The Use of Concepts Taken from Other International Instruments Sample Clauses

The Use of Concepts Taken from Other International Instruments. After a lack of definition, another drafting element that could affect the uniform application of the Conventions may be that their drafters incorpo- rated terms from other international instruments despite the autonomy of the Conventions. Indeed, the 1929 Warsaw Convention was not drafted from scratch, and more than mere inspiration was taken from pre-existing international conventions, such as those from the rail sector.90 The Travaux Préparatoires of the 1929 Warsaw Convention make this clear, stating that: Il y a une autre proposition qui consistait à prendre l’article 39 de la Convention xx Xxxxx. La commission a été d’accord pour se rallier à cette proposition.91 86 See, Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Le régime uniforme de responsabilité du transporteur aérien de personnes 158 et seq. (Xxxxxxxxx, 2013); Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Les sources de la responsabilité du transporteur aérien international: entre conflit et complémentarité – La Convention de Montréal et son interac- tion avec le droit européen et national 189 (Schulthess, 2012). 87 See, section 4.3.2.3. 88 See, section 2.3.3.2. 89 See, section 3.2.2.3(4). 90 See, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, National Airlegislation and the Warsaw Convention (Springer, 1937). 91 ICAO Doc 7838, II Conférence Internationale de Droit Privé Aérien, 4-12 Octobre 1929, Procès-Verbaux, Varsovie, 1930, p. 105. See also, Ibid., p. 130. Although it was clearly established from an early stage that the terminology used in the 1929 Warsaw Convention was independent from the one encountered in other international transportation conventions,92 it cannot be ignored that these would certainly have had an impact on the way the terms laid down in the 1929 Warsaw Convention have been understood and interpreted in States which were also Parties to these international conven- tions. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that, while interpreting certain provisions of the 1929 Warsaw Convention, Courts were likely, at least initially, to use their knowledge of how identical terms and concepts were used in other international conventions, especially when it came to other international conventions regulating transport, such as the 1924 Bern CIM and CIV, which already had a well-established jurisprudence.93 The use of other international conventions and their related case law might have led to divergent interpretations. This divergence would be particularly apparent between States that ratified the 1924 Bern CIM and CIV and those that did not. Knowing that rail conventions were used...