Call For PapersLaw School News

The Transnational Journal of Aviation and Space Laws (TJASL) is a biannual peer-reviewed academic publication, which aims to provide a forum for the publication of articles in the fields of aviation and space laws, written primarily by experts across the globe. Inter-disciplinary works, such as law and policy interface or law and international relations, are welcome. The Journal admits submissions on a rolling basis. We welcome submissions from academics, practitioners and experts and have a strong preference for articles that are not descriptive but prescriptive and argumentatively focused. Undergraduate and postgraduate students need to be associated with an expert to consider their submissions for publication. The submissions will go through a two-staged peer review process and if necessary, will also be edited by the Editorial Board. Submissions may be made under the categories mentioned below:

* Articles:                         5000 – 10000 words

* Short Notes:                  3000 – 5000 words

* Book Reviews:              1500 – 2000 words


Note to the Authors

The prescribed word limits are inclusive of footnotes. However the longer articles shall be considered subject to the approval of the Editorial Board. Submissions are expected to conform to the guidelines listed below. Kindly go through them carefully before mailing your submissions. We promptly acknowledge the receipt of submissions, and a decision on publication takes a minimum of 6 – 8 weeks.

The authors are entirely responsible for accuracy of facts and citations. Though the editors would seek clarifications on contentious issues found by them, the journal does not have the staff to check the accuracy of all facts, quotations and citations; therefore this must remain as the sole responsibility of the author. It is also the sole responsibility of the author to ensure that their contributions are free from plagiarism and copyright violation.


Submission Guidelines

  • Submissions are to be made in electronic form and should be sent to
  • Each contribution is expected to be accompanied by an abstract of not more than 300 words. The abstract must highlight the importance of the issue, main arguments and the conclusions of the article.
  • Author/s name should be mentioned below the title of the manuscript. Details of author’s qualifications and institutional affiliation should be provided in the footnotes. Please note that we will take care to remove all author details during the process of blind peer review.
  • Joint authorship is permissible only to the extent of two authors.
  • By submitting the article, the author is presumed to undertake a declaration to the effect that the article has not been published, submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere.
  • Acceptance of the submissions for publication is solely based on the Editors’ discretion. It is not mandatory for the Editorial Board to inform the author(s) the grounds for rejection of the submission made.


Style and Formatting Guidelines

  • Format: The submissions must be in MS Word (.doc) format. All submissions must be in Times New Roman with 1.5 spacing. Main text should be in the font size 12 and footnotes should in font size 10.
  • Titles: The main title must be centered and typed in bold capitals. The section titles must be in small capitals (without bold). The sub-titles must be in “Capitalize Each Word” with bold at the first level and “Capitalize Each Word” without bold at the second level. The titles and sub-titles must be uniform, concise and descriptive.
  • Quotations: Quotations should be clearly indicated and should always be accurate. Use double inverted commas for quotations and single inverted comma for quotations within quotations. Where the quotation runs more than forty words it should be typed as a separate paragraph and indented without using quotation marks.

Use of quotations must be limited and opted only when it is indispensable.

  • Foreign words: Foreign words not currently absorbed into the English language should be italicized, e.g., inter alia, bona fide, et al, ad hoc Don’t use italics unnecessarily.
  • References: Authors should use footnotes and not endnotes/references. Contributors are requested to adhere to the following footnote system.


UN Documents:

     UN Doc. A/AC.105/39, (6 September 1967) at 7.


UN General Assembly Resolutions:

     UNGA Res. 1802 (XVII), (14 December 1962) at 12.



     Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. (AAPL) v. Republic of Sri Lanka (1992) 30 ILM 577.



Nicholas M. Matte, Treatise on Air – Aeronautical Law, (Toronto: Carswell Co. Ltd., 1981) p. 379.


Articles from Edited Books:

Ranjana Kaul & Ram S. Jakhu, ‘Regulation of Space Activities in India’, in Ram S. Jakhu (ed.), National Regulation of Space Activities, (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010) pp. 153 – 198 at p. 191.


Articles from Journals:

Sandeepa Bhat B., ‘Inventions in Outer Space: Need for Reconsideration of the patent Regime’, Journal of Space Law, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2010, pp. 1 – 17 at p. 11.


Articles from Colloquium Proceedings:

  1. M. Kolossov, ‘Legal Aspects of Outer Space Environmental Protection’, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, 1981, pp. 103 – 106 at p. 104.


Newspaper Writings:

  1. Subramanian & Y. Mallikarjun, First human being will land on Mars in 2037, says NASA official, HINDU DAILY, (Mangalore edn.), 25 September 2007, at 13.


Online Materials:

Tony Tyler, ‘Aviation Crisis: Common vision to help fix problems like high taxes, investment curbs’, available at <> Last visited, 1 July 2020.

‘The International Space Station: An Overview’, NASA Facts, June 1999, available at <> Last visited 18 March 2021.


Use of Supra & Ibid:

     Supra note 20, at 433.

     Id., at 400.

* Note:    The authors are discouraged to refer single source too many times in their papers. Use of Infra is not allowed.

For any queries relating to the theme or the structure of your submissions or any general queries relating to the journal, please contact

Case BriefsInternational Courts

International Court of Justice (ICJ):With an overwhelming majority of 15:1, the ICJ rejected the appeal filed by Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates against Qatar over the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council. However it was an unanimous decision of the Court to reject the instant appeal.

On 05-06-2017, the Governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates severed diplomatic relations with Qatar as the appellant Nations were against Qatar’s support for groups that they viewed as terrorist organizations and, therefore, adopted a series of limiting measures with Qatar, which included certain aviation restrictions. The appellants came before the ICJ with three major contentions. Their first ground of appeal was for setting aside of the decision by ICAO for the procedure adopted by them was alleged to be violative of the fundamental principles of due process. Their second ground of appeal stated that the ICAO Council had been erroneous in rejecting the first preliminary objection made by the appellants in respect to the competence/ jurisdiction of the Council as it would allow them to rule over issues which would be outside their jurisdiction. Their third ground of appeal was ICAO Council erred when it rejected their second preliminary objection.

The ICJ relied on the judgement of India v Pakistan, I.C.J. Reports 1972, for deciding its jurisdiction to rule over the appeal in question. The Court determined that the dispute brought by Qatar before the ICAO Council is a disagreement between the Appellants and Qatar relating to the interpretation or application of the Chicago Convention and its Annexes and therefore concluded that it fell within the scope of Art. 84 of the Chicago Convention. Determining whether the aviation restrictions imposed on Qatar-registered aircraft were lawful countermeasures, the Court stated that “Countermeasures are among the circumstances capable of precluding the wrongfulness of an otherwise unlawful act in international law and are sometimes invoked as defence”. It was concluded that the ICAO Council had jurisdiction to hear the claims of Qatar. The Court said, “The Council is a permanent organ responsible to the ICAO Assembly, composed of designated representatives of the contracting States elected by the Assembly. Integrity of the Council’s dispute settlement function would not be affected if the Council examined issues outside matters of civil aviation for the exclusive purpose of deciding a dispute which falls within its jurisdiction under Art. 84 of the Chicago Convention.” The Court then looked into the third ground of appeal, considering that “Article 84 of the Chicago Convention imposes a precondition of negotiation that must be met in order to establish the ICAO Council’s jurisdiction. Prior to filing an application under Article 84, a contracting State must make a genuine attempt to negotiate with the other concerned State or States. If the negotiations or attempted negotiations reach a point of futility or deadlock, the disagreement “cannot be settled by negotiation”. It was observed that Qatar did make a genuine attempt to negotiate and because it failed to settle the dispute, it was clear that the precondition had been met for establishing ICAO Council’s jurisdiction. Perusing the contentions and facts of the dispute the Court held that procedures followed by the Council did not prejudice in any fundamental requirements of a just procedure, thereby firmly establishing the jurisdiction of the ICAO Council over the dispute. [Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar, General List No. 173, decided on 14-07-2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Considering the hardship of the passengers who are stranded on foreign soil at the airports after they were issued valid tickets for travel, the 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has directed that Air India be allowed to operate the non-scheduled flights with the middle seats booking upto 6th June, 2020. However,

“after that the Air India will operate non-scheduled flights in accordance with the interim order to be passed by the Bombay High Court thereafter.”

The hearing was conducted through video conferencing on Eid holiday, considering the urgent nature of the matter.

The said order of the Court came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the Court that the stranded passengers are under a lot of anxiety and difficulties arising from want of proper shelter, money, etc., at the foreign airports. Also, in some cases, the travel plan of families who were travelling together has been disrupted because those in the families who had middle seats have to be off loaded and remain behind.

The Court, hence, remanded the matter to the Bombay High Court and asked it to pass an effective interim order after hearing all concerned on the date fixed i.e. 2nd June, 2020 by it or soon thereafter. It also asked the High Court to arrive at a prima facie finding regarding the safety and health of the passengers qua the COVID-19 virus, whether the flight is scheduled flight or a non-scheduled flight.

The Court, however, made it clear that the Director General of Civil Aviation is free to alter any norms he may consider necessary during the pendency of the matter in the interest of public health and safety of the passengers rather than of commercial considerations.

[Union of India v. Deven Yogesh Kanani, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).11629/2020, order dated 25.05.2020]

Business NewsNews

The government is considering a nationwide single GST registration process for the aviation, banking and insurance sectors. A single registration will potentially solve a majority of the compliance problems that services companies have been complaining about. They now have to register themselves and file GST returns in every state or union territory (UT) they operate in. But the change will require the approval of the GST Council, the top decision-making body under the new tax system, where states are expected to oppose it fearing revenue loss as they have done when the proposal had come up before.

While goods-producing industries were used to making multiple state-wise returns for value-added tax under the previous regime, this is a new requirement for services companies, which complain it as a cumbersome process involving lot of paperwork and manpower. For instance, since most airlines have pan-India operations and sales offices, they have to make about 30 registrations. In each territory, they have to file two returns every month: GSTR1 on outward supply or sale and GSTR 3B, which is a summary of all transactions and credits. With two more being added — GSTR 2 on inward supply or purchase and GSTR 3on reconciliation or credits to be claimed from the government — the number of returns that an airline has to file is set to increase to 120 a month, or 1,440 a year.

There are other fears as well. Inter-company transactions in some sectors could attract transfer pricing issues. In such cases, the company will have to pay tax. There could be problems also over tax assessment due to reassignment of work within the tax authorities. The government has assigned GST assessing officers from a combined pool of officials who previously dealt with sales tax, excise or VAT. Some of them, especially those working in state governments, may not be familiar with the way services industries operate. Earlier, state officials dealt primarily with manufacturing companies, collecting VAT. The central government collected excise tax as well as services tax from industries like aviation and financial services. Service providers, which were previously assessed only at the central level, are also assessed by state officials under GST. A common registration system, with a centralized filing of returns, will significantly cut compliance costs and complexities, a key issue that almost all of corporate India has raised about the tax structure that combines several indirect taxes into one.

[Source: The Economic Times]