Opinion ID: 744754
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Convention's Text

Text: 30 Support for this view is found in the text of the treaty and in the context in which the words in it are used. See Floyd, 499 U.S. at 534, 111 S.Ct. at 1492-93 (noting that treaty interpretation should begin with the text), Saks, 470 U.S. at 396-97, 105 S.Ct. at 1340-41 (same); see also Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31, open for signature May 23, 1969, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 39/27 (1969), reprinted in 63 Am. J. Int'l L. 875, 885 (1969). The exclusivity provision of the Convention is found in Article 24, which provides: 31 (1) In the cases covered by articles 18 and 19 any action for damages, however founded, can only be brought subject to the conditions and limits set out in this convention. 32 (2) In the cases covered by article 17 the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall also apply, without prejudice to the questions as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit and what are their respective rights. 33 The provision clearly states that resort to local law is precluded only where the incident is covered by Article 17, meaning where there has been an accident, either on the plane or in the course of embarking or disembarking, which led to death, wounding or other bodily injury, see Floyd, 499 U.S. at 535-36, 111 S.Ct. at 1493-94. To extend the scope of the Convention's exclusivity beyond that which it expressly provides would require rewriting Article 24 or Article 17, a task only the signatories to the Convention may undertake. See Saks, 470 U.S. at 406, 105 S.Ct. at 1345; see also Brink's Ltd. v. South African Airways, 93 F.3d 1022, 1027 (2d Cir.1996) (the task of interpretation begins with the literal language of the treaty), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 959, 136 L.Ed.2d 845 (1997).