期刊文献+

美国航班超售的非歧视原则 被引量:1

Non-discrimination Principle on the Airline Overbooking System in America
下载PDF
导出
摘要 1958年,美国《联邦航空法》确立航空承运人在航空运输活动中不得违背非歧视原则。美国最高法院区分"航班超售本体"和"实施航班超售行为"分别认定是否违背非歧视原则。规制国际航空运输领域的航班超售,美国适用内外一致的监管标准,对本国和外国的航空承运人适用相同法规。征询自愿被拒载的志愿者应当同时面向全部旅客,切忌特别或者先后征询。适用优先登机规则的前提是征询志愿者人数不足。优先登机规则含括"先订先得""先到先得"和"复合参考权衡"3个规则。航班超售非歧视原则促进航空运输发展并可作为旅客维权的替代路径。中国修订《民用航空法》可借鉴美国作法的有益经验。 In 1958,Federal Aviation Act of the U.S.stated that no air carrier shall violate the non-discrimination principle in air transport.The Supreme Court of the United States distinguished "overbooking oneself" and "performing the act of overbooking" to understand the non-discrimination principle.In terms of flight overbooking,internal and external consistency supervision standard is applied to all domestic and foreign air carriers in the field of international air transport.All passengers should be asked at the same time about their willingness to be denied boarding,and it is strictly forbidden to asking about only certain passenger' opinion or inquiring of passengers in turn.The precondition for boarding priority is that there are not enough volunteers.Boarding priority rules include "first book,first serve","first come,first serve" and "comprehensive considering and balancing".The non-discrimination principle of overbooking could promote the development of the civil aviation industry and be an alternative for passengers to protect their own interests.China can learn from certain successful experience of USA.in overbooking when amending Civil Aviation Law.
作者 高乐鑫 GAO Lexin(School of Law, Xiamen University, Xiamen Fujian 361005, China)
机构地区 厦门大学法学院
出处 《北京理工大学学报(社会科学版)》 CSSCI 2017年第6期121-127,共7页 Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology:Social Sciences Edition
基金 中国法学会重点专项课题"中国积极参与国际民航规则制定研究"[CLS(2015)ZDZX22]
关键词 航班超售 非歧视原则 志愿者 flight overbooking non-discrimination principle volunteers
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献55

  • 1蔡东辉.航空旅客运输航班延误及其法律责任[J].法律适用,2006(8):59-61. 被引量:12
  • 2董文军.平等视野中的消费者权利解读[J].法制与社会发展,2007,13(2):125-132. 被引量:8
  • 3Carlos Manuel Vazquez, The Four Doctrines of Self - Executing Treaties, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 89 ( 1995 ), p. 695.
  • 4David Sloss, Non - self - executing Treaties : Exposing a Constitutional Fallacy, U.C. Davis Law Review, Vol. 36( 2002), p. 4.
  • 5Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 42 (1989), pp. 837 -838.
  • 6Carlos Manuel Vazquez, Treaty - Based Rights and Remedies of Individuals, Columbia Law Review Vol. 92 ( 1992), pp. 1097 - 1104.
  • 7Jordan J. Paust, Self - Executing Treaties, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 82 ( 1988), pp. 760 - 763.
  • 8Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet. ) 253 (1829).
  • 9Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet. ) 253 ( 1829), at 314.
  • 10Carlos Manuel Vazquez, The Four Doctrines of Self - Executing Treaties, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 89 ( 1995 ), p.705-723.

共引文献26

同被引文献10

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部