Cite as: 525 U. S. 155 (1999)
Syllabus
chapters of law relating to international air carriage with which the Convention was not attempting to deal. In light of the Lords' exposition, the withdrawn Czechoslovak proposal will not bear the weight the Second Circuit placed on it. Pp. 172-174.
(d) Montreal Protocol No. 4, to which the United States has recently subscribed, amends Article 24 to provide, in relevant part: "In the carriage of passengers . . . , any action for damages . . . can only be brought subject to the conditions and limits set out in this Convention . . . ." Under amended Article 24, Tseng and El Al agree, the Convention's preemptive effect is clear: The treaty precludes passengers from bringing actions under local law when they cannot establish air carrier liability under the treaty. Revised Article 24 merely clarifies, it does not alter, the Convention's rule of exclusivity. Supporting the position that revised Article 24 provides for preemption not earlier established, Tseng urges that federal preemption of state law is disfavored generally, and particularly when matters of health and safety are at stake. Tseng overlooks in this regard that the nation-state, not subdivisions within one nation, is the focus of the Convention and the perspective of the treaty partners. The Court's home-centered preemption analysis, therefore, should not be applied, mechanically, in construing this country's international obligations. Decisions of the courts of other Convention signatories, including the House of Lords opinion already noted, corroborate the Court's understanding of the Convention's preemptive effect. Such decisions are entitled to considerable weight. Saks, 470 U. S., at 404. Pp. 174-176.
122 F. 3d 99, reversed.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and OTMConnor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 177.
Diane Westwood Wilson argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs was Judith R. Nemsick.
Jonathan E. Nuechterlein argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Alisa B. Klein, David R. Andrews, David S. Newman, Nancy E. McFadden, Paul M. Geier, and Dale C. Andrews.
159
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007