2015 
Carrier Liability 
211 
by essentially copying the PAL 2002 into European law. Had 
the PLR merely been an anticipation of the PAL 2002, there 
would have been no problem, but the European solution has 
created complications because not all of the rules of the PAL 
2002 have been included in the PLR Annex I and, in 
particular, because the PLR Annex I takes precedence over 
national law qua European law while the PAL 2002 has to be 
implemented by the state parties to the PAL 2002. The only 
way to prevent the emergence of two different legal systems, 
which was not intended by either the EU or the drafters of 
the PAL 2002, would be to adopt a monist understanding 
which would see international and domestic law as one 
coherent legal order 71 and international law as self 
executing. While a monist understanding of international 
law can be found, for example, in Dutch constitutional law, 72 
it seems highly unlikely that the EC intended to adopt such 
an understanding of international law. It appears more likely 
that the potential problems are the result of an oversight on 
the part of the EC, rather than the consequence of a monist 
view. 
This raises the question whether it is actually 
advisable for EU member states to ratify the PAL 2002. If the 
goal of a coherent system of passenger rights is to be 
achieved, those EU member states that have not yet done so 
should ratify the PAL 2002 as soon as possible. At the same 
time, those EU member states would be well advised to 
identify and prevent all potential conflicts between their 
domestic implementation of the PAL 2002 and the PLR, 
respectively, in the upcoming months. 
71 See generally The Pacquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900). 
72 StatuutNed [Charter] art. 91.