• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2020

The term "accident" in the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, which govern carrier liability in international air transport, is an important criterion for determining carrier liability. However, because there is no explicit definition of the term in the treaty provisions, the term is largely subjected to the judgment and interpretation of the courts. Although there have been numerous changes in purpose and circumstance in the transition from the Warsaw regime to the conclusion of the Montreal Convention, there was no discussion on the concept of "accident" therefore, even after the adoption of the Montreal Convention, there is no doubt that the term is to be interpreted in the same manner as before. On this point, the United States Supreme Court's Air France v. Saks clarified the concept of "accident" and is still cited as an important precedent. Recently, the CJEU, in GN v. ZU, presented a new concept of "accident" introduced in the Montreal Convention: that "reference must be made to the ordinary meaning" in interpreting "accident" and that the term "covers all situations occurring on aboard an aircraft." Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the term does not include the applicability of "hazards typically associated with aviation," which was controversial in previous cases. Such an interpretation can be reasonably seen as the court's expansion of the concept of "accident," with a focus on "protecting consumer interests," a core tenet of both the Montreal convention and the European Union Regulations(EC: No 889/2002). The CJEU's independent interpretation of "accident" is a departure from the Warsaw Convention and the Saks case, with their focus on "carrier protection," and instead focuses on the "passenger protection" standard of the Montreal Convention. Consequently, this expands both the court's discretion and the carrier's risk management liability. Such an interpretation by the CJEU can be said to be in line with the purpose of the Montreal Convention in terms of "passenger protection." However, there are problems to be considered in tandem with an expanded interpretation of "accident." First, there may be controversy concerning "balance" in that it focused on "passenger protection" in relation to the "equitable balance of interests" between air carriers and passengers, which is the basic purpose of the agreement. Second, huge losses are expected as many airlines fly to countries within the European Union. Third, there is now a gap in the interpretation of "accident" in Europe and the United States, which raises a question on the "unity of rules," another basic tenet of the Convention. Fourth, this interpretation of "accident" by the CJEU raises questions regarding its scope of application, as it only refers to the "hazards typically associated with aviation" and "situations occurring aboard an aircraft." In this case, the CJEU newly proposed a novel criterion for the interpretation of "accident" under the Montreal Convention. As this presents food for thought on the interpretation of "accident," it is necessary to pay close attention to any changes in court rulings in the future. In addition, it suggests that active measures be taken for passenger safety by recognizing air carriers' unlimited liability and conducting systematic reforms.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.95-116
• /
• 2015

Air transport agreement can be divided into air passenger contract of carriage and aviation also of the contract of carriage. And air carriers for damages greater (1) cause reason, of (2) limit reason, (3) exemption reason. Exemption reason for the extinction of the liability for damages in our Commercial Code, the Convention and domestic law are mixed. Convention on the Commercial Code and air transport, air transport people, if it is proved and that it has taken all the measures that are needed for the prevention of damage to overdue damage of passengers, liability is waived. So what was to achieve the requirements of all the actions that are reasonably necessary in any case is a problem. Amendment has the feature that the treaty for the International Air Transport reflect in accordance with the domestic situation, while being struck by international standards encompassing land, sea and air transport, even on the system. However, Commercial Code while mainly reflect the Montreal Convention governing air carrier's liability issues on the contract of carriage, a problem which the Convention had also began to occur together. So the problem due to accept the treaty to fit the domestic situation occurs. There is a need for analysis of all of the actions that are "reasonably necessary, which is defined in the Commercial Code. If there is no claim within Value Date rotor two years to air carriers on the court for the damage caused by air transport, the responsibility of air carriers disappear, sued the period of such two years, what kind of meaning on domestic law extension and stop to be whether it is interpreted, it should be determined to do their aggressive measures for the reasonable care and accident prevention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.107-142
• /
• 2012

An aircraft has been one of the most important transportation means and disputes due to damage caused by delay of the aircraft happen many times out of ones related to the air transport. In 2011, the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law was established to regulate national air transport and the legislative system of air carrier's liability to handle delay of passengers or baggage was legislated here. Although there are some clauses related to the legislative system of air carrier's liability, they are very important because they deal with disputes due to damage caused by delay of the aircraft. The Air Transport Act in Commercial Law has a good point of adopting the global standard of 1999 Montreal Convention, but it has also a bad point of having the problems of 1999 Montreal Convention. There are some contents to be modified in the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law. First, the definition of 'Delay of Aircraft' needs to be enacted because it is important to materialize air carrier's liability due to damage caused by delay. Second, it is necessary to modify the clause in which air carrier's liability due to damage caused by delay of passengers is divided into two things, one is in case of national air transport and the other is in case of international air transport, and the limited amount of air carrier's liability in national air transport is eight times less than the latter because they are not so helpful to air carriers but too disadvantageous to aircraft passengers. Third, it is also necessary to amend the clause in which the limited amount of air carrier's liability due to damage caused by loss damage or delay of baggage has been legislated same without classifying the case into loss damage and delay, because they are generally different from each other in terms of extent of damage, therefore the limited amount of air carrier's liability by delay of baggage should be classified into in case of loss damage and in case of delay. It is desired that the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law including the clauses related to air carrier's liability by aircraft damage be developed continually by sufficient study and discussion about the necessity of amending it such as the one mentioned above.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.78
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2018

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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.9-28
• /
• 2003

The Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the amendments thereto including the Hague Protocol, Montreal Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4, the Guadalajara Convention and the IATA Intercarrier Agreements, which are the rules (as called "War saw System") have played as a major rule in the international air transportation for more than 70 years, will be replaced by the Montreal Convention of 1999 for its effectiveness on November 4, 2003. While a major portion of the Montreal Convention follows the language of the Warsaw System, the Montreal Convention makes significant changes to the scope and extent of the carrier's liability, expands the jurisdictions where the carrier can be sued, and recognizes the effect of code sharing on air carrier liability. The Montreal Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation since the diplomatic efforts in the mid-1920's which resulted in the enactment of the Warsaw Convention. Until now, the legal liability of almost all the international air carriers has been governed by the Warsaw System. The Montreal Convention incorporates provisions of these instruments to create a single document and to set a uniform regime for carrier liability in international transportation. At the same time the issue of the low liability limits of the Warsaw has been resolved to a more satisfactory level in the Montreal Convention. The Convention has been hailed as consumer friendly and progressive in nature. If this Convention is ratified by Korea, the virtual elimination of the liability limits between the passengers and the airlines will become law by treaty. The airlines in Korea as well as Korean consumers of international air carriage will immensely benefit from the ratification. As opposed to the Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention has been described to be the one that is no longer a Convention for airlines, but it would serve the interests of both the consumers and the air carriers.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2009

A treaty that governs the compensation on damage caused by aircraft to the third parties on surface was first adopted in Rome in 1933, but without support from the international aviation community it was replaced by another convention adopted again in Rome in 1952. Despite the increase of the compensation amount and some improvements to the old version, the Rome Convention 1952 with 49 State parties as of today is not considered universally accepted. Neither is the Montreal Protocol 1978 amending the Rome Convention 1952, with only 12 State parties excluding major aviation powers like USA, Japan, UK, and Germany. Consequently, it is mostly the local laws that apply to the compensation case of surface damage caused by the aircraft, contrary to the intention of those countries and people who involved themselves in the drafting of the early conventions on surface damage. The terrorist attacks 9/11 proved that even the strongest power in the world like the USA cannot with ease bear all the damages done to the third parties by the terrorist acts involving aircraft. Accordingly as a matter of urgency, the International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) picked up the matter and have it considered among member States for a few years through its Legal Committee before proposing for adoption as a new treaty in the Diplomatic Conference held in Montreal, Canada 20 April to 2 May 2009. Accordingly, two treaties based on the drafts of the Legal Committee were adopted in Montreal by consensus, one on the compensation for general risk damage caused by aircraft, the other one on compensation for damage from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft. Both Conventions improved the old Convention/Protocol in many aspects. Deleting 'surface' in defining the damage to the third parties in the title and contents of the Conventions is the first improvement because the third party damage is not necessarily limited to surface on the soil and sea of the Earth. Thus Mid-air collision is now the new scope of application. Increasing compensation limit in big gallop is another improvement, so is the inclusion of the mental injury accompanied by bodily injury as the damage to be compensated. In fact, jurisprudence in recent years for cases of passengers in aircraft accident holds aircraft operators to be liable to such mental injuries. However, "Terror Convention" involving unlawful interference of aircraft has some unique provisions of innovation and others. While establishing the International Civil Aviation Compensation Fund to supplement, when necessary, the damages that exceed the limit to be covered by aircraft operators through insurance taking is an innovation, leaving the fate of the Convention to a State Party, implying in fact the USA, is harming its universality. Furthermore, taking into account the fact that the damage incurred by the terrorist acts, where ever it takes place targeting whichever sector or industry, are the domain of the State responsibility, imposing the burden of compensation resulting from terrorist acts in the air industry on the aircraft operators and passengers/shippers is a source of serious concern for the prospect of the Convention. This is more so when the risks of terrorist acts normally aimed at a few countries because of current international political situation are spread out to many innocent countries without quid pro quo.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.57-64
• /
• 2020

The IOPC Fund general assembly reported that the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (known as the HNS Convention) will meet the requirement for the convention to take ef ect between 2021 and 2022. When the convention comes into effect, the liability-limit insurance of the HNS transport ship will be enforced and the shipper receiving the HNS will pay the share of the contribution from the International Fund for damages exceeding the limit of the ship's liability insurance. Korea is one of the major shipping and shipper countries in the world; thus, this study aimed to the need to analyze the effect of the convention on the related industries. The survey of ships and contribution targets analyzed the research data of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. The P&I premium estimation was reviewed by the Korea Shipping Association and the K P&I as insured ships. In addition, the contribution of the HNS cargo volume was analyzed in an annual report by a representative international association for each cargo. About 1,500 ocean-going and domestic vessels have been identified as ships subject to the convention. The effect of changes in premiums under the convention was minimal for most ships. The effect of the shipping industry is expected, with about 150 domestic tankers expected to increase insurance premiums. In the case of shipper industries, 52 freight terminals were found to be eligible for the payment of the share of the international fund, as the proportion of freight volume in Korea was ranked second to fourth in the world by individual HNS accounts. This implies the obligation to pay contributions according to the convention. Considering the status of HNS transport ships entering and leaving ports and the quantity of HNS cargo, it can be concluded that the validity of Korea's convention is sufficient and that, it is necessary to coordinate with global major shipper countries.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.29-65
• /
• 2012

Der neue strukturelle Ansatz der Kommbination eines Rahmen$\ddot{u}$bereinkommens und eines ausr$\ddot{u}$stungsspezifischen Sonderprotokolls bedingt einen neuen organisatorischen Anstz f$\ddot{u}$r die Zusammenarbeit zwischen internationalen Organisationen bei der Schaffung von internationalem Einheitsprivatrecht. So haben hier zwei internationale Organisationen gemeinsam die Verantwortung f$\ddot{u}$r einmultilaterales $\ddot{U}$bereinkommen $\ddot{u}$bernommen: auf der einen Seite UNIDROIT als die internationale Organisation, die generell f$\ddot{u}$r die Vereinheitlichung des Privatrechts kompetent ist; auf der anderen Seite ICAO als die f$\ddot{u}$r die private Luftfahrt zust$\ddot{a}$ndige internationale Organisation. Dieses neue, f$\ddot{u}$r die Luftfahrzeugausr$\ddot{u}$stung praktizierte organisatorische Modell eines joint venture zweier internationaler Organisation bei der Einheitsrechtsetzung, namlich die Betreuung eines allgemeinen privatrechtsvereinheitlichenden Rahmens$\ddot{u}$bereinkommens durch UNIDROIT und die Wahrnehmung der sektorspezifischen Belange in einem ausr$\ddot{u}$stungsspesifischen Sonderprotokoll durch die jeweils zust$\ddot{a}$ndige internationale Spezialorganisation, hat bereits f$\ddot{u}$r die Sektoren der Eisenbahn- und Weltraumausrustung Schule gemacht. Das in Kapstadt beschlossene v$\ddot{o}$lkervertragliche Regelungswerk hat erstmals ein einheitsrechtliches - grunds$\ddot{a}$atzlich weltweite Geltung anstrebendes - Sicherungsrecht geschafen. Dies kann f$\ddot{u}$r die Sachenrechtsintergration einen $\ddot{a}$hnlichen Durchbruch bedeuten, wis das Wiener UN-kaufrechts$\ddot{u}$bereinkommen von 1980 f$\ddot{u}$r das Schuldvertragsrecht. Voraussetzung daf$\ddot{u}$r ist allerdings die juristische Qualit$\ddot{a}$t und Praxisgerechtigkeit des Regelungswerkes und - insbesondere - das Funktionieren des Registersystems. Von wesentlicher Bedeutung f$\ddot{u}$r den Erfolg des $\ddot{U}$bereinkkommens wird auchsein, ob es Rechtssicherheit zu gew$\ddot{a}$hrleisten vermag.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.359-389
• /
• 2011

The Rotterdam Rules, which was adopted in December 2008 by UNCITRAL, has underlying intention that it will provide uniform law for the international carriage of goods by sea and modernize transport law reflecting modern transport custom. However, it is also true that there are various conflicting views on the Rotterdam Rules. This article tried to analyze main controversial issues such as scope of application, basis of liability of the shipper and the carrier, exception th the volume contract, legal position of the freight forwarder, delivery of the goods from the both sides of view. The Rotterdam Rules exposes some problems in applying and interpreting the Rules as many people indicated. These problems, I think, mainly due to the extended scope of application and broader range of issues. However, I do not think that the Rotterdam Rules will serious affect to the international transport industry. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect perfect Rules satisfying every interests.