• 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.

• 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.23 no.1
• /
• pp.83-109
• /
• 2008

According to 1944 Chicago Convention aircraft are classified into public aircraft(or state aircraft) and private aircraft(or civil aircraft). However even if public aircraft owned by government are used as commercial flights, those are classified into private aircraft. But as far as space activities are concerned in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, those are related to all activities and all space objects, thus there being no differentiation between the public spacecraft and private spacecraft. As for the institutions of air law there are ICAO, IATA, ECAC, AFCAC, ACAC, LACAC in the world. However in the field of space law there is no International Civil Space Organization like ICAO. There is only COPUOS in the United Nations. The particular institutions such as INTELSAT, INMARSAT, ITU, WIPO, ESA, ARABSAT would be helpful to space law field. In the near future there is a need to establish International Civil Space Organization to cover problems rising from all space activities. According to article 1 of the 1944 Chicago Convention the contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. It means that absolute airspace sovereignty is recognized by not only the treaty law and but also customary law which regulates non-contracting States to the treaty. However as for the space law in the article n of the 1967 Space Treaty outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. It creates res extra commercium like the legal status of high seas in the law of the sea. However the 1979 Moon Agreement proclaimed Common Heritage of Mankind as far as the legal status of the outer space is concerned which is like the legal status of deep sea-bed in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea. As far as the liabilities of air transport system are concerned there are two kinds. One is the liabilities to passenger on board aircraft and the other is the liabilities to the third person or thing on the ground by the aircraft. The former is regulated by the Warsaw System, the latter by the Rome Convention. As for the liabilities of space law the 1972 Liability Convention applies. The Rome Convention and 1972 Liability Convention stipulate absolute liability. In the field of space transportation there would be new liability system to regulate the space passengers on board spacecraft like Warsaw System in the air transportation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.427-468
• /
• 2015

To date, we have considered the theoretical views, the standpoint of states and the discourse within the international community such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) regarding the Air/Outer Space Boundary Question which is one of the first issues of UN COPUOS established in line with marking the starting point of Outer Space Area. As above mentioned, discussions in the United Nations and among scholars of within each state regarding the delimitation issue often saw a division between those in favor of a functional approach (the functionalists) and those seeking the delineation of a boundary (the spatialists). The spatialists emphasize that the boundary between air and outer space should be delimited because the status of outer space is a type of public domain from which sovereign jurisdiction is excluded, as stated in Article 2 of Outer Space Treaty. On the contrary art. I of Chicago Convention is evidence of the acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as an international customary law, has the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. The functionalists, backed initially by the major space powers, which viewed any boundary demarcation as possibly restricting their access to space, whether for peaceful or non-military purposes, considered it insufficient or inadequate to delimit a boundary of outer space without obvious scientific and technological evidences. Last more than 50 years there were large development in the exploration and use of outer space. But a large number states including those taking the view of a functionalist have taken on a negative attitude. As the element of location is a decisive factor for the choice of the legal regime to be applied, a purely functional approach to the regulation of activities in the space above the Earth does not offer a solution. It seems therefore to welcome the arrival of clear evidence of a growing recognition of and national practices concerning a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a large number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution to the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated and a number of countries including Russia have already advocated the acceptance of the lowest perigee boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. As a matter of fact the lowest perigee where space objects are still able to continue in their orbiting around the earth has already been imposed as a natural criterion for the delimitation of outer space. This delimitation of outer space has also been evidenced by the constant practice of a large number of States and their tacit consent to space activities accomplished so far at this distance and beyond it. Of course there are still numerous opposing views on the delineation of a outer space boundary by space powers like U.S.A., England, France and so on. Therefore, first of all to solve the legal issues faced by the international community in outer space activities like delimitation problem, there needs a positive and peaceful will of international cooperation. From this viewpoint, President John F. Kennedy once described the rationale behind the outer space activities in his famous "Moon speech" given at Rice University in 1962. He called upon Americans and all mankind to strive for peaceful cooperation and coexistence in our future outer space activities. And Kennedy explained, "There is no strife, ${\ldots}$ nor any international conflict in outer space as yet. But its hazards are hostile to us all: Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again." This speech seems to even present us in the contemporary era with ample suggestions for further peaceful cooperation in outer space activities including the delimitation of outer space.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.207-264
• /
• 1993

항공사의 외국인 소유는 이것으로 인하여 전체 항공운송 시스템이 변화될 수 있는 핵심적인 개념이다. 작금 항공운송산업을 둘러싼 환경은 급격하게 변화하고 있어서 많은 국가들이 항공사의 외국인 소유와 관련한 기존의 법제나 정책변경을 심각하게 고려하기 시작하였다. 항공기 및 항공사의 국적과 관련한 전통적인 개념은 양자사이에 '진정한' 또는 '효파적인' 관계가 있어야 한다는 것이다. 특별히 항공사의 '실질적인 및 효과적인 통제'조항은 양자 및 다자간 항공운송 협정에서 가장 핵심적인 역할을 해오고 있다. 그러나 변화의 바람이 거세게 일고 있다. 항공운송산업에서 이러한 변화는 미국에서 시작되고 미국의 국제항공관계에 적용되고 있는 규제완화에서 비롯되었다. 미국의 규제완화정책은 합병 및 흡수를 통한 항공사의 집중이라는 결과를 가져와서 항공운송 시장은 궁극적으로 소수의 거대 항공사에 의해 지배될 것이라는 우려를 낳고 있다. 이러한 새로운 추세에 대응하여 많은 국가틀이 다양한 형태의 지역협력체를 형성하고 있다. (예, EC, 아세안, 안데안 그룹, 야마스크로 선언 등) 또한 다수 국가들은 정치.경제적인 이웃에서 정부의 소유주식을 외국인 및 외국회사를 포함한 민간부문에 매각함으로써 사유.사영화를 추진하고 있다. 한편 제조업 분야에서 다국적기업 (IBM, 코카콜라 등)은 별 어력움이 없이 성립될 수 있다. GATT의 주관하에 열리고 있는 우루과이 협상에 참여하고 있는 국가들은 최혜국 대우, 내국인 대우, 시장접근 같은 상품교역의 개념및 원리를 항공운송서비스를 포함한 서비스교역에 적용하는데 기본적으로 합의하였다. 급격히 변화하는 환경에서 항공운송 산업만이 국가의 영공 주권, 항공사의 공익기업 개념, 상업적 이익의 균형교환 같은 자기류의 논리에 집착하여 언제까지나 홀로 고립될 수는 없을 것이다. 더구나 세계 항공운송 산업은 1980년 후반부터 큰 시련에 직면해 있다. 몇몇을 제외한 대부분의 항공사는 세계경제의 불황속에서 초과공급 및 운임전쟁으로 인한 엄청난 적자를 기록하고 있다. 모든점을 미루어볼 때 세계의 항공사들은 과거 어느 때보다도 외국인 투자를 필요로 하고 있으며 항공사가 속해 있는 정부는 외국인 소유에 관한 법제를 개정하고 나아가 전체 항공운송시스템을 개편하도록 압력을 받고 있다. 많은 국가에서 외국인 소유에 관한 법규의 개정은 현존 항공운송 시스템에 다각적인 영향을 가져올 것이다. 다시말하면 양자협상, 반독점및 경쟁볍규의 적용, 고용 및 카보타지등을 포함한 제반분야가 영향을 받을 것이다. 결국 외국인 소유에 관한 법제의 완화는 항공사의 세계화 또는 다국적화의 과정을 촉진시킬 것이고, 항공사간 다양한 형태의 제휴가 이러한 방향에서 계속될 것이다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.147-174
• /
• 2018

The air transportation industry is a field where control and interference of the state are generalized compared to other industries. However, the premise for national intervention in the air transportation industry is the determination of the nationality of the aircraft or airline company concerned. This is because it is necessary to clarify the distinction between the domestic and foreign carriers so that they can exercise airspace sovereignty. The purpose of this paper is to compare the current status and contents of Korean law and regulations on the determination of nationality with the foreign legal system. To this end, the starting point of the discussion is to look at the history of nationality restrictions on the US air transport industry and the issues that arise in the content and operation of the system today. In addition, this paper examined the provisions of the Japanese aviation law, which is very similar to that of Korea, and then compared the current legal provisions of the United States, Japan and Korea. As a conclusion, this paper sought the direction of revision of the Korean law on the basis of the foreign status of the restriction of nationality in the air transportation industry. Compared with our law, the US and Japan are generally regarded to be more concerned with the contents of their own airline companies than those of foreigners or non-citizen. In spite of the fact that there are many laws and regulations in the United States regarding the de facto dominance of domestic airline companies by foreigners, there have been a lot of controversies in this matter. By the way, Japan has been stipulating regulations on holding companies and affiliated companies. In the global era, it would be meaningful to check the status of the nationality restrictions in the aviation industry, which is based on internationality. I hope that this study will be able to build a legal institutional basis for Korea's aviation industry development from a reasonable protectionist point of view rather than a narrow nationalism in a rapidly changing era.