Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Should the ICAO Charter Articles 39 and 39 be Revised?. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 16 page paper argues that Article 38 and 39 of the International Civil Aviation Authority is outdated. Article 39 states that were there are differences in national standards and the ICAO’s Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), the country concerned should make a notification. The paper argues that were the national standard is superior that the resulting endorsement that takes place after a notification is unfair and unnecessary. The paper looks at the background and the application of the article’s using examples, before making recommendations in the way the articles could be changed. The bibliography cites 5 sources.
Page Count:
16 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEICAOchart.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
4. RECOMMENDATIONS 16 5. CONCLUSION 18 1. Introduction Air transportation has increased in popularity during the 20h
century. This is method of transport that makes travel between countries rapid but also presents risks to passengers and crew. One approach to reduce risk and to create a unified
standard has been the development of the ICAO; the International Civil Aviation Authority and the ICAO Charter. The charter has many articles all aimed at promoting safety and security in
civil aviation so that the industry can develop on the basis of equality and opportunity. However, it may be argued that some of the provisions need to be restated or
revised as the industry has developed beyond the boundaries considered when the charter was first created. An important article that typifies the way the industry has changed and the
charter has not kept pace is Article 38. This is an article to ensure standardization there is an obligation on the state to notify the ICAO of the differences between
the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), which the article refers to and the countrys own standards. The difficulty is in the terminology used, the aim was for a difference, but
in todays industry with the high level of development it is quite possible for there to be differences, but with the difference being a higher level than is presented in
the relevant SARP in the relevant annex. The need to notify even when the standards adopted exceed the levels in the SARPs can be seen as a throw back to
when this scenario was not envisaged. By continuing with the article in its current form it can be argued as not only is there the potential to penalize states for
...