• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Disaster Information Conference
• /
• 2023.11a
• /
• pp.41-42
• /
• 2023

항공편과 승객의 흐름을 효율적으로 처리하기 위한 디지털 시스템에 대한 의존도 증가와 승객용 기내 와이파이 서비스 등으로 인해 민간항공의 사이버 보안 취약성은 매년 증가하고 있는데 비해 공항에 대한 무장 공격, 항공기에 폭발물 설치 및 납치와 같은 전통적인 테러에 맞춰 마련된 항공보안 관련 국제협약은 사이버 위협에 직접적으로 적용하기 어렵다는 문제를 갖고 있다. 본 연구는 민간항공에 대한 사이버 공격의 예방 및 기소와 관련된 국제협약의 적정성을 검토한 후, 사이버 위협 대응을 위한 기존 국제협약 체계, 잠재적 차이 해석 등을 중점적으로 분석하여 민간항공의 안전을 위협하는 불법방해행위로부터 중요정보 및 시스템을 보호하는 항공 사이버 보안 국제표준 마련 및 이행 촉진을 강조하고자 한다.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.79-112
• /
• 2010

The Beijing Convention of 2010 taken together effectively establishes a new broader and stronger civil aviation security framework. This adoption would significantly advance cooperation in prevent of the full range of unlawful acting relation to civil aviation and the prosecution and punishment of offenders. First, the Beijing Convention of 2010 will require parties to criminalize a number of new and emerging threats to the safety of civil aviation, including using aircraft as a weapon and organizing, directing and financing acts of terrorism. These new treaties reflect the international community's shared effort to prevent acts of terrorism against civil aviation and to prosecute and punish those who would commit them. Second, this convention will also require States to criminalize the transport of biological, chemical, nuclear weapons and related material. These provisions reflect the nexus between non-proliferation and terrorism and ensure that the international community will act to combat both. Third, this Convention shall not apply to aircraft used in military, customs or police services. As a substitute, International Humanitarian Law will be applied in a case. Moreover, the National Jurisdiction and the application of the law will be extended farther. The treaty promotes cooperation between States while emphasizing the human rights and fair treatment of terrorist suspects.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.123-155
• /
• 2006

2001. 9. 11 aviation terror showed us that there are lots of problems in aviation security and we need efficient counter-plans. According to this event, many countries are coming up with various countermeasures. After first hijacking in 1950, the aviation terror is occurring with more various methods until these days. And the scale is bigger than former so they're making much bigger damages. Especially, the case of 9.11 terror attracted people's eye of the world because of enormous casualties and damages. It aroused many people's self-awakening therefore as an important factor the security is given much weight in the aviation safety. In order to keep the step like this tendency and the development of aviation security, beginning with America lots of countries of the world are pursuing diverse aviation security's counter-plans of new side. At this point of time, for our development in aviation industry we should make efficient aviation security countermeasures. In this study, We compared our aviation security activities with major countries after 9.11 terror.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2009

A concept of Aircraft crime includes an Air range, unlawful seizure of aircraft and unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation. There are international treaties and conventions which have mainly been enacted by ICAO. The following treaties and conventions are categorical and unconditional norms that any States are clearly condemned. Convention on Offences and Certain other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection In this essay, I present the meaning of the aircraft crime mentioned on the treaties above and jurisdiction of the crime. Moreover, I explain how to demand reparation for damages onboard or on the surface when an aircraft crime is occurred. Lastly, I indicate legal bases of how to protect the victims of the aircraft crime by mentioning specific cases relating to the crime.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2014

The Republic of Korea enacted the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law which was entered into force in November, 2011. The Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law was established to regulate domestic carriage by air and damages to the third party which occur within the territorial area caused by aircraft operations. There are some problems to be reformed in the Provisions of Korean Commercial Law for the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages to the third party caused by aircraft operation as follows. First, the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages needs to be improved because it is too low to compensate adequately to the third party damaged owing to the aircraft operation. Therefore, the standard of classifying per aircraft weight is required to be detailed from the current 4-tier into 10-tier and the total limited amount of liability is also in need of being increased to the maximum 7-hundred-million SDR. In addition, the limited amount of liability to the personal damage is necessary to be risen from the present 125,000 SDR to 625,000 SDR according to the recent rate of prices increase. This is the most desirable way to improve the current provisions given the ordinary insurance coverage per one aircraft accident and various specifications of recent aircraft in order to compensate the damaged appropriately. Second, the aircraft operator shall be liable without fault to damages caused by terrorism such as hijacking, attacking an aircraft and utilizing it as means of attack like the 9 11 disaster according to the present Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law. Some argue that it is too harsh to aircraft operators and irrational, but given they have also some legal duties of preventing terrorism and in respect of helping the third party damaged, it does not look too harsh or irrational. However, it should be amended into exempting aircraft operator's liability when the terrorism using of an aircraft by well-organized terrorists group happens like 9 11 disaster in view of balancing the interest between the aircraft operator and the third party damaged. Third, considering the large scale of the damage caused by the aircraft operation usually aircraft accident, it is likely that many people damaged can be faced with a financial crisis, and the provision of advance payment for air carrier's liability of compensation also needs to be applied to the case of aircraft operator's liability. Fourth, the aircraft operator now shall be liable to the damages which occur in land or water except air according to the current Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. However, because the damages related to the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation are not different from those in land or water. Therefore, the term of 'on the surface' should be eliminated in the term of 'third parties on the surface' in order to make the damages by the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation compensable by Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. It is desired that the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law including the clauses related to the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages to the third party be developed continually through the resolutions about its problems mentioned above for compensating the third party damaged appropriately and balancing the interest between the damaged and the aircraft operator.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.165-182
• /
• 2004

According to the Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, an appropriate authority of each contracting state has to define and allocate tasks and coordinate activities between the departments, agencies and other organizations of the State, airport and aircraft operators and other entities concerned with or responsible for the implementation of various aspects of the national civil aviation security programme. It is generally recognized that the three major parties responsible for the aviation security at an airport are appropriate government departments, airport operator and airlines. The airlines are the beneficiaries of security activities as well as the provider of security activities. So, their responsibilities have been critical in protecting civil aviation from unlawful interferences. The airport has to take leading role in implementing security tasks at airport area because the airport operator is the provider of airport facilities and services to its customer and the security activities belong to its services. The government has the responsibilities not only for establishing regulatory system but also for oversighting the implementation of aviation security activities. The paper is to review the revision of aviation security regulation and the changes of aviation security responsibilities, and costs and task assignment in Republic of Korea after September 11 event. The responsibilities, tasks and costs assigned to airlines, airport operators and government are introduced and evaluated in terms of economic fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of aviation security activities. The drawbacks of new legal system are pointed out and the suggestions to remedy them are proposed as conclusions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2014

While the numbers of overseas travelers has been increased rapidly each year, the numbers of passengers in the aircraft also has continued to be increased gradually. In the mist of these increasing numbers, such accidents as threatening an aircraft safety like riot, aircraft hijacking and terrorism have happened constantly. In these circumstances, South Korean government has prescribed "Aviation on Security Act" in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation and other international agreements. This act aims to prevent illegal activities and illegal items on the aircraft to ensure the safety and security of civil aviation. However, this act is not sufficiently regulating all the illegal crimes and illegal items on the flight. For the worse, there is a lack of effective supervisory capacity. Likewise, the inherent problems of the current laws relating to the prevention of the illegal items on the aircraft are appearing on the surface continually. Above all, illegal items on the aircraft are directly connected to the issue of aviation safety and security as well as a safe utilization of the flight service. Thus, when there occurs a serious accident on board, it surely would be led to a huge economic loss not mentioning the loss of lives following the accident. Therefore safety of the flight passengers cannot be guaranteed without ensuring the safety of aircraft facilities and good supervisory mechanism of illegal items on the aircraft. Accordingly, establishing a safe operation order tends to influence economy and tourism of a country in no small measure. Therefore, it is an urgent issue to settle down a reasonable and adequate supervisory regulations regarding the prevention of the illegal items on the aircraft. Consequently, in this article, I studied on a reasonal and effective mechanism to control the prevention of the illegal items and illegal acts on the aircraft in order to ensure a safety and security of civil aircraft.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.27-54
• /
• 2010

Soon after September 11 attacks in 2001, there were strong demands in Korea on making relevant laws and regulations on aviation security, and Korean parliament legislated "Aviation Safety and Security Act"to fulfill the demands on safety and security of aircrafts during aviation. However, the current Aviation Safety and Security Act seems to have many problems which do not meet the practical needs in Korea, because there were not enough considerations on the practical needs and extinguishable national circumstances on civil aviation system in Korea, but only regarded the relevant international conventions and foreign practices on it. In this context, it is necessary to amend several provisions in Aviation Safety and Security Act to enhance more practical efficiencies in its implementation through systematization of the provisions on crimes which may happen during aviation. In this context, this article argues two main issues. First, Article 39 of Aviation Safety and Security Act does not express whether it is possible to punish the attempt of crime of causing damage to aircraft. Therefore, regarding a principle of legality, it is impossible to punish the perpetrator even when coincidently failed to destruct or damage aircraft. In this context, this article argues that the necessity to introduce the possibility to punish the attempt of crime of causing damage to aircraft. Second, regarding Article 160 of Civil Aviation Act of Korea, current Aviation Safety and Security Act should be amended by guaranteeing the culpability of negligence of crime of causing damage to aircraft.