曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

It is clear from the above that the aerial boycott adopted by the Bonn Declaration is not permissible according to international law as incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations. It is clear that States will be held responsible for a boycotting instituted directly by their governments if such measure is found by the interna-tional community to be ultra vires the established norms of international law.
Furthermore, it may also be relevant to view the Bonn Declaration by reference to the doctrine of non-intervention, as elaborated in various international instru-ments in recent years. Thus, paragraph2of its Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty of 21 December 1965 [Resolution 2131(XX)], the United Nations Assemblydecreed that:
No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it an advantage of any kind.
II.  Incompatibility of the Declaration with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
The Bonn Declaration was designed to be invoked by seven States against an allegedly defaulting State, whether or not the latter is a party to the Declaration. Mark E. Fingerman opines:
The legal force of the Bonn Declaration upon non-parties is of critical importance; it is against these nations that the Declaration’s sanctions were most intended to apply. The Declaration calls for the imposition of its sanctions upon any State that violates its provisions, whether or not the State in question is a party to the Declaration or any civil aviation convention.626
Articles 33 and 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties speci.cally state that States which do not become party to a treaty would not be bound by that treaty unless they expressly agree in writing to be bound by it. Only the State parties to a treaty (including a declaration) could be considered as being bound by the provisions of that treaty. Whilst it may be conceded that a treatycould create rights
625Brosche(1974, p. 2). 626Fingerman(1980, p. 144).
for third States which those States couldaccept, it cannot not impose obligations on third States in terms of requiring them to commit acts such as prosecuting or extraditing offenders against civil aviation or returning the aircraft against which such offence is committed. International law does not envisage the imposition of obligations on States which are not parties to a treaty. Therefore, the scope of application of the Declaration should be limited to States which are parties to it. The Note presented by the French Government on the Resolution adopted by the Council of ICAO on 19 June 1972 on the question of joint sanction stated:
The Convention can establish obligations only for States parties to it and would permit imposing sanctions only on those parties, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, the Convention could be effective only if it was universally accepted.627
Therefore, the Declaration will be ineffective as far as it intended to impose an obligation upon third parties to prosecute or extradite the hijacker and to release the aircraft.
III.  The Incompatibility of the Declaration with the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention 1944) and the International Air Services Transit Agreement
Another dif.culty emerging from the Bonn Declaration was the relationship of the Declaration to other international conventions. The problem of suspension of air transport services as a sanction under the Bonn Declaration becomes particularly relevant in this context. Article5 of the Chicago Convention confers certain rights upon Contracting States:
Each Contracting State agrees that all aircraft of the other Contracting States, being aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services shall have the right subject to the observation of this Convention to make .ights into or in transit non-stop across its territory and to make stops for non-traf.c purposes without the necessity of obtaining prior permis-sion and subject to the right of the States .own over to require landing.
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(184)