• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.109-142
• /
• 2005

This paper aims to study international political orders and aviational orders since the second World War, to investigate the influences between the two orders, to connect them with the air transportation service agreement between Korea and USA, and to prospect international aviation orders in the future. The first international aviation order after the second World War is built up by international public goods under hegemonic stability theory in the realistic international order. Second order is a kind of cooperation system through the international institutions under the neo-liberalistic international order from the late of 1970s. Third order is the multiple cooperation through the shared epistemology, understanding, and knowledge under the international social constructivism from the 1990s. This paper prospects that international aviation order in the future will be developed through the multiple channels for the civilian users' conveniences and the openness for the users.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.41-68
• /
• 2011

This article deals with the current rules of law of air warfare and its surrounding issues on precautionary action by a military aircraft at air-to-air operation in international armed conflict. However there is no separate and independent legal system to regulate warfare in aerospace in the current system of law of war (or law of armed conflict). In other words, law of air warfare does not exist in a form of a separate treaty. Air warfare has been regulated by international customary law and the relevant provisions in different Conventions, including 1949 four Geneva Conventions and two Additional Protocols, which mainly regulate land and naval warfare. And this makes difficult to make clear a legal term or legal tests on an issue concerned with law of air warfare, which concludes from time to time a dispute on interpretation and implementation of law of air warfare between states. Therefore, this article refers various materials (including 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, San Remo Manual, Harvard Manual, and ICAO Manual on Interception of Civilian Aircraft) for the purpose of defining the current and desirable legal test on precautionary action by military aircraft. In addition to the main purpose of this article, this article tried to show a characteristic of developing mechanism of law of air Warfare taking into account interactions between international air law and law of air warfare.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.39-77
• /
• 2019

Crew members engaged in international air transportation provide work in many countries due to the nature of their work. According to the Private International Act, the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work plays an important role in the determination of the governing law of the international labor contract (Article 28, Paragraph 2) and in the decision of international jurisdiction (Article 28, Paragraphs 3 and 4). The concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work was proposed by the EU to determine international jurisdiction and governing law. In international aviation law, the legislative purpose of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work is different from that of home base, which is a concept introduced for fatigue management of the crew in order to secure the aviation safety; thus the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work and home base are not the same concept. In order to determine the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work, following matters should be considered comprehensively; (i) where the crew starts and ends work, (ii) where the aircraft the crew is performing work on is primarily parked, (iii) where the crew is informed of the instructions and organizes his/her work activities, (iv) where the crew is obliged to reside according to the labor contract, (v) where there is an office provided by the employer and available to the crew, (vi) where the crew is obliged to be when he/she is ineligible for the work or subject to discipline. However, since all of the above items are the same as the location of the home base, it is reasonable to consider the home base as the most important factor when deciding on the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In contrast, the state where the aircraft is registered (Article 17 of the Chicago Convention), should not be regarded as a place of where the employee habitually carries out his/her work. In this case, CJEU provided the first judging standard for the concept of the place where the employee engaged in international air transportation habitually carries out his/her work. It is the interpretation of the Brussels regulations which became a model -for the Korean Private International Act,- so it would be helpful to understand the concept of the place where the employee habitually carries out his/her work.