Chubb & Son, Inc., as Subrogee of Samsung Semiconductor v. Asiana Airlines
214 F.3d 301, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 12561 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A treaty relationship does not exist between two nations for the purpose of federal subject matter jurisdiction when one nation is party only to an original multilateral convention and the other is party only to a protocol that amends that convention. Courts may not create a 'hybrid' treaty from the common provisions of two different versions of an international agreement, as doing so would usurp the treaty-making powers of the political branches.
Facts:
- In 1995, Asiana Airlines, a South Korean corporation, contracted with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to ship 17 parcels of computer chips from Seoul, South Korea, to San Francisco, California.
- The air waybill specified that the shipment would be made on a direct flight, Asiana Flight 214, with no scheduled stops.
- Due to an excess of goods, Asiana rerouted the parcels without notice, flying them on a different flight to Los Angeles and then transporting them by truck to San Francisco.
- The air waybill was not updated to reflect the actual route or the stop in Los Angeles.
- Upon arrival in San Francisco, two of the seventeen parcels, containing computer chips valued at $583,000, were missing.
- Chubb & Son, Inc., as the insurer for the cargo's intended recipient, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., paid the claim for the loss.
Procedural Posture:
- Chubb & Son, Inc., as subrogee of Samsung Semiconductor, commenced an action against Asiana Airlines in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The parties initially filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether Asiana's liability was limited under the Original Warsaw Convention.
- After a magistrate judge recommended granting Chubb's motion, Asiana filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no treaty relationship existed.
- The district court granted Asiana's supplemental motion, holding that a 'Truncated Warsaw Convention' comprised of common articles governed the dispute and limited Asiana's liability to $706.00.
- The district court certified its order for interlocutory appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Chubb's petition to appeal the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a treaty relationship for international air carriage exist between the United States, a party only to the Original Warsaw Convention, and South Korea, a party only to the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol, such that a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute arising from that carriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Parker, Circuit Judge
No. A treaty relationship does not exist between the United States and South Korea for international air carriage because the two nations have not ratified the same governing instrument. The court reasoned that the United States adhered to the Original Warsaw Convention, while South Korea adhered only to the Hague Protocol. Adhering to the Hague Protocol constitutes adherence to a new, distinct treaty known as the 'Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague,' not the original convention. The court rejected the lower court's creation of a 'Truncated Warsaw Convention' from the unamended, common provisions, holding that such judicial treaty-making violates the separation of powers. Citing the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the court found no basis in international law for fashioning a hybrid agreement that neither nation actually signed. This would impermissibly alter the 'quid pro quo' of the original treaty, which the political branches alone have the power to negotiate and ratify.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that for a multilateral treaty to govern a dispute between two nations, they must be parties to the identical version of that instrument. It explicitly rejects the 'hybrid treaty' theory, thereby preventing courts from creating international obligations where none were formally agreed to by the political branches. The ruling strongly reinforces the doctrine of separation of powers in foreign relations, establishing that courts cannot alter or sever provisions of a treaty to find a common ground between nations that ratified different versions. This precedent requires litigants seeking to establish federal jurisdiction based on a treaty to first prove that the nations involved are contracting parties to the exact same agreement.
