Supporting Strategies — Legal and External Relations Services — Settlement of differences

Settlement of differences


Brazil and the United States (2016)


During its 216th, 217th and 218th Sessions, the Council was provided with progress reports on the status of the negotiations between the Applicant (Brazil) and the Respondent (United States). It was informed, inter alia, that the Parties had taken steps to establish a working group composed of technical experts from Brazil and the United States to develop a cooperative project to identify best practices in the implementation of Article 12 of the Chicago Convention, consistent with discussions of the 39th Session of the Assembly. In this connection, the Parties jointly presented working paper A40-WP/101 to the 40th Session of the Assembly resulting in the Assembly’s decision to add new item 3) “Processes and procedures for States to fulfil their obligations under Article 12 of the Chicago Convention” to the General Work Programme of the Legal Committee. The Council was also informed that the Parties would continue discussions on resolution of their dispute, with a view to concluding negotiations as soon as possible. The Council would remain seized of this matter and would continue to receive progress reports from the Secretary General regarding any developments. The Council expressed the hope that the matter would be resolved as soon as possible.


Qatar and Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (2017) – Application (A); Qatar and Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (2017) – Application (B)


During its 216th Session, the Council was provided with an oral report on the status of the two cases filed by Qatar in October 2017 pursuant to Article 84 of the Chicago Convention. It was recalled that the respective Respondents in the two cases – Application (A) and Application (B) – had filed appeals at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the Council’s decisions dated 29 June 2018. Given that the said appeals were still pending before the ICJ and that the Council’s decisions remained suspended pursuant to Article 86 of the Chicago Convention, the Council agreed that, notwithstanding its previous decision to remain seized of these matters, it would suspend its consideration thereof until the ICJ rendered its decision on the two appeals.

Share this page: