Journal of Air Law and Commerce


The comparison between air law and maritime law reveals both similarities and distinctions rooted in the unique frameworks of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and The International Maritime Organization (IMO). While both entities were established through separate treaties, the Chicago Convention birthed ICAO, emphasizing the organization’s Assembly, Council, and auxiliary bodies. In contrast, the IMO Convention, also known as the Convention on the International Maritime Organization, forms the basis for IMO’s structure and functions as outlined in its preamble. The core objectives of IMO revolve around fostering collaboration among governments to enhance regulatory frameworks for international maritime trade. This encompasses advocating for elevated standards in maritime safety, navigation efficiency, and marine pollution prevention. Similarly, ICAO aims to establish principles and techniques for air navigation, promoting safe, regular, economical, and efficient air transport. The Chicago Convention primarily focuses on regulating international civil aviation, ensuring its orderly development and safety through defined principles and procedures, including standards for airspace sovereignty, aircraft registration, airworthiness, and aviation security. Conversely, the IMO Convention tackles various aspects of international maritime transportation, spanning safety, security, environmental protection, and shipping efficiency. Despite being specialized agencies of the United Nations, both ICAO and IMO face the challenge of accommodating diverse interests and viewpoints of their member states without the autonomy enjoyed by the private sector. Nonetheless, both organizations have consistently served the international community in facilitating world trade and commerce within their respective domains. This article discusses details of comparison and contrasts between ICAO, IMO, and air law and maritime law in their treaty settings.



Digital Object Identifier (DOI)