• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.183-212
• /
• 2004

Die Haftung des Luftfrachtf${\"{u}}$hrers nach dem ge${\"{a}}$nderten Luftverkehrsgesetz 2004 In dieser Arbeit handelt es sich um das ge${\"{a}}$nderte Luftverkehrsgesetz in Deutschland. Neuerdings werden die bisherige Vielzahl von v${\"{o}}$lkerrechtlichen Abkommen und Protokollen, europarechtlichen Bestimmungen und privatrechtlichen Vereinbanmgen durch das Montrealer ${\"{U}}$bereinkommen 1999 zu einem einzigen Instrument zusammengefuhrt. Am 4. 11. 2003 ist das ${\"{U}}$bereinkommen von Montreal f${\"{u}}$r die Ratifikationsstaaten in Kraft getreten. Der Anwendungsbereich des Montrealer ${\"{U}}$bereinkommen beschr${\"{a}}$nkt sich jedoch nach dessen Art. 1 auf die internationale Bef${\"{o}}$rderung. Urn bei reinen Inlandf${\"{a}}$llen einen Gleichlauf zu gew${\"{a}}$hrleisten, will der deutsche Gesetzgeber im Zuge der Ratifikation in ${\S}$ 46 LuftVG eine entsprechende nationale Haftungsbestimmung schaffen.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.7-29
• /
• 1990

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

This paper described the contents of theme entitled "Domestic Legislative Problems on the Civil Liability of Air Carrier in Korea" including the current example of fourteen countries' legislation ((1) Great Britain, (2) United States of America, (3) Canada, (4)European Union), (5) Germany, (6) France, (7) Italy, (8) Spain, (9) Swiss, (10) Australia, (11) Japan, (12) People's Republic of China, (13) Taiwan, (14) North Korea) relating to the aviation law or air transport law. Though the Korean and Japanese aviation act has provided only the public items such as (1) registration of aircraft, (2) persons engaged in aviation, (3) operation of aircraft, (4) aviation facilities including airport, (5) air transport business, (6) investigate of aircraft accidents etc., but they could not regulated the private items such as the legal relations of the air transport contract (1) air passenger ticket, (2) air luggage ticket, (3) airway bill, (4) liability of air carrier, (5) amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents, (6)jurisdiction, (7) arbitration, (8) limitation of action, (9) combined carriage, (10) carriage by air performed by an actual carrier other than contracting carrier, damage caused by aircraft to the third parties etc. in their aviation act until now. In order to solve speedily the legal problems on the limitation of air carrier's liability and long law suit and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for us to enact a new "Draft for the Air Transport Act" including the abovementioned private items. I would like to propose personally and strongly the legislation of "Draft for the Air Transport Act" in Korea in emphasizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers air passengers and shippers in carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation between air carriers and survivors caused by the aircraft accidents such as the German Air Transport Act (Luftverkerhrsgesetz).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.235-251
• /
• 2005

German working hour law of 1994(Arbeitszeitgesetz) provides maximum working hour as 8 hours a day and 48 hours per week. The law provides that minimum 11 hours rest-time is required between the end of a day's work and the beginning of the next day's work. Namely, the hour that the workers are put under commanding of the user is restricted within 13 hours per day. In the meantime, article 5, 7, 14, and 15 of the law have some letting the exceptional provisions regarding the working hour and rest-time of flight crew, and 2nd administrative order for the aviation transportation business owner, which is established based on such exceptional provisions(2.DV LuftBO), provides the working hour and rest-time of flight crew quite in detail. The administrative order is detailed quite regarding block time, flight working hour, and rest-time. So, it does not need to interpret additionally. Airlines in Korea should observe the both Labor Standard Act applying to general workers and Aviation Act focused on flight crew, so it is difficult that airlines manages working hour and rest-time of the flight crew efficiently. Therefore, it is desirable that our country refers to and considers adopting this legislation method of Germany which regulates working hour and rest-time of flight crew in detail in the 2.DV LuftBO.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2006

오늘날 항공기사고는 우리나라뿐만 아니라 세계도처에서 때때로 발생되고 있다. 특히 외국항공기의 돌연한 추락 또는 물건의 낙하로 인해 지상에 있는 제3자에게 손해를 입히는 경우가 간혹 발생되고 있다. 이와 같은 사건에 있어 가해자(항공기운항자)는 피해자(지상 제3자)에 대하여 불법행위책임을 부담하게 되는데 이 사건해결을 위하여 1952년 및 1978년의 개정로마조약 등이 있음으로 본 논문에서는 이들 조약의 성립경위 및 주요내용과 개정이유 등을 설명하였다. 현재 국제민간항공기관(ICAO)에서는 2001년도 미국의 9,11테러사건 이후 이와 같은 사건의 법적조치와 대응을 위하여 1952년 개정로마조약의 현대화에 관한 새로운 조약초안이 발표되었다. 본 논문에서는 이 새로운 조약초안의 현대화를 위한 ICAO의 활동과 이 조약 초안에 대한 주된 내용과 필자의 논평(견해)을 밝히었다. 한편 본 논문에서는 항공운송인의 책임에 관계된 국제조약과 세계 각국(미국, 영국, 독일, 프랑스, 러시아, 오스트레일리아, 중국 등)의 입법례 등을 참작한 후 우리나라의 현실에 적합한 항공운송법 시안에 관한 국내입법의 추진방향과 항공운송약관의 효력문제, 동법시안을 제정하여야만 되는 이유, 입법경위, 입법방안, "항공운송법 시안"의 주요항목 등 작성하여 제시하였다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.65-92
• /
• 2011

Die soeben entwickelten Grundgs$\ddot{a}$tze k$\ddot{o}$nnen dazu f$\ddot{u}$hren, dass es bei Fluggesellschaften zum Abschluss mehrerer Tarifvertr$\ddot{a}$ge $\ddot{u}$ber Personalvertretungen durch verschidene Gewerkschften kommt. Dies leitet schlie${\ss}$lich zu der bereits angesprochenen Problematik der Tarifkonkurrenz $\ddot{u}$ber. Tarifkonkurrenz zeichnet sich bekanntlich dadurch aus, dass f$\ddot{u}$r dasselbe Rechtsverh$\ddot{a}$ltnis dieselbe Regelungsmaterie durch mehr als einen Tarifvertrag geregelt wird. Eine solche Tarifkonkurenz kann unabh$\ddot{a}$ngig von der Frage, ob Regelungsgegenstand betriebsverfassungsrechtlicher Normen ein betriebliches Rechtsverh$\ddot{a}$ltnis ist, auch bei dieser Art von Tarifnormen auftreten. Dabei betriebsverfassungsrechtlichen Kollektivnormen gem$\ddot{a}{\ss}$ $\S$3 Abs. 2 TVG die Tarifbindung des Arbeitgebers f$\ddot{u}$r die Anwendungsbarkeit gen$\ddot{u}$gt, wird beim Vorhandensein mehrerer solcher Tarifvertr$\ddot{a}$ge h$\ddot{a}$ufig pauschal von einer in jedem Fall aufzul$\ddot{o}$senden tarifkonkurrenz gesprochen. $\ddot{U}$berschneiden sich die Geltungsbereiche mehrerer Tarifvertr$\ddot{a}$ge $\ddot{u}$ber personalvertretungsrechtliche Fragen der im Luftbetrieb t$\ddot{a}$tigen Besch$\ddot{a}$ftigten und handelt es sich nicht um textidentische Regelungen, f$\ddot{u}$hrt indes kein Weg daran vorbei, dass eine Tarifkonkurenz besteht, die einer Aufl$\ddot{o}$sung bedarf. Die Rechtsprechung hat sich zur speziellen Fragen der Aufl$\ddot{o}$sung einer Konkurrenz betriebsverfassungsrechtlicher Tarifnormen soweit ersichtlich noch nicht ge$\ddot{a}$u${\ss}$ert. Nicht zuletzt aus diesem Grund wird in der Literatur ein buntes Spektrum an L$\ddot{o}$sungen pr$\ddot{a}$sentiert, wobei sich die meisten neueren Stellungnahmen vor allem mit Organisationstarifvertr$\ddot{a}$gen im Sinne von ${\S}$3 BetrVG besch$\ddot{a}$ftigen.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.225-285
• /
• 2017

In regard to the regulations related to the RPA(Remotely Piloted Aircraft), which is sometimes called in other countries as UA(Unmanned Aircraft), ICAO stipulates the regulations in the 'RPAS manual (2015)' in detail based on the 'Chicago Convention' in 1944, and enacts provisions for the Rules of UAS or RPAS. Other contries stipulates them such as the Federal Airline Rules (14 CFR), Public Law (112-95) in the United States, the Air Transport Act, Air Transport Order, Air Transport Authorization Order (through revision in "Regulations to operating Rules on unmanned aerial System") based on EASA Regulation (EC) No.216/2008 in the case of unmanned aircaft under 150kg in Germany, and Civil Aviation Act (CAA 1998), Civil Aviation Act 101 (CASR Part 101) in Australia. Commonly, these laws exclude the model aircraft for leisure purpose and require pilots on the ground, not onboard aricraft, capable of controlling RPA. The laws also require that all managements necessary to operate RPA and pilots safely and efficiently under the structure of the unmanned aircraft system within the scope of the regulations. Each country classifies the RPA as an aircraft less than 25kg. Australia and Germany further break down the RPA at a lower weight. ICAO stipulates all general aviation operations, including commercial operation, in accordance with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention, and it also applies to RPAs operations. However, passenger transportation using RPAs is excluded. If the operational scope of the RPAs includes the airspace of another country, the special permission of the relevant country shall be required 7 days before the flight date with detail flight plan submitted. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation 107 in the United States, a small non-leisure RPA may be operated within line-of-sight of a responsible navigator or observer during the day in the speed range up to 161 km/hr (87 knots) and to the height up to 122 m (400 ft) from surface or water. RPA must yield flight path to other aircraft, and is prohibited to load dangerous materials or to operate more than two RPAs at the same time. In Germany, the regulations on UAS except for leisure and sports provide duty to avoidance of airborne collisions and other provisions related to ground safety and individual privacy. Although commercial UAS of 5 kg or less can be freely operated without approval by relaxing the existing regulatory requirements, all the UAS regardless of the weight must be operated below an altitude of 100 meters with continuous monitoring and pilot control. Australia was the first country to regulate unmanned aircraft in 2001, and its regulations have impacts on the unmanned aircraft laws of ICAO, FAA, and EASA. In order to improve the utiliity of unmanned aircraft which is considered to be low risk, the regulation conditions were relaxed through the revision in 2016 by adding the concept "Excluded RPA". In the case of excluded RPA, it can be operated without special permission even for commercial purpose. Furthermore, disscussions on a new standard manual is being conducted for further flexibility of the current regulations.

• 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.31 no.1
• /
• pp.37-62
• /
• 2016

Two controversial issues exist in interpretation of "Force Majeure" set forth in the Article 931 (4) of the Korean Commercial Code. Firstly, its scope of application is ambiguous. Secondly, there is a concern that the "immunity" under paragraph 1 and "Force Majeure" may overlap each other. "Force Majeure" refers an event resulted from either natural disaster or 3rd-party. Meanwhile, the latter implies relatively extensive and comprehensive meaning and its interpretation may vary depends on law enforcement. In general, the aircraft accident hardly results in damage or loss to the 3rd-party. Additionally, it is worth to review newly enacted clause and to define its applicability. When the 3rd party is suffered from damage or loss incurred by any external act, it is necessary to explicit the concept of the non-contractual liabilities with respect to 3rd party. From the perspective of protecting aviation industries, the commercial aviation operator may be entitled to immunity in respect of claim for damage incurred by the event of Force Majeure. However, this approach is directly opposite to the victim's benefit and protection by the law. Therefore, the priority of the legal protection should be considered. Although the interest of the commercial aviation operator is not negligible, the protection of the law should be favorable to the 3rd party. Otherwise, the innocent party has no right to claim for damage incurred by aviation accident. Another issue is about the possibility of overlapping of the provision set forth in the paragraph 1 and 4. The former states that the liabilities shall be exempted on account of either the unsettled political or economic situation but this clause is inconsistent with the interpretation on Force Majeure under the latter. As argued above, this may include any event resulted from either political or economic account by the external influence of the 3rd party, thus these two provisions are overlapped. Consequently, in order to develop ordinances and guidelines and to ensure an equal protection to both parties, above two issues must remain open for further discussions.