Common use of The Lack of Common Interpretation Mechanisms Clause in Contracts

The Lack of Common Interpretation Mechanisms. After the adoption of the 1929 Warsaw Convention, the IATA – which was in charge of the preparation of uniform documents of carriage – asked the CITEJA223 in 1933 to give its interpretation on the concept of ‘arrêts prévus’ under Article 3 of the convention.224 Following the IATA question, the Third Conference – which led notably to the adoption of the 1933 Rome Convention – expressed the wish that an analysis be conducted on the potential role of the CITEJA as an advi- sory source of interpretation on private air law conventions.225 From that perspective, the Rapporteur Xxxxxx xx xx Xxxxxxxx suggested amending the CITEJA internal rules,226 and, during the XII session of the CITEJA in 1937, submitted a draft convention which would have given the CITEJA the option of providing interpretative advice with respect to private air law 221 See, Xxxx Xxxxx, Une juridiction supranationale pour l’interprétation du droit unifié?, 13 Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 717-735 (1961). 222 See, for example, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, Traité de droit aérien-aéronautique 59 (2nd edition, Xxxxxx, 1964); Huib Drion, Towards A Uniform Interpretation of the Private Air Law Conventions, 19 J. Air L. & Com. 423 (1952). 223 For a detailed description of its working methodology, see, Le Comité International Technique d’Experts Juridiques Aériens, Son origine, son but, son oeuvre (Publications du Comité International Technique d’Experts Juridiques Aériens, 1931); Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, The Warsaw Convention and the CITEJA, 6. J. Air L. & Com. 79 (1935).