국제항공운송협약의 Door to Door 운송에의 적용에 관한 문제점

Problems on the Door to Door Application of International Air Law Conventions

  • 투고 : 2018.04.05
  • 심사 : 2018.05.19
  • 발행 : 2018.05.31

초록

This article demonstrates that both the Warsaw Convention Systemand the Montreal Convention are not designed for multimodal transport, let alone for "Door to Door" transport. The polemic directed against the "Door to Door" application of the Warsaw Convention systemand the Montreal Convention is predominantly driven by the text and the drafting philosophy of the said Contentions that since 1929 support unimodalism-with the rule that "the period of the carriage by air does not expend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport" playing a profound role in restricting their multimodal aspirations. The drafters of the Montreal Convention were more adventurous than their predecessors with respect to the boundaries of the Montreal Convention. They amended Art. 18(3) by removing the phrase "whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever", however, they retained the first sentence of Art. 18(4). The deletion of the airport limitation fromArt. 18(3) creates its own paradox. The carrier can be held liable under the Montreal Convention for the loss or damage to cargo while it is in its charge in a warehouse outside an airport. Yet, damage or loss of the same cargo that occurs during its surface transportation to the aforementioned warehouse and vice versa is not covered by the Montreal Convention fromthe moment the cargo crosses the airport's perimeter. Surely, this result could not have been the intention of its drafters: it certainly does not make any commercial sense. I think that a better solution to the paradox is to apply the "functional interpretation" of the term"airport". This would retain the integrity of the text of the Montreal Convention, make sense of the change in the wording of Art. 18(3), and nevertheless retain the Convention's unimodal philosophy. English courts so far remain loyal to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Quantum, which constitutes bad news for the supporters of the multimodal scope of the Montreal Convention. According the US cases, any losses occurring during Door to Door transportation under an air waybill which involves a dominant air segment are subject to the international air law conventions. Any domestic rules that might be applicable to the road segment are blatantly overlooked. Undoubtedly, the approach of the US makes commercial. But this policy decision by arguing that the intention of the drafters of the Warsaw Convention was to cover Door to Door transportation is mistaken. Any expansion to multimodal transport would require an amendment to the Montreal Convention, Arts 18 and 38, one that is not in the plans for the foreseeable future. Yet there is no doubt that air carriers and freight forwarders will continue to push hard for such expansion, especially in the USA, where courts are more accommodating.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 김영기, "항공물건운송인의 법적 책임에 관한 항공법제 개선방안 - 국제협약 및 상법 항공운송편과의 비교 -", 항공관련 국제협약과 항공법제 개선방안 연구 워크샵 자료집, 한국법제연구원, 2009. 7.
  2. 양승규 역(니콜라스 M. 마테 저), 국제항공운송법, 법문사, 1987.
  3. 오원석, 국제운송론, 박영사, 1990.
  4. 이강빈, "몬트리올 협약상 국제항공화물운송에 관한 연구 - 항공화물운송장과 항공운 송인의 책임을 중심으로 -", 무역상무연구 제49권, 한국무역상무학회, 2011. 2.
  5. 이창재, "항공연계 복합운송의 현황과 손해배상책임 - 대법원 2014.11.27. 선고 2012다14562 판결을 중심으로 -", 항공우주정책법학회지 제31권 제1호, 항공우주정책법학회, 2016. 6.
  6. 최종현, "몬트리얼 협약상 항공화물운송인의 책임 - 해상운송 및 도로운송 조약과의 비교법적 고찰 -", 국제거래법연구 제17권 제2호, 국제거래법학회, 2008. 12.
  7. 최준선, 국제항공운송법론, 삼영사, 1987.
  8. Clarke, M., Contracts of Carriage by Air, 2th edition, Informa, 2010.
  9. Dempsey, P., and Milde, M., International air carrier liability: the Montreal Convention of 1999, Montreal, 2005.
  10. Diederiks-Vershoor, An Introduction to Air Law, second revised edition, Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1985.
  11. Diederiks-Vershoor, "Current Practice and Developments in Air Cargo: Comparison of the Warsaw Convention 1929 and the Montreal Convention 1999", European Transport Law, No. 6, 2004.
  12. Force, R., "The Regal-Beloit decision: What if anything, would happen to the legal regime for multimodal transport in the United States if it adopted the Rotterdam Rules", 36 Tul. Mar. LJ 685, 2012.
  13. Gaskell, N., Asariotis, R., Baatz, R., Bills of lading: law and contract, LLP, 2000.
  14. Hoeks, M., Multimodal transport law, The Law applicable to the multimodal contract for the carriage of goods, Kluwer Law and Taxation, 2010.
  15. ICAO, International Conference on Air Law, Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Montreal(Doc 9775-DC/2, 1999), Vol. 2, 10-28 May 1999.
  16. Konning, I., "Liability in air carriage. Carriage of cargo under the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions", 33 Air and Space Law, 2008.
  17. Legal Committee of ICAO, Report and Minutes, 24th Session, Montreal(Doc 9394-LC/184), 7-18 May 1979.
  18. Leloudas, George, "Door-to-Door application of international air law conventions: commercially convenient, but doctrinally dubious", Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, Part 3, 2015. 8.
  19. Leloudas, George, "Multimodal Transport under the Warsaw and Montreal Convention Regime: A Velvet Revolution?", ch. 5 of B. Soyer and A. Tettenborn(edition), Carriage of Goods by Sea, Land and Air: Unimodal and Multimodal Transport in 21st Century, Taylor and Francis, 2014.
  20. Muller-Rostin, W. in E. Giemulla and R. Schmid, Montreal Convention, Montreal, 2010.
  21. Tetley, W., Marine Cargo Claims, 4th edition, Yvon Blais, 2008.
  22. Wilson, J., Carriage of goods by sea, 7th edition, Pearson, 2010.