• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The aircraft crew operating on international routes performs almost identical tasks as police officials in terms of dealing with the unlawful interference in the aircraft. This means that the liability question which is related to the law enforcement by the police officer may arise regarding the crew's performance of his or her duties. With regard to the carrier's liability due to the crew's unlawful action, there are distinctive characteristics from the liability due to police officers' unlawful action. In case of the claim for damages by the crew's unlawful action, the first question should be whether such action complies with the requirements under the Tokyo Convention 1963. If such action does not conform with the Tokyo Convention 1963, we should examine that claim under the State Compensation Act, the Montreal Convention 1999, and the Civil Act of Korea. The examination under the Tokyo Convention 1963 is not so different from the Korean Court's precedents. However, the court should consider the characteristics of the environment surrounding the crew. The action which is not indemnified under the Tokyo Convention 1963 should be examined under the tort laws. Because the aircraft crew is private persons entrusted with public duties under Korean Law, the State Compensation Act may apply. However, further studies regarding the harmonious interpretation with the Montreal Convention 1999 is needed. With regard to the carrier's liability, the Montreal Convention of 1999 should be applied to the crew's unlawful actions onboard. This is because the Montreal Convention of 1999 preempts the national law for the events that occurred during transportation, and there is no provision which excludes such unlawful actions from the scope of its application. On the other hand, the national law, such as the Civil Act of Korea, applies to unlawful actions taken after transportation. This is because the interpretation that infinitely expands the scope of the Montreal Convention 1999 should not be allowed. Given the foregoing, the standard of the claim for damages due to the crew's unlawful action varies depending on the place where the specific action was taken. As a result, the type of damage recoverable and the burden of proof also varies accordingly. Carriers and crew members must perform their duties with this in mind, but in particular, they should observe the proportionality, and when interpreting the law, it is necessary for the court or lawyer to consider the special characteristics of the work environment.

• Bulletin of Korea Environmental Preservation Association
• /
• v.14 no.6
• /
• pp.41-46
• /
• 1992

• 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.20 no.1
• /
• pp.45-85
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of "accident" under the Warsaw system including the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999. Most leading case on this subject is Air France v. Saks(470 U.S. 392 (1985)). In the Saks case, it was held that the definition of an accident must be applied flexibly, and most courts have adhered to the definition of accident in Saks case, the application of accident has been less than consistent. However, most cases have held that if the event is usual and expected operation of the aircraft, then no accident has occurred. Courts have also held that where the injury results from passenger's own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operations of the aircraft, it is not caused by an accident. As the Warsaw drafters intended to create a system of liability rules that would cover all hazards of air travel, the carrier should liable for the inherent risks of air travel. It is right in that the carrier is in a better position than the passenger to control the risks during air travel. Most US courts have held that carriers are not liable for one passenger's assault on the other passenger. The interactions between passengers are not part of the normal operations of the aircraft and are therefore not covered by the word "accident" under Art 17 of the Warsaw Convention. It is regretful that the Montreal Convention did not attempt to clarify the concepts of accident in itself. In the light of an emerging tendency to hold the air carrier liable for occurrences that do not exactly go to the operation of the aircraft, it is desirable to regulate that the carrier is liable for an "event" instead of an "accident" in accordance with the Guatemala City protocol.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.65-95
• /
• 2006

It is essential that the liability for damage on the surface caused by aircraft be regulated at international level. However, the Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface of 1952 and the Montreal Protocol of 1978 did not have significant worldwide repercussions since few countries have ratified them. So the Secretariat ofthe ICAO has produced the draft Convention for the modernization of the Rome Convention in 2002 and the Special group has considered the text of the draft Convention so far. The draft Convention contains main issues with regard to the liability system of the operator and the insurability of the risks for damage to third parties on the ground. In order to protect the air transport sector of a country as well as to facilitate speedy recoveries by victims, Work on modernizing the Rome Convention should be continued and the new Convention should be finalized in the near future.

• 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.21 no.2
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2006

This paper intends to describe the carrier's duty for the delivery of international air cargo and the carrier's liability for the illegal delivery of cargo under the Montreal Convention, lATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo and judicial precedents. Under the Article 13 of Montreal Convention, the consignee is entitled, on arrival of the cargo at the place of destination, to require the carrier to deliver the cargo to it, on payment of the charge due and on complying with the conditions of carriage. And unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as soon as the cargo arrives. Under the Article 18 of Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or less of or damage to, cargo upon condition only that the event which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air. And the carriage by air comprises by the period during which the cargo is in the carriage of the carrier. Under the Article 11 of lATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo, carrier is liable to shipper, consignee of any other person for damage sustained in the event of destruction of loss of, or damage to, or delay in the carriage of cargo only if the occurrence which caused to the damage so sustained took place during the carriage as defined under Article 1. According to the precedent of Korean Supreme Court sentenced on 22 July 2004, the freight forwarder as carrier was not liable for the illegal delivery of cargo to the notify party (actual importer) on the airway bill by the bonded warehouse operator because the freight forwarder did not designate the bonded warehouse and did not hold the position of employer to the bonded warehouse operator. In conclusion, the carrier or freight forwarder should pay always attention the movement and condition of the cargo not to be liable for the illegal delivery of cargo.

• 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.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.