While the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council is sometimes criticized for the potential influence of political agendas on its decisions, while the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is criticized for its limited jurisdiction and dependence on the party’s willingness to accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction, a crucial concern is raised over the efficiency of the current Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (DRM) for aviation industry related disputes. Unravelling the compelling inquiry that hangs in the air: Just how efficient is the current aviation arbitration legal system? Is the efficiency of this system available to ad hoc arbitration¹ or arbitral tribunals²? The authors aim to analyze the existing legal guidance to navigate the complex arbitration system. This article sheds light on precedent cases by the ICAO Council and the ICJ studying challenges, such as the lack of efficiency of the ICAO Council and the criticism of the Council’s ineffectiveness for being hampered by the political interests of Member States. As well as the ICJ as it may be a more powerful authority in resolving such disputes, it also faces multiple challenges including the lack of enforcement, jurisdiction issues, and political influence, which in return makes it unlikely for dispute parties to seek the ICAO or the ICJ for resolution of their disputes, instead parties have now mostly adopted arbitration clauses as their primary dispute resolution method under Air Services Agreements (ASAs) and other aviation related agreements. While ad hoc arbitration has shown effectiveness and success, its secrecy and confidentiality might result in inconsistency and the inability to develop a case law system. The authors note the urgent need for an arbitration institution³ under the United Nations (UN) umbrella specialized in air law and aviation technology disputes, with the power to issue an enforceable, legally binding ruling. The article also examines the realm of arbitration in the aerospace industry, analyzing legal resources, current aviation arbitration systems, centres, and platforms, and further analyzing case studies to assess the results of the efficiency of each Dispute Resolution Mechanism.

AAA. (2023). The AAA-ICDR Panel for Aerospace, Aviation, and National Security Claims. https://go.adr.org/aans-panel.html

Abbott, K. W. (2023). US-EU Disputes Over Technical Barriers to Trade and the “Hushkits” Dispute. in Ernst-Ulrich Petermann & Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Transatlantic Economic disputes: The EU, the US and the WTO, Oxford University Press.

Abeyrante, R. (1992). Law Making and Decision-Making Powers of ICAO Council – A Critical Analysis. 41 ZLW German, Journal of Air and Space Law 394.

Alshamsi, K. & Sipos, A. (2024). The Legal Concerns of the Settlement Disputes by the Council on the International Civil Aviation Organization. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 7 (3).

Antwerpen, N. V. (2008). Cross-border provision of Air Navigation Services with specific reference to Europe. Kluwer Law International. Law & Business.

Aviation Benefits Beyond Borders. Adding value to the economy. www.aviationbenefits.org/economic-growth/adding-value-to-the-economy

BBC. (2017). Qatar crisis: What you need to know. www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40173757

Bermann, G. A. (2017). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: The Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention by National Courts. In: Bermann, George A. (eds) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law, Vol 23. Springer, Cham.

Blackaby, N. K. C., Partasides, C. & Redfern, A. (2022). Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration. 7th ed., Oxford University Press, Academic.

Bown, K. E. (2002). The International Civil Aviation Organization Is the Appropriate Jurisdiction to Settle the Hushkit Dispute between the US and the EU. 20 (2) Penn State International Law Review 476.

Buergenthal, T. (1969). Law-Making in the International Civil Aviation Organization. New York.

Chicago. (1944). Convention on International Civil Aviation. www.icao.int/publications/Documents/chicago.pdf

Dempsey, P. S. (2004). Flights of Fancy and Fights of Fury: Arbitration and Adjudication of Commercial and Political Disputes in International Aviation. 32 Ga. J. Int’l & Compar. L. 231.

Duggal, K. A. N. & Cleis. M. N. (2024). Ad Hoc Arbitration. Jus Mundi. https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-ad-hoc-arbitration.

Firshein, S. (2020). In Fine Print, Airlines Make It Harder to Fight for Passenger Rights. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/travel/virus-airlines-private-arbitration.html

Gaver, C. D. (2020). Déjà Vu All Over Again: ICJ Rules on the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council in Relation to the Gulf Dispute.

Guillaume, G. (2001). Air Law Cases before the International Court of Justice. Zeithschrift Luft- und Weltraumrecht (ZLW) 21. Jahrhundert (Air and Space Law in the 21st Century), Liber Amicorum, Böckstiegel, Karl H. Edited by Benkö, M. & Kröll, W.; Carl Heymanns Verlag KG (Köln, Berlin, Bonn, München).

Haanappel, P. (1984). Pricing and Capacity Determination in International Air Transport: A Legal Analysis. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.

HAGUE CAA. (2023). The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation, Arbitration Rules. https://www.haguecaa.org/ASSETS/Documents/ArbitrationRulesHCAA.pdf

Havel, B. F. (2002). International Instruments in Air, Space and Telecommunications Law: The Need for a Mandatory Supranational Dispute Mechanism. in Arbitration in Air, Space and Telecommunications Law: Enforcing Regulatory Measures, Permanent Court of Arbitration/Peace Palace Papers 11, Kluwer Law International.

Huang, J. (2009). Aviation Safety and ICAO. PhD. Thesis, Leiden University.

IATA. (2023). International Air Transport Association. Global Outlook for Air Transport Highly Resilient, Less Robust.

ICAO. (2013). International Civil Aviation Organization. Electronic Arbitration as a Means of Dispute Settlement in a fully Liberalized Environment. Working Paper.

ICJ. (2019). International Court of Justice. Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar). www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/173/173-20191206-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf

ISCID. (2022). International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Arbitration Rules. www.icsid.worldbank.org/rules-regulations

Jerenic, Z. (1996). Dispute Resolution in International Civil Aviation. LL.M. Thesis, McGill University.

Love, B. & Gupta, S. (2022). Investor-State Space Arbitration Rules, Space Arbitration Association. Blog.

Lowenfeld, A. (1989). The Downing of Iran Air 655: Looking Back and Looking Ahead. 83 AM. J. INT’L L. 336, 339.

Mankiewicz, R. H. (1956). Organisation International de l’Aviation Civile’. 11 Annuaire Francais de Droit International 643.

McKimmie, D., Allmen, D. & Rochefort-Reynolds, A. (2022). Baseball arbitration pitched to level the playing field in aviation. Norton Rose Fulbright.

Milde, M. (1980). Dispute Settlement in the Framework of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). In Bockstiegel, Karl-Heinz (ed.), Settlement of Space Law Disputes. Heymann.

Moses, M. (2012). The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. 2nd ed., CUP.

Nase, V. (2003). ADR and International Aviation Disputes between States. ADR Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 5.

Sean, M. (2001). Contemporary Practice of the US Relating to International Law: Admissibility of US_EU “Hushkits” Dispute Before ICAO. 95 American Journal of International Law 410.

SHIAC. (2015). The China Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone, Arbitration Rules. https://ng-lassen.oss-cn-hangzhou.aliyuncs.com/upload_files/file/2020/20200813142126_1384.pdf

Sipos, A. (2019). The Modernisation of Air Carrier Liability. Is the New Montreal Convention the Humble Successor to the Warsaw System? ELTE Annales.

Sipos, A. (2021). The Liability of the Air Carrier for Damages and the State of Health of the Passenger. Accidents and Diseases (COVID-19). Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies – Acta Juridica Hungarica, Akadémia Kiadó, 61 (1).

Sipos, A. (2024). International Aviation Law – Regulations in Three Dimensions. Springer Nature, Switzerland, Cham, 1st ed.

Sulyok, G. (2005). An Assessment of the Destruction of Rogue Civil Aircraft under International Law and Constitutional Law. Fundamentum, Special English Edition, (9) 5, 5–30.

The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation. (2022). https://haguecaa.org/arbitration

Török, Cs. (2023). Weapon against Civil Aircraft. International Journal of Social Science Humanity & Management Research, 2 (9).

Török, Cs. (2024). Legal and Ethical Considerations in the Use of Force against Civilian Aircraft. Lampung Journal of International Law, 6 (1).

UNCITRAL. (2021). United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Arbitration Rules. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/contractualtexts/arbitration

UNWTO. (2024). UN World Tourism Organization. World Tourism Barometer, Volume 22 No.1. www.e-unwto.org/doi/abs10.18111/wtobarometereng

Vaugeois, M. (2016). Settlement of Disputes at ICAO and Sustainable Development. Occasional Paper Series No. IV, McGill Center for Research in Air and Space Law.

Willcocks, A., Chiu, R. & Cheung, K. (2024). Arbitral Tribunal. Jus Mundi. https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-arbitral-tribunal

Zhang, L. (2022). The Resolution of Inter-State Disputes in Civil Aviation. Online ed., Oxford University Press, Academic.

Zhang, L. & Sousa U. R. (2016). The Role of International Arbitration in International Civil Aviation Disputes. 20 Young Arbitration Review 21-22.