Common use of A Database of Judicial Decisions Clause in Contracts

A Database of Judicial Decisions. The 1999 Montreal Conference rightly pointed out that judges are not all aviation regulatory experts25 with an aviation law background.26 Even experts wishing to ensure a uniform application of the 1999 Montreal Convention through an analysis of foreign case law meet certain hindrances. Amongst various obstacles, one of the most regrettable is that, depending on the jurisdiction, not all decisions are published. The proliferation of different journals, reports and search engines also increases the difficulty for local Courts to have quick access to relevant foreign air law decisions. Most of these hurdles were recognized from early on. For example, in 1977, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ noted that: A better diffusion of the judicial decisions interpreting the uniform law has been advocated as a means of lessening divergences by letting courts know of existing precedents adopted in other countries.27 In order to tackle this issue, one solution could be to gather relevant case law in a specific database.28 Certain Uniform Instruments already benefit from such centralization. The jurisprudence of the UNCITRAL conventions are, for instance, gathered on an online public platform.29 The jurisprudence of certain Uniform Instru- ments related to transportation by sea also benefits from an online platform organized on the initiative of the Comité Maritime International and managed in cooperation with the National University of Singapore.30 A database of deci- sions regarding the application of the CMR was also organized, in the past by UNIDROIT,31 and now by the Institut du Droit International des Transports.32 25 ICAO Doc 9775, International Conference on Air Law (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air), Montreal, 10 – 28 May 1999, volume I, Minutes, Montreal 1999, p. 154.