The Applicability of These Mechanisms to the Rules of Renvois. The examination started from the postulation that exclusivity and autonomy mechanisms applied to both uniform rules and the rules of renvois, but is this really the case for the latter? The answer is not self-evident. Neverthe- less, the purposes and object of the Conventions, together with the analysis carried out of their special features, show how much uniformity was a predominant aim for the drafters of the Conventions. Authoritative authors confirm the autonomy of terms and concepts used in other international private law instruments containing rules of renvois.133 The Travaux Préparatoires of the 1999 Montreal Convention also demonstrate, as quoted below, that efforts were made to provide for autonomous terms and concepts when rules of renvois would be at stake: […] on the one hand, there had been an American notion, memorialized in prior instruments, of ‘domicile’ of the passenger while, on the other hand, there had been the French concept of domicile, which was also reflected in prior instru- ments. It had been apparent to all Members of the Special Group that the use of those terms in the identical location had been producing a non-uniform result. They had thus worked diligently to try to find a suitable formulation of words which was not based on nationality and which would bridge the gap between ‘domicile’ and domicile. With great good will on both sides, the Special Group had come up with ‘principal and permanent residence’, considered by both sides at the time to be a reasonable compromise, although not an ideal solution from their respective perspectives.134 For these reasons, it is not unreasonable to consider that the terms and concepts used in the rules of renvois of the 1999 Montreal Convention must also be uniformly applied. The question of the exclusivity of the rules of renvois is somewhat more delicate. At first glance, the lack of such exclusivity would result in opposing the renvois set out in the 1999 Montreal Convention to other rules of renvois foreseen in domestic legislation or another international convention. However, the wording of Article 29 of the Montreal Conven- tion suggests the non-application of the exclusivity of its rules only with respect to ‘the question as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit and what are their respective rights’. The determination of their respective rights is, however, limited by the existence of the 1999 Montreal 133 See, for example, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, L’interprétation des conv...
