
of the Convention, the carrier is liable for damage
caused in the event of death or bodily injury to a
passenger only if the incident that resulted in death or
injury occurred on board the aircraft or during the
process of embarking or disembarking. The amount of
liability should not exceed 100,000 Special Drawing
Rights (SDR) per passenger. During court proceedings,
the conversion of these amounts into national
currencies is carried out in accordance with the value
of Special Drawing Rights as of the date of the court
decision.

At the second level, in the event of a passenger's death
or bodily injury, the carrier is not liable for damage
exceeding 100,000 Special Drawing Rights per
passenger if the carrier can prove:

-

such damage was not caused by negligence or

other wrongful act or omission of the carrier, its
employees or agents; or

-

such damage was caused solely by the

negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third
party.

Due to its numerous achievements, the updated
system has not yet lost its influence and currently
encompasses 136 countries and the European Union.
Notably, it can also be applied to relationships arising
from transportation contracts where the cargo owners
or passengers are individuals or legal entities from
countries that have not ratified the Montreal
Convention. For instance, if an Uzbek citizen flies from
Canada or the USA to Russia, even though our country
is not a party to the Montreal Convention, this
Convention governs the relationship between the
Uzbek passenger and the carrier that is a member of
the Convention.

According to M.F. Baglaridu, the Conventions do not
specify clear rules on what type of damage (property or
non-property) the air carrier is liable for. Therefore, it
is logical to consider that the air carrier is liable under
the conventions for both property (material) and non-
property

(non-material)

damage arising

from

passenger bodily injury, damage to luggage, loss, or
destruction. On this matter, when some states (for
example, Norway, Sweden) expressed opinions to
specifically emphasize liability for moral harm in the
Convention provisions, proposals from African
countries were met with negative reactions. Due to the
disagreement, it was agreed that the content in the
Warsaw Convention text (Articles 17-18) should remain
unchanged, while "physical injury" should be

interpreted in a broad sense. It was decided to include
psychological injuries associated with physical injuries
and psychological injuries that significantly negatively
impact the passenger's health even in the absence of
physical injuries as physical injuries. However, in our
opinion, there is no reason to deny N.N. Ostroumov's
interpretation that "the Convention provided for the
possibility of compensation in cases where
psychological trauma caused harm to the passenger's
health or physical injuries led to mental disorders in a
person. " According to B.M. Khamrokulov, if a citizen of
the Republic of Uzbekistan suffers moral damage as a
result of international air transportation of passengers,
baggage, and cargo, they can also demand
compensation for the moral damage in court as a
consumer.

Indeed, Article 24 of the 1929 Warsaw Convention and
Article 29 of the 1999 Montreal Convention indicate
that in cases of accidents in air transport - particularly
passenger death or bodily injury, loss, damage, or delay
of baggage or cargo - the legal conditions and
compensation limits stipulated in the conventions
regarding carrier liability must be applied. However, it
is acknowledged as a shortcoming that these
conventions do not encompass many pertinent legal
aspects related to compensation for non-material
damage - namely psychological, emotional, or moral
harm that may arise during the transportation process.

Specifically, neither convention establishes criteria for
determining whether affected individuals have the
right to claim compensation for non-material damage.
Furthermore, there are no clear mechanisms for
assessing the subjective nature and extent of such
damage, nor for determining the amount of
compensation to be paid for it. In practice, this leads to
claimants being left in a state of legal uncertainty.

Another significant shortcoming is that the text of these
conventions does not clearly specify on what legal
basis, that is, based on which national or international
legal norms, issues arising during their application and
not fully regulated by the conventions should be
resolved. As a result, the tendency of courts to refer to
national legislation or judicial practice in such matters
hinders the formation of a unified international
approach.

Nevertheless, despite such shortcomings, the Montreal
Convention is adapted to the needs of modern aviation
and ensures inflation adjustment through the SDR
(Special Drawing Rights) system of the International
Monetary Fund. The Montreal Convention provides
stronger protection of passenger rights and eliminates
the static nature of limits present in the previous
Warsaw system. At the same time, it harmonizes the

International Journal of Law And Criminology

66

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc

International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)

principle of fault and the principles of risk distribution.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of the results shows that the evolution of
carrier liability in international aviation conventions has
undergone gradual improvement. While the Warsaw
system played a historically significant role, its
limitations - particularly the low liability limits and
regulatory instability - caused practical problems. The
Montreal Convention is the sole document aimed at
addressing these shortcomings and represents a
notable achievement with its two-tiered liability
system, SDR-based limits, and coverage of non-
material damages. However, some fundamental issues
remain unresolved, such as precise criteria for
compensation mechanisms and the subject of non-
material damages. Uzbekistan has not yet ratified this
convention. Therefore, considering that international
obligations take precedence in case of discrepancies
between domestic legislation and the state's
international commitments, it is crucial to harmonize
national

legislation

with

international

law

requirements,

develop

aviation-related

judicial

practice based on international experience, and
establish a legal framework that clearly defines carrier
liability.

REFERENCES

World Bank, Air Transport, Passengers Carried 2022,

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR

Global Air Passenger Demand Reaches Record High in
2024

https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-

releases/2025-01-30-01/

Shawcross, M.N. and Beaumont, J. Air Law, 4th ed.,
Butterworths, 1977, p. 5.

Mankiewicz, R., The Liability Regimes in International
Air Transportation, McGill University, 1981.

Ремишевский,

П.

В.

Гражданско

-

правовая

ответственность

перевозчика

по

договору

воздушной перевозки: дис. ... канд. юрид. наук:
12.00.03 / П. В. Ремишевский.

-

М., 2007. –

C.160.

Shawcross, M.N. and Beaumont, J., Air Law, 4th ed.,
Butterworths, 1977, p. 10.

Rashidov K.Q. Xalqaro ko’lamda yo’lovchi va yuk tashish

munosabatlarini huquqiy tartibga solish muammolari.
Diss. 2007-y.236-bet.

Attila Sipos. The liability of the air carrier for damages

and the state of health of the air passenger •: Accidents

and Diseases (COVID-19. June 2021 Hungarian Journal
of Legal Studies 61(1) DOI:10.1556/2052.2020.00002

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35246889
5_The_liability_of_the_air_carrier_for_damages_and_
the_state_of_health_of_the_air_passenger_Accidents

_and_Diseases_COVID-19

Unmack Tim. Civil Aviation: Standards and Liabilities.
London, Hong Kong. LLP. 1999. P. 249.

Ремишевский,

П.

В.

Гражданско

-

правовая

ответственность

перевозчика

по

договору

воздушной перевозки: дис. ... канд. юрид. наук:
12.00.03 / П. В. Ремишевский.

-

М., 2007.

-

212 с.

Ethan Schwab, How Safe Is Safe Enough? Analyzing the
Incentive Structure of the Products Liability Scheme on
Commercial Aviation Manufacturers, 79 U. Mia. L. Rev.
398 (2025)

Available

at:

https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol79/iss2/7

On the Liability of Air Carriers for the Carriage of
Passengers and Their Baggage: EU Regulation No.
2027/97 of 9 October 1997 [Electronic resource]. URL:
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31997
R2027 (accessed: 22.07.2025).

IATA urges Uzbekistan to ratify the Montreal
Convention, as reported by Rambler. October 24, 2017.
More

at:

https://news.rambler.ru/other/38233258/?utm_conte
nt=news_media&utm_medium=read_more&utm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Convention

,

http://www.icao.int/secretariat/legal/List%20of%20Pa
rties/Mtl99

Баглариду М.Ф. Компенсация морального вреда,
причиненного

пассажиру

при

воздушной

перевозке,

по