```

[Senate Treaty Document 107-14]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                              Treaty Doc.
                                 SENATE                     
 2d Session                                                   107-14
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

 
  PROTOCOL TO AMEND THE CONVENTION FOR UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES 
               RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE BY AIR

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

PROTOCOL TO AMEND THE CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES 
  RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE BY AIR SIGNED AT WARSAW ON OCTOBER 
  12, 1929, DONE AT THE HAGUE, SEPTEMBER 28, 1955 (THE HAGUE PROTOCOL)

July 31, 2002.--The Protocol was read the first time, and together with 
  the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
  and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-118                    WASHINGTON : 2002

                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                    The White House, July 31, 2002.
To the Senate of the United States:
    I transmit herewith, for Senate advice and consent to 
ratification, the Protocol to Amend the Convention for the 
Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage 
by Air Signed at Warsaw on October 12, 1929, done at The Hague 
September 28, 1955 (The Hague Protocol). The report of the 
Department of State, including an article-by-article analysis, 
is enclosed for the information of the Senate in connection 
with its consideration of The Hague Protocol.
    The Warsaw Convention is the first in a series of treaties 
relating to international carriage by air. The Hague Protocol 
amended certain of the Warsaw Convention articles, including 
several affecting the rights of carriers of international air 
cargo. A recent court decision held that since the United 
States had ratified the Warsaw Convention but had not ratified 
The Hague Protocol, and the Republic of Korea had ratified The 
Hague Protocol but had not ratified the Warsaw Convention, 
there were no relevant treaty relations between the United 
States and Korea. This decision has created uncertainty within 
the air transportation industry regarding the scope of treaty 
relations between the United States and the 78 countries that 
are parties only to the Warsaw Convention and The Hague 
Protocol. Thus, U.S. carriers may not be able to rely on the 
provisions in the Protocol with respect to claims arising from 
the transportation or air cargo between the United States and 
those 78 countries. In addition to quickly affording U.S. 
carriers the protections of those provisions, ratification of 
the Protocol would establish relations with Korea and the five 
additional countries (El Salvador, Grenada, Lithuania, Monaco, 
and Swaziland) that are parties only to The Hague Protocol and 
to no other treaty on the subject.
    A new Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for 
International Carriage by Air, done at Montreal May 28, 1999 
(the ``Montreal Convention'') is pending on the Senate's 
Executive calendar (Treaty Doc. 106-45). I urge the Senate to 
give its advice and consent to that Convention, which will 
ultimately establish modern, uniform liability rules applicable 
to international air transport of passengers, cargo, and mail 
among its parties. But the incremental pace of achieving 
widespread adoption of the Montreal Convention should not be 
allowed to delay the benefits that ratification of The Hague 
Protocol would afford U.S. carriers of cargo to and from the 84 
countries with which it would promptly enter into force.
    I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable 
consideration to The Hague Protocol and that the Senate give 
its advice and consent to ratification.

                                                    George W. Bush.
                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                    The Secretary of State,
                                         Washington, June 15, 2002.
The President.
    I have the honor to submit to you the Protocol to Amend the 
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to 
International Carriage by Air Signed at Warsaw on October 12, 
1929, done at The Hague September 28, 1955 (``The Hague 
Protocol'' or ``the Protocol''). The Protocol was signed on 
behalf of the United States on June 28, 1956 and was submitted 
to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in 
1959. It was returned to the President in 1967. The 
circumstances that precluded ratification and led to the return 
of the Protocol in 1967 have fundamentally changed, and I now 
recommend that it be re-transmitted to the Senate for its 
advice and consent to ratification.

                               BACKGROUND

Overview
    The 1929 Warsaw Convention has been the subject of several 
amendments and unsuccessful attempts at amendments over the 
years. In 1955, The Hague Protocol, which doubled the passenger 
liability limits and simplified cargo documentation 
requirements, was adopted and was later ratified by most 
countries, but not by the United States. In 1971, the Guatemala 
Protocol again sought to raise the passenger limits, but was 
ratified by very few States and never entered into force. In 
1975, the so-called Montreal Protocols (Nos. 1-4) were adopted. 
Of these four protocols, the United States is a party only to 
Montreal Protocol No. 4, which amended the Warsaw Convention as 
amended by The Hague Protocol, modifying the cargo provisions 
of that instrument without altering the passenger provisions. 
In 1999, a new Convention was adopted to eliminate in their 
entirety the passenger liability limits and modernize the other 
provisions of the Warsaw Convention and The Hague Protocol. The 
1999 Convention is intended ultimately to replace the Warsaw 
Convention and its various amendments. The United States signed 
the 1999 Montreal Convention, and it was submitted for Senate 
advice and consent to ratification in September 2000.
            1. The Warsaw Convention and The Hague Protocol
    The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules 
Relating to International Carriage by Air, done at Warsaw 
October 12, 1929 (the ``Warsaw Convention''), provided 
limitations on liability and uniform liability rules applicable 
to international air transport of passengers, cargo and mail. 
The Warsaw Convention was widely adopted, and the United States 
has been a party since 1934. The Convention contained a very 
low limit on the liability of carriers (approximately $8,300 
per passenger at that time) for death or injury to passengers 
in international air carrier accidents where the harm was not 
due to the carrier's willful misconduct. Efforts to increase 
this limit in the early 1950s led to The Hague Protocol, which 
doubled the passenger liability limit and made other technical 
improvements to the Convention, most notably in the area of 
cargo documentation.
    President Eisenhower submitted The Hague Protocol to the 
Senate for its advice and consent to ratification on July 24, 
1959. Because of concerns regarding the inadequacy of the new 
limit on passenger recoveries, the Administration sought 
enactment of a form of accident insurance legislation in 
conjunction with ratification of the Protocol. The proposed 
legislation would have required U.S. carriers to carry 
supplemental accident insurance policies for each passenger in 
international air travel to or from the United States covered 
by the Warsaw Convention. It fixed various levels of 
compensation based upon the type of injury sustained by the 
passenger, up to $50,000. The insurance legislation package 
failed, and The Hague Protocol was eventually returned to the 
President in 1967.
            2. The Montreal Inter-carrier Agreement (1966)
    The failure of the insurance legislation package, coupled 
with increasing dissatisfaction with the liability limits in 
the Warsaw Convention, led the United States to submit a notice 
of denunciation of the Warsaw Convention in November, 1965. In 
1966, the United States withdrew this notice of denunciation 
before it went into effect, in consideration of a private 
voluntary agreement, negotiated under the auspices of the 
International Air Transport Association (IATA), which was 
signed by all major foreign and U.S. carriers serving the 
United States (the ``Montreal Inter-carrier Agreement''). the 
Montreal Inter-carrier Agreement ensured that accident victims 
on flights to or from the United States are compensated for up 
to $75,000 of proven damages, whether or not the negligence of 
the carrier was the cause of the accident. In time, all foreign 
carriers operating services to or from the United States 
accepted the terms of the Montreal Inter-carrier Agreement, and 
in 1983 the Civil Aeronautics Board adopted regulations 
mandating participation (14 C.F.R. Part 203).
            3. The 1975 Montreal Protocols
    Although further diplomatic efforts were made to improve 
the Warsaw Convention during the 1960s and 1970s, continuing 
concerns regarding low passenger liability limits in part 
prevented the United States from adopting new amendments to the 
Convention. (See Message from the President of the United 
States Transmitting the Convention for the Unification of 
Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, done at 
Montreal, May 28, 1999, Treaty Doc. 106-45, 106th Cong., 2nd 
Session, for more information regarding these diplomatic 
efforts and the development of the Warsaw Convention system.) 
In particular, four protocols were negotiated at the 1975 
diplomatic conference in Montreal. The first three of these 
protocols replaced the gold standard with the currency 
conversion formula based on ``Special Drawing Rights'' 
(hereinafter referred to as ``SDRs'', an artificial ``basket'' 
currency developed by the International Monetary Fund for 
internal accounting purposes) for purposes of calculating all 
quantitative limitations on liability under the Warsaw 
Convention, The Hague Protocol, and a 1971 protocol to the 
Convention negotiated at Guatemala to which the United States 
did not become a party. (As of 1975, only two States had 
ratified the Guatemala Protocol.) The fourth protocol, the 
Protocol to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain 
Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, as amended by 
The Hague Protocol, done at Montreal September 25, 1975 
(``Montreal Protocol No. 4''), among other things eliminated 
the outmoded cargo documentation provisions of the Warsaw 
Convention, thereby facilitating the application of electronic 
commerce to international air cargo. Although the United States 
signed Montreal Protocol No. 4, efforts to achieve Senate 
advice and consent to ratification of this protocol in the 
1980s and early 1990s, in conjunction with one of the other 
protocols negotiated at Montreal that applied to passengers and 
adopted the SDR standard, were unsuccessful due in large part 
to concerns about the limits on passenger recoveries from the 
Guatemala Protocol that had been incorporated into the other 
protocol.
            4. The IATA and ATA Inter-carrier Agreements (1997)
    Recognizing the inadequacy of existing liability limits, 
air carriers reached agreement in 1996 on three inter-carrier 
agreements. In February 1997, the Department of Transportation 
approved two IATA and one Air Transport Association (``ATA'') 
agreements, all of which, at a minimum, waived the Warsaw 
Convention liability limits in their entirety for participating 
carriers, in effect superseding the 1996 Montreal Inter-carrier 
Agreement by which carriers had earlier waived the limits on 
liability up to $75,000 per passenger.
    As of March 6, 2002, 123 international carriers, 
representing more than ninety percent of the world's air 
transport industry, had signed the IATA Inter-carrier Agreement 
on Passenger Liability (``IIA''), which waives the Warsaw 
liability limits. Most of the carriers signing the IIA also 
signed the second IATA agreement, which requires carriers to 
pay up to 100,000 SDRs (approximately $135,000) to accident 
victims, regardless of carrier negligence. Consequently, any 
accident victim having a claim against a carrier that was party 
to this second IATA agreement would have an absolute right to 
recover up to 100,000 SDRs of proven damages. The ATA 
agreement, signed only by U.S. carriers, describes the manner 
in which carriers agree to implement the two IATA agreements. 
In addition to waiving the Warsaw liability limit for passenger 
injuries and accepting 100,000 SDRs of strict liability, 
airlines signatory to the ATA agreement also agree, subject to 
applicable law, that compensation for passenger injuries may be 
determined by reference to the law of the domicile or permanent 
residence of the passenger.
            5. Montreal Protocol No. 4 and Cargo Operations
    In the wake of the IATA and ATA Inter-carrier Agreements, 
the passenger liability limitations contained in the Warsaw 
Convention and the The Hague Protocol, although objectionable 
in principle to the United States, were no longer a significant 
obstacle because they were, as a practical matter, superseded 
in most cases by the IATA and ATA Inter-carrier Agreements, by 
which most major international scheduled carriers had waived 
those limits. The United States was thus in a position to 
modernize the rules relating to the air cargo industry. With 
the advice and consent of the Senate, the United States 
ratified Montreal Protocol No. 4 on December 4, 1998; it 
entered into force for the United States on March 4, 1999. 
Among other things, this Protocol eliminated requirements for 
paper-based transactions, including the requirement to complete 
detailed air waybills.
            6. The 1999 Montreal Convention
    The IIA and Montreal Protocol No. 4 together represented a 
reasonable interim fix, but not a long-term solution, to the 
problem of creating a modernized uniform liability regime for 
international air transportation. At present, carriers are 
subject to vastly different liability regimes, depending upon 
the treaties to which their governments are parties and the 
private inter-carrier agreements that they have signed. Work on 
a modernized convention to replace the fragmented Warsaw 
Convention system was completed at the May 1999 International 
Conference on Air Law in Montreal at which the Convention for 
the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by 
Air, done at Montreal May 28, 1999 (the ``1999 Montreal 
Convention''), was negotiated and opened for signature. The 
United States immediately signed the 1999 Montreal Convention. 
The President transmitted it to the Senate for advice and 
consent to ratification (Treaty Doc. 106-45) on September 6, 
2000. This Convention was a success with respect to all key 
U.S. policy objectives, and once in force and widely ratified, 
will replace the Warsaw Convention and its patchwork of 
liability regimes, including the need for private voluntary 
agreements.
            7. Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Asiana Airlines
    A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit in the case of Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Asiana 
Airlines (214 F.3d 301 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 
2459 (2001)) has highlighted the fragmentation of the Warsaw 
Convention system and raised uncertainties regarding the 
liability regime that applies to U.S. carriers in certain 
situations. The question presented in that case was whether the 
United States, a party to the Warsaw Convention but not the The 
Hague Protocol or to Montreal Protocol No. 4 at the time the 
dispute arose, had treaty relations with the Republic of Korea, 
a party only to The Hague Protocol. The court held that the 
United States did not have treaty relations with Korea under 
either The Hague Protocol or the Warsaw Convention, finding 
that Korea's adherence to The Hague Protocol did not make Korea 
a party to the unamended Warsaw Convention, to which the United 
States was a party.
    Although the Chubb decision did not address the 1999 entry 
into force of Montreal Protocol No. 4 for the United States, it 
focused industry attention on the difficult question of whether 
the United States, by reason of its adherence to Montreal 
Protocol No. 4 became a party to The Hague Protocol and 
therefore entered into treaty relations under The Hague 
Protocol with other countries party to that instrument (but not 
to Montreal Protocol No. 4). U.S. carriers seek certainty 
regarding the applicability of the Warsaw Convention system in 
such situations.
    If Montreal Protocol No. 4 does not create treaty relations 
under The Hague Protocol, the United States' treaty relations 
with the 78 countries that are parties to both the Warsaw 
Convention and The Hague Protocol, but not to Montreal Protocol 
No. 4, would be based on the Warsaw Convention unamended by any 
later protocol. Further, under these circumstances, the United 
States would have no treaty relations under the Warsaw 
Convention system with Korea and the five other countries which 
are parties only to The Hague Protocol (El Salvador, Grenada, 
Lithuania, Monaco, and Swaziland).
    The Warsaw Convention or 1929 contains antiquated rules in 
the area of cargo documentation. Modern air cargo operations 
bear no resemblance to those of 1929. The cumbersome rules of 
the Warsaw Convention require much specific information on the 
air waybill that has no commercial significance today and is 
irrelevant to modern shippers. The requirements for such 
extensive documentation:
          --Make international air cargo transactions time 
        consuming and inefficient, and drive up their costs;
          --Inhibit the free flow of international air 
        commerce; and
          --Serve as a barrier to use of electronic information 
        exchanges.
    Under the Warsaw Convention, U.S. cargo carriers must 
comply with commercially unnecessary and outmoded documentation 
rules or risk non-application by courts of the liability limits 
for cargo established in the Convention.
    Ratification of The Hague Protocol would resolve this 
problem, ensuring U.S. carriers the benefits of The Hague 
Protocol's more modern rules relating to documentation, which 
are critical to the efficient movement of air cargo. It would 
also provide a clear basis for courts in determining the 
existence of treaty relations between the United States and 
foreign countries. Ratification of The Hague Protocol will 
secure for the United States the application of The Hague 
Protocol's more modern rules in relations with the 84 countries 
party to that instrument (but not to Montreal Protocol No. 4), 
pending the entry into force and widespread ratification of the 
1999 Montreal Convention, which is currently awaiting Senate 
advice and consent.
    Upon its entry into force, where applicable, the 1999 
Montreal Convention will supersede the Warsaw Convention and 
all of its protocols, and as a practical matter the voluntary 
inter-carrier agreements, and will establish modern, uniform 
liability rules applicable to international air transport of 
passengers, cargo and mail. That Convention will enter into 
force when thirty states have consented to be bound by it. As 
of May 24, 2002, 18 states had deposited with ICAO, the 
depositary for the Convention, instruments indicating their 
consent to be bound.

                              THE PROTOCOL

    The primary focus of The Hague Protocol at the time it was 
negotiated was the doubling of the passenger liability limit to 
approximately $16,600. However, the 1966 Montreal Inter-carrier 
Agreement and later the IATA and ATA Inter-carrier Agreements, 
by which signatory carriers voluntarily waived such limits, 
have, as a practical matter in most cases, superseded this 
meager recovery limit. The Hague Protocol improved upon the 
1929 Warsaw Convention in several other ways. The principal 
changes to the Warsaw Convention, many of which were later 
incorporated into Montreal Protocol No. 4, to which the United 
States became a party on March 4, 1999, are discussed below. A 
more detailed review of the provisions of The Hague Protocol 
follows.
    Court Costs. Although the new liability limit for passenger 
death or injury included in The Hague Protocol is not 
applicable in light of the later inter-carrier agreements, a 
useful related provision of that article (22(4)) adds language 
to the Warsaw Convention permitting courts to award to the 
claimant, in accordance with domestic law, added amounts for 
court costs and other litigation expenses, including attorney's 
fees, with the proviso that such recovery will not apply where 
the amount of the damages awarded, excluding court costs, does 
not exceed any prompt settlement offer made by the carrier.
    Documentation. The Hague Protocol streamlines the 
cumbersome documentation requirements of the Warsaw Convention, 
particularly in the area of cargo transportation. Article 8 of 
the Warsaw Convention requires that 17 separate categories of 
information be included on cargo air waybills. Since much of 
this information has no commercial significance, modern air 
waybill forms in use worldwide do not require this information. 
The Hague Protocol significantly reduces the information 
required to be included in air waybills to those categories 
related to the application of the Convention. Moreover, the 
Warsaw Convention provides that non-compliance with any of 
several of these documentation requirements would prohibit the 
carrier from enforcing the liability limits of the Convention. 
In contrast, The Hague Protocol provides that, with respect to 
cargo documentation requirements, only the failure to make out 
an air waybill prior to loading the cargo on board the 
aircraft, or to give notice as to the liability limitations, 
would preclude the application of carrier liability limits.
    Willful Misconduct. The Warsaw Convention was written in 
French, with no authentic English text. Article 25 of the 
Warsaw Convention, as translated from the original French text 
in the United States, provided that a carrier's liability will 
not be limited when injury or death is caused by the ``willful 
misconduct'' of the carrier or its agent. However, other 
countries adopted different translations of this term that led 
to disparate interpretations, and, as a consequence, led to 
confusion among lawyers and judges attempting to apply the 
Warsaw Convention. The Hague Protocol replaced the legal 
standard with a description of the conduct itself that a jury 
would be able to understand. The Protocol revises the provision 
to make the carrier's liability without limit when damage 
results from an act or omission of the carrier or its agent 
``done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with 
knowledge that damage would probably result.'' This standard, 
similar in all substantive respects to the charge to the jury 
by a New York trial court in a well-known case (Froman v. Pan 
American Airways, Supreme Court of New York County, March 9, 
1953), is recognized as the common law definition of willful 
misconduct and was not intended to modify the scope of the 
standard.

Article by Article Analysis

    Articles I and II of The Hague Protocol amend the Warsaw 
Convention by making minor wording changes, without changing 
the scope of the Warsaw Convention's application.
    Articles III through IX of The Hague Protocol address the 
documentation requirements for international air carriage of 
passengers, baggage and cargo, significantly streamlining the 
burdensome requirements of the Warsaw Convention. Article VI of 
The Hague Protocol narrows the information required to be 
included in cargo air waybills to include: the places of 
departure and destination; if the place of departure and 
destination are within the territory of the same Party with one 
or more agreed stopping places in the territory of another 
State, at least one such stopping place; and notice that if the 
transportation involves an ultimate destination or stop in a 
country other than the country of departure, the Warsaw 
Convention may apply and in most cases limits the liability of 
carriers. Articles III and IV of The Hague Protocol make 
similar amendments to the documentation requirements for 
passenger tickets and baggage checks, respectively.
    Article V and Articles VII through IX of the Protocol 
modify the cargo documentation requirements of the Warsaw 
Convention in other ways. For example, Article V requires that 
carriers sign air waybills prior to the loading of the cargo on 
board the aircraft, rather than upon acceptance of the cargo, 
as originally required by the Warsaw Convention. This new 
language comports with the modern practice of cargo carriage, 
including express delivery service. Article VII reduces the 
circumstances under which non-compliance with documentation 
requirements would preclude the application of carrier 
liability limits to cases in which, with the consent of the 
carrier, cargo is loaded on board the aircraft without an air 
waybill having been made out, or where the air waybill omits 
notice of the possible application of the Warsaw Convention, 
including potential limits on carrier liability.
    Articles X through XV of The Hague Protocol address the 
liability of carriers. The Hague Protocol does not amend 
Articles 17, 18 or 19 of the Warsaw Convention, which define 
the conditions required for carrier liability for harm to 
passengers, baggage and cargo, as well as damage occasioned by 
delay in the transportation of passengers, baggage or cargo. 
Article X of The Hague Protocol, like Montreal Protocol No. 4, 
deletes Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Warsaw Convention, which 
excludes carriers from liability for damage to baggage or cargo 
if they prove that the damage was caused by an error in 
piloting, in the handling of the aircraft, or in navigation and 
that, in all other respects, the carrier and its agents had 
taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage.
    Article XI of the Protocol amends Article 22 of the Warsaw 
Convention by doubling the limit on carrier liability for death 
or injury to passengers. This limit was in effect superseded by 
the 1966 Montreal Inter-carrier Agreement and the later IATA 
and ATA Inter-carrier Agreements, by which the signatory 
carriers voluntarily waived such limits. Article XI also adds a 
provision stating that the weight to be used in calculating the 
liability limit for loss, damage or delay of part of checked 
baggage or cargo is the total weight of the package or packages 
concerned, except that when the loss, damage or delay affects 
the value of other packages covered by the same baggage check 
or air waybill, the total weight of the affected package or 
packages will also be considered.
    Finally, Article XI adds a new paragraph 4 permitting 
courts to award, in accordance with their own law, all or part 
of the court costs and other litigation expenses, including 
attorney's fees, incurred by the plaintiff, with the proviso 
that damages awarded, excluding court costs and litigation 
expenses, not exceed the amount of any settlement offer made in 
writing by the carrier within six months of the occurrence 
causing the damage or before the commencement of the action, 
whichever is later.
    Article XII of The Hague Protocol adds a new paragraph to 
Article 23 of the Convention. Article 23 prohibits carriers 
from contracting to reduce their liability under the 
Convention. The new paragraph 2, however, permits carriers to 
enter into such agreements regarding loss or damage resulting 
from the inherent defect, quality or vice of cargo.
    Article XIII of the Protocol replaces the term ``willful 
misconduct'' with a description of the conduct itself, 
providing that the limits on carriers' liability will not apply 
``if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or 
omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with 
intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that 
damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of 
such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved 
that he was acting within the scope of his employment.''
    Article XIV of The Hague Protocol adds a new Article 25A to 
the Convention regarding claims against servants and agents. 
Paragraph 1 of the Article clarifies that servants or agents 
may avail themselves of the same liability limitations to which 
the carrier is entitled under the Convention, if they prove 
that they were acting within the scope of their employment. 
Paragraph 2 clarifies that the Convention's limits apply to the 
aggregate of recoveries against the carrier and its servants 
and agents. Paragraph 3 applies the willful misconduct 
exception to the Convention's limits of liability with respect 
to servants and agents and in the aggregation of claims. (The 
provisions of Article 25A are reflected in Articles 30 and 43 
of the 1999 Montreal Convention, which carry over the basic 
principle that liability for conduct within the scope of 
employment remains subject to the rules of that Convention, 
regardless of whether the conduct was intentional or reckless. 
However, as with Montreal Protocol No. 4, to which the United 
States is a party, the willful misconduct exception to the 
liability limits that is contained in Articles 30 and 43 of the 
1999 Montreal Convention does not apply to cargo claims.)
    Article XV of The Hague Protocol extends the time permitted 
under the Warsaw Convention for lodging complaints regarding 
baggage or cargo, increasing the period from three days from 
the date of receipt to seven days in the case of damage to 
baggage; from seven days from the date of receipt to fourteen 
days in the case of damage to cargo; and from fourteen days 
from the date on which the baggage or cargo was placed at the 
person's disposal to twenty-one days in the case of delay.
    Article XVI of the Hague Protocol replaces Article 34 of 
the Convention, which entirely excluded experimental or 
extraordinary air carriage from the Convention, with a 
provision with exempts from Articles 3 through 9 (relating to 
documentation) carriage in extraordinary circumstances outside 
the normal scope of the carrier's business.
    Article XVII adds new Article 40A to the Convention, 
defining the expressions ``High Contracting Party'' and 
``territory'' for purposes of the Convention.
    Article XVIII provides that the Warsaw Convention as 
amended by The Hague Protocol will apply to international 
carriage an defined in Article 1 of the Convention, provided 
that the places of departure and destination of the carriage 
are situated either in the territories of two parties to the 
Protocol or within the territory of a single party in the 
Protocol with an agreed stopping place in another State 
(whether or not that State is a party to the Protocol). Because 
the United States is already a party to Montreal Protocol No. 
4, which supersedes The Hague Protocol where applicable, the 
Warsaw Convention as amended by The Hague Protocol will apply 
to one-way international air carriage between the United States 
and the territory of any country that is a party to The Hague 
Protocol but not to Montreal Protocol No. 4. (There are 
currently 84 such countries.) Round-trip international air 
carriage beginning and ending in the United States with an 
agreed stopping place in any other country would continue to be 
governed by Montreal Protocol No. 4.
    Article XIX through XXVII contain the final clauses of the 
Protocol, a number of which address the relationship between 
the Protocol and the Warsaw Convention. Article XIX provides 
that, ``as between the parties to The Hague Protocol, the 
Convention and the Protocol will be read and interpreted 
together as one single instrument and shall be known as the 
`Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague, 1955.' '' Article 
XXI, paragraph 2 and Article XXIII, paragraph 2, provide that 
ratification or adherence to the Protocol by any State that is 
not a party to the Warsaw Convention will have the effect of 
adherence to the Warsaw Convention as amended by The Hague 
Protocol. Therefore, states becoming a party to the Protocol do 
not have to separately ratify or adhere to the Warsaw 
Convention in order to be bound by the Warsaw Convention as 
amended by The Hague Protocol. A recent decision by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that these 
provisions did not mean that ratification or adherence to the 
Protocol had the effect of adherence to the unamended Warsaw 
Convention for countries not already party to that Convention. 
Chubb v. Asiana, 214 F.3d at 310. Lastly, Article XXIV, 
paragraph 3 of the Protocol provides that, as between the 
parties to the Protocol, denunciation by a party to the Warsaw 
Convention will not constitute denunciation of the Convention 
as amended by the Protocol.
    Article XXIII, paragraph 3 provides that deposit of an 
instrument of adherence with the depositary will take effect 
ninety days after the deposit.
    Article XXVI precludes reservations except that States may 
declare that the Convention as amended by the Protocol will not 
apply to ``the carriage of persons, cargo and baggage for its 
military authorities on aircraft, registered in that State, the 
whole capacity of which has been reserved by or on behalf of 
such authorities.'' Consistent with past practice of the United 
States under Montreal Protocol No. 4, I recommend that the 
United States not make this declaration.

                               CONCLUSION

    Together with the Department of State, the Departments of 
Defense, Justice, Commerce and Transportation all concur in the 
submission of the Protocol to the Senate for its advice and 
consent to ratification.
    Ratification of The Hague Protocol will ensure the benefits 
of that instrument, most importantly more streamlined and 
efficient cargo documentation rules, for the United States 
pending the entry into force and widespread ratification of the 
new 1999 Montreal Convention. For this reason, U.S. carriers 
strongly urge ratification of this Protocol. I therefore 
recommend that you transmit the Protocol to the Senate at an 
early date with the recommendation that the Protocol be 
approved at the earliest possible time.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                   Colin L. Powell.
 Protocol To Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules 
   Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 
                              October 1929

The Governments undersigned
    Considering  that it is desirable to amend the Convention 
for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International 
Carriage by Air signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929,
Have agreed as follows:

                               Chapter I

                      AMENDMENTS TO THE CONVENTION

                               Article I

    In Article 1 of the Convention--
          a) paragraph 2 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
        following:--
                  ``2. For the purposes of this Convention, the 
                expression international carriage means any 
                carriage in which, according to the agreement 
                between the parties, the place of departure and 
                the place of destination, whether or not there 
                be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, 
                are situated either within the territories of 
                two High Contracting Parties or within the 
                territory of a single High Contracting Party if 
                there is an agreed stopping place within the 
                territory of another State, even if that State 
                is not a High Contracting Party. Carriage 
                between two points within the territory of a 
                single High Contracting Party without an agreed 
                stopping place within the territory of another 
                State is not international carriage for the 
                purposes of this Convention.''
          b) paragraph 3 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
        following:--
                  ``3. Carriage to be performed by several 
                successive air carriers is deemed, for the 
                purposes of this Convention, to be one 
                undivided carriage if it has been regarded by 
                the parties as a single operation, whether it 
                had been agreed upon under the form of a single 
                contract or of a series of contracts, and it 
                does not lose its international character 
                merely because one contract or a series of 
                contracts is to be performed entirely within 
                the territory of the same State.''

                               Article II

    In Article 2 of the Convention--
          paragraph 2 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
        following:--
                  ``2. This Convention shall not apply to 
                carriage of mail and postal packages.''

                              Article III

    In Article 3 of the Convention--
          a) paragraph 1 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
        following:--
                  ``1. In respect of the carriage of passengers 
                a ticket shall be delivered containing:
                          a) an indication of the places of 
                        departure and destination;
                          b) if the places of departure and 
                        destination are within the territory of 
                        a single High Contracting Party, one or 
                        more agreed stopping places being 
                        within the territory of another State, 
                        an indication of at least one such 
                        stopping place;
                          c) a notice to the effect that, if 
                        the passenger's journey involves an 
                        ultimate destination or stop in a 
                        country other than the country of 
                        departure, the Warsaw Convention may be 
                        applicable and that the Convention 
                        governs and in most cases limits the 
                        liability of carriers for death or 
                        personal injury and in respect of loss 
                        of or damage to baggage.''
          b) paragraph 2 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
        following:--
                  ``2. The passenger ticket shall constitute 
                prima facie evidence of the conclusion and 
                conditions of the contract of carriage. The 
                absence, irregularity or loss of the passenger 
                ticket does not affect the existence or the 
                validity of the contract of carriage which 
                shall, none the less, be subject to the rules 
                of this Convention. Nevertheless, if, with the 
                consent of the carrier, the passenger embarks 
                without a passenger ticket having been 
                delivered, or if the ticket does not include 
                the notice required by paragraph 1 c) of this 
                Article, the carrier shall not be entitled to 
                avail himself of the provisions of Article 
                22.''

                               Article IV

    In Article 4 of the Convention--
          a) paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be deleted and 
        replaced by the following:--
                  ``1. In respect of the carriage of registered 
                baggage, a baggage check shall be delivered, 
                which, unless combined wiht or incorporated in 
                a passenger ticket which complies with the 
                provisions of Article 3, paragraph 1, shall 
                contain:
                          a) an indication of the places of 
                        departure and destination;
                          b) if the places of departure and 
                        destination are within the territory of 
                        a single High Contracting Party, one or 
                        more agreed stopping places being 
                        within the territory of another State, 
                        an indication of at least one such 
                        stopping place;
                          c) a notice to the effect that; if 
                        the carriage involves an ultimate 
                        destination or stop in a country other 
                        than the country of departure, the 
                        Warsaw Convention may be applicable and 
                        that the Convention governs and in most 
                        cases limits the liability of carriers 
                        in respect of loss of or damage to 
                        baggage.''
          b) paragraph 4 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
        following:--
                  ``2. The baggage check shall constitute prima 
                facie evidence of the registration of the 
                baggage and of the conditions of the contract 
                of carriage. The absence, irregularity or loss 
                of the baggage check does not affect the 
                existence or the validity of the contract of 
                carriage which shall, none the less, be subject 
                to the rules of this Convention. Nevertheless, 
                if the carrier takes charge of the baggage 
                without a baggage check having been delivered 
                or if the baggage check (unless combined with 
                or incorporated in the passenger ticket which 
                complies with the provisions of Article 3, 
                paragraph 1c)) does not include the notice 
                required by paragraph 1c) of this Article, he 
                shall not be entitled to avail himself of the 
                provisions of Article 22, paragraph 2.''

                               Article V

    In Article 6 of the Convention--
          paragraph 3 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
        following:--
                  ``3. The carrier shall sign prior to the 
                loading of the cargo on board the aircraft.''

                               Article VI

    Article 8 of the Convention shall be deleted and replaced 
by the following:--
          ``The air waybill shall contain:
                  a) an indication of the places of departure 
                and destination;
                  b) if the places of departure and destination 
                are within the territory of a single High 
                Contracting Party, one or more agreed stopping 
                places being within the territory of another 
                State, an indication of at least one such 
                stopping place;
                  c) a notice to the consignor to the effect 
                that, if the carriage involves an ultimate 
                destination or stop in a country other than the 
                country of departure, the Warsaw Convention may 
                be applicable and that the convention governs 
                and in most cases limits the liability of 
                carriers in respect of loss of or damage to 
                cargo.

                              Article VII

    Article 9 of the Convention shall be deleted and replaced 
by the following:--
          ``If, with the consent of the carrier, cargo is 
        loaded on board the aircraft without an air waybill 
        having been made out, or if the air waybill does not 
        include the notice required by Article 8, paragraph c), 
        the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of 
        the provisions of Article 22, paragraph 2.''

                              Article VIII

    In Article 10 of the Convention--
          paragraph 2 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
        following:--
                  ``2. The consignor shall indemnify the 
                carrier against all damage suffered by him, or 
                by any other person to whom the carrier is 
                liable, by reason of the irregularity, 
                incorrectness or incompleteness of the 
                particulars and statements furnished by the 
                consignor.''

                               Article IX

    To Article 15 of the Convention--
          The following paragraph shall be added:--
                  ``3. Nothing in this Convention prevents the 
                issue of a negotiable air waybill.''

                               Article X

    Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Convention shall be 
deleted.

                               Article XI

    Article 22 of the Convention shall be deleted and replaced 
by the following:--

                              ``Article 22

          1. In the carriage of persons the liability of the 
        carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of two 
        hundred and fifty thousand francs. Where, in accordance 
        with the law of the court seised of the case, damages 
        may be awarded in the form of periodical payments, the 
        equivalent capital value of the said payments shall not 
        exceed two hundred and fifty thousand francs. 
        Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and the 
        passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.
          2. a) In the carriage of registered baggage and of 
        cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum 
        of two hundred and fifty francs per kilogramme, unless 
        the passenger or consignor has made, at the time when 
        the package was handed over to the carrier, a special 
        declaration of interest in delivery at destination and 
        has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. 
        In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum 
        not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that 
        that sum is greater than the passenger's or consignor's 
        actual interest in delivery at destination.
          b) In the case of loss, damage or delay of part of 
        registered baggage or cargo, or of any object contained 
        therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in 
        determining the amount to which the carrier's liability 
        is limited shall be only the total weight of the 
        package or packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the 
        loss, damage or delay of a part of the registered 
        baggage or cargo, or of an object contained therein, 
        affects the value of other packages covered by the same 
        baggage check or the same air waybill, the total weight 
        of such package or packages shall also be taken into 
        consideration in determining the limit of liability.
          3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes 
        charge himself the liability of the carrier is limited 
        to five thousand francs per passenger.
          4. The limits prescribed in this article shall not 
        prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its 
        own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court 
        costs and of the other expenses of the litigation 
        incurred by the plaintiff. The foregoing provision 
        shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, 
        excluding court costs and other expenses of the 
        litigation, does not exceed the sum which the carrier 
        has offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period 
        of six months from the date of the occurrence causing 
        the damage, or before the commencement of the action, 
        if that is later.
          5. The sums mentioned in francs in this Article shall 
        be deemed to refer to a currency unit consisting of 
        sixty-five and a half milligrammes of gold of 
        millesimal fineness nine hundred. These sums may be 
        converted into national currencies in round figures. 
        Conversion of the sums into national currencies other 
        than gold shall, in case of judicial proceedings, be 
        made according to the gold value of such currencies at 
        the date of the judgment.''

                              Article XII

    In Article 23 of the Convention, the existing provision 
shall be renumbered as paragraph 1 and another paragraph shall 
be added as follows:--
          ``2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to 
        provisions governing loss or damage resulting from the 
        inherent defect, quality or vice of the cargo 
        carried.''

                              Article XIII

    In Article 25 of the Convention--
          paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be deleted and replaced by 
        the following:--
                  ``The limits of liability specified in 
                Article 22 shall not apply if it is proved that 
                the damage resulted from an act or omission of 
                the carrier, his servants or agents, done with 
                intent to cause damage or recklessly and with 
                knowledge that damage would probably result; 
                provided that, in the case of such act or 
                omission of a servant or agent, it is also 
                proved that he was acting within the scope of 
                his employment.''

                              Article XIV

    After Article 25 of the Convention, the following article 
shall be inserted:--

                             ``Article 25A

          1. If an action is brought against a servant or agent 
        of the carrier arising out of damage to which this 
        Convention relates, such servant or agent, if he proves 
        that he acted within the scope of his employment, shall 
        be entitled to avail himself of the limits of liability 
        which that carrier himself is entitled to invoke under 
        Article 22.
          2. The aggregate of the amounts recoverable from the 
        carrier, his servants and agents, in that case, shall 
        not exceed the said limits.
          3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this 
        article shall not apply if it is proved that the damage 
        resulted from an act or omission of servant or agent 
        done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with 
        knowledge that damage would probably result.''

                               Article XV

    In Article 26 of the Convention--
          paragraph 2 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
        following:--
                  ``2. In the case of damage, the person 
                entitled to delivery must complain to the 
                carrier forthwith after the discovery of the 
                damage, and, at the latest, within seven days 
                from the date of receipt in the case of baggage 
                and fourteen days from the date of receipt in 
                the case of cargo. In the case of delay the 
                complaint must be made at the latest within 
                twenty-one days from the date on which the 
                baggage or cargo have been placed at this 
                disposal.''

                              Article XVI

    Article 34 of the Convention shall be deleted and replaced 
by the following:--
          ``The provisions of Articles 3 to 9 inclusive 
        relating to documents of carriage shall not apply in 
        the case of carriage performed in extraordinary 
        circumstances outside the normal scope of an air 
        carrier's business.''

                              Article XVII

    After article 40 of the Convention, the following Article 
shall be inserted:--

                             ``Article 40 A

          1. In Article 37, paragraph 2 and Article 40, 
        paragraph 1, the expression High Contracting Party 
        shall mean State. In all other cases, the expression 
        High Contracting Party shall mean a State whose 
        ratification of or adherence to the Convention has 
        become effective and whose denunciation thereof has not 
        become effective.
          2. For the purposes of the Convention the word 
        territory means not only the metropolitan territory of 
        a State but also all other territories for the foreign 
        relations of which that State is responsible.''

                               Chapter II

           SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION AS AMENDED

                             Article XVIII

    The Convention as amended by this Protocol shall apply to 
international carriage as defined in Article 1 of the 
Convention, provided that the places of departure and 
destination referred to in that Article are situated either in 
the territories of two parties to this Protocol or within the 
territory of a single party to this Protocol with an agreed 
stopping place within the territory of another State.

                              Chapter III

                             FINAL CLAUSES

                              Article XIX

    As between the Parties to this Protocol, the Convention and 
the Protocol shall be read and interpreted together as one 
single instrument and shall be known as the Warsaw Convention 
as amended at The Hague, 1955.

                               Article XX

    Until the date on which this Protocol comes into force in 
accordance with the provisions of Article XXII, paragraph 1, it 
shall remain open for signature on behalf of any State which up 
to that dare has ratified or adhered to the Convention or which 
has participated in the Conference at which this Protocol was 
adopted.

                              Article XXI

    1. This Protocol shall be subject to ratification by the 
signatory States.
    2. Ratification of this Protocol by any State which is not 
a Party to the Convention shall have the effect of adherence to 
the Convention as amended by this Protocol.
    3. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with 
the Government of the People's Republic of Poland.

                              Article XXII

    1. As soon as thirty signatory States have deposited their 
instruments of ratification of this Protocol, it shall come 
into force between them on the ninetieth day after the deposit 
of the thirtieth instrument of ratification. It shall come into 
force for each State ratifying thereafter on the ninetieth day 
after the deposit of its instrument of ratification.
    2. As soon as this Protocol comes into force it shall be 
registered with the United Nations by the Government of the 
People's Republic of Poland.

                             Article XXIII

    1. This Protocol shall, after it has come into force, be 
open for adherence by any non-signatory State.
    2. Adherence to this Protocol by any State which is not a 
Party to the Convention shall have the effect of adherence to 
the Convention as amended by this Protocol.
    3. Adherence shall be effected by the deposit of an 
instrument of adherence with the Government of the People's 
Republic of Poland and shall take effect on the ninetieth day 
after the deposit.

                              Article XXIV

    1. Any Party to this Protocol may denounce the Protocol by 
notification addressed to the Government of the People's 
Republic of Poland.
    2. Denunciation shall take effect six months after the date 
of receipt by the Government of the People's Republic of Poland 
of the notification of denunciation.
    3. As between the Parties to this Protocol, denunciation by 
any of them of the Convention in accordance with Article 39 
thereof shall not be construed in any way as a denunciation of 
the Convention as amended by this Protocol.

                              Article XXV

    1. This Protocol shall apply to all territories for the 
foreign relations of which a State Party to this Protocol is 
responsible, with the exception of territories in respect of 
which a declaration has been made in accordance with paragraph 
2 of this Article.
    2. Any State may, at the time of deposit of its instrument 
of ratification or adherence, declare that its acceptance of 
this Protocol does not apply to any one or more of the 
territories for the foreign relations of which such State is 
responsible.
    3. Any State may subsequently, by notification to the 
Government of the People's Republic of Poland, extend the 
application of this Protocol to any or all of the territories 
regarding which it has made a declaration in accordance with 
paragraph 2 of this Article. The notification shall take effect 
on the ninetieth day after its receipt by that Government.
    4. Any State Party to this Protocol may denounce it, in 
accordance with the provisions of Article XXIV, paragraph 1, 
separately for any or all of the territories for the foreign 
relations of which such State is responsible.

                              Article XXVI

    No reservation may be made to this Protocol except that a 
State may at any time declare by a notification addressed to 
the Government of the People's Republic of Poland that the 
Convention as amended by this Protocol shall not apply to the 
carriage of persons, cargo and baggage for its military 
authorities on aircraft, registered in that State, the whole 
capacity of which has been reserved by or on behalf of such 
authorities.

                             Article XXVII

    The Government of the People's Republic of Poland shall 
give immediate notice to the Governments of all States 
signatories to the Convention or this Protocol, all States 
Parties to the Convention or this Protocol, and all States 
Members of the International Civil Aviation Organization or of 
the United Nations and to the International Civil Aviation 
Organization:
          a) of any signature of this Protocol and the date 
        thereof;
          b) of the deposit of any instrument of ratification 
        or adherence in respect of this Protocol and the date 
        thereof;
          c) of the date on which this Protocol comes into 
        force in accordance with Article XXII, paragraph 1;
          d) of the receipt of any notification of denunciation 
        and the date thereof;
          e) of the receipt of any declaration or notification 
        made under Article XXV and the date thereof; and
          f) of the receipt of any notification made under 
        Article XXVI and the date thereof.
    In witness whereof the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, 
having been duly authorized, have signed this Protocol.
    Done at The Hague on the twenty-eighth day of the month of 
September of the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-five, 
in three authentic texts in the English, French and Spanish 
languages. In the case of any inconsistency, the text in the 
French language, in which language the Convention was drawn up, 
shall prevail.
    This Protocol shall be deposited with the Government of the 
People's Republic of Poland with which, in accordance with 
Article XX, it shall remain open for signature, and that 
Government shall send certified copies thereof to the 
Governments of all States signatories to the Convention or this 
Protocol, all States Parties to the Convention on this 
Protocol, and all States Members of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization or of the United Nations, and to the 
International Civil Aviation Organization.

                              [Translation]
German Federal Republic:
    Dr. Otto Riese                                             28. 9. 55
    Gerd Rinck                                                 28. 9. 55
    Dr. J. Hubener                                             28. 9. 55
Belgium:
    Van Der Straten Waillet
Brazil:
    Trajano Furtado Reis                                       28. 9. 55
    Claudio Ganns                                                28-9-55
Egypt:
    Diaeddine Saleh                                            28/9/1955
United States of America:
    [Joseph E. Jacobs                                     June 28, 1956]
France:
    J. P. Garnier
    Andre Garnault                                     28 September 1955
Greece:
    N. Anissas                                         28 September 1955
    Constantine Chr. Hadjidimoulas                     28 September 1955
Hungarian People's Republic:
    V. Zalka                                           28 September 1955
Ireland:
    Timothy J. O'Driscoll                                    28. IX. '55
Israel:
        ad referendum
    I. J. Mintz                                              28. 9. 1955
    D. Bar Nes                                               28. 9. 1955
Italy:
    Antonio Ambrosini
Laos:
    P. Savann                                                    28-9-55
    Bourzay                                                    28. 9. 55
Liechtenstein
    Frederic Schaerer                                          28. 9. 55
Luxembourg:
    Victor Bodson                                              28. 9. 55
    Pierre Hamer                                               28. 9. 55
Mexico:
    Enrique M. Loaeza                                            28-9-55
    A. F. Rigalt                                                 28-9-55
Norway:
    Edvin Alten                                                  28-9-55
Netherlands:
    Goedhus                                                      28-9-55
Philippines:
    Simeon R. Roxas                                              28/9/55
    Daniel Mc. Gomez                                             28/9/55
Polish People's Republic:
    T. Findzinski                                                28/9-55
    K. Pierzynski                                                28/9-55
    S. Minorski                                                  28/9/55
Portugal:
        ad referendum
    Fernando Quartin de Oliveira Bastos                          28/9/55
Rumanian People's Republic:
    M. Cociu                                                  28.IX.1955
    L. Badulescu                                              28.IX.1955
El Salvador:
    P. A. Delgado B.                                         28 IX. 1955
    M. Ramirez                                                28.IX.1955
    Fr. Parraga                                                 28/IX/55
Sweden:
    Karl Sidenbladh                                            28.9.1955
Switzerland:
    Fritz Stalder                                              28.9.1955
Republic of Czechoslovakia:
    Fr. Novak                                                  28.9.1955
    V. Bauer                                                   28.9.1955
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:
    V. Danilitchev                                            28-IX-1955
Venezuela:
    Luis Chafardet-Urbina                                        28/9/55
    Ramon Carmona                                                28-9-55
    V. J. Delascio                                               28-9-55

    Certified Copy Conforming with the Original.
    Warsaw, the 16 March 1956.
                                                           M. Lachs
                                                 Prof. Dr. M. Lachs

   The Chief of the Juridical and Treaty Division of the Ministry of 
          Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Poland.

                                  

```