Aviation and Air Cargo Claims in China: The Montreal Convention and Carrier Liability

The following is general information on Chinese and international aviation law, not legal advice for any specific matter. Convention limits are reviewed and raised from time to time, and the treatment of any claim depends on its facts; consult qualified counsel before acting.

The Montreal Convention and China

The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, is the instrument that governs a carrier's liability for cargo in international carriage to, from and through China. China approved the Convention by a decision of the NPC Standing Committee of 28 February 2005, deposited its instrument with ICAO on 1 June 2005, and the Convention entered into force for China on 31 July 2005. In the domestic hierarchy, the treaty takes priority over inconsistent domestic law under the treaty-priority clause of the Civil Aviation Law — historically Article 184 of the 1995 law, and now, following the revision of the Civil Aviation Law adopted on 27 December 2025 and effective 1 July 2026, renumbered Article 260. The practical point for a cargo claimant is that the Convention, not a carrier's conditions of carriage, sets the floor and the ceiling.

Article 18: when the carrier is liable

Article 18 makes the carrier liable for the destruction, loss of or damage to cargo if the event that caused the damage occurred during the carriage by air. That period runs from the time the cargo was in the charge of the carrier, and the liability is subject to the defences in Article 18, paragraph 2: inherent defect, quality or vice of the cargo; defective packing performed by a person other than the carrier; an act of war or armed conflict; or an act of a public authority in connection with the entry, exit or transit of the cargo. For a shipper, the burden-shifting structure matters: establish that the cargo was delivered in sound condition and arrived damaged or failed to arrive, and the carrier must then bring itself within one of the statutory defences.

The cargo limit: 22 SDR per kilogram, and how it is raised

The liability limit for cargo is set out in Article 22, paragraph 3, and it has moved. The original text fixed the limit at 17 SDR per kilogram; following the reviews under Article 24, the limit was raised to 19 SDR per kilogram from 30 December 2009 and to 22 SDR per kilogram from 28 December 2019, which is the figure in force today. Two related points are frequently confused. First, the mechanism for exceeding the limit is the special declaration of interest in delivery at destination — which sits inside Article 22, paragraph 3 itself — together with a supplementary sum if the shipper so declares. Second, the higher-limits-by-agreement rule is in Article 25, not Article 22; and the carve-out in Article 22, paragraph 5 for damage caused with intent or recklessness applies only to passenger delay under paragraph 1 and to baggage under paragraph 2, not to cargo. The consequence is important: for cargo, wilful misconduct does not break the limit — the cargo limit can be exceeded only through the Article 22, paragraph 3 declaration. A claimant who does not declare value up front is capped at 22 SDR per kilogram.

The two-year limitation period

Article 35 extinguishes the right to damages unless an action is brought within two years, calculated from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. The period is one of extinction of the right, not merely a procedural limitation, and its calculation can be the decisive question in a claim where the shipment was delayed or the loss was only discovered later. A cargo claimant should fix the operative date at the outset and treat the two years as a hard deadline.

How a cargo claimant should proceed

• Preserve the documentary trail. The air waybill, the condition report at delivery, and any notice of damage or non-delivery are the evidence the claim turns on.
• Give notice promptly. The Convention's notice requirements are short, and late notice can prejudice the claim.
• Decide on value before shipping. High-value cargo should carry a special declaration of interest in delivery under Article 22, paragraph 3 — after the fact, the cap cannot be raised.
• Identify the right defendants. Contracting and actual carriers, and the handling chain, each have a defined place in the liability scheme.
• Calendar the two years. Fix the arrival or ought-to-have-arrived date and treat it as an extinction deadline.

The Convention limits and the Civil Aviation Law are applied on the latest official basis and on the facts of each carriage; the summary above is general information current as of the date of writing. For cargo claims that move by sea rather than air, see our guide to shipping disputes, cargo claims and vessel arrest, and for the insurance dimension that often sits alongside a cargo claim, see China insurance litigation and coverage disputes.