Connect with us


The Lockheed L-188 Electra



1. Design Origins:

Transition periods sometimes prompt transition solutions. During the 1950s, the piston airliner, in the form of the Douglas DC-6 and DC-7 and the Lockheed L-649/749 and -1040 Constellations, were moving toward their technological peaks, yet the pure-jet engine, other than that powering the ill-fated de Havilland DH.106 Comet I and emerging military aircraft, had yet to reach commercial aviation maturity. The compromise, at least in terms of speed, seemed to be the turboprop engine, which combined elements of both and had already been introduced by the Vickers Viscount in the UK.

It was during this period-specifically 1954-that American Airlines, supported by interest from Eastern, submitted design specifications for what it considered a new class of airliner. Those included a greater than 400-mph cruise speed, profitable operations on sectors ranging from 100 to 2,700 miles, a passenger capacity of at least 65, and the type of short-field performance that would enable it to serve all of the country’s 100 major airports.

In short, it sought greater speed, comfort, and economy than that offered by the current generation of quad-engine piston transports, but that could operate multi-sector flights without requiring enroute refueling and attain profitability with load factors as low as 50 percent.

“American and Eastern had demanded a plane equally adept at short- and long-haul operations,” according to Robert J. Serling in “The Electra Story: Aviation’s Greatest Mystery” (Bantam Books, 1963, p. 15). “This was mostly achieved by the thirteen-and-a-half-foot props, which swept their mighty air stream over all but nine feet of the wing area.”

Toward that end, Lockheed elected to employ the same C-130 Hercules design team and Allison T-56 engines that powered the type, creating the US’s first turboprop-powered airliner, the L-188.

“Lockheed opened America’s commercial jet era by hanging a propeller on the jet engine,” according to Jim Upton in “Lockheed L-188 Electra” (Specialty Press Publishers and Wholesalers, 1999, p. 7). “Research left Lockheed convinced that, while jets without propellers (would be) excellent on long-range fights, airlines would be better served by having an effective vehicle for segments which historically showed little or no profit-(that is), short to medium routes.”

The aircraft was almost the product of an equation which read: “Jet power + propeller efficiency = proper performance and economy.”

Aside from its design team and powerplant, it also shared another aspect of the manufacturer’s lineage: its name. Ensuring that its products would bear the designation of a star, as had occurred during the 1920s and 1930s with names such as “Orion,” “Vega,” “Sirius,” and “Altair,” it would borrow the nomenclature of its twin piston engine L-10 Electra, L-12 Electra Junior, and L-14 Super Electra.

Eastern and American respectively placed orders for 40 and 35 L-188 second generation Electras in 1955.

2. Design Features:

“(The Lockheed L-188 Electra) has a purposeful and powerful profile,” according to veteran American Airlines Captain Arthur Weidman, who had flown DC-3s, Convairliners, DC-6s, and DC-7s. “The nose slopes downward sharply to provide good forward visibility on the ground and in the air. Then, her lines go straight back along a perfectly cylindrical fuselage to give her a wider cross section than the DC-7… There is a graceful upsweep to its dorsal fin and rudder, effecting a sleek, trim, streamlined look. Slender nacelles jut forward like giant probes, offering a minimum of frontal resistance.”

With a 104.6-foot-long and 11.4-foot-diameter fuselage, the Electra featured large, square passenger windows.

One of the keys to its design was its wing. Appearing proportionately too short in span for the aircraft it supported, mounted with considerable dihedral, and sporting square tips, it was only 5.5 feet shorter than the fuselage itself, at 99 feet in length, and offered both a low-drag and -aspect ratio. Its trailing edge flaps ran from the fuselage root to the ailerons, or just beyond the outer engines’ exhaust nozzles, and almost 80 percent of its span was subjected to lift-generating prop wash, facilitating low-speed handling.

Power was provided by four 3,750-eshp (equivalent shaft horse power) Allison 501-D13 turboprops, which turned 13.6-foot-diameter, single-rotation, hydraulically-controlled, constant-speed, reversible pitch, four-bladed propellers. Compared to the pure-jet engine, the prop jet featured reduction gear that drove both the propeller and additional gas turbine section stages, resulting in a 90:10 thrust production ratio, or 90 percent created by the propeller and ten percent by the exhaust gases.

The ailerons, elevator, and rudder were operated by push-pull, tube-linked hydraulic booster units, while engine compressor bleed air provided anti-icing of all control surfaces.

The aircraft’s 5,520-US gallon fuel capacity was stored in four wing integral tanks, divided into the two, 1,100-gallon inboard and two 1,660-gallon outboard ones. In-flight fuel cross-feeding was only necessary on long-range sectors exceeding 1,800 miles.

The L-188 rested on a twin-wheeled, hydraulically actuated, forward-retracting tricycle undercarriage, which had the provision for gravity free-fall extension in the event of either hydraulic or electrical system failures.

Integral, fuselage extendable air stairs, along with other self-contained features and its low-to-ground, support equipment-independent position, facilitated turn-arounds at transit stations where fueling was not required in as little as 12 minutes.

The Electra was standardly flown by a three-person cockpit crew, with a duplicate throttle quadrant on the captain’s and first officer’s sides and the flight engineer’s station behind both in the center on domestic routes, while a fourth crew member, the navigator, was employed on international ones and positioned on the aft, left side, occupying the location of the otherwise observer’s eat.

Although passenger cabin configurations and densities varied according to the operator, Lockheed initially offered several options, facilitated by the installation of seat tracks. Either 66 four-abreast, 20-inch-wide seats at a 38-inch pitch with a 26-inch aisle or 85 five-abreast, 18-inch-wide ones with a 17-inch aisle could be installed, both of which also featured a six-place, tail-located lounge arranged in a semi-circular configuration. Installation of aft, as well as the standard mid, lavatory reduced the capacity to 83, while the maximum was 99 five-abreast in 20 rows. Alternatively, 127 passengers in a six-abreast, 32-inch pitch configuration was available, but required structural modifications and additional exits to meet evacuation criteria.

A maximum, 6.55-psi differential, achieved by two engine-driven superchargers, provided cabin pressurization and temperature was maintained by radiant heating.

Baggage, cargo, and mail were carried in two underfloor, starboard door-accessed holds.

Featuring a 113,000-pound maximum takeoff weight, the initial, domestic L-188A version had a 2,200-mile range and attained a 373-mph cruise and 448-mph maximum speed.

“There were… two basic versions, the L-188A for US domestic operation, with a fuel capacity of 5,520 US gallons, and the L-188C with 900 US gallons more fuel and a higher gross weight of 116,000 pounds… ,” according to Michael Hardy in World Civil Aircraft since 1945 (Charles Scribner’s Sons 1979, p. 93).

Its range was 3,500 miles.

3. Test Flights:

Piloted by Captain Herman “Fish” Salmon, First Officer Roy Wimmer, Flight Engineer Laurie Hallard, and Flight Test Engineer Bill Spreurer, the L-188 Electra made its inaugural flight from the Lockheed Air Terminal in Burbank, California, on December 6, 1957, after which Spreurer commented, “The smoothness and quietness of the aircraft (were immediately apparent). The vibration level was very low and the engines were so quiet that you could hear the chase aircraft.”

After a four-airplane, 655-hour flight test program, the type was certified on August 12, 1958, five weeks ahead of schedule, permitting first delivery of aircraft 1007 to launch customer Eastern Airlines two months later, on October 8.

Accolades of the Electra’s design and performance capabilities accrued, as pronounced by the Air Line Pilots Association evaluation committee.

“Members were very much impressed with the rapid power application possible and with the immediate airplane response in climb performance,” they proclaimed. “It definitely exceeded their balked landing and pull-out.

“High-speed stability is good… good control response at touchdown speeds… responded well to the flare-out on landing… crosswind take off and landing characteristics to be most normal…

“The stall characteristics of this airplane in all configurations was exceptionally good. There was no fall-off on one wing or any other adverse tendencies.

“This committee is more than reasonably confident that the manufacturers, the operators, the pilots, and the public will be satisfied with the record of safety, efficiency, and economy which will be achieved.”

American Airlines Captain Arthur Weidman expanded upon this after his first flight in the type.

“Electra is every inch a pilot’s airplane,” he wrote in Douglas J. Ingells’ “L-1011 TriStar and the Lockheed Story” (Aero Publishers, Inc., 1973, p. 124.) His initial impression was that the aircraft exuded “functional beauty.”

Despite its powerful prop-jet turbines, he found it quieter during taxi and acceleration in the cockpit than in comparable pistonliners.

“… It got off in a hurry and climbed rapidly,” he stated. “Obviously, there was a lot of power packed into her streamlined nacelles (and) thrust to spare in the noticeably wide, flat blades of the propellers (p. 127).

A throttle advance to the “flight regime” stage initiated the aircraft’s acceleration roll at a 13,820-rpm speed of its engines, causing the L-188 to achieve its rotation “before it would occur in a Piper Cub. Power is there and speaks through performance.

“The low sound and vibration level make the take off seem effortless and the airplane lifts off… ” he continued (p. 129). “The thumping vibration of piston engines and the long, slow climb out are things of the past.”

Contrary to the throttles on other aircraft, those on the Electra controlled the blade angle, not the engine’s rotations, which remained constant throughout all flight phases. Thrust changes therefore only depended upon changes to their pitch, but needed to be coupled with elevator inputs.

Climbs equaled 2,200 to 2,500-fpm and speeds exceeded 400 mph.

Lift and wing efficiency were considerably enhanced by the prop wash over the upper surface.

“She responds to control actions more like a fighter than a sixty-ton airliner,” he commented (p. 129).

The aircraft’s power reserve was almost astronomical: it could climb on any two engines and maintain altitude on any one.

Landing only required ground contact and a short deceleration roll, aided by brake applications and the reversible pitch of the propellers.

4. Airline Operations:

First and largest of the 14 original operators with 34 L-188As and six L-188Cs, Eastern Airlines inaugurated the type into scheduled service on January 12, 1959, configured for 66 single-class passengers, along with the aft, six-place lounge, on several dual-sector routes, including New York (Idlewild)-Atlanta-Tampa, Miami-New York-Montreal, and Detroit-Cleveland-Miami. It was both the air shuttle’s first- and second-section (to the DC-9) aircraft between 1965 and 1977, linking La Guardia with Boston and Washington.

American, the second operator with 35 L-188As, inaugurated its Electra service the same day as Eastern on the New York-La Guardia to Chicago-Midway route.

National Airlines, which had ordered 15 L-188As, offered a 72-passenger and six-seat lounge interior and connected New York (Idlewild) with Miami as of April 23, 1959.

Braniff, which offered a similar 75/6 arrangement, served the Texas cities of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio from New York-Idlewild and Chicago-Midway airports.

“Advertised as ‘a totally new dimension in jet-age travel,’ Western Airlines began Electra-jet service on August 1, 1959 between the West Coast cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle,” according to John Proctor, Mike Machat, and Craig Kodera in “From Props to Jets: Commercial Aviation’s Transition to the Jet Age” (Specialty Press, 2010, p. 91). “Two months later turboprop flights were added to Salt Lake City, Denver, and Minneapolis, as the fleet expanded to five 66-seat, first class-configured airplanes. Seven more Electras followed with the last delivered in 96-seat, all-coach layouts, lacking a lounge.”

Inaugurating service on September 18, 1959 with the first of 18 72-seat L-188Cs, Northwest served its Minneapolis fight base with it, along with operating a transcontinental segment from New York-Idlewild to Seattle.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, with 12 67-passenger international L-188Cs, became the only European operator of the Electra, inaugurating it into service on December 9, 1959 on routes such as Amsterdam-Dusseldorf-Vienna, Amsterdam-Frankfurt-Budapest, and those to the Middle East. Its aircraft featured the rounded-tip Hamilton Standard propellers and cockpit navigator’s stations.

The type was also operated as far afield as Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Australia with, respectively, the likes of Cathay Pacific, Garuda, and Qantas.

5. Braniff Flight 542:

While the conclusion of the Air Line Pilots Association concerning the fact that the Electra’s “record of safety, efficiency, and economy will be achieved” was optimistically predictive, the first of its three tenets was, in the event, not realized.

Scheduled to operate the multi-sector route from Houston to New York with intermediate stops in Dallas and Washington as Braniff Flight 542, aircraft N-9705C, the carrier’s fifth L-188A-which itself had only been delivered two days earlier-accepted its 28 passengers on the warm, humid night of September 29, 1959. There was no hint as to the airplane’s fate. Or was there?

Of the six crew members aboard, First Officer Dan Hallowell commented to an Allison representative before departure, “This aircraft trims up funny.” Hallowell could not elaborate, nor did the representative understand his implications. The aircraft’s logbook noted no maintenance, trim-related anomalies. Perhaps it was nothing more than an uneasy, unexplainable feeling.

Divorcing itself from the runway at 2244, the Electra reached its assigned, 15,000-foot altitude 13 minutes later, at 2300, maintaining a 275-knot speed on its relatively short sector to Dallas.

After reporting its position over Leona, Texas, five minutes later, it was instructed, “Request you now monitor Fort Worth on a frequency of 120.8,” which was recorded in the logbook as “Transmission completed, 2307.”

It was its last.

The subsequent event was heard before it was seen by the tiny town of Buffalo, Texas, as most of its inhabitants had already retired for the night. It was an assault of the senses. Shrills and deafening whistles, of varying pitches, preceded a faint roar that culminated in a thunderous cacophony. Like an exploding bomb, it next visually manifested itself as tornadoes of heavy metal shards, fractured fragments of some considerably sized craft. Finally, it entered the nostrils as rain reeking of jet-propelling kerosene, all remnants of Braniff Flight 542 and all at a time when almost 100 L-188s routinely carried 20,000 daily passengers.

Although witnesses on the ground from the predominantly farmland area described various, pre-impact sounds, perhaps the most accurate of them came not from humans, but from canines, when a farmer observed, “When the sound came, every coon dog for miles around started howling.” Why did it affect them so severely?

Reflected on the ground, to a degree, was the aftermath image of what must have occurred in the air, of what had sparked the airliner’s plummet and disintegration. A crater apparently bored by its nose contained the forward fuselage section and a few seats, dismembered from the rest of its body, and behind it, first at periodic feet, and then mile, locations, were its remnants: the center cabin at 225 feet; the vertical tail, rudder, inboard stabilizers, and tail cone at 230 feet; a large section of the right wing at 1,760 feet; the starboard stabilizer at 2,020 feet; the port stabilizer at 4,080 feet; the number four engine nacelle covering at 5,300 feet; the left wing, number two engine nacelle covering and propeller, and number four engine at 8,640 feet; the number one propeller and gear box at 9,600 feet; and a nine-inch section of the number two fuel tank’s hydraulic line at 2.3 miles. Indeed, a 17-mile linear pattern of wreckage stretched from the crater to the LEONA VOR.

Painstaking reconstruction revealed that the Electra had shed its left wing, at which point fire erupted and the limbless airplane dove earthward, shattering from the gravity-induced forces.

Part of the investigation focused on ground witness accounts and claims about the high-pitched sound in the sky before they were even aware of its origin, indicating, perhaps, that the turning propellers had for some reason reached supersonic speeds. The physiological responses of the collective coon dogs was also not to be discounted, since they reacted as if the sound had pierced their ears. But how and why? And what, if anything, did all of this have to do with the first officer’s pre-departure comment about the airplane’s “funny trim?” Could this have been the result of an autopilot or stabilizer malfunction or even a fuel imbalance?

And what was the significance of the damage marks that revealed that the number one propeller had whirled at an angle of up to 35 degrees from its normal plane of rotation? Would it not have been the natural result of the stresses and strains of the left wing as it tore off? Or was it the cause?

Yet exhaustive investigation and analysis revealed no definitive answer-no probable cause-and hence no design modifications could be recommended to correct the undetermined error or flaw.

By March 17, 1960, it was concluded that only the unlikely repeat of the Braniff Electra accident could pinpoint the reason for its demise and the loss of all on board. And on that day, that is exactly what occurred.

6. Northwest Flight 710:

Aircraft N-122US was ironically the first L-188C delivered to Northwest Airlines and had logged fewer than 1,800 hours, but it would not be in service for long. Operating as Flight 710 on March 17, 1960, it had covered the first of its two segments, from Minneapolis to Chicago-Midway, in one hour, fur minutes; however, it was quickly airborne again, now destined for Miami, at 1438 local time, at a 105,000-pound gross weight, reaching 18,000 feet and advising Indianapolis Center seven minutes later that it was over Millford, Illinois.

Proceeding to its next radio checkpoint of Scotland, Indiana, at 1513, it advised, “Maintaining 18,000 and estimating Bowling Green (Kentucky) at 1525.”

Fifteen minutes later, Flight 710 was instructed to contact Memphis Center on frequency 124.6, to which it replied, “Acknowledged.” It was the last transmission received.

The weather was clear, but, based upon the subsequent events, apparently not very cooperative. Penetrating the powerful, unpredictable phenomenon designated “clear air turbulence” (CAT), the Electra was allegedly reduced to a helpless victim, releasing two puffs of white smoke and then a huge black one as its fate was audibly registered as two, ground witness evidenced explosions.

Reduced to an airborne amputee, the airplane shed its right wing and retained little more than the stub of its left one. Initially oblivious, the limbless body continued in a straight-and-level path, but, unable to generate lift and helpless to create or correct a bank without ailerons, it was no longer able to tame one of the three axes of flight the Wright Brothers had so scientifically identified 57 years earlier and succumbed to the instability of air above and the pull of gravity below.

Nosing over, trailing smoke, and shedding structure, it dove like an air-to-ground missile, plunging into a soybean field near Tell City, Indiana, at 618 mph. Gauging snow, dirt, mud, and vegetation, it more than adequately demonstrated Newton’s Third Law of Motion-“for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”-when the earth ricocheted and spat chunks of itself 250 feet into the air.

What remained was a 30-by-40-foot wide, 12-foot deep crater of smoldering smoke, molecular disintegration, and the obliteration of the 63 passengers and crew on board, since not a single recognizable body was ever found.

Could clear air turbulence have been the culprit?

The only significant piece of wreckage was later discovered in the crater itself.

“The huge fuselage had telescoped and compressed into a mass of molten metal only one-third its overall length,” wrote Serling in “The Electra Story: Aviation’s Greatest Mystery” (op. cit., p. 49). “Of the 63 occupants, there was not enough left to identify-eventually-more than seven bodies. The aluminum fuselage that was their coffin was so hot that five days later a steam shovel picked up pieces that still were burning.”

11,291 feet from the impact point was the severed right wing. The clues were strangely reminiscent of the Braniff accident near Buffalo, Texas. What was the commonality between the two?

One aspect differed. Clear air turbulence and a more than 100-mph jet stream at 18,000 feet, the Northwest flight’s altitude, had intercepted its flight path at a 90-degree angle and had affected other aircraft in the vicinity at the time. But it begged the question: why, if it had been so severe, had they not succumbed to a similar fate?

Clear air turbulence for all its properties, had suddenly become visible to the Federal Aviation Agency. Although the L-188 had more than exceeded its structural expectations, it differed from other propeller airliners, since it represented, to a degree, transition technology: it combined traditional props with still-untraditional turbines, enabling it to eclipse speed boundaries between those of, say, the DC-6 and the emerging military jets.

Like the adolescent who tries to grow up too fast, perhaps it had entered a realm for which it was not sufficiently ready, as the Comet had at high-altitude regions with insufficiently thick fuselage skin gauges. Combined with CAT, perhaps it had proved catastrophic.

Fighting to ground the aircraft, yet unable to identify the definitive cause, the FAA elected to keep the Electra in the sky, albeit at an initially imposed 275-knot speed restriction, coupled with the deactivation of its autopilots and the installation of impact-sustainable flight recorders. When it was realized that this had been the speed of the Braniff aircraft, it was further reduced to 225 knots.

What exactly was happening? The aircraft had, after all, been subjected to rigorous, pre-certification tests.

“… (But) nowhere in the Electra blueprints-which, laid end to end, would stretch forty miles-nowhere in the reports of thousands of hours of ground and test flights-nowhere in 20,000 separate design studies or 7,000 pages of mathematical calculations-was there any mention of a scientific phenomenon known as ‘whirl mode,'” Serling pointed out (Ibid, p. 19).

7. Mystery Solved:

Both laboratory (theoretical) and airborne (practical) exploration and analysis, parts of the Lockheed Electra Achievement Program or LEAP, probed the mystery behind the Braniff and Northwest accidents, and entailed two daily, ten-hour flights, in which various loads, parameters, and speeds were explored, even red-line eclipsing ones. Initially, they only proved the L-188’s design integrity, until a clue, which was not even interpretable, finally surfaced.

Energy propagates and exerts its effects at its final destination. In the Electra’s case, it was ascertained that heavy motion loads had produced a far greater effect on its outboard engine nacelles during severe turbulence penetration than structural tests had revealed, producing a wing bending force from there to the tips, as proven during flight tests over the California mountains that produced tornado-strength updrafts called the “Sierra waves.” The turbulence they created wreaked havoc with the aircraft’s flight controls and structure.

Progressive damage from the number one and number four engines of, respectively, the Braniff and Northwest aircraft had been the result of uncontrolled flutter. Diagonal, saw-tooth fractures indicated the presence of pre-structural failure–cyclic, repetitive, and powerful oscillations—but what could not be answered was why the lack of turbulence over Buffalo, Texas, had caused the same phenomenon as that over Tell City, Indiana. What exactly had sparked the same destructive flutter in the atmospheric-dissimilar mishaps?

Focus next shifted from the weather to the engine nacelles themselves, which opposed each other in installation on the respective Electras involved.

Analyses of what remained of the eight propellers indicated that that turned by engine number one on the Braniff aircraft had, for some reason, wobbled. An over-speed catalyst or condition had caused the tips to reach sonic velocities and with that realization the light of truth had been lit. Both accidents had been caused by propeller whirl mode.

Because a propeller has gyroscopic tendencies, it remains in its plane of rotation until and unless it is displaced by an external source, causing it to adhere to Newton’s “equal and opposite reaction” law. In this case, the propeller continued to rotate in one direction, while the induced whirl mode removed it from its uniform place of rotation and caused it to vibrate in a different one.

If not dampened, removed, or reversed, it develops a wildly wobbling gyroscope, transmitting its energy to that which it is mounted-like an illness that spreads and infects everything in its path-in this case, the wing-or, more precisely, the outer wing. In the Braniff accident, it was the left one. In the Northwest accident, it was the right one.

A strut fairing failure, occurring in the number four engine of the latter Electra, eliminated the restraint that had restricted the engine from moving upward and to the left, resulting in abnormal, omni-directional loads, which caused the engine to experience large cycle motions. These ultimately cracked the propeller’s reduction gear box.

The result, as demonstrated by a one-eighth scale L-188 model in a NASA Langley wind tunnel, was expressed as follows.

“With simulated damage in the nacelle area, propeller auto-precession, a self-sustained, wobbling motion of the spinning propeller involving coupling of gyroscopic and aerodynamic forces, occurred.”

The aircraft’s design flaw did not necessarily entail the inadequate strength of the nacelle structure, but its lack of sufficient stiffening. Affected by previous damage, it developed into a chain reaction of destruction. After its engine had wobbled, so, too, had its propeller and, as its motion was transmitted to the outer wing, it flexed, fluttered, and snapped, leaving the limbless fuselage to the grip of gravity.

Although clear air turbulence had obviously been the spark that lit the chain reaction in the Northwest accident, it could only be surmised that a hard landing, not noted in the logbook, had served as the similar ignition in the Braniff one. Undetected, could this early, not yet catastrophic wobble have not been the reason behind the first officer’s comment that the airplane had “trimmed funny?”

And dogs do not lie, coon or otherwise. As the supersonic speed of the propeller tips emitted painful pitches that virtually pierced their hypersensitive ears, they reacted with a collective howl.

A $25 million, Lockheed financed modification program, applied to both in-service and assembly line aircraft, entailed structural improvements, which resulted in a seven-percent increase in stiffness, and the installation of top and bottom struts, designated “vibration isolators,” were installed in the engine’s reduction gearbox. Its air inlet was relocated and new, stronger engine mounts prevented lateral movements, all resulting in the addition of 1,400 pounds of structural weight.

The aircraft was FAA recertified on December 30, 1960 and, in order to increase public confidence, which had understandably been marred as a result of the accidents, airlines redesignated their modified aircraft “Electra IIs” and “Super Electras.”

8. Program Sunset:

The last three of the 170 L-188As and -Cs produced, registered PK-GLA, -GLB, and -GLC, were acquired by Garuda Indonesian Airways, while the type was given a second lease on life as Central and South American airliners, cargo liners, fire bombers, and as the platform of the foreshortened P-3C Orion antisubmarine patrol aircraft. Alaska-based Reeve Aleutian Airways operated three pure-passenger and combi examples on scheduled services as late as the turn-of-the-century, demonstrating the type’s ruggedness and reliability.

But, as a main line bridge between the piston and pure-jet eras, its crossing was brief and it was quickly replaced by the likes of the Sud-Aviation SE.210 Caravelle, the Boeing 727-100, and the Douglas DC-9-10 and -30 by the mid-1960s.


Hardy, Michael. “World Civil Aircraft since 1945.” New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1979.

Ingells, Douglas J. “L-1011 TriStar and the Lockheed Story.” Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1973.

Proctor, John; Machat, Mike; and Kodera, Craig. “From Props to Jets: Commercial Aviation’s Transition to the Jet Age, 1952-1962.” North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 2010.

Serling, Robert J. “The Electra Story: Aviation’s Greatest Mystery.” New York: Bantam Books, 1963.

Upton, Jim. “Lockheed L-188 Electra.” North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press Publishers and Wholesalers, 1999.

Click to comment


Three Tips To Cure Lung Cancer Naturally!




Thanks to the increase in air pollution, people across the world have seen a huge percentage of increase in lung cancer. Doctors and pharmacists across the world have been on a look out to find new ways and means to treat and cure lung cancer. With the advancement of medical science, there are lots of over the counter medications available to treat this deadly disease.

However, scientists across the world have been constantly looking out for alternative ways and means to treat lung cancer. Though there are various kinds of medications available in the market, these medications are known to have certain kind of adverse side effect on the patient’s body. As a result the need to opt for natural treatments arises. These natural therapies have no side effect on the human body and help the patient to recover faster.

Here are 3 Tips to Cure Lung Cancer naturally:

– Follow a proper diet: It is extremely important to follow a balanced diet. The whole act of balancing food intake helps the patients to recover faster. A proper diet plan entails having the right thing at the right time in adequate quantity. The right diet also ensures that the patient abstains from all food items that harm the patient’s body like coffee, tea and refined foods. Following the right kind of diet helps the patient to improve their immunity system and that gives them the required strength they need.

– Include Juices in your diet: Research has shown that consumption of Vitamin A helps to cure lung cancer. There are many fruit juices that one can have on a daily basis to ensure that the intake of Vitamin A increases. The best and safest bet of doing so is by drinking at least 3 to 4 glasses of freshly made carrot juice on a daily basis. Carrots’ being a rich source of Vitamin A replenishes the vitamin A level in the patient’s body.

– Change your Lifestyle: Most doctors would agree with the fact that due to the erratic lifestyle most people are succumbing to lung cancer. A few simple lifestyle changes are all that needs to be done to address the issue and keep the problem at bay. Firstly, the level of stress needs to be reduced. You need to feel relaxed and sleep on time.

Secondly, a daily work out regime needs to be followed.

The above three tips to cure lung cancer naturally would surely aid the patients. Other than these, you should rest well and take good care of your health.

Continue Reading


L&I Claim Court Decision Prompts Changes to the Stay at Work Program in Washington State




What is the L&I Stay at Work program?

In short, the WA-SAW program helps employers avoid compensable claims. From my perspective, it’s designed purely to offer cost-saving measures to employers. However, it’s a short-sighted program. Practically speaking, it ignores several real-life challenges for work injury claimants. Furthermore, it often causes more long-term harm than good.

In my opinion, one important issue is that L&I exercises very little oversight of employers that take advantage of WA-SAW. Upon returning to work, many work injury clients face hostile work environments and excessive work performance criticism. Many work injury victims report difficulty maintaining treatment schedules resulting in progress setbacks. Yet, these issues are largely overlooked. In fact, work injury claimants are usually blamed and frequently penalized for various issues that arise. For example, when the employer blames the worker after a light duty job is not working out. This situation can result in termination of time loss compensation benefits.

Making the program more fair for people with workers’ compensation claim

L&I recently announced changes to the WA-SAW program following a Court of Appeals decision. Previously, employers could ask for reimbursement back to the date they sent a light duty job description to the L&I claim doctor for consideration. The Court of Appeals ruled this was not appropriate. Now, employers can only ask for reimbursement as of the date the attending provider approves the light-duty job.

Personally, I believe this is a step in the right direction. However, it does not go far enough. In order for employers to be eligible for WA-SAW incentives, the work injury claimant must be: (a) Limited and unable to perform their regular job due to claim related conditions, and (b) Medically released to perform light-duty work by the attending physician. Both the light duty job description and the attending provider approval must be in writing.

Personal perspective

When done the right way and for the right reasons, the WA-SAW program can benefit employers and workers alike. But, from my standpoint, I often see cases where the employer wants to take advantage of WA-SAW by making a light duty job offer. Frequently, employers fail to follow the steps that they need to take, which are necessary to make the offer valid.

The decision by the Court of Appeals is a good step. It helps ensure that employers that follow the rules and provide appropriate job offers enjoy the WA-SAW benefits. Nonetheless, the program still needs a more worker-centric overhaul to make it fair and maximally beneficial to all parties.

This article was first published on

Continue Reading


Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About New York No-Fault




The “New York Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Act,” which most people call the “no-fault statute,” was enacted in 1973 and went into effect the following year. The purpose of the law was to limit the amount of personal injuries claims for car accidents, as many politicians had this agenda on their platforms.

The no-fault statute was groundbreaking in that it provided for immediate payment for medical care, lost earnings and other reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred as a result of injuries from a motor vehicle accident. The law provides that these expenses must be paid up to $50,000 per person. These payments are what’s known as “first party benefits” or “basic economic loss.” The reason it’s called no-fault, is that these payments are made regardless of fault. If you lose control of your car and drive into a tree, you still get these payments.

If your medical bills, lost earnings and/or out-of-pocket expenses total more than $50,000, you can still sue the party that caused your injuries for these additional amounts (as well as for pain and suffering.) If your injuries are “serious” and caused by the negligence of another, you can still bring an action. No-fault does not cover property damage, so you still need to sue for damages to your car unless you carry “collision” or “full coverage” for your vehicle.


“No-Fault benefits are provided for economic loss arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle (Insurance Law Section 5103). Section 5102 defines motor vehicle as “all vehicles driven upon a public highway accept motorcycles.” One might imagine that motorcycles were intentionally excluded due to the frequency of accidents, which would have rendered motorcycle insurance much too expensive.

You are covered by no-fault insurance and thus what the statute calls a “covered person,” if you are the policyholder, a driver or a passenger in the vehicle or a pedestrian that is injured by the operation of the vehicle. If you are not the policyholder and the car’s insurance is not in effect, you would be covered for the “first party” no-fault benefits under any car insurance policy in your household. For example, if your adult child in your home owned a car, it would cover you. If there is no “household car,” there is a state fund called the “Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation” (MVAIC) that would provide “no-fault” benefits.

There are some exclusions you should be aware of. First off, there must be an accident. No-fault benefits will not be paid if an injury is caused by an intentional act. Most insurance policies disclaim intentional acts, no-fault and other types of claims. For example, you would not expect your homeowners insurance to pay for damage caused because you didn’t like your carpet anymore so you poured ink on it. Similarly, if somebody intentionally rams into your car, the insurance will not cover the loss. Luckily, things like this don’t happen very often!

You are also not covered if you are in “the course of your employment.” This applies, for example, if you are driving a taxi, you are working as an attendant in an ambulette or you are on a sales call. In most cases worker’s compensation will pay somewhat similar benefits which will be covered in another article.

If you are the driver, and you are driving under the influence, no-fault benefits will not be paid for you, but will be paid for passengers or pedestrians that you injured. Not surprisingly, if you are injured while committing a crime or when seeking to avoid law enforcement authorities, no benefits will be paid. Coverage will also not be afforded if you are operating a vehicle known to be stolen.

So, the plus side of “no-fault,” is that you are automatically entitled to payment for medical expenses and many other things if you are involved in a car accident, except for the exclusions discussed above. The downside is that in order to have a “tort” claim for negligence against the operator that caused your injuries, you must have what the law defines as a “serious injury.” I’ll explain this in more detail later in this article.


Insurance Law Section 5102 defines it as $50,000 per person for:

All necessary expenses incurred for medical and related services, therapy, certain non-medical treatment by an accepted religious method, and other professional health services so long as their occurrence was ascertainable within one year of the injury;

Loss of earnings and reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in obtaining services in lieu of those such persons would have performed for income, up to $2,000 per month for up to three years;

All other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred up to $25 per day for not more than one year following the accident.

The first paragraph outlines the types of medical treatment that are covered. Non-medical treatments can include acupuncture and some other holistic therapies, but I wouldn’t take a risk pushing for “religious” treatments that are not widely recognized. The benefits paid are on a “fee schedule,” and treating medical professionals cannot charge a higher fee, making it a challenge to find doctors willing to accept no-fault payments. Most chiropractors and physical therapists gladly accept it, but specialists such as orthopedic doctors, neurologists and plastic surgeons can be hard to find.

The second paragraph allows for payment for provable lost earnings due to an accident. If you are self-employed you can submit your tax returns to show a loss of income. You generally need to provide three years of tax returns – two prior years showing what you usually earn and the year the accident occurred showing that you made less. If you need to hire somebody to replace you temporarily, such as somebody to drive your taxi when you own the medallion, the amount you are paying for the replacement driver can be reimbursed. Obviously, if you are working “off the books,” you cannot make a claim for lost earnings benefits.

The third paragraph offers a small amount of money which is usually used for reimbursement for taxis to medical treatment and similar costs. You can also be reimbursed for household help if you are unable to care for your children or take care of your home (but only $25 a day.) There is an option to purchase an additional $25,000 after the $50,000 is exhausted, but very few people elect to buy this additional coverage. Your no-fault insurance benefits will, under some circumstances, even cover you for accidents that occur in other States.


A no-fault application must be submitted to the insurance company within thirty days of the accident. All claims must be submitted within 180 days of their date of service. Most insurance companies will pay benefits promptly. Issues can arise pertaining to the adequacy of the proof provided, which may delay payment. The insurance companies will sometimes claim that treatment is not medically necessary and deny payment, in which case the doctor can arbitrate this denial or sue the insurance company for payment of their bills. It is worthwhile to treat with medical professionals that are willing to do these arbitrations, rather than ending up responsible for payment, or with a lien on your case, should the insurance company refuse to pay. The insurance company also has a right to have you seen by doctors that they hire to determine whether your treatment is necessary. Eventually, as your injuries improve, the insurance company’s hired doctor will “deny” your medical treatment as no longer necessary, which can also be arbitrated or litigated by the medical professional treating you.


The “serious injury” threshold is defined in §5102(d). Damages for pain and suffering are recoverable only if the claimant sustains injuries which result in:

Death; or

Dismemberment; or

Fracture; or

Significant disfigurement; or

Loss of a fetus; or

Permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; or

Permanent consequential limitation of use of a body function or system; or

Significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or

Medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature, which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material, acts which constitute such person’s usual or customary activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence or injury.

The first two categories above are obvious. Fractures show up on x-rays and will always meet the serious injury threshold, no matter how minor they are. A hairline fracture of the left pinky toe will suffice, even if no treatment is required and there is no disability. Significant disfigurement is less clear cut. Usually the issue is cuts and abrasions on the face or other visible parts of the body that result in “scars” and whether or not the remaining marks are actually disfiguring. Case law explains that the scar must be so unattractive that the person is a target of “pity and scorn.” A mark that has to be “pointed out” will not meet the threshold.

With loss of a fetus, it must be proved that the miscarriage was actually caused by the accident. It would not be believable to claim that a miscarriage was caused by a minor impact, especially if the woman did not immediately seek medical treatment for any injuries and lost the baby a month later.

The “permanent loss” and “significant limitation” sections was intended to cover paralysis or other severe losses of use, but has grown to include much less severe impairments such as ligament tears and herniations of the neck and back. There must always be objective evidence, such as MRI’s and doctor’s report to back up these claims, subjective claims of pain are never enough to meet the serious injury threshold.

The threshold is met when an injured person loses more than 90 days of work due to their injuries. The time out from work does not have to be immediate and does not have to be consecutive. For example, a person could be out of work for a month after an accident, try going back to work, be out again, go back, have surgery and then be out again to recover. As long as it totals more than 90 days out of the first 180 days, it meets the serious injury threshold as long as a doctor certifies that you were indeed unable to work. It is not impossible, but much more difficult to qualify under this prong without a full-time paying job, but there are some circumstances where it might apply. For example, a homemaker with small children might be unable to provide care and need to hire childcare for her children, losing 90 out of 180 from her usual activities.

Continue Reading


Innovative Treatments to Successfully Target Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma




Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) is the most common type of mesothelioma with past asbestos exposure representing the major risk factor. While the search for new therapies that target the genes and processes driving MPM has been slow, two new approaches, which are immediately available to you, are showing significant improvements over standard treatment in clinical trials.

Before we discuss these enhanced treatment options, we must first briefly explore two key aspects of MPM progression: Angiogenesis and Epigenetic Regulation.


You’ve likely heard of Angiogenesis. It is the physiological process that tumors use to recruit new blood vessels in order to sustain their continual growth. They do this by manipulating the over-expression of genes that initiate and direct the growth of new, leaky blood vessels from existing ones. This new supply of blood not only allows the tumor to grow, but also provides a mechanism for the tumor cells to metastasize (travel through the body).

The process of angiogenesis is governed by its own unique combination of genes, separate from those involved in the normal formation of new blood vessels (a process known as vasculogenesis). This, it turns out, provides us with an opportunity for successful treatment through the targeting of these unique gene combinations.

One of the most specific and critical regulators of angiogenesis is the family of vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), which regulate endothelial proliferation (the formation of new blood vessels), blood vessel permeability, and survival.In MPM,over-expression of VEGF is common and correlates with lower remission rates and reduced overall patient survival. Clearly, effectively targeting VEGFs would result in limiting the blood supply to tumors thus successfully prohibiting their growth. And that’s just what we are seeing in current clinical trials. (More on that in a bit.)

Epigenetic Regulation:

A significant development in MPM treatment involves studies that focus on manipulating the processes of gene regulation, commonly referred to as epigenetic regulation. In MPM, tumor suppressor genes (the genes that, when functioning properly, naturally prohibit the growth of tumor cells) are silenced due to three key forms of epigenetic regulation:

1. Removal of acetyl groups by histone deacetylases (HDACs);

2. Inhibition of histone acetyltransferases (HATs), which add acetyl groups; and

3. Addition of methyl groups by DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs).

In MPM, the over-expression of HDACs coupled with the inhibition of HATs is considered a key process that leads to disease progression. The over-expression of DNMTs occurs in most cancers.

The benefit of targeting epigenetic processes is that they are reversible. Unlike a mutated gene which cannot be reactivated, it is possible to reactivate tumor suppressor genes that have been silenced by epigenetic processes. Thus, effective treatment must include some process whereby tumor suppressor genes are supported to maintain their function and reactivated in cases where they have already been silenced.

To this end, there are numerous clinical trials currently exploring the use of unique combinations of drugs to inhibit the silencing of tumor suppressor genes and to stop the flow of blood to tumors. Current clinical trials using HDAC and VEGF inhibitors are showing significant benefits in patient survival. For example, Vorinostat, an inhibitor of HDACs, has recently been shown to be beneficial for advanced mesothelioma patients whose cancer has progressed after standard chemotherapy.

The continued development and incorporation of these new drugs as part of standard treatment will undoubtedly be realized over the next few years. In the meantime there are some very simple and effective natural measures that you can take immediately that will directly and powerfully influence the growth of cancer.

While clinical trials provide the basis for current molecular-targeted therapies, plant phytochemicals (also known as: Nutraceuticals) provide an exciting option as an additional means of gene regulation.

Science has identified the following nutraceuticals as having a significant effect in slowing the mechanisms involved in MPM progression. Thus it is imperative, as part of your treatment protocol, that you ensure these substances are a part of your daily diet in the appropriate combinations.

The following section is a list of nutraceuticals that have been shown to directly affect epigenetic regulation and angiogenisis in various cancers.

In order to inhibit DNMTs to maintain tumor suppressor gene function, we must consume the following foods:

Apigenin (Parsley, Thyme), Curcumin (Tumeric, Ginger, Mustard), EGCG (Green Tea, Nutmeg)

Genistein (Soy), Resveratrol (Red Wine, Grape Skins), Sulforaphane (Broccoli, Brussels Sprouts, Cabbages)

In order to inhibit HDACs to maintain tumor suppressor gene function, we must consume these foods:

Allyl Mercaptan(Garlic), Curcumin (Tumeric, Ginger, Mustard), Genistein (Soy) Sulforaphane (Broccoli, Brussels Sprouts, Cabbages)

In order to activate HATs to reactivate tumor suppressors, we must regularly consume these foods:

Curcumin (Tumeric, Ginger, Mustard), EGCG (Green Tea, Nutmeg), Genistein (Soy)

In order to inhibit VEGFs to prevent further angiogenesis, we must ensure that these substances are a part of our daily diet:

Curcumin (Tumeric, Ginger, Mustard), EGCG (Green Tea, Nutmeg), 6-Gingerol (Ginger)

In Conclusion:

There are many molecular pathways and genes involved in MPM. Above we have explored just a few. However, including a daily diet of the nutraceuticals listed above will go a long way to improve your statistical chances for remission and disease prevention, as these nutraceuticals are revealing themselves to be significant in the treatment and prevention of many forms of cancer.

Given the success of current clinical trials being conducted using molecular-targeted therapies this is also an important avenue to consider as an adjunct to standard treatment. Many clinical trials can be accessed from your home town through your current treatment specialist after a brief registration and testing process.

It is essential that you talk to your doctor before considering any changes to your diet as these nutraceuticals, while typically enhancing of any standard therapy, can interfere with prescription drugs.

If you would like more information on the use of nutraceuticals to enhance your life-expectancy or to have a personalized nutraceutical diet prepared for you, we welcome you to contact us @ [email protected] We are also happy to arrange to consult with your treatment team to share the most current information on enhanced treatment options and clinical trial access with them.

Patient Resources:

The Mesothelioma Center – The web based resource also provides free support services for patients and families world-wide. For additional information please visit or call (800) 615-2270.

About the Author:

Continue Reading


The Benefits of Having a Mesothelioma Lawyer




When you have mesothelioma, you may feel too stressed out with so many things that must be done. You will need to settle your schedules for chemotherapy, surgery, and other treatments so that you can cope up with your disease. Also, this may even be the cause of your slow recovery since your mind is into too many things. You will also have to take care of the finances and there may even be more legal problems. Since you are sick, you cannot work thus the financial problems gets even worse. However, you should remember that you can get some money from the group or company that caused your sickness. You can get a mesothelioma lawyer to help you out with your case.

Since you are already preoccupied with so many things, you may really need the help and expertise of a mesothelioma lawyer. For one, you may not have the sufficient knowledge to make your claim strong that can lead you to get enough financial support against a company. Additionally, taking care of the financial aspects of your problem would just lessen your time for treatment and it would make your recovery slower. Thus, there is a need for a mesothelioma lawyer so that you will already have someone else to take care of the legal aspects. You don’t really know this part so it would be better if you can give it to someone who has the right training and knowledge to handle such.

If you are already decided that you will hire a mesothelioma lawyer to help you out with your case, you need to carefully search for the right kind of lawyer. Your choice can have a big impact on how your case will end up so make sure that your mesothelioma lawyer is good enough to make your claim strong. You will need financial help to recover from your disease and you have to do this so that you will get help from the company that have caused you the disease mesothelioma. Your lawyer would have to prove that the company is liable for your sickness and that is the reason why they should give you financial help. Thus, it is a delicate matter when you are on the stage of finding and deciding for the mesothelioma lawyer that would be hired.

There are many mesothelioma lawyers that can give you their service. Each person may give you their edge over the other. What you must do is be careful in selecting the mesothelioma lawyer and consider the person that has the best qualification. The experience would matter and the individual will also have to be dedicated to your case. This way, you can be assured that he has the needed knowledge to make your case win. Also, your mesothelioma lawyer will also be the one that you will confide with for the duration of the case so you better make sure that you can be comfortable talking with your mesothelioma lawyer before hiring him.

Continue Reading


When Is a Retailer Liable for Selling a Defective Product?




When a product is defective, there are several parties that may be liable for damages as part of a product liability claim. These parties are all links in the distribution chain that take products from the designer and manufacturer to the consumer’s hands. In some cases, the retailer selling the product can be liable for their part in a consumer’s injuries. Although the retailer did not make the defective product, they can still play a role in sustained injuries that assigns liability.

Manufacturer’s Role in Defective Product Liability

When consumers are injured by a defective retail product, product liability laws allow them to recover damages from parties associated with that product. It is usually the manufacturer who is first held liable for a defective product’s injury of the consumer and other damages.

In many of these cases, the consumer does not need to prove that the manufacturer is negligent, only that the product had defects. The consumer also needs to show that they used it according to how it was intended and designed to be used. Finally, they must show that using it properly caused their injuries.

The manufacturer is not where all of the liability for that defective product ends. Retailers may also be liable.

Retailer’s Role in Defective Product Liability

It is a responsibility of a retailer to ensure that what they sell to the public is safe and will not injure consumers. But a retailer may argue that design and manufacturing defects are the manufacturer’s responsibility and they had no way of knowing that the product could cause their customers harm.

But retailers must exercise caution in selling products, ensuring what they stock is safe for use. They are also responsible for conforming to a recall, if one includes products they sell. Due to these responsibilities, they may be liable if they sell a product that causes injury to the purchaser or anyone else who did not buy the product.

When you are injured by a product, you may hold a retailer or third-party liable even if you were not the one using the product. A good example of this is an auto accident. If the driver who caused the wreck was operating a defective vehicle, you can submit a legal claim against the manufacturer, just as the vehicle’s driver may do the same. In such cases of a defective product, an attorney can clarify who may be liable for your injuries or other damages.

Negligence and Liability of a Retailer or Store

Sometimes retailers act with negligence. This means that they knowingly sell a product that they are aware, or should be aware of, is defective. A good example of this is when a retailer does not participate in a recall as they should. When the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalls a consumer product due to defective design, manufacturing or other issues, the retailer is responsible for ensuring their customers are safe from that defective product and do not purchase it after the recall has been issued. If a retailer continues to sell the item, that retailer is likely negligent in not removing the product from its inventory or store.

As part of some recalls, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may require retailers to inform customers who bought the defective product from them about the recall. The retailer may need to educate customers regarding the steps needed to repair the item or replace it. By not doing so, the retailer is likely negligent.

If a recalled product causes you injury or other damages, you should contact a personal injury lawyer for advice regarding how to handle your claim.

Product Liability and Personal Injury Lawyers

Product liability and personal injury lawyers help protect consumers from defective products by holding liable and negligent parties responsible for injuries and damages. These types of legal claims do not just benefit the customer who was harmed by the product. These cases actually often lead to product recalls that can save millions of people from being harmed in the same way, using the same item. When consumers hold retailers and manufacturers accountable for the damages their products cause, everyone in the distribution chain becomes more aware of how integrity and product safety are of the ultimate importance in their industry.

Continue Reading


Rhode Island RI Personal Injury Law FAQS – Automobile – Car Accident – Damages – Pain & Suffering




1) If I am injured in an automobile accident, what do I do?

Make sure you stop at the scene of the car accident and notify the police department immediately about the accident. If possible, please get all of the information about the other parties involved in the accident, including their name, address, telephone number and insurance information. Make sure you receive treatment for your injuries with a medical provider as soon as possible.

At the time of the accident, please get the names, addresses and phone numbers of any witnesses to the accident. If you have a camera or a cell phone with a camera, please take pictures of your automobile, the other automobile and the scene of the accident. If you have any bruises or physical conditions that are noticeable, please take pictures of the physical condition as soon as possible. Please do not give any statement to the insurance adjuster until you have had the opportunity to speak with an attorney.

2) How do I determine how much money I am entitled to as a result of the accident?

In order to determine the value of the case, the attorneys must look at a combination of factors, including lost wages, pain and suffering, permanency of the injury, any scarring or disfigurement, loss of consortium, periods of disability, etc. Determining the value of a case is an art rather than a science. The amount of the medical bills incurred will be one important factor in determining the value of the case.

3) Does Rhode Island have a statute of limitations for personal injury cases?

There is a three year statute of limitations to file a lawsuit for negligence in Rhode Island. If you do not file a lawsuit within three years from the date of the accident, you will be forever barred from filing a claim as a result of the accident. In the event that the claim is for personal injuries against a city or a town, there are very strict notice requirements.

4) What if I am injured and the other party is at fault but has no insurance?

You have the legal right to file a claim against the person or corporation whose negligence caused your injury. However, in many cases the negligent party does not have the assets or funds to be able to pay your damages. So long as you have uninsured or under-insured motorist protection, you will be able to file a claim against your own insurance company for uninsured or under-insured claims.

5) How do I recover if I am hit by a hit and run motorist?

If you have uninsured motorist protection with your own insurance carrier, you may be entitled to make a claim against your own insurance carrier.

Rhode Island Attorneys legal Notice per RI Rules of Professional Responsibility:

The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law, but does not license or certify any lawyer/ attorney as an expert or specialist in any field of practice.

Continue Reading


Advantages of the Cyprus Economic Zone For Russian Companies




Nicosia, 27 June 2008 – Cyprus is one of the most advantageous places of residency for Russian and Ukrainian companies. It offers a high level of banking, auditing, accounting and legal services, as well as its real estates, which developed Cyprus into a successful international business and financial centre.

Some of the main factors and advantages which secure Cyprus ‘ attractiveness to international businesses and investments are the following:

1. 10% corporate tax rate for business profits;

2. No withholding taxes imposed on dividends, interest and royalties for non-residents (whether a company or an individual);

3. Income from dividends is exempt from income or corporation tax;

4. The attractive platform and tax regime that Cyprus provides for a holding company (i.e. subject to certain conditions full exemption from local taxation in respect of dividends received by a holding company from its local and foreign subsidiaries);

5. The attractive platform and tax regime that Cyprus provides for international trusts;

6. The network of favorable double taxation treaties that Cyprus maintains with more than 40 countries including Russia and most of the ex Soviet Union Republics;

7. Tax advantages available to non-residents including non – E.U. residents;

8. Cypriot tax regime permits losses to be carried forward indefinitely;

9. The geographic location of Cyprus, located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa;

One of the mentioned above factors is a double taxation treaty between Russia and Cyprus, which provides to Russians many tax advantages. Agreement was signed between Russia and Cyprus for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital, back on 17 August 1999. The treaty provides for either the exemption of income in the source country or the provision of tax credit in respect of the foreign tax paid by the country of tax residence.

Usually, Russian companies would pay 35 percent tax on profits, plus a 20 percent VAT tax, and a 40 percent tax for social security and employee benefits, in Russia. However, when Russian business is structured in a way that a Cyprus company owns it (which does not require any physical presence in Russia), all its profits will be legally transferred to Cyprus and is liable for only a 4.5 percent tax on profits and a 15 percent VAT tax. Russian business escapes the 40 percent tax for social services, accordingly. This tax advantage makes it possible to channel profits in the form of dividends at a reduced rate.

As for example, a Cyprus Holding company can be used for international investment purposes. Basically, it is use of the tax incentives and the treaties for the avoidance of double taxation. The most important advantage of a Cyprus Holding Company is that the dividends received by the foreign company can flow totally tax free in Cyprus through the Holding Company, avoiding in this way the payment of any tax on dividends. Furthermore, payments made to non-Cyprus Resident Shareholders there is zero (0) withholding tax, so the Shareholder receives the dividends absolutely tax free.

Payment of interest on loans is another advantageous method for Russian businesses. Under the Cyprus Law, Russian Company partly owned by Cypriot Company and paying its interest on loans to the Cypriot company, effectively minimizing its taxation. However, the interest payments are not necessarily will be paid to the Cyprus Company. It is the most effective method which allows Russian company to avoid almost all its tax payments.

Russian businesses which structured into a Cypriot companies for maintaining its business activities within territory of Russia, are able to transfer there revenue earned in Russia abroad in the form of dividends and interest, at considerable tax savings. Companies registered in Cyprus jurisdiction pay lower taxes than those paid in Russian jurisdictions.

All the above mentioned structures are based on “Cyprus economic zone” of reduced taxation and perfectly legal, furthermore its tax advantage may be enhanced even more when, under certain circumstances, is combined with other jurisdictions in appropriate legal structures.

In the last 30 years, Cyprus Law Firm has developed into a reputable international business and financial centre due to the very favorable tax regime that the island offers. The admission of Cyprus to the European Union as full member in May 2004, established Cyprus as a prestigious, stable and attractive jurisdiction.

Though the offshore company status was abolished as from January 1, 2003 the favorable tax regime for the international investor has been maintained. In addition, the liberalization of investments coming from non-EU countries and the abolition of maximum and minimum participation percentages in investments in all the sectors of the economy in October 2004 (unless it is otherwise provided by the Law), has transformed Cyprus into a major destination for the location of international, holding companies and worldwide investments.


Olga Kosareva, NCI Law Group

[email protected]

T: +357-22-680670

Author: Ioannis John Neocleous

Continue Reading


International Law And The Right To A Healthy Environment As A Jus Cogens Human Right





To date, traditional international law does not consider human environmental rights to a clean and healthy environment to be a jus cogens human right. Jus cogens (“compelling law”) refers to preemptory legal principles and norms that are binding on all international States, regardless of their consent. They are non-derogable in the sense that States cannot make a reservation to a treaty or make domestic or international laws that are in conflict with any international agreement that they have ratified and thus to which they are a party. They “prevail over and invalidate international agreements and other rules of international law in conflict with them… [and are] subject to modification only by a subsequent norm… having the same character.” (1) Thus, they are the axiomatic and universally accepted legal norms that bind all nations under jus gentium (law of nations). For example, some U.N. Charter provisions and conventions against slavery or torture are considered jus cogens rules of international law that are nonderogable by parties to any international convention.

While the international legal system has evolved to embrace and even codify basic, non-derogable human rights (2), the evolution of environmental legal regimes have not advanced as far. While the former have found a place at the highest level of universally recognized legal rights, the latter have only recently and over much opposition, reached a modest level of recognition as a legally regulated activity within the economics and politics of sustainable development.

1. The international legal community recognizes the same sources of international law as does the United States’ legal system. The three sources of international law are stated and defined in the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (R3dFRLUS), Section 102. The first source is Customary International Law (CIL), defined as the “general and consistent practice of states followed out of a sense of legal obligation” (3) (opinio juris sive necessitatus), rather than out of moral obligation. Furthermore, CIL is violated whenever a State, “as a matter of state policy,… practices, encourages or condones (a) genocide, (b) slavery… (c) the murder or causing the disappearance of individuals, (d) torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment… or (g) a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” (4) To what extent such human rights need to be “internationally recognized” is not clear, but surely a majority of the world’s nations must recognize such rights before a “consistent pattern of gross violations” results in a violation of CIL. CIL is analogous to “course of dealing” or “usage of trade” in the domestic commercial legal system.

Evidence of CIL includes “constitutional, legislative, and executive promulgations of states, proclamations, judicial decisions, arbitral awards, writings of specialists on international law, international agreements, and resolutions and recommendations of international conferences and organizations.” (5) It follows that such evidence is sufficient to make “internationally recognized human rights” protected under universally recognized international law. Thus, CIL can be created by the general proliferation of the legal acknowledgment (opinio juris) and actions of States of what exactly constitutes “internationally recognized human rights.”

2. The next level of binding international law is that of international agreements (treaties), or Conventional International Law. Just as jus cogens rights and rules of law, as well as CIL, are primary and universally binding legal precepts, so do international treaties form binding international law for the Party Members that have ratified that treaty. The same way that some States’ domestic constitutional law declares the basic human rights of each State’s citizens, so do international treaties create binding law regarding the rights delineated therein, according to the customary international jus gentium principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be respected). Treaties are in turn internalized by the domestic legal system as a matter of law. Thus, for example, the U.N Charter’s provision against the use of force is binding international law on all States and it, in turn, is binding law in the United States, for example, and on its citizens. (6) Treaties are analogous to “contracts” in the domestic legal system.

Evidence of Conventional International Law includes treaties, of course, as well as related material, interpreted under the usual canons of construction of relying on the text itself and the words’ ordinary meanings. (7) Often, conventional law has to be interpreted within the context of CIL. (8) As a practical matter, treaties are often modified by amendments, protocols and (usually technical) annexes. Mechanisms exist for “circumventing strict application of consent” by the party states. Generally, these mechanisms include “framework or umbrella conventions that merely state general obligations and establish the machinery for further norm-formulating devices… individual protocols establishing particular substantive obligations… [and] technical annexes.” (9) Most of these new instruments “do no require ratification but enter into force in some simplified way.” (10) For example, they may require only signatures, or they enter into force for all original parties when a minimum number of States ratify the modification or unless a minimum number of States object within a certain time frame, or goes into force for all except those that object. (11) Depending on the treaty itself, once basic consensus is reached, it is not necessary for all to consent to certain modifications for them to go into effect. “[I]n a sense these are instances of an IGO [(international governmental organization)] organ ‘legislating’ directly for [S]tates.” (12)

3. Finally, rules of international law are also derived from universal General Principles of Law “common to the major legal systems of the world.” (13) These “general principles of law” are principles of law as such, not of international law per se. While many consider these general principles to be a secondary source of international law that “may be invoked as supplementary rules… where appropriate” (14), some consider them on an “footing of formal equality with the two positivist elements of custom and treaty”. (15) Examples are the principles of res judicata, equity, justice, and estoppel. Frequently, these rules are inferred by “analogy to domestic law concerning rules of procedure, evidence and jurisdiction.” (16) However, “while shared concepts of of internal law can be used as a fall-back, there are sever limits because of the characteristic differences between international law and internal law.” (17) Evidence of General Principles of Law includes “municipal laws, doctrine and judicial decisions.” (18)

Treaty provisions and their inherent obligations can create binding CIL if they are “of a fundamentally norm-creating character such as could be regarded as forming the basis of a general rule of law.” (19) A basic premise of this article is that the “relatively exclusive ways (of lawmaking) of the past are not suitable for contemporary circumstances.” (20) Jonathan Charney maintains that today’s CIL is more and more being created by consensual multilateral forums, as opposed to State practice and opinio juris, and that “[consensus, defined as the lack of expressed objections to the rule by any participant, may often be sufficient… In theory, one clearly phrased and strongly endorsed declaration at a near-universal diplomatic forum could be sufficient to establish new international law.” (21) This process should be distinguished conceptually as “general international law”, rather than CIL, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has often done.

In like vein, Professor Gunther Handl argues that all multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) of “global applicability” create “general international law”:

“A multilateral treaty that addresses fundamental concerns of the international community at large, and that as such is strongly supported by the vast majority of states, by international organizations and other transnational actors,– and this is, of course, precisely the case with the biodiversity, climate, and ozone regimes, among others-may indeed create expectations of general compliance, in short such a treaty may come to be seen as reflecting legal standards of general applicability… and as such must be deemed capable of creating rights and obligations both for third states and third organizations.” (22)

Notwithstanding, Daniel Bodansky argues that CIL is so rarely supported by State action, that it is not customary law at all. “International environmental norms reflect not how states regularly behave, but how states speak to each other.” (23) Calling such law “declarative law” that is part of a “myth system” representing the collective ideals and the “verbal practice” of States, he concludes that “our time and efforts would be better spent attempting to translate the general norms of international environmental relations into concrete treaties and actions.” (24)

However, a review of the current status of international human rights and environmental law may reveal the mechanisms for raising environmental rights to the level of jus cogens rights. For example, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), whose negotiation was initiated in 1972 and signed in 1982, was considered by most countries to be CIL by the time it came into force in 1994. (25)

II. CURRENT STATUS OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT No State today will publicly state that it is within its sovereign rights to damage their domestic environment, much less that of the international community, however most States do not guarantee environmental protection as a basic human right. Currently, environmental law is composed of mostly Conventional International Law and some CIL. The former relies on express consent and the latter on implied consent, unless a State avails itself of the Persistent Objector principle, which precludes it from being bound by even most CIL. Unlike for human rights and international crimes, there is no general environmental rights court in existence today. While the Law of the Sea Tribunal and other U.N. forums (e.g., the ICJ) exist for trying cases of treaty violations, non-treaty specific violations have no international venue at present. Italian Supreme Court Justice Amedeo Postiglione states that

“[T]he human right to the environment, must have, at the international level, a specific organ of protection for a fundamental legal and political reason: the environment is not a right of States but of individuals and cannot be effectively protected by the International Court of Justice in the Hague because the predominantly economic interests of the States and existing institutions are often at loggerheads with the human right to the environment.” (26)

Domestic remedies would have to be pursued first, of course, but standing would be granted to NGOs, individuals, and States when such remedies proved futile or “the dispute raises issues of international importance.” (27) For example, although the ICJ has an “environmental chamber” and U.S. courts often appoint “special masters” to handle these types of disputes, it is clear that the recognition of the human right to the environment needs an international court of its own in order to recognize such a right and remedy international violations in an efficient and equitable manner. (28)

III. THE JUS COGENS NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS Irrespective of specific treaty obligations and domestic environmental legislation, do States, or the international community as a whole, have a duty to take measures to prevent and safeguard against environmental hazards?

Human rights are “claims of entitlement” that arise “as of right” (31) and are independent of external justification; they are “self evident” and fundamental to any human being living a dignified, healthy and productive and rewarding life. As Louis Henkin points out:

“Human rights are not some abstract, inchoate ‘good’; they are defined, particular claims listed in international instruments such as the [U.N.’s] Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the major covenants and conventions. They are those benefits deemed essential for individual well-being [sic], dignity, and fulfillment, and that reflect a common sense of justice, fairness, and decency. [No longer are human rights regarded as grounded in or justified by utilitarianism,] natural law,… social contract, or any other political theory…[but] are derived from accepted principles, or are required by accepted ends-societal ends such as peace and justice; individual ends such as human dignity, happiness, fulfillment. [Like the fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, these rights are] inalienable and imprescriptible; they cannot be transferred, forfeited, or waived; they cannot be lost by having been usurped, or by one’s failure to exercise or assert them.” (32)

Henkin distinguishes between “immunity claims” (such as ‘the State cannot do X to me’; the hallmark of the U.S. constitutional jurisprudential system) and “resource claims” (such as ‘I have a right to Y’) such that the individual has the right to, for example, free speech, “food, housing, and other basic human needs.” (33) In today’s “global village”, the Right to a Healthy Environment is clearly a “resource claim” and a basic human need that transcends national boundaries.

According to R.G. Ramcharan, there is “a strict duty… to take effective measures” by States and the international community as a whole to protect the environment from the potential hazards of economic development. (34) His position is that the Human Right to Life is a. jus cogens, non-derogable peremptory norm that by its very nature includes the right to a clean environment. This duty is clearly spelled out in such multilateral treaties as the UN Convention on Desertification, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. (35) It is expounded in the Stockholm, Rio and Copenhagen Declarations as a core component of the principle of Sustainable Development. It forms the basis of NAFTA’s, the WTO’s and the European Union’s economic development agreements, and the European Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which has been ratified by most countries in the world, including the United States.

The Human Right to a Healthy Environment is explicitly contained in the Inter-American and African Charters, as well as in the constitution of over 50 countries worldwide. Whether it is based on treaties, CIL, or “basic principles”, the obligation of the international community to the environment is today clearly spelled out and enforceable through international tribunals. For example, the Lhaka Honhat Amid Curiae Brief recognized the rights of the indigenous peoples of Argentina to “an environment that supports physical and spiritual well being and development.” (36) Similarly, in a separate decision, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission upheld the right of the Yanomani in Brazil to a healthy and clean environment. (37) On a global level, the UN Human Rights Committee has indicated that environmental damage is “a violation of the right to life contained in Article 6(1) of the [ICCPR]”. (38)

Thus, today, the erga omnes obligation of States to take effective steps to safeguard the environment is a duty that no State can shirk or ignore. If it does, it runs the risk of prosecution by international courts and having to institute measures commensurate with its responsibility to protect its share of the “global commons”. Interestingly, the concept of jus cogens emerged after World War II as a response to the commonly held view that the sovereignty of States excused them from violating any of the then so-called CILs. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “there is a close connection between jus cogens and the recognition of a ‘public order of the international community’… Without expressly using the notion of jus cogens, the [ICJ] implied its existence when it referred to obligations erga omnes in its judgment… in the Barcelona Traction Case.” (39)

IV. THIRD GENERATION HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT Is environmental protection is an erga omnes obligation, that is, one owed to the international community as a whole as a jus cogens human right?

In a separate opinion to the Case Concerning the Gebecikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judge Weeramantry, the Vice President of the ICJ, expounded on the legal basis for sustainable development as a general principle of international law. In the process, he concludes that environmental protection is a universal erga omnes legal norm that is both CIL as well as a general principle of law per se. In Gebecikovo, ostensibly to have been decided upon the merits of the treaty governing the building of power plants along the Danube, as well as by international customary law, the ICJ held that the right to development must be balanced with the right to environmental protection by the principle of sustainable development. Even in the absence of a specific treaty provision, the concept of sustainable development has become a legal principle that is “an integral principle of modem international law”. (40)

Sustainable development is also recognized in State practice, such as the Dublin Declaration by the European Council on the Environmental Imperative. (41) As such, sustainable development has in effect been raised to the level of CIL.

For example, the Martens Clause of the 1899 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land has been interpreted in 1996 by Judge Shahabudeen of the ICJ as providing a legal basis for inferring that general principles rise above custom and treaty, having their basis in “principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience”. (42) According to Weeramantry, “when a duty such as the duty to protect the environment is so well accepted that all citizens act upon it, that duty is part of the legal system in question… as general principles of law recognized by civilized of nations.” (43)

Sustainable development acts as a reconciling principle between economic development and environmental protection. Just as economic development is an inalienable right of States’ self-determination, environmental protection is an erga omnes obligation of all States for the benefit of the global commons that all share. “The principle of sustainable development is thus a part of modern international law by reason not only of its inescapable logical necessity, but also by reason of its wide and general acceptance by the global community”, and not just by developing countries. (44)

Drawing upon the rich history of diverse cultures’ legal systems and what he calls “living law”, Judge Weeramantry points out that traditional respect for nature has been a guiding moral and legal principle for economic development throughout history. The ICJ has also recognized these principles in such previous decisions as Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain) in 1972. (45) Judge Weeramantry concludes that the “ingrained values of any civilization are the source from which its legal concepts derive… [and that environmental protection is] among those pristine and universal values which command international recognition.” (46)

The first generation of Human Rights were those declared by the “soft law” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person.” Art. 3. It was modeled on the U.S. Bill of Rights and the American Declaration of Independence. This was echoed in the binding ICCPR (“Every human being has the inherent right to life.”, ICCPR, Art. 6(1) (1966)), which the U.S. has ratified, and the American Convention on Political and Civil Rights of the Inter-American System (which draws direct connections between human rights and environmental rights).

The second generation of human rights emerged with the Economic, Social and Cultural (ECOSOC) Rights developed in such treaties as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR; which the U.S. has not ratified), and many foreign State’s Constitutions (e.g., Germany, Mexico, and Costa Rica). These include the right to free choice of work, to (usually free) education, to rest, leisure, etc. Highly complied with in Europe, these rights have additionally been expanded by the EU in their European Social Charter (1961) creating much legislation for the protection of workers, women, and children.

The third and current generation of human rights has emerged from the Eco-Peace-Feminist Movement. These include the Right to Development, the Right to A Safe Environment and the Right to Peace. In essence, this third generation of rights addresses the problem of poverty as a social (and hence legally redressable) ill that lies at the core of environmental problems and violations. The “environmental justice” movement considers cases that demonstrate that environmental pollution is disproportionately prevalent in minority communities, whether at a local or international level. Authors John Cronin & Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., have explicitly entitled their study of environmental pollution along the Hudson River The Riverkeepers: Two Activists Fight to Reclaim Our Environment as a Basic Human Right. (47) This predominantly U.S. movement focuses on “environmental racism” as a means for seeking remedies or the disproportionate pollution of minority communities as violations of current civil rights legislation by “exploring] the use of the nations’ environmental laws to protect the rights of the poor.” (48)

V. RECOGNITION, COMMITMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF A RIGHT: THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AS A MODEL FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING The key mechanisms for establishing binding international law are recognition of an obligation or right, commitment to its protection, and effective enforcement methods. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is the “most important precedent in international law for the management of global environmental harms.” (49) It serves as a model for many other environmental concerns that require decision-making in the face of scientific uncertainty, global non-consensus, and high harm-avoidance costs. It was the first international “precautionary” treaty to address a global environmental concern when not even “measurable evidence of environmental damage existed.” (50) Although ozone depletion by chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone depleting substances (ODSs), and the attendant harms of overexposure to harmful ultraviolet radiation, had been suspected by scientists in the early 1970s, it was not until 1985 and the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer that international action was taken to address the problem.

THE VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYER At the time of the Vienna Convention, the U.S. represented over 50% of the global consumption of CFCs in a $3 billion market for aerosol propellants alone. Overall, CFC products represented a $20 billion market and about a quarter of a million jobs in America alone. (51) The Clean Air Amendments of 1977 and the 1978 EPA ban on all “non-essential” uses of CFC in aerosol propellants was quickly followed internationally by similar bans by Sweden, Canada and Norway. (52) These actions were a direct response to consumer pressure and market demands by newly environmentally-conscious consumers.(53) Incentives were also provided to the developing countries so that they could “ramp up” at reasonable levels of reductions. (54)

Creative ratification incentives included requiring only 11 of the top two-thirds of CFC producing countries to ratify and bring the treaty into force. (55) As a result of such flexibility, innovation, consensus and cooperation, the Montreal Protocol has been hailed as a major success in international diplomacy and international environmental law. Today almost every nation in the world is a member (over 175 States).

THE LONDON ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS OF 1990 By 1990 scientific confirmation of global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer led to the London Adjustments and Amendments. Again, U.S. companies such as Dupont, IBM and Motorola reacted to massive negative media attention and promised to halt complete production by 2000.

Non-compliance procedures were made even more user friendly and no sanction for non-compliance was initiated against a country that was failing to reach quotas while acting in good faith. Technology transfer was made in a “fair and favorable way”, with developed countries taking the lead in assisting developing countries reach compliance. (56) The U.S. instituted “ozone depletion taxes” which did much to get more comprehensive compliance, as well as promoting research into CFC alternatives. (57) To emphasize the vast enforcement mechanisms employed, consider that by early 1998 the U.S. Justice Department had prosecuted 62 individuals and 7 corporations for the illegal smuggling into the emergent CFC black markets. Despite an international crackdown by the FBI, EPA, CIA, and Interpol in the global police effort Operation Breeze, 5 to 10 thousand tons are smuggled annually into Miami alone, second only to cocaine smuggling. (58) In 1992 the Copenhagen Amendments required every State party (practically the whole world) to institute “procedures and institutional mechanisms” to determine non-compliance and enforcement. (59)


The critical weaknesses of the existing system include self-serving pronouncements by non-complying States, lack of effective enforcement mechanisms, political limitations such as State sovereignty and the “margin of appreciation”, and the lack of universal consensus on basic human rights terminology and their enforcement. As long as States can ignore commonplace violations of human rights (sporadic instances of torture, occasional “disappearances”) and shun the edicts of human rights judicial decisions, there can be no effective system of international human rights enforcement. Currently, unless a State commits such outrageous acts on a mass scale that affects world peace, such as in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, it can often evade its responsibilities under international human rights treaties.

There are few international agreements that admit of universal jurisdiction for their violation by any State in the world. All CIL, however, is by its very nature prosecutable under universal jurisdiction. “Crimes against humanity” (e.g., War Crimes, genocide, and State-supported torture) are universally held to be under universal jurisdiction, typically in the International Court of Justice, ad hoc war crime tribunals, and the new International Criminal Court.

While interpretive gaps exist, it is not inconceivable that the right to a healthy environment can be extrapolated from current international environmental treaties and CIL. At the treaty level, the protection of the environment appears to be of paramount importance to the international community. At the level of CIL, there is much evidence that the right to a healthy environment is already an internationally protected right, at least as far as trans-boundary pollution is concerned. In any case, it seems to be universally held that it should be protected as a right. The impression is that there is an unmistakable consensus in this regard. “Soft law” over time becomes CIL.

The U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development released the Earth Charter in 1987. It has yet to be fully implemented on a global scale. Its broad themes include respect and care for the environment, ecological integrity, social and economic justice and democracy, nonviolence and peace. (60) The argument can be made that by now, protection of the environment has reached the threshold of Customary International Law. Whether the nations of the world choose to thereafter recognize the right to a healthy environment as a jus cogens human right will depend on the near universal consensus and political will of most of the nations of the world. Until then, as long as human life continues to be destroyed by “human rights ratifying” nations, how much enforcement will be employed against violators of environmental laws when the right to a healthy environment is not upheld as a basic human right remains to be seen. It will take the cooperation of all nations to ensure that this becomes a non-derogable, unalienable right and recognizing it as essential to the Right to Life.

1. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 102 cmt. k (1987).

The elements can also be found in the Vienna Convention, Article 53.

2. For example, the Right to Life, to be Free from Torture, Genocide, and Murder.

3. R(3d)FRLUS § 102(l)(a) and cmt. h.

4. Id., § 702 (my emphasis).

5. Mark W. Janis, An Introduction to International Law 6 (3d. ed, Aspen Law & Business 1999).

6. R3dFRLUS § 102(2).

7. Janis, supra.

8. David Hunter, et al., International Environmental Law and Policy, p. 306 (2d. ed., Foundation Press 2002).

9. Paul Szasz, International Norm Making, in Edith Brown Weiss, Ed., ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1995), as quoted in Id, p. 307.

10. Id.

11. Id.

12. Id.

13. R3dFRLUS § 102(l)(c), as presented in Donoho, supra.

14. Supra, R3dFRLUS §102(4).

15. Shabtai Rosenne, Practice and Methods of International Law 69 (1984), as quoted in Hunter, Id, p. 317.

16. Hunter, supra, p. 316 (Foundation Press 2002).

17. Id, p. 316.

18. Janis, supra, p. 29.

19. Id, p. 312.

20. Jonathan Charney, Universal International Law, 87 Am.J.Int’l.L. 529, at 543-48 (1993), as quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 322.

21. Id.

22. Gunther Handl, The Legal Mandate of Multilateral Development Banks as Agents for Change Toward Sustainable Development, 92 Am.J.Int’l.L. 642, at 660-62 (1998), as quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 324.

23. Daniel Bodansky, Customary (and Not So Customary) International Environmental Law, 3 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 105, 110-119 (1995), as quoted in Hunter, Id.

24. Id.

25. Id, p. 659.

26. Amedeo Postiglione, The Global Environmental Crisis: The Need for and International Court of the Environment, ICEF INTERNATIONAL REPORT at 33-36 (1996), quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 495.

27. Id., p. 496.

28. Id.

29. Id, p. 1298.

30. Id, p. 1299.

31. L. Henkin, “The Human Rights Idea”, The Age of Rights (reprinted in Henkin, et al., Human Rights, 1999), as presented in Donoho, supra, p. 14-16.

32. Id.

33. Id.

34. The Right to Life, p. 310 (The Hague, 1983), quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 1297.

35. Hunter, supra, p. 341.

36. Id, p. 1299.

37. Id, p. 1294.

38. Id, p. 1295.

39. Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 864. (West 1999).

40. Hunter, supra, p. 339-341.

41. Id, footnotes 1 through 6, pp. 341-342.

42. Id, pp. 317-318.

43. Id, p. 345.

44. Id, p. 342.

45. Id, p. 315.

46. Id, p. 344.

47. In particular, see pages 35, 38, 159, 162, 177-199 and 221 (Scribner 1997).

48. New York Law Journal, January 1993, Friday, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, p. 3. See also, DISCUSSION: REFLECTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, 65 Alb. L. Rev. 357, 2001.

49. Hunter, supra, p. 526.

50. Id, p. 527, quoting Richard Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy 2 (1998)

51. Id, p. 532.

52. Id, p. 535.

53. Id, p. 542.

54. Id, p. 545.

55. Id.

56. Id, p. 550-54.

57. Id, p. 562.

58. Id, p. 559.

59. Id, p. 566-67.

60. Roland Huber, International Environmental Law Seminar: Human Rights and the Environment, p. 24, in Donoho, Douglas L., INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS (printed by the Shepard Brad Law Center, Nova Southeastern University, 2002).

Continue Reading


Choosing The Right LED Or Reflective Film Enabled Traffic Signs




We must all have seen many traffic signs on the roads when we commute to work every day. These signs include directions, warnings, alerts, caution about danger zones and just about every other information that will let you know if you can travel in that route or not. When you want to buy traffic signs for your property or commercial/residential establishment, you have to watch out for a lot of things. The first one would be visibility. What purpose would it fulfil if you install a traffic sign that cannot be read by all? Next, you need to decide on the materials that will make your sign look brighter. LED bulbs, with their great energy saving capacity and high efficiency, are one of the first choices of owners these days. You could also print your traffic signs on huge reflective films and get them stuck on hoardings in key areas. Here are a few points that you need to keep in mind when you choose these traffic signs.

Reflective films

When you are looking for a perfect traffic sign printing solution, you need to be clear on the answers to the following concepts:

a. How do you plan to use your traffic signs and would you like to specialise in a core traffic-regulated market? Are you looking to print only traffic signs or other things as well?

b. What should would you like your sign to be printed on? Do you want a mix of printing that will enable printing on sheets and rolls or do you want only one of those?

c. What kind of reflective film would you need to print your sign on? How much of ink adhesion are you looking at?

LED Signs

LED Traffic Signs are quite powerful and are very durable as well. These signs have great visibility and can be used to denote various alerts for road users. If you are looking for a LED-powered traffic signboard, you need to be aware of the following concepts:

a. How many LEDs are required in a sign? You should know that when you use more LEDs, the number of pixels in your sign goes up and increases the visibility of your sign from a long distance. When you choose lesser number of LEDs for your signs, they become weak and non-comprehendible.

b. From how far would the signs be viewed by the road users? This is an important point to remember because, if your signs are located close to the traffic, they will be viewed from a very close distance. Hence, you don’t have to invest in lots of pixels to make your sign huge and bright.

How much should be the ideal budget for this? LED bulbs consume very little energy and have a long life. This makes them costlier than the other fluorescent bulbs. Therefore, it is highly recommended to spend judiciously and invest on these signs only after clearly assessing the viewing angles, so that you don’t waste money on a sign that could have been in a smaller and cheaper way.

Continue Reading