Air navigation services in Australia and the United States : a comparative case study

The central document governing the global organization of Air Navigation Services (ANS) is the Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly referred to as the “Chicago Convention,” whose original version was signed in that city in 1944. In the Convention, Contracting States agreed to ensure the minimum standards of ANS established by ICAO, a specialized United Nations agency created by the Convention. Emanating from obligations under the Chicago Convention, ANS has traditionally provided by departments of national governments. However, there is a widespread trend toward transferring delivery of ANS services outside of line departments of national governments to independent agencies or corporations. The Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO), which is the trade association for independent ANS providers, currently counts approximately 60 members, and is steadily growing. However, whatever delivery mechanisms are chosen, national governments remain ultimately responsible for ensuring that adequate ANS services are available. The provision by governments of ANS reflects the responsibility of the state for safety, international relations, and indirectly, the macroeconomic benefits of ensuring a sound infrastructure for aviation. ANS is a “public good” and an “essential good” provided to all aircraft using a country’s airfields and airspace. However, ANS also represents a service that directly benefits only a limited number of users, notably aircraft owners and operators. The idea that the users of the system, rather than the taxpaying public, should incur the costs associated with ANS provision is inherent in the commercialization process. However, ICAO sets out broad principles for the establishment of user charges, which member states are expected to comply with. ICAO states that only distance flown and aircraft weights are acceptable parameters for use in a charging system. These two factors are considered to be easy to measure, bear a reasonable relationship to the value of service received, and do not discriminate due to factors such as where the flight originated or the nation of aircraft registration.

Robbery under arms: Copyright law and the Australia-United States free trade agreement

TThis article considers the radical, sweeping changes to Australian copyright law wrought by the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement 2004 (AUSFTA). It contends that the agreement will result in a “piracy of the public domain”. Under this new regime, copyright owners will be able to obtain greater monopoly profits at the expense of Australian consumers, libraries and research institutions, as well as intermediaries, such as Internet service providers. Part One observes that the copyright term extension in Australia to life of the author plus 70 years for works will have a negative economic and cultural impact — with Australia’s net royalty payments estimated to be up to $88 million higher per year. Part Two argues that the adoption of stronger protection of technological protection measures modelled upon the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (U.S.) will override domestic policy–making processes, such as the Phillips Fox Digital Agenda Review, and judicial pronouncements such as the Stevens v Sony litigation. Part Three questions whether the new safe harbours protection for Internet service providers will adversely affect the sale of Telstra. This article concludes that there is a need for judicial restraint in interpreting the AUSFTA. There is an urgent call for the Federal Government to pass ameliorating reforms — such as an open–ended defence of fair use and a mechanism for orphan works. There is a need for caution in negotiating future bilateral trade agreements — lest the multinational system for the protection of copyright law be undermined.