Communications and transit > Air transport co-operation committee : minutes of the first session : held at Geneva from July 8th to 12th, 1930

M. Fisch considered that the question of free transit was an extremely complex one. It had
undergone lengthy discussion in the C. I. N. A., and he thought it was difficult to find a better
formula than that adopted by the C. I. N. A.
M. Molfese observed that, as many members of the Committee were also members of the
C. I. N. A., it would surely be hardly possible to reach different conclusions from those already
obtained.
The Secretary of the Committee observed that M. Bouche’s proposal made no change in
existing international law, as, according to the present interpretation of Article 15 of the Convention
of 1919, governments were not prevented from allowing free transit by air. M. Molfese had pointed
out in his report that certain countries had refused to allow free transit by air in order to protect
newly-launched national aviation undertakings, but the situation might change, and it was to be
hoped that such permission would become general. A formula might be found expressing the hope
that the article would be applied in a more liberal spirit.
M. Bouche observed that paragraph 5 was governed by paragraph 3. It demanded free
traffic on these routes—that is to say, routes recognised as of primary importance by the Committee
or by the organisation determining them. The text of the Convention of 1919 should not be
brought into the matter.
Sir W. Sefton Brancker stated that the question was by far one of the most important that
had yet come before the Committee. In his opinion it was very important that free traffic should
exist on air routes, and he supported the proposal.
M. de Veer believed that the question raised had no connection with those treated by the
C. I. N. A. If it was thought necessary to develop commercial air traffic it was desirable from the
outset to abolish any obstacles that might impede its growth, and, in that respect, the question of
freedom of traffic was of primary importance. The organisation of international routes, night
flying and combined transport might be discussed at great length, but so long as any Government
could prevent freedom of air communications over its territory all such discussion would be useless.
In his opinion, the question of freedom was of first importance and the Committee should endeavour:
(1) To affirm the necessity for free traffic on air routes, as was done in paragraph 5 ; (2) to enable
the Committee or other organisations to study the best way to cause Governments to modify their
attitude in respect of international civil air traffic.
At the present time, since the Governments had absolute liberty to act as they chose, the
technical conditions imposed by the C. I. N. A. could be of use only to passenger air traffic. They
were of no importance for air routes. That was a sphere of public law in which the Committee
could therefore do extremely important work. If it proved impossible to change public law, it
might still be hoped that the Governments who were in favour of a certain degree of freedom for
civil air traffic might come to reciprocal agreements on the application of that principle of freedom.
By extending those agreements, the accession of other Governments might possibly be obtained,
and the same result would be arrived at by a circuitous route.
M. Fisch pointed out that M. Bouche had suggested free traffic for the air routes, already
agreed upon as essential. As a discussion would already have taken place on the establishment
of those essential routes, would it be necessary to ask also for freedom of traffic on them ? M. de
Veer had fully stated the case, but he himself would point out that that problem had already been
discussed by the C. I. N. A., and, although that Commission had not been able to arrive at a more
liberal solution, it seemed difficult, he would repeat, for the present Committee to find a clearer or
more acceptable formula. On the other hand, as M. Chaumie had remarked at the last meeting,
an agreement must be reached on this matter ; perhaps a formula could be found which would not
conflict with but would supplement that of the C. I. N. A.
M. Roper thought that a distinction must be drawn between international public law and its
application. International public law, as laid down in the Convention of 1919, which was ratified
by numerous Governments, enabled their aircraft under certain conditions to fly over each other’s
territory (Article 15). That text could not prevent the establishment of a programme of essential
air routes or the free use of those routes, as the Governments might make agreements between
themselves, excluding Governments which refused them the benefits of similar conditions ; and
thus the same result would be arrived at as was intended when drawing up Article 15.
The Chairman noted that it was possible to reach a solution on the proposal laid down in
paragraph 5 (while leaving M. de Veer’s amendment (Annex 4) for later discussion). It was
necessary, however, to decide upon the wording to be adopted. Once the idea of international
routes was accepted, freedom of traffic might be expected to result ipso facto, as M. Fisch had
observed. But although two Governments might agree to establish a programme of air routes and
to allow free circulation over their territory by their aeroplanes, they might still prevent the
aeroplanes of a third State from flying over the same routes. There were two distinct ideas :
general freedom of circulation of international routes and agreements between two or more Powers
to establish freedom on their own routes. A wording might therefore be adopted which, while
letting the present depend on international conventions, would encourage free traffic in the future
on important routes.
He requested M. Bouche to give a definite form to his recommendation on those lines, and
reserved M. de Veer’s proposal for further discussion.