Abstract
This chapter is the general report on the subject, drawing on the reports on various jurisdictions contributed to the volume. After giving an overview of the Cape Town Convention and its three Protocols (together as “the Cape Town Convention”), the chapter makes a “functional analysis” of what changes the Cape Town Convention has brought, or will bring, to existing domestic laws of the countries. As a uniform law instrument, the Cape Town Convention chooses one rule from among a variety of them where countries’ rules diverge. However, such unification in a traditional sense is rather limited, and the Cape Town Convention in many respects creates a novel set of rules and works as a sort of law reform. Furthermore, the Cape Town Convention, together with its Registry regulations, introduces a mechanism to ensure that the intended goal is achieved. Having reviewed these various aspects of the Cape Town Convention, this chapter concludes by emphasising how innovative the Cape Town Convention is as uniform law instrument.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This was so in the Blue Sky case. See William J Glaister, Robert Murphy, Marisa Chan, Ellie Dunne & Julian Acratopulo, Lex situs after Blue Sky: is the Cape Town Convention the solution?, The Cape Town Convention Journal Issue1, p.3 (2012); Dirk Schmalenbach, Recent Developments in Aircraft Finance with Special Regard to the Cape Town Convention, Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht, 64. Jg, S.270 (2015).
- 2.
Art.2 (2) of the Base Convention.
- 3.
Article 7 of the Base Convention.
- 4.
Article 16 of the Base Convention.
- 5.
Article 17 (1) of the Base Convention.
- 6.
Article 17 (2) (b), (f) of the Base Convention. More details of the appointment of the Registrar is provided in the Protocols. For the Aircraft Protocol, the Registrar’s term of appointment is 5 years (Article XVII (5) of the Aircraft Protocol). The Luxembourg Rail Protocol does not specify the exact term, but provides that the first Registrar shall be appointed for a period of not less than 5 and more than 10 years and that the following terms shall not exceed ten years (Article XII (11) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol). The Space Protocol has no equivalent provision.
- 7.
Art.29 of the Base Convention.
- 8.
Article 60(1) of the Base Convention.
- 9.
Article XIX of the Aircraft Protocol; Article XIII of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; Article XXXI of the Space Protocol.
- 10.
Article 39(1) of the Base Convention.
- 11.
Article 40 of the Base Convention. Further on non-consensual right or interest, John Prichard & David Lloyd, Analysis of Non-Consensual Rights and Interests under Article 39 of the Cape Town Convention, The Cape Town Convention Journal, Issue 2, p.3 (2013).
- 12.
Article 8(2) and Article 10 (b) of the Base Convention.
- 13.
Article IX (3) of the Aircraft Protocol; Article VII (3) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; Article XVII (1) of the Space Protocol. The same phrase is used in Article 8(3) of the Base Convention, but the latter provision is excluded in the abovementioned provisions in the Protocols, to adapt to the wider variety of remedies available under the Protocols.
- 14.
Article 8(1) of the Base Convention.
- 15.
Article 9(1) and (2) of the Base Convention.
- 16.
Compare art.10 with art.8 (6) of the Convention. Sir Roy Goode, Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol Thereto on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment: Official Commentary, Third Edition, para.4.101 (Unidroit, 2013).
- 17.
Article 2(4) of the Base Convention.
- 18.
Article IX (1) of the Aircraft Protocol.
- 19.
Article XIII (2) of the Aircraft Protocol.
- 20.
Article XIII (4) of the Aircraft Protocol.
- 21.
Article VII (1) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol.
- 22.
Article XIX of the Space Protocol. See Chap. 23.
- 23.
MJ Stanford, The availability of a new form of financing for commercial space activities: the extension of the Cape Town Convention to space assets, The Cape Town Convention Journal, Issue1, p.109, at p.121 (2012).
- 24.
Article I (2)(h) of the Space Protocol.
- 25.
Article XII (1) of the Space Protocol.
- 26.
Sir Roy Goode, Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol Thereto on Matters Specific to Space Assets: Official Commentary, para.5.49 (Unidroit 2013).
- 27.
Gilles Cuniberti, Advance relief under the Cape Town Convention, The Cape Town Convention Journal, Issue 1, p.79 (2012).
- 28.
Anna Veneziano, Advance relief under the Cape Town Convention and its Aircraft Protocol: A comment on Gilles Cuniberti’s interpretative proposal, The Cape Town Convention Journal, Issue 2, p.185 (2013). Because the remedies under the Cape Town Convention is the exercise of an international interest (property right or in rem right) and not the enforcement of a claim (right to obligations or in personam right), it is not convincing to regard the reliefs under this provision as a measure to preserve the creditor’s position.
- 29.
Article 13 of the Base Convention.
- 30.
Article X of the Aircraft Protocol; Article VIII of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; Article XX of the Space Protocol.
- 31.
Article 11(1) of the Base Convention.
- 32.
Article 30(1) of the Base Convention.
- 33.
Article XI of the Aircraft Protocol; Article IX of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; Article XXI of the Space Protocol.
- 34.
Alternative A, Article XI (2) and (7) of the Aircraft Protocol; Alternative A, Article IX (3) and (7) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; Alternative A, Article XXI (2) and (8) of the Space Protocol. The Space Protocol entitles the creditor also to private enforcement over the debtor’s rights covered by a rights assignment (Article XXI (3) of the Space Protocol).
- 35.
Alternative A, Article XI (3) of the Aircraft Protocol; Alternative A, Article IX (4) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; Alternative A, Article XXI (4) of the Space Protocol.
- 36.
Alternative B, Article XI (2) and (3) of the Aircraft Protocol; Alternative B, Article IX (3) and (4) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; Alternative B, Article XXI (2) and (3) of the Space Protocol.
- 37.
Alternative C, Article IX (3) and (4) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. See Chap. 22 for the background.
- 38.
Howard Rosen, Martin Fleetwood & Benjamin von Bodungen, The Luxembourg Rail Protocol – Extending Cape Town Benefits to the Rail Industry, [2012] Uniform Law Review p.609, at p.613.
- 39.
Jeffrey Wool, The case for a commercial orientation to the proposed Unidroit Convention as applied to aircraft equipment, [1999] Uniform Law Review p.289.
- 40.
Anthony Saunders, Anand Srinivasan, Ingo Walter & Jeffrey Wool, The Economic Implications of International Secured Transactions Law Reform: A Case Study, The University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 20, p.309, at p. 324 (1999).
- 41.
Michael Downey Rice, Railroad Equipment Financing, Transportation Law Journal, Vol.18, p.85 (1989); For the detailed history of the development of ETCs of railway rolling stock, see Francis Rawle, Car Trust Securities, Annual Report of the American Bar Association, p.277 (1885).
- 42.
Ronald Scheinberg, Enhanced Equipment Trust Certificates in the Downturn: An Assessment for Banks, Banking Law Journal, Vol.121, p.108 (2004).
- 43.
See Gregory Ripple, Note, special Protection in the air[line Industry]: The Historical Development of Section 1110 of the Bankruptcy Code, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol.78, p.281, at pp.287–288 (2002); On the background of the amendments, Max Lowenthal, The Railroad Reorganization Act, Harvard Law Review, Vol.47, p.18 (1933).
- 44.
11 USC §1168.
- 45.
11 USC §1110.
- 46.
Scheinberg, supra note 55, p.114.
- 47.
Ikumi Sato & Yoshinobu Zasu, Beyond Conflict of Interest: Lessons from the Cape Town Convention, Asian Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.1, Issue 1, p.1 (2010).
- 48.
- 49.
Article 3 of the Base Convention.
- 50.
Article IV (1) of the Aircraft Protocol.
- 51.
Article 50 of the Base Convention.
- 52.
Article 1(n) of the Base Convention.
- 53.
Article IV (2) of the Aircraft Protocol.
- 54.
Article I (3) of the Space Protocol.
- 55.
Article XXIX (2) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol.
- 56.
Article I (2) (b), (e) & (l) of the Aircraft Protocol.
- 57.
Howard Rosen, Public Service and the Cape Town Convention, The Cape Town Convention Journal, Issue 2, p.131 (2013).
- 58.
Article XXV (1) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol.
- 59.
Article XXV (3) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol.
- 60.
Rosen, supra note 70, at p.141 (2013). On the German Law in respect of Measures for the Maintenance of the Operation of Railways Providing Public Transportation (Gesetz über Maßnahmen zur Aufrechterhaltung des Betriebs von Bahnunternehmen des öffentlichen Verkehrs), see Benjamin von Bodungen && Konrad Schott, The Public Service Exemption under the Luxembourg Rail Protocol: a German Perspective, [2007] Uniform Law Review p.573.
- 61.
Howard Rosen, The Luxembourg Rail Protocol: a Major Advance for the Railway Industry, [2007] Uniform Law Review p.427, at pp.439–440.
- 62.
Article XXVII (1) of the Space Protocol.
- 63.
Article XXVII (3) & (9) of the Space Protocol.
- 64.
See the duty to “co-operate in good faith with a view to finding a commercially reasonable solution permitting the continuation of the public service” in Article XXVII (7) (a) of the Space Protocol.
- 65.
Goode, Official Commentary on Space Protocol, supra note 39, para.5.105.
- 66.
Examples are the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to the Bills of Lading, 1924 (the so-called Hague Rules) and the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (the Warsaw Convention), 1929.
- 67.
Article 5(2) of the Base Convention.
- 68.
Though not likely to be relevant in practice, the Cape Town Convention also covers pledges, under which the creditor possesses the secured object. Goode, supra note 29, para 2.37.
- 69.
- 70.
Article 16(2) of the Base Convention.
- 71.
See Chap. 20.
- 72.
See Chap. 17.
- 73.
Benjamin von Bodungen, Mobiliarsicherungsrechte an Luftfahrzeugen und Eisenbahnrollmaterial im nationalen und internationalen Rechtsverkehr, S.173 ff (Lit Verlag, 2009).
- 74.
Recueil officiel du droit fédéral 2009 pp. 5622 et 5628.
- 75.
- 76.
Souichirou Kozuka & Fuki Taniguchi, An Economic Assessment of the Space Protocol to the Cape Town Convention, [2012] Uniform Law Review p.927.
- 77.
- 78.
See Chap. 17.
- 79.
Article 2(4) of the Base Convention.
- 80.
See Chap. 4.
- 81.
See Chap. 3.
- 82.
See Chap. 11.
- 83.
See Chap. 20.
- 84.
See Chap. 3.
- 85.
- 86.
See Chap. 18.
- 87.
- 88.
See Chap. 13.
- 89.
See Chap. 14.
- 90.
See Chap. 10.
- 91.
See Chap. 3.
- 92.
See Chap. 4.
- 93.
See Chap. 16.
- 94.
- 95.
See Chap. 18.
- 96.
See Chap. 13.
- 97.
See Chap. 11.
- 98.
See Chap. 4.
- 99.
See Chap. 16.
- 100.
See Chap. 7.
- 101.
See Chap. 18.
- 102.
- 103.
See Chap. 9.
- 104.
- 105.
See Chap. 11.
- 106.
See Chap. 18.
- 107.
See Chap. 3.
- 108.
See Chap. 4.
- 109.
See Chap. 6.
- 110.
In Malaysia, the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft) Act 2006 (Act 659), which implements the Convention and Aircraft Protocol in Malaysia, explicitly excludes the application of the debtor-based registration of a charge under subsection 108 (3) of the Companies Act 1965 (Act 125).
- 111.
- 112.
See Chap. 10.
- 113.
- 114.
See Chap. 11.
- 115.
See Chap. 12.
- 116.
See Chap. 20.
- 117.
See Chap. 16.
- 118.
See Chap. 15.
- 119.
It is possible that the domestic registry remains valid with regard to internal transactions. For this, however, it will be necessary for the Contracting State to make a declaration under Article 50 of the Base Convention. In Malaysia, the Regulations based on the Civil Aviation Act 1969 have not been abolished when it became a Party to the Base Convention and Aircraft Protocol. As Malaysia has not made a declaration to opt in to the exclusion of internal transactions, the usefulness of the retained domestic registry for internal transactions is doubted. See Chap. 6.
- 120.
See Chap. 21.
- 121.
Maria Buzdugan, Satellite Financing through Hosted Payloads: Benefits and Challenges, Air and Space Law, Vol.36, p.139 (2011).
- 122.
Article I (2) (c) of the Aircraft Protocol.
- 123.
Article XIV (3) of the Aircraft Protocol.
- 124.
Article I (ii) (k) of the Space Protocol.
- 125.
Article III (b) of the Space Protocol.
- 126.
- 127.
See Chap. 4. It notes that the “creditor-friendly approach” of English insolvency law was well recognised by rating agencies in enabling the British Airways to place Enhanced Equipment Trust Certificates (EETC) in the US market even before becoming a Party to the Cape Town Convention.
- 128.
See Chap. 19.
- 129.
11 USC §362.
- 130.
See 11 USC §1123 (a)(3).
- 131.
See Chap. 17.
- 132.
- 133.
- 134.
See Chap. 19.
- 135.
See Chap. 15.
- 136.
Article XXX (3) of the Aircraft Protocol; Article XXVII (3) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; Article XLI of the Space Protocol.
- 137.
R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3.
- 138.
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36.
- 139.
R.S.C., 1985, c. W-11.
- 140.
See Chap. 3.
- 141.
See Chap. 6.
- 142.
See Article 48 of the Base Convention; Article XXVII of the Aircraft Protocol; Article XXII of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol.
- 143.
Cf. Article 4 of the Appendix 2 to the ASU.
- 144.
For distinction between eliminating the differences and introducing a better law, see Souichirou Kozuka, The Economic Implications of Uniformity in Law, in: Jürgen Basedow & Toshiyuki Kono (eds.), An Economic Analysis of Private International Law, p.73 (Mohr Siebeck, 2006), reprinted in: [2007] Uniform Law Review p.683.
- 145.
William L. Cary, Federalism and Corporate Law: Reflections Upon Delaware, Yale Law Journal, Vol.83, p.663 (1974).
- 146.
Roberta Romano, The Genius of American Corporate Law (The AEI Press, 1993).
- 147.
Henry Hansmann and Reinier Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, Georgetown Law Journal Vol.89, p.439, at p.454 (2001).
- 148.
Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, Legal Determinants of External Finance, Journal of Finance, Vol.52, p.1131 (1997); Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, Law and Finance, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.106, p.40 (1998); Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, Investor Protection and Corporate Valuation, Journal of Finance, Vol.42, p.1147 (2002).
- 149.
See for example, Holger Spamann, The “Antidirector Rights Index” Revisited, Review of Financial Studies, Vol.23, p.467 (2010).
- 150.
Saunders, Srinivasan, Walter & Wool, supra note 53.
- 151.
- 152.
See Chap. 16.
- 153.
See Souichirou Kozuka, The Bifurcated World of Uniform Law: uniform law of “islands” and of “the ocean”, in: Eppur si mouve: The age of Uniform Law (2016).
- 154.
Ludwig Weber, Public and private features of the Cape Town Convention, The Cape Town Convention Journal, Vol.4, p.53 (2015).
- 155.
Rob Cowan and Donal Gallagher, The International Registry for Aircraft Equipment – The First Seven Years, What We Have Learned, Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal, Vol.45, p.225 (2014).
- 156.
William B. Piels & Tan Siew Huay, Generation II Of The International Registry Website – The Closing Room: A Transactional Approach to Registries, The Cape Town Convention Journal, Issue 2, p.165 (2013); Cowan and Gallagher, supra note 168, p.243.
- 157.
By borrowing the example in Cowan and Gallagher, supra note 168, if an aircraft is sold, financed by a senior lender and a junior lender, and leased to an airline, there will be five parties (seller, buyer (lessor), bank 1, bank 2, airline (lessee)) and five registrations to be made (sale, loan 1, loan 2, lease and assignment of lease).
- 158.
Piels and Tan, supra note 169, p.175; Cowan and Gallagher, supra note 168, p.243.
- 159.
See Chap. 11.
- 160.
Article 17 (2) (d) of the Base Convention. See also Article XVIII of the Aircraft Protocol and Article XXIX of the Space Protocol.
- 161.
Article XVII (1) of the Aircraft Protocol and the Resolution No.2 of the Diplomatic Conference.
- 162.
Article XII (1) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. OTIF serves as its secretariat (Article XII (6) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol).
- 163.
Article XXVIII (1) of the Space Protocol; Resolution No.1.
- 164.
Article XVII (4) of the Aircraft Protocol; Article XII (5) of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; Article XXVIII (3) of the Space Protocol.
- 165.
The most updated version is of 1 February 2016, TAD/PG(2016)1 (hereinafter “ASU 2016”).
- 166.
ASU 2016, Article 1.a).
- 167.
Articles 37 and 38 of the Appendix II to the ASU 2016.
- 168.
Article 39 of the Appendix II to the ASU 2016.
- 169.
Annex 1 of the Appendix II to the ASU 2016. For (e), the time period shall be not more than ten calendar days for (i) preservation of the aircraft objects and their value, (ii) possession, control or custody of the aircraft objects, and (iii) immobilisation of the aircraft objects, and not more 30 calendar days for (iv) lease or management of the aircraft objects and the income thereof and (v) sale and application of proceeds from the aircraft equipment.
- 170.
- 171.
- 172.
Article 44 of the Appendix II to the ASU 2016.
- 173.
Charles W. Mooney, Jr., The Cape Town Convention’s Improbable-but-Possible Progeny Part Two: Bilateral Investment Treaty-Like Enforcement Mechanism, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol.55, p.451 (2015).
- 174.
Gerard McCormack, Secured Credit and the Harmonisation of Law: The UNCITRAL Experience, p.17 (Edward Elgar, 2011).
- 175.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Model Law on Secured Transactions, 1994; Organization for American States, Model Inter-American Law on Secured Transactions, 2002.
References
Buzdugan, Maria. 2011. Satellite financing through hosted payloads: Benefits and challenges. Air and Space Law 36: 139.
Cary, William L. 1974. Federalism and corporate Law: Reflections upon Delaware. Yale Law Journal 83: 663.
Cowan, Rob, and Donal Gallagher. 2014. The international registry for aircraft equipment – the first seven years, what We have learned. Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal 45: 225.
Cuniberti, Gilles. 2012. Advance relief under the Cape Town convention. The Cape Town Convention Journal 2012(1): 79–94.
Rice, Michael Downey. 1989. Railroad equipment financing. Transportation Law Journal 18: 85.
Glaister, William J., Robert Murphy, Marisa Chan, Ellie Dunne, and Julian Acratopulo. 2012. Lex situs after blue Sky: Is the Cape Town convention the solution? The Cape Town Convention Journal 2012(1): 3–23.
Goode, Roy. 2013. Convention on international interests in mobile equipment and protocol thereto on matters specific to aircraft equipment: Official commentary, 3rd ed, para.4.101. Rome: UNIDROIT.
Goode, Roy. 2013. Convention on international interests in mobile equipment and protocol thereto on matters specific to space assets: Official commentary, para.5.49. Rome: UNIDROIT.
Hansmann, Henry, and Reinier Kraakman. 2001. The end of history for corporate law. Georgetown Law Journal 89: 439, at p.454.
Kozuka, Souichirou. 2006. The economic implications of uniformity in law. In An economic analysis of private international law, ed, Jürgen Basedow and Toshiyuki Kono, 73 (Mohr Siebeck) (reprinted in: [2007] Uniform Law Review, 683).
Kozuka, Souichirou. 2016. The bifurcated world of uniform law: Uniform law of “islands” and of “the ocean”. In Eppur si muove: The age of uniform law – Festschrift for Michael Joachim Bonell to celebrate his 70th birthday, ed. UNIDROIT, Rome: UNIDROIT.
Kozuka, Souichirou, and Fuki Taniguchi. 2012. An economic assessment of the space protocol to the Cape Town convention, [2012]. Uniform Law Review 16(4): 927–941.
La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny. 1997. Legal determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance 52: 1131.
La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny. 1998. Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy 106: 40.
La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny. 2002. Investor protection and corporate valuation. Journal of Finance 42: 1147.
Lowenthal, Max. 1933. The railroad reorganization act. Harvard Law Review 47: 18.
McCormack, Gerard. 2011. Secured credit and the harmonisation of law: The UNCITRAL experience. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Mooney, Jr, and W. Charles. 2015. The Cape Town convention’s improbable-but-possible progeny part two: Bilateral investment treaty-like enforcement mechanism. Virginia Journal of International Law 55: 451.
Piels, William B., and Tan Siew Huay. 2013. Generation II of the international registry website – the closing room: A transactional approach to registries. The Cape Town Convention Journal, (2): 165.
Prichard, John, and David Lloyd. 2013. Analysis of non-consensual rights and interests under article 39 of the Cape Town convention. The Cape Town Convention Journal 2: 3.
Rawle, Francis. 1885. Car trust securities. Annual Report of the American Bar Association, 277.
Ripple, Gregory. 2002. Note, special protection in the air[line industry]: The historical development of section 1110 of the bankruptcy code. Notre Dame Law Review 78: 281.
Romano, Roberta. 1993. The genius of American corporate law. Washington, DC: The AEI Press.
Rosen, Howard. 2007. The Luxembourg rail protocol: A major advance for the railway industry, [2007]. Uniform Law Review 12: 427.
Rosen, Howard. 2013. Public service and the Cape Town convention. The Cape Town Convention Journal 2: 131.
Rosen, Howard, Martin Fleetwood, and Benjamin von Bodungen. 2012. The Luxembourg rail protocol – extending Cape Town benefits to the rail industry, [2012]. Uniform Law Review 17: 609.
Sato, Ikumi and Yoshinobu Zasu. 2010. Beyond conflict of interest: Lessons from the Cape Town convention. Asian Journal of Law and Economics 1(1): 1.
Saunders, Anthony, Anand Srinivasan, Ingo Walter, and Jeffrey Wool. 1999. The economic implications of international secured transactions law reform: A case study. The University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 20: 309.
Scheinberg, Ronald. 2004. Enhanced equipment trust certificates in the downturn: An assessment for banks. Banking Law Journal 121: 108.
Schmalenbach, Dirk. 2015. Recent developments in Aircraft Finance with special regard to the Cape Town convention. Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht, 64. Jg, S.270.
Spamann, Holger. 2010. The “antidirector rights index” revisited. Review of Financial Studies 23: 467.
Stanford, M.J. 2012. The availability of a new form of financing for commercial space activities: the extension of the Cape Town convention to space assets. The Cape Town Convention Journal 2012(1): 109.
Veneziano, Anna. 2013. Advance relief under the Cape Town convention and its aircraft protocol: A comment on Gilles Cuniberti’s interpretative proposal. The Cape Town Convention Journal, Issue (2): 185
Von Bodungen, Benjamin, and Konrad Schott. 2007. The public service exemption under the Luxembourg Rail protocol: A German perspective, [2007] Uniform Law Review, 12(3): 573.
Von Bodungen, Benjamin. 2009. Mobiliarsicherungsrechte an Luftfahrzeugen und Eisenbahnrollmaterial im nationalen und internationalen Rechtsverkehr (Lit Verlag).
Weber, Ludwig. 2015. Public and private features of the Cape Town convention. The Cape Town Convention Journal 4: 53.
Wool, Jeffrey. 1999. The case for a commercial orientation to the proposed Unidroit convention as applied to aircraft equipment, [1999]. Uniform Law Review 4: 289–302.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the informative and insightful analysis of each chapter’s contributors. The remaining errors are all attributable to the author. This work is a product supported by the Grant-in-aid of the Japan Society for Promotion of Research (JSPS grant no.15H01917).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kozuka, S. (2017). The Cape Town Convention and Its Implementation in Domestic Law: Between Tradition and Innovation. In: Kozuka, S. (eds) Implementing the Cape Town Convention and the Domestic Laws on Secured Transactions. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46470-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46470-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46468-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46470-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)