Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T16:35:05.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

United States–United Kingdom Arbitration Concerning Heathrow Airport User Charges

Arbitral Tribunals (Various).  30 November 1992 ; 01 November 1993 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Air — Air services agreements — Structure and purpose — Airport landing rights — User charges imposed at airports — Nature of State's duty where user charges imposed by private body — Requirement to use best efforts — Principle of non-discrimination — Requirement that charges should be reasonable — Settlement of disputes regarding air services agreement — United Kingdom-United States Air Services Agreement 1977 (“Bermuda 2”)

Arbitration — Award — Request for clarification of award — Whether within powers of tribunal — Procedure — Rules of procedure — Ad hoc arbitration between States — Power of tribunal to establish rules of procedure

Claims — Local remedies rule — Applicability of rule — Distinction between claims of diplomatic protection and claims concerning wrongs committed against the State — Obligations of contract and obligations of result

Economics, trade and finance — Air services — Airport user charges — Requirement that charges must be reasonable — Criteria for determining whether charges reasonable — Economic evidence — Distinction between structure and level of charges

International tribunals — Arbitral tribunals — Inter-State arbitration — Ad hoc tribunal — Jurisdiction — Procedure

State responsibility — For breach of treaty — Nature of State's obligations under treaty — Obligations of conduct and obligations of result — Distinction — Requirement that State use best efforts — Airport user charges — Obligations of State in respect of charges determined by private airport authority

Treaties — Application — Interpretation — United Kingdom-United States Air Services Agreement, 1977 (“Bermuda 2”) Settlement of disputes

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)