Since the political and legal systems are different between mainland China and Taiwan, conflict of laws issues arose in both public and private air transport laws after the launch of direct routes. Three models can be used as solutions to these issues: uniform substantive law, conflict of laws, and agreements by private institutions. The uniform substantive law model is ideal but not feasible; the conflict of laws model is possible but not realistic. The agreements by private institutions model respects private autonomy, which seems to be a supplementary yet feasible option with fragmented and conservative characteristics. Based on the characteristics of each model, the ideal way to solve this issue is to prioritise the model of agreements by carriers at this early stage and, finally, to consider uniform conflict of laws rules or substantive law when the opportunity is mature or the ultimate reunification is realised.

I. Introduction: Background and Question
II. Characterisation and Influence of Conflict of LawsIssues in Cross-Strait Air Transport
    A. Cabotage versus International Air Transport: Determination ofthe Nature of the Legal Conflict in Cross-Strait Air Transport
    B. The Impact of the Nature of the Cross-Strait Legal Conflict
III. Reasons for and Effects of the Legal Conflictin Cross-Strait Air Transport
    A. Reasons for the Legal Conflict in Cross-Strait Air Transport
    B. Certain Legal Conflicts in Cross-Strait Air Transport
IV. Reflection on Models of Solutions to the LegalConflict in Cross-Strait Air Transport
    A. Uniform Substantive Law Model: Ideal but Not Feasible
    B. Interregional Conflict of Laws Model: Possible but Not Realistic
    C. Private Institutions Negotiation Model: The Supplementary,Feasible, and Optimal Option
V. Conclusion

• Chaohan Zhang(Bin Cheng Institute of Air and Space Law of China Northwestern University of Political Science and Law)
• Luping Zhang(King’s College London)