• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.103-125
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews the EU Case, Claudia Wegener v. Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, Case C-537/17. It analyzes some issues as to Wegener case by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, entitled scope, provides: "this Regulation shall apply: (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier." ECJ held that must be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft. According to the Court, it is apparent from the regulation and case-law that when, as in the present case, two (or more) flights are booked as a single unit, those flights constitute a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers. Those flights must therefore be considered as one and the same connecting flight.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2010

The European Union(EU) has recently introduced its Directive 2008/101/EC to include aviation in the EU ETS(emissions trading system). As an amendment to Directive 2003/87/EC that regulates reduction of the green house gas(GHG) emissions in Europe in preparation for the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, it obliges both EU and non-EU airline operators to reduce the emission of the carbon dioxide(CO2) significantly in the year 2012 and thereafter from the level they made in 2004 to 2006. Emission allowances allowed free of charge for each airline operator is 97% in the first year 2012 and 95% from 2013 and thereafter from the average annual emissions during historical years 2004 to 2006. Taking into account the rapid growth of air traffic, i.e. 5% in recent years, airlines operating to EU have to reduce their emissions by about 30% in order to meet the requirements of the EU Directive, if not buy the emissions right in the emissions trading market. However, buying quantity is limited to 15% in the year 2012 subject to possible increase from the year 2013. Apart from the hard burden of the airline operators, in particular of those from non-European countries, which is not concern of this paper, the EU Directive has certain legal problems. First, while the Kyoto Protocol of universal application is binding on the Annex I countries of the Climate Change Convention, i.e. developed countries including all Member States of the European Union to reduce GHG at least by 5% in the implementation period from 2008 to 2012 over the 1990 level, non-Annex I countries which are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol see their airlines subjected to aircraft emissions reductions scheme of EU when operating to EU. This is against the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol dealing with the emissions of GHG including CO2, target of the EU Directive. While the Kyoto Protocol mandates ICAO to set up a worldwide scheme for aircraft emissions to contribute to stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, the EU ETS was drawn up outside the framework of the international Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO). Second, EU Directive 2008/101 defines 'aviation activities' as covering 'flights which depart from or arrive in the territory of a Member State to which the [EU] Treaty applies'. While the EU airlines are certainly subject to the EU regulations, obliging non-EU airlines to reduce their emissions even if the emissions are produced during the flight over the high seas and the airspace of the third countries is problematic. The point is whether the EU Directive can be legally applied to extra-territorial behavior of non-EU entities. Third, the EU Directive prescribes 2012 as the first year for implementation. However, the year 2012 is the last year of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol for Annex I countries including members of EU to reduce GHG including the emissions of CO2 coming out from domestic airlines operation. Consequently, EU airlines were already on the reduction scheme of CO2 emissions as long as their domestic operations are concerned from 2008 until the year 2012. But with the implementation of Directive 2008/101 from 2012 for all the airlines, regardless of the status of the country Annex I or not where they are registered, the EU airlines are no longer at the disadvantage compared with the airlines of non-Annex I countries. This unexpected premium for the EU airlines may result in a derogation of the Kyoto Protocol at least for the year 2012. Lastly, as a conclusion, the author shed light briefly on how the Korean aviation authorities are dealing with the EU restrictive measures.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.189-217
• /
• 2017

Declaration of Air Defense and Identification Zones started with the United States in 1950, which was followed by declaration of KADIZ by the Republic of Korea in 1951. Initial ADIZ were solely linked with air defense missions, but their roles have changed as nations around the globe manifested a tendency to expand their influence over maritime resources and rights. In particular, China declared ADIZ over the East China Sea in October 2013 and forced all passing aircraft to submit flight plan to ATC or military authority, saying failure of submission will be followed by armed engagement. China announced it would declare another zone over the South China Sea despite the ongoing conflict in the area, clearly showing ADIZ's direct connection with territorial claim and EEZ and that it serves as a zone within which a nation can execute its rights. The expanded KADIZ, which was expanded in Dec 15, 2013 in response to Chinese actions, overlaps with the Chinese ADIZ over the East China Sea and the Japanese ADIZ. The overlapping zone is an airspace over waters where not only the Republic of Korea but also of China and Japan argue to be covering their continental shelf and EEZ. Military conventions were signed to prevent contingencies among the neighboring nations while conducting identifications in KADIZ, including the overlapping zone. If such military conventions and practice of air defense identification continue to be respected among states, it is under the process of turning into a regional customary law, although ADIZ is not yet recognized by international law or customary law. Moreover, identification within ADIZ is carried out by military authorities of states, and misguided customary procedures may cause serious negative consequences for national security since it may negatively impact neighboring countries in marking the maritime border, which calls for formulation of operation rules that account for other state activities and military talks among regional stake holders. Legal frameworks need to be in place to guarantee freedom of flights over international seas which UN Maritime Law protects, and laws regarding military aircraft operation need to be supplemented to not make it a requirement to submit flight plan if the aircraft does not invade sovereign airspace. Organizational instructions that require approval of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff for entrance and exit of ADIZ for military aircraft need to be amended to change the authority to Minister of National Defense or be promoted to a law to be applicable for commercial aircraft. Moreover, in regards to operation and management of ADIZ, transfer of authority should be prohibited to account for its evolution into a regional customary law in South East Asia. In particular, since ADIZ is set over EEZ, military conventions that yield authority related to national security should never be condoned. Among Korea, China, Japan and Russia, there are military conventions that discuss operation and management of ADIZ in place or under negotiation, meaning that ADIZ is becoming a regional customary law in North East Asia region.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.312-323
• /
• 2003

This writer absolutely agrees with the government that regional disequilibrium is severe enough to consider moving the administrative capital. Pursuing this course solely to establish a balanced development, however, is not a convincing enough reason. The capital city is directly related to not only the social and economic situation but, much more importantly, to the domestic political situation as well. In the mid-1970s, the proposal by the Third Republic to move the capital city temporarily was based completely on security reasons. At e time, the then opposition leader Kim, Dae-jung said that establishing a safe distance from the demilitarized zone(DMZ) reflected a typically military decision. His view was that retaining the capital city close to the DMZ would show more consideration for the will of the people to defend their own country. In fact, independent Pakistan moved its capital city from Karachi to Islamabad, situated dose to Kashmir the subject of hot territorial dispute with India. It is regrettable that no consideration has been given to the urgent political situation in the Korean peninsula, which is presently enveloped in a dense nuclear fog. As a person requires health to pursue his/her dream, a country must have security to implement a balanced territorial development. According to current urban theories, the fate of a country depends on its major cities. A negligently guarded capital city runs the risk of becoming hostage and bringing ruin to the whole country. In this vein, North Koreas undoubted main target of attack in the armed communist reunification of Korea is Seoul. For the preservation of our state, therefore, it is only right that Seoul must be shielded to prevent becoming hostage to North Korea. The location of the US Armed Forces to the north of the capital city is based on the judgment that defense of Seoul is of absolute importance. At the same time, regardless of their different standpoints, South and North Korea agree that division of the Korean people into two separate countries is abnormal. Reunification, which so far has defied all predictions, may be realized earlier than anyone expects. The day of reunification seems to be the best day for the relocation of the capital city. Building a proper capital city would take at least twenty years, and a capital city cannot be dragged from one place to another. On the day of a free and democratic reunification, a national agreement will be reached naturally to find a nationally symbolic city as in Brazil or Australia. Even if security does not pose a problem, the governments way of thinking would not greatly contribute to the balanced development of the country. The Chungcheon region, which is earmarked as the new location of the capital city, has been the greatest beneficiary of its proximity to the capital region. Not being a disadvantaged region, locating the capital city there would not help alleviate regional disparity. If it is absolutely necessary to find a candidate region at present, considering security, balanced regional development and post-reunification scenario of the future, Cheolwon area located in the middle of the Korean peninsula may be a plausible choice. Even if the transfer of capital is delayed in consideration of the present political conflict between the South and the North Koreas, there is a definite shortcut to realizing a balanced regional development. It can be found not in the geographical dispersal of the central government, but in the decentralization of power to the provinces. If the government has surplus money to build a new symbolic capital city, it is only right that it should improve, for instance, the quality of drinking water which now everyone eschews, and to help the regional subway authority whose chronic deficit state resoled in a recent disastrous accident. And it is proper to time the transfer of capital city to coincide with that of the reunification of Korea whenever Providence intends.