• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.55-89
• /
• 2003

What are the international aviation regimes? It is said that they are sets of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures of international aviation around which aviation actors' (states-actors, intergovernmental aviation organization, international aviation conventions, airlines and their organizations etc.) expectations converge in a given aviation issue-area for the purposes of the human welfare and the operations of the stable civil aviation. In this regards, the purposes of this study are focused on the aviation actors' shifts. Chronologically, international aviation regimes have been developed by some stages as followings; The 1st stage is the period from 1944 Chicago Convention to 1978 US Deregulation Act, when the aviation regulations and rules within the international aviation relations were implemented by Chicago-Bermuda regimes as Christer Jonsson pointed out. In this first stage, the sovereignty for the airspace over their countries is absolute. The second stage is the period from 1978 to '1992 Open Skies Agreement' between US and Netherlands. In this regime, airlines' activities as well as state-actors' have been actuated. The third stage is the period from 1992 to the contemporary. In this stage, airlines' activities for the consumers such as 'Open Skies Agreements', 'e-commerce business', 'airspace open policy within EU area', 'service open policy of WTO', and 'airlines' strategic alliance' are the central focal points in the world aviation relationship. In the conclusion, this phenomenon of the core actors in the international aviation rules has been shifted from the states-actors to the non-states actors especially, operating airlines, or consuming customers. Finally, I' d like to suggest that international aviation regimes should be developed to promote and facilitate the globalized level for the people's movements among the global aviation society. That is the way to proceed to the welfare and peace for all human beings of the World.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.135-167
• /
• 2006

Air service agreements between EU Member States and third countries concluded by Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom after the Second World War infringe EU law. They authorize the third countries to withdraw, suspend or limit the traffic rights of air carriers designated by the signatory States. According to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC), these agreements infringe EU law in two respects. On the one hand, the presence of nationality clauses infringes the right of European airlines to non-discriminatory market access to routes between all Member States and third countries. On the other hand, only the EU has the authority to sign up to this type of commitment where agreements affect the exercise of EU competence, i.e. involve an area covered by EU legislation. The Court held that since the third countries have the right to refuse a carrier, these agreements therefore constitute an obstacle to the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, as the opening of European skies to third countries' companies is not reciprocal for all EU airlines. In the conclusion, in order to reconstruct these public international air law, The new negotiations between EU member states and third countries, especially the US, must be designed to ensure an adequate set of principles, so that Member States, in their bilateral relations with third countries in the area of air service, should consider following three models. The 1st, to develop a new model of public international air law such as a new Bermuda III. The 2nd, to reconstruct new freedoms of the air, for example, the 7th, 8th, and 9th freedoms. The 3rd, to explore new approaching models, such as complex system theory explored in the recent social sciences, to make access world-wide global problems instead of bilateral problems between EU member states and United States. The example will show any lessons to air talks between European Union and ROK.