Implications of Chinese Civil Cases on Article 35 of the Montreal Convention 1999

The temporal provision outlined in Article 35 of the Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) and Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention 1929 (WC29), which establishes a two-year period for the initiation of legal proceedings and specifies the method for calculating this period, has been a source of controversy since its introduction in the early twenteith century. Globally, judicial practices have debated its legal nature, specifically whether it constitutes a statute of limitations, or a statute of repose or a condition precedent. Chinese courts generally interpret it as a statute of limitations. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) in China has issued a relevant model case concerning a dispute over an international air carriage contract under MC99, which is remarked as a significant guidance for the resolution of similar cases. This article delves into Chinese domestic legal provisions and judicial practices regarding this matter. It begins by examining the notable Chinese model case, followed by a comparative analysis of practices in other jurisdictions. Finally, it seeks to identify the underlying causes and factors that have shaped Chinese legal practice, as well as to assess the broader implications and impacts of this approach.