• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.31-64
• /
• 2015

The Chicago Convention and Annexes have become the basis of aviation safety regulations for every contracting state. Generally, aviation safety regulations refer to the SARPs provided in the Annexes of the Chicago Convention. In order to properly reflect international aviation safety regulations, constant studies of the aviation fields are of paramount importance. Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea. Each contracting state to the Chicago Convention should meet ICAO SARPs about AOC and FAOC. According to ICAO SARPs, Civil Aviation Authorities shall issue AOC to air carriers of the state, but don't require to issue for foreign air carrier. However some contracting states of the Chicago Convention issue FAOC and/or Operations Specifications for the foreign operators. This FAOC is being expanded from USA to the other contracting states. Foreign operators have doubly burden to implement AOC of the ICAO SARPs because FAOC is an additional requirement other than that prescribed by the ICAO SARPs In Article 33, the Chicago Convention stipulates that each contracting state shall recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting states as long as they are equal to or above the minimum standards of the ICAO. In ICAO Annex 6, each contracting state shall recognize as valid an air operator certificate issued by another contracting state, provided that the requirements under which the certificate was issued are at least equal to the applicable Standards specified in this Annex. States shall establish a programme with procedures for the surveillance of operations in their territory by a foreign operator and for taking appropriate action when necessary to preserve safety. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the states issuing the FAOC to the foreign air carriers of other states is against the Convention. Hence, I make some proposals on the FAOC as an example of comprehensive problem solving after comparative study with ICAO SARPs and the contracting state's regulations. Some issues must be improved and I have made amendment proposals to meet ICAO SARPs and to strengthen aviation development. Operators should be approved by FAOC at most 190 if all states require FAOC. Hence, it is highly recommended to eliminate the FAOC or reduce the restrictions it imposes. In certain compliance-related issues, delayed process shall not be permitted to flight operations. In addition, it is necessary for the ICAO to provide more unified and standardized guidelines in order to avoid confusion or bias regarding the arbitrary expansion of the FAOC. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the ICAO SARPs and some state's regulation regarding FAOC, and suggested some proposals on the FAOC as an example of comprehensive problem solving. I hope that this paper is 1) to help understanding about the international issue, 2) to help the improvement of korean aviation regulations, 3) to help compliance with international standards and to contribute to the promotion of aviation safety, in addition.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.115-157
• /
• 2013

Some contracting States of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention) issue FAOC(Foreign AOC and/or Operations Specifications) and conduct various safety audits for the foreign operators. These FAOC and safety audits on the foreign operators are being expanded to other parts of the world. While this trend is the strengthening measure of aviation safety resulting in the reduction of aircraft accident, it is the source of concern from the legal as well as economic perspectives. FAOC of the USA doubly burdens the other contracting States to the Chicago Convention because it is the requirement other than that prescribed by the Chicago Convention of which provisions are faithfully observed by almost all the contracting States. The Chicago Convention in its Article 33 stipulates that each contracting State recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting States as long as they meet the minimum standards of the ICAO. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the USA, China, Mongolia, Australia, and the Philippines issuing the FOAC to the aircraft of other States is against the Convention. It is worry some that this breach of international law is likely to be followed by the European Union which is believed to be in preparation for its own unilateral application. The ICAO established by the Chicago Convention to be in charge of safe and orderly development of the international civil aviation has been in hard work to both upgrade and emphasize the safe operation of aircraft. As the result of these endeavors, it prepared a new Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention with the title of "Safety Management" and with the applicable date 14 November 2013. It is this Annex and other ICAO documents relevant to the safety that the contracting States to the Chicago Convention have to observe. Otherwise, it is the economical burden due to probable delay in issuing the FOAC and bureaucracies combined with many different paperworks and regulations depending on where the aircraft is flown. It is exactly to avoid this type of confusion and waste that the Chicago Convention aimed at when it was adopted in 1944. The State of the operator shall establish a system for both the certification and the continued surveillance of the operator in accordance with ICAO SARPs to ensure that the required standards of operations are maintained. Certainly the operator shall meet and maintain the requirements established by the States in which it operate. The authority of a State stops where the authority of another State intervenes or where the former has yielded its power by an international agreement for the sake of international cooperation. Hence, it is not within the realm of the State to issue FAOC towards foreign operators for the reason that these foreign operators are flying in and out of the State. Furthermore, there are other safety audits such as ICAO USOAP, IATA IOSA, FAA IASA, and EU SAFA that assure the safe operation of the aircraft, but within the limit of their power and in compliance with the ICAO SARPs. If the safety level of any operator is not satisfactory, the operator could be banned to operate in the contracting States with watchful eyes until the ICAO SARPs are met. This time-honoured practice has been applied without any serious problems. Besides, we have the new Annex 19 to strengthen and upgrade with easy reference for contracting States. We don't have no reason to introduce additional burden to the States by unilateral actions of some States. These actions have to be corrected. On the other hand, when it comes to the carriage of the Personal or Pilot Log Book, the Korean regulation requiring it is in contrast with other relevant provisions of USA, USOAP, IOSA, and SAFA. The Chicago Convention requires in its Articles 29 and 34 only the carriage of the Journey Log Book and some other certificates, but do not mention the Personal Log Book at all. Paragraph 5.1.1.1 of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention even makes it clear that the carriage in the aircraft of the Personal Log Book is not required on international flights. The unique Korean regulation in this regards giving the unnecessary burden to the national flag air carriers has to be lifted at once.

• 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.35 no.2
• /
• pp.375-402
• /
• 2020

The adoption and entering into force of the Registration Convention was another achievement in expanding and strengthening the corpus iuris spatialis. It was the fourth treaty negotiated by the member states of the UNCOPUOS and it elaborates further Articles 5 and 8 of the Outer Space Treaty(OST). The Registration Convention also complements and strengthens the Article 11 of the OST, which stipulates an obligation of state parties to inform the UN Secretary-General of the nature, conduct, locations, and results of their space activities in order to promote international cooperation. The prevailing purposes of the Registration Convention is the clarification of "jurisdiction and control" as a comprehensive concept mentioned in Article 5 8 of the OST. In addition to its overriding objective, the Registration Convention also contributes to the promotion and the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. Establishing and maintaining a public register reduces the possibility of the existence of unidentified space objects and thereby lowers the risk such as, for example, putting the weapons of mass destruction secretly into orbit. And furthermore it could serve for a better space traffic management. The Registration Convention is a treaty established to implement Article 5 of OST for the rescue and return of astronaut in more detail. In this respect, if OST is a general law, the Registration Convention would be said to be in a special law. If two laws conflict the principle of lex specialis will be applied. Countries that have not joined the Registration Convention will have to follow the rules concerning the registration of paragraph 7 of the Declaration by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 1721 (X V I) in 1961. UN Resolution 1721 (XVI) is essentially non-binding, but appears to have evolved into the norm of customary international law requiring all States launching space objects into orbit or beyond to promptly provide information about their launchings for registration to the United Nations. However, the nature and scope of the information to be supplied is left to the discretion of the notifying State. The Registration Convention is a treaty created for compulsory registration of space objects by nations, but in reality it is a treaty that does not deviate from existing practice because it is based on voluntary registration. With the situation of dealing with new problems due to the commercialization and privatization of the space market, issues related to the definition of a 'space object', including matter of the registry state of new state that purchased space objects and space debris matter caused by the suspension of space objects launched by the registry state should be considered as matters when amendments, additional protocols or new Registration Convention are established. Also the question of registration of a flight vehicle in the commercial space market using a space vehicle traveling in a sub-orbital in a short time should be considered.

• Journal of Advanced Navigation Technology
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.119-125
• /
• 2023

It is necessary to reduce aviation GHG(CO2) emission to ensure aviation sustainable development. Operational improvements may not contribute significantly to carbon reduction but it can sustatially reduce emission in a short term. ICAO has developed GANP and ASBU to optimize operations and countries are making efforts to expand infrastructure and develop technology. The legal barriers to operational improvement are based on the notion of state sovereignty under the Chicago Convention which allows countries to control inefficiencies based on borders or limit or prohibit the passage of aircraft. Chicago Convention does not grant unlimited freedom of air sovereignty and if the concept of state sovereignty is interpreted according to the times it is possible to achieve smooth operational improvement.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.207-244
• /
• 2015

Aviation safety is the stage in which the risk of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at or below, an acceptable level through a continuing process of hazard identification and risk management. Many accidents and incidents have been taking place since 2014, while there had been relatively safer skies before 2014. International civil aviation community has been exerting great efforts to deal with these emerging issues, thus enhancing and ensuring safety throughout the world over the years. The Preamble of the Chicago Convention emphasizes safety and order of international air transport, and so many Articles in the Convention are related to the safety. Furthermore, most of the Annexes to the Convention are International Standards and Recommended Practices pertaining to the safety. In particular, Annex 19, which was promulgated in Nov. 2013, dealing with safety management system. ICAO, as law-making body, has Air Navigation Commission, Council, Assembly to deliberate and make decisions regarding safety issues. It is also implementing USOAP and USAP to supervise safety functions of member States. After MH 370 disappeared in 2014, ICAO is developing Global Tracking System whereby there should be no loophole in tracking the location of aircraft anywhere in world with the information provided by many stakeholders concerned. MH 17 accident drove ICAO to install web-based repository where information relating to the operation in conflict zones is provided and shared. In addition, ICAO has been initiating various solutions to emerging issues such as ebola outbreak and operation under extreme meteorological conditions. Considering the necessity of protection and sharing of safety data and information to enhance safety level, ICAO is now suggesting enhanced provisions to do so, and getting feedback from member States. It has been observed that ICAO has been approaching issues towards problem-solving from four different dimensions. First regarding time, it analyses past experiences and best practices, and make solutions in short, mid and long terms. Second, from space perspective, ICAO covers States, region and the world as a whole. Third, regarding stakeholders it consults with and hear from as many entities as it could, including airlines, airports, community, consumers, manufacturers, air traffic control centers, air navigation service providers, industry and insurers. Last not but least, in terms of regulatory changes, it identifies best practices, guidance materials and provisions which could become standards and recommended practices.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.67-95
• /
• 2014

Some Contracting States of the Chicago Convention issue FAOC(Foreign Air Operator Certificate) and conduct various safety assessments for the safety of the foreign operators which operate to their state. These FAOC and safety audits on the foreign operators are being expanded to other parts of the world. While this trend is the strengthening measure of aviation safety resulting in the reduction of aircraft accident. FAOC also burdens the other contracting States to the Chicago Convention due to additional requirements and late permission. EASA(European Aviation Safety Agency) is a body governed by European Basic Regulation. EASA was set up in 2003 and conduct specific regulatory and executive tasks in the field of civil aviation safety and environmental protection. EASA's mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation. The task of the EASA has been expanded from airworthiness to air operations and currently includes the rulemaking and standardization of airworthiness, air crew, air operations, TCO, ATM/ANS safety oversight, aerodromes, etc. According to Implementing Rule, Commission Regulation(EU) No 452/2014, EASA has the mandate to issue safety authorizations to commercial air carriers from outside the EU as from 26 May 2014. Third country operators (TCO) flying to any of the 28 EU Member States and/or to 4 EFTA States (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland) must apply to EASA for a so called TCO authorization. EASA will only take over the safety-related part of foreign operator assessment. Operating permits will continue to be issued by the national authorities. A 30-month transition period ensures smooth implementation without interrupting international air operations of foreign air carriers to the EU/EASA. Operators who are currently flying to Europe can continue to do so, but must submit an application for a TCO authorization before 26 November 2014. After the transition period, which lasts until 26 November 2016, a valid TCO authorization will be a mandatory prerequisite, in the absence of which an operating permit cannot be issued by a Member State. The European TCO authorization regime does not differentiate between scheduled and non-scheduled commercial air transport operations in principle. All TCO with commercial air transport need to apply for a TCO authorization. Operators with a potential need of operating to the EU at some time in the near future are advised to apply for a TCO authorization in due course, even when the date of operations is unknown. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the function of EASA and EU Regulation including TCO Implementing Rule newly introduced, and suggested some proposals. I hope that this paper is 1) to help preparation of TCO authorization, 2) to help understanding about the international issue, 3) to help the improvement of korean aviation regulations and government organizations, 4) to help compliance with international standards and to contribute to the promotion of aviation safety, in addition.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.47-67
• /
• 2009

In recent years, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction has become high priority issue in international aviation. GHG emissions from the aviation sector only accounts for approximately 2 percent of total GHG emissions in the world. However, as with GHG gases in other sectors, it has been pointed out as a contributing factor to global warming and there is an ongoing conversation in the aviation community to establish international framework for emissions reductions. In the case of international aviation, effects of aviation activities of a State go beyond the airports and airspace of that State. This makes compiling of GHG emissions data very difficult. There are also other legal and technical issues, namely the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR)” under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and “Fair Opportunity” principle of the Chicago Convention. For all these reason, it is expected that it will not be an easy job to establish an internationally agreed mechanism for reducing emissions in spite of continuing collaboration among States. UN adopted the UNFCCC in 1990 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to impose common but differentiated responsibility on emissions reductions. In international aviation, ICAO has been taking the lead in measures for the aviation sector. In this role, ICAO held the High-level Meeting on International Aviation and Climate Change on 7 to 9 October 2009 at its Headquarters in Montreal and endorsed recommendations on reducing GHG from international aviation which will also be reported to the 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15). Key items include basic principle in global aviation emissions reduction: aspirational goals and implementation options: strategies and measures to achieve goals: means to measure and monitor the implementation; and financial and human resources. It is very likely that the Republic of Korea will be included among the Parties subject to mandatory limitation or reduction of GHG emissions after 2013. Therefore, it is necessary for Korea to thoroughly analyze ICAO measures to develop comprehensive measures for reducing aviation emissions and to take proactive actions to prepare for future discussions on critical issues after COP15.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.403-425
• /
• 2015

The Chicago Convention and Annexes have become the basis of aviation safety regulations for every contracting state. Generally, the State's aviation safety regulations refer to the Standards and Recommended Practices(SARPs) provided in the Annexes of the Chicago Convention. In order to properly reflect international aviation safety regulations, constant studies of the aviation fields are of paramount importance. This Paper is intended to identify the main differences between korean and foreign regulation and suggest a few amendment proposals on Mixed-fleet Flying(at or more two aircraft type operation) of flight crew. Comparing with these regulations, the korean regulations and implementations have some insufficiency points. I suggest some amendment proposals of korean regulations concerning Mixed-fleet Flying that flight crew operate aircraft of different types. Basically an operator shall not assign a pilot-in-command or a co-pilot to operate at the flight controls of a type of airplane during take-off and landing unless that pilot has operated the flight controls during at least three take-offs and landings within the preceding 90 days on the same type of airplane or in a flight simulator. Also, flight crew members are familiarized with the significant differences in equipment and/or procedures between concurrently operated types. An operator shall ensure that piloting technique and the ability to execute emergency procedures is checked in such a way as to demonstrate the pilot's competence on each type or variant of a type of airplane. Proficiency check shall be performed periodically. When an operator schedules flight crew on different types of airplanes with similar characteristics in terms of operating procedures, systems and handling, the State shall decide the requirements for each type of airplane can be combined. In conclusion, it is necessary for flight crew members to remain concurrently qualified to operate multiple types. The operator shall have a program to include, as a minimum, required differences training between types and qualification to maintain currency on each type. If the Operator utilizes flight crew members to concurrently operate aircraft of different types, the operator shall have qualification processes approved or accepted by the State. If applicable, the qualification curriculum as defined in the operator's Advanced Qualification Program could be applied. Flight crew members are familiarized with the significant differences in equipment and/or procedures between concurrently operated types. The difference among different types of airpcrafts decrease and standards for these airpcrafts can be applied increasingly because function and performance have been improved by aircraft manufacture company in accordance to basic aircraft system in terms of developing new aircrafts for flight standard procedure and safety of flight. Also, it becomes more necessary for flight crews to control multi aircraft types due to various aviation business and activation of leisure business. Nevertheless, in terms of flight crew training and qualification program, there are no regulations in Korea to be applied to new aircraft types differently in accordance with different levels. In addition, it has no choice different programs based on different levels because there are not provisions to restrict or limit and specific standards to operate at or more than two aircraft types for flight safety. Therefore the aviation authority introduce Flight Standardization and/or Operational Evaluation Board in order to analysis differences among aircraft types. In addition to that, the aviation authority should also improve standard flight evaluation and qualification system among different aircraft types for flight crews to apply reasonable training and qualification efficiently. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the ICAO SARPs and some state's regulation concerning operating aircraft of different types(Mixed-fleet flying), and suggested some proposals on the different aircraft type operation as an example of comprehensive problem solving. I hope that this paper is 1) to help understanding about the international issue, 2) to help the improvement of korean aviation regulations, 3) to help compliance with international standards and to contribute to the promotion of aviation safety, in addition.