• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.125-147
• /
• 2009

The Basic Environmental Policy Act (BEPA) (Law No. 4257 effective 1. August 1990) sets forth the basic policies and administrative framework for environmental preservation, leaving more detailed regulations, and emission controls to separate laws targeting air, water, and solid waste, etc. The BEPA Article 31 adopts an unprecedented strict liability standard for damages as an absolute liability. The BEPA Article 31 provides for liability as follows. If a company is alleged to have caused damage through pollution of the environment, it will be liable for damages unless it can show that the pollution did not cause damages, or that it did not actually cause pollution. If the company did cause pollution, and if the pollution is the cause for the damages in question, the company will be liable irrespective of whether it was negligent or otherwise at fault. If there are two or more companies involved in the pollution, but it is unclear which company caused the damages, all of the companies will be jointly and severally liable for the damages. In this paper, the author attempts to uncover the problems of BEPA Article 31 and then seeks desirable amendments by comparing it to the German Environmental Liability Act. First, it will be necessary to provide definitions of 'companies etc.'. Second, it will be necessary to enumerate the kinds of company facilities. Third, it will be necessary to provide exclusionary clauses on material damages. Fourth, it will be necessary to show 'presumption of cause and effect'. Fifth, it will be necessary to provide a clause on 'right to information'. Sixth, it will be necessary to provide a clause for force majeure. Seventh, it will be necessary to take measures to secure abundant liability for damages which can be caused by the owner of the facility, the potential polluter. Finally, it is appropriate that Korea now legislate an Environmental Liability Act akin to the German Environmental Liability Act.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.125-150
• /
• 2014

The number of dangerous goods are increasing in maritime transport. As a result, a number of nations and international organizations are establishing or amending the rules of dangerous goods. There is necessarily the transport of dangerous goods like fuel and the importance of the definition and scope of the goods is increased. In addition, the responsibility between the parties is different with the notification of the goods and its awareness of transporters. In particular, responsible clauses of the transport rule show antithetical concepts between the scope of immunity and the responsibility of a shipper concerned with wether transporters aware. This research performs two works. First, this research analyzes the definitions and scope of dangerous goods through prior research. Second, this research suggests the necessary of united interpretation of the articles through a comparative analysis on judical decisions concerned with awareness of transporters to dangerous goods. Dangerous goods have a distinctive feature and that is why responsibility and immunity between parties should be differently interpreted with general rules. Parties have duty concerned with faults on general goods and the scope of duty between parties can be specifically made. However, if there is no specific articles concerned with responsibility between parties to dangerous goods, they could confuse the responsibility on duties concerned with risk. Therefore, this research suggests solutions and necessary of the united criteria for the articles to dangerous goods through analyzing precedent cases.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.

• Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
• /
• v.10 no.6
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2005

Soil is polluted by an agricultural chemicals, the effluence of a crystal and sewage sludge, illegal discharging of waste water or waste matter and so on. Soil pollution that accompanies a groundwater and the crops contamination has a large effect on people's living. By polluters pay principle, when a soil was polluted, polluters take the responsibility of clean-up and compensation for damages. The character of the responsibility is a strict liability. When joint polluters exist in a soil pollution, they bear collective responsibility. But they are exempted from obligation in case of a natural calamity and war. The polluters who are poor contribution of pollution take a partition responsibility but it is not easy to prove that. The concerned parties of purification liability in a soil pollution are polluter, an owner or occupant of a contaminated site, and a grantee. But when we do not appoint the polluter or he cannot do a cleanup, municipal must put in effect the purification. In such a case, another parties who are related to the contamination should take upon themselves a liability. The province of responsible parties, therefore, is required to extend to an owner or operator of a facility, a carrier and lender.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.195-205
• /
• 2001

It has been over seven years since Maritime Code of the Peoples Republic of China (hereinafter called the Code) came into force on July 1st 1993. During this period it has played a very important roll in governing Chinas ocean shipping. However, owing to the defects of the Code, many problems have arisen in the performance of the Code, among which is the problem related to delay in delivery. Therefore, it is necessary and inevitable to revise the Code. This study is limited to a rough study on the regulations related to delay in delivery in the Code, such as the definition of delay in delivery, the carriers responsibility for delay in delivery, the carriers exemption from responsibility for delay in delivery, the limitation of responsibility, the procedures of claims for delay in delivery and the difference of the Code from the Korea Commercial Law, the Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules. Furthermore, some defects in the Code are pointed out and suggestions are provided for the revision of the Code.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2016

Recently, the Supreme Court of Korea delivered a milestone judgment about air related multimodal transport. At there, the mattered cargo, some expensive jewellery, was transported from Qingdao, China to downtown office of consignee at Seoul via Incheon airport in Korea. As an air waybill was issued in this case, there was an air transport agreement between consignor and air courier operator. After arriving at Incheon airport, the shipment was transport by land arranged by the air courier operator, who was a defendant in this case. Upon arriving at the final destination, it was found that the jewellery was lost partly and based on circumstantial evidence, the damage presumed to be occurred during the land transport. As a subrogee, the insurance company who paid for consignee filed an action against the air courier operator for damage compensation. Defendant contended that Montreal convention should be applicable in this case mainly for limited liability. The lower court of this case confirmed that applying the limited liability clause under Montreal Convention is improper under the reason that the damage in this case was or presumed to be occurred during surface transport. It was focused on the Montreal Convention article 18 which says that the period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision. The delivered opinion is that the terms of condition on the air waybill including limited liability clause should be prevailed in this case. It seems that the final judgment was considered the fact that the only contract made in this case was about air transport. This article is for analysis the above decisions from the perspective that it is distinguishable between a pure multimodal transport and an expanded air transport. The main idea of this article is that under the expanded air transport, any carriage by land, sea or inland waterway only for the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or transhipment is still within the scop of air transport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.19-45
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to research the contents and issues of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Act of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, comparing to the related provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Montreal Convention in respect of the international carriage by air was adopted in 1999, and Korea has ratified the Montreal Convention in 2007. However, there is now no national legislation in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. Thus, the Ministry of Justice has prepared the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code in July 2008, and the draft legislation is now being reviewed by the National Assembly. The draft provisions of Part VI the Carriage by Air are basically adopting most of the related provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of cargo by air and some draft provisions are applying the related provisions of the Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage of cargo by land and sea. In respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, the contents of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by air are composed of the provisions in respect of the cause of the liability of the and the application for the non-contractual claim, the limit of liability, the exoneration from liability, the extinguishment of liability, the notice of damage to cargo, the liability of the agents and servants of the carrier, and the liability of the actual carrier and successive carrier. The draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code is different from the provisions of the Montreal Convention is respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air as follows : the draft Article 913 paragraph 1 provides additionally the riot, civil war and quarantine as the exoneration causes from the liability for damage to the cargo of the carrier in the Article 18 paragraph 2 of the Montreal Convention. In respect of the liability of the carrier in carriage of cargo by air, the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air does not provide the settlement by arbitration of dispute relating to the liability of the carrier and the requirement of adequate insurance covering the liability of the carrier which are provided in the Montreal Convention. In author's opinion, it is desirable that the above mentioned provisions such as the arbitration and the insurance shall be inserted into the draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code. In conclusion, the legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code shall be made by the National Assembly as soon as possible for the smooth and equitable compensation for damage to cargo arising during the carriage by air.

• 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.26 no.1
• /
• pp.147-176
• /
• 2011

China is experiencing rapid economic development and the volume of air passengers and cargo transportation has increased significantly in recent years. To the contray, the regulations on liability of air carrier in china fall behind and are not sufficiently applicable in disputes. Their lack of sufficient protection for air passenger's interests became obstructive factor for further developments of Chinese air transportation industry. The legal system of air carrier's liability mainly consists of the contents as followed. The liability period, the scope of liability, amount of compensation for damage, limitation of liability, liability exemption of air carrier, jurisdiction, limitation of action, applicable law etc. Laws and rules concerning these issues are regulated in Civil Aviation Law and regulations published by Civil Aviation Administration of China. This article described the main contents of air carrier's liability and examined the legislative problems in their applications in real cases. In order to solve the legal problems on the air carrier's liability and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for china to amend revelvant provisions. One of my proposals is to raise the amount of compensation limitation for damage. And I also would like to suggest that Civil Aviation Law should treat international and domestic transportation equally on the limitation of compensation for air carrier's liability. China has also acceded to the Montreal Convention of 1999 on July 31, 2005. This is an effort to make the law of air carriage unified worldwide through various international conventions to achieve conformity between rules of international air carriage and that of Chinese domestic aircarriage. Furthermore, there should be additional detailed implementation rules for air carrier to assume liability for the losses to passengers, baggage or cargoes caused by delays in the air transport. Significant clarifications are also needed for provisions concerning whether and how air carrier assume liability for moral damage caused by accident.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.197-224
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews and criticizes some issues as to the case of A and Others v. Finnair Oyj [2020] Case C-832/18 by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Under this case, the travellers brought an action against Finnair in light of the Air Passenger Regulation12, seeking compensation for both the first cancelled flight, and the delayed re-routed flight. Finnair had paid the first compensation, but refused to grant the second claim, arguing that the regulation did not set out that passengers were eligible for a second claim in those situations, and that the delay of the second flight was a consequence of 'extraordinary circumstances' under the regulation. The Court of Appeal in Helsinki has asked the CJEU whether an air passenger is entitled to a further compensation where a re-routed flight they have agreed to take is delayed, where both the original and rerouted flight are operated by the same air carrier. The CJEU held that the regulation does not in any way limit the rights of passengers where they find their flights being re-routed. As such, under earlier CJEU case law, the relevant travellers here were entitled to compensation for cancellation of the first flight and delay of the second flight. It also disagreed with Finnair's assessment that the technical failure in the re-routing flight was a matter of extraordinary circumstances.