Conclusions
By highlighting the sui generis nature of the
relief pending final determination provided
for in Article 13 of the Convention (and
corresponding provisions of the Aircraft
Protocol) I do not mean to dispute Gilles
Cuniberti’s conclusion that commercial parties,
and especially the sophisticated actors who
stipulate a Cape Town Convention security
right, will be in the best position to gauge
how far the default rules of the Convention
and the Protocol(s) meet their purposes and
to introduce, if necessary, a derogatory regime
in their contract. Nor do I wish to deny the
role played by national law in the operation of
the Cape Town Convention and its Protocols.
It is indeed the case that Article 13 does not
preclude the creditor from seeking interim
relief through remedies provided in national
law (Article 13(4)). My contention is limited
to the interpretation of the default rules
contained in Article 13 of the Convention
and Article X of the Aircraft Protocol. The
conventional texts are, in my opinion, less
open to conflicting interpretations than
suggested. The purpose of enhancing the
ready enforceability of the security through
a speedy remedy seems to be overriding, and
should guide courts’ interpretation according
to the general rules of the Convention