• 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.32 no.2
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2017

The Korean government enacted the Chapter 6 as of Air Transportation to the Korean Commercial Act, which was enforced in 2011, in order to treat some arguments occurred from air transportation Contracts since air transportations has rapidly increased in Korea. Air transportations has been used more in the field of international market than in the field of domestic market under it's own characteristic. Therefore, many international agreements and protocols related to the air transportations has been appeared from old times and the 1999 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ("Montreal Convention") is one of them. The Montreal Convention was adopted in May 28, 1999 at International Conference of Air Law hosted by the International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO") in Montreal, Canada where the Headquarter of ICAO is located. The Montreal Convention has been effected from September 5, 2003 and the Korean government ratified the convention in 2007. Therefore, the Montreal Convention came in to force in Korea since 2007. This year, 2017, is the 10th anniversary year since the Montreal Convention has taken effect in Korea. However, there are rare cases that argued the Montreal Convention's scope of application and this Article examines the Korean Supreme Court's case that argued the Convention's scope of application. Thus the Article basically analyzes the case from the perspective of the Montreal Convention's scope of application and examines the Montreal Convention's articles related to the air carrier's liability and extent of compensation for damage that occurred from the international carriage by air. Also this Article analyzes the Korean Commercial Act Chapter 6, which regulated the air carrier's liability and the Article tries to make a comparison between the Montreal Convention and the Korean Commercial Act in order to draw some scheme for the betterment of Korean Commercial Act. It is the hope that the Article contribute to the improvement of Korean Commercial Act through the comparison with the chance of the 10th Anniversary of the Montreal Convention in Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

This paper described the contents of theme entitled "Domestic Legislative Problems on the Civil Liability of Air Carrier in Korea" including the current example of fourteen countries' legislation ((1) Great Britain, (2) United States of America, (3) Canada, (4)European Union), (5) Germany, (6) France, (7) Italy, (8) Spain, (9) Swiss, (10) Australia, (11) Japan, (12) People's Republic of China, (13) Taiwan, (14) North Korea) relating to the aviation law or air transport law. Though the Korean and Japanese aviation act has provided only the public items such as (1) registration of aircraft, (2) persons engaged in aviation, (3) operation of aircraft, (4) aviation facilities including airport, (5) air transport business, (6) investigate of aircraft accidents etc., but they could not regulated the private items such as the legal relations of the air transport contract (1) air passenger ticket, (2) air luggage ticket, (3) airway bill, (4) liability of air carrier, (5) amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents, (6)jurisdiction, (7) arbitration, (8) limitation of action, (9) combined carriage, (10) carriage by air performed by an actual carrier other than contracting carrier, damage caused by aircraft to the third parties etc. in their aviation act until now. In order to solve speedily the legal problems on the limitation of air carrier's liability and long law suit and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for us to enact a new "Draft for the Air Transport Act" including the abovementioned private items. I would like to propose personally and strongly the legislation of "Draft for the Air Transport Act" in Korea in emphasizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers air passengers and shippers in carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation between air carriers and survivors caused by the aircraft accidents such as the German Air Transport Act (Luftverkerhrsgesetz).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.135-161
• /
• 2014

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone and also referred to as an unpiloted aerial vehicle and a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. ICAO classify unmanned aircraft into two types under Circular 328 AN/190. Unmanned aircraft, which is the core of the development of the aviation industry. However, there are also elements of the legal dispute. Unmanned aircraft are manufactured in small size, it is possible to shoot a record peripheral routes stored in high-performance cameras and sensors without the consent of the citizens, there is a risk of invasion of privacy. In addition, the occurrence of the people of invasion of privacy is expected to use of civilian unmanned aircraft. If the exposure of private life that people did not want for unmanned aircraft has occurred, may occur liability to the operator of unmanned aircraft, this is a factor to be taken into account for the development of unmanned aircraft industry. In the United States, which is currently led by the unmanned aircraft industry, policy related to unmanned aircraft, invasion of privacy is under development, is preparing an efficient measures making. Unmanned aircraft special law has not been enforced. So there is a need for legal measures based on infringement of privacy by the unmanned aircraft. US was presented Privacy Protection Act of unmanned aircraft (draft). However Korea has many laws have been enacted, to enact a new law, but will be able to harm the legal stability, there is a need for the enactment of laws for public safety of life. Although in force Personal Information Protection Law, unmanned aerospace, when the invasion of privacy occurs, it is difficult to apply the Personal Information Protection Law. So, it was presented a privacy protection bill with infringement of privacy of unmanned aircraft in the reference US legislation and the Personal Information Protection Act.

• Journal of Satellite, Information and Communications
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.78-86
• /
• 2017

Japan has a lot of interest about weapons systems development of surrounding national and has invested heavily in securing intelligence assets to get information about them, because of conflict issues between Japan and Russia with four northern islands, China with Senkaku Islands and entry policy into the Pacific. Japan has used a large budget to detect and intercept ballistic missile for reasons of the launch of the Taepodong missile in 1998. After took over SIGINT equipments which U.S. force had operated in 1950s~1960s, Japan made a technological analysis and advanced IT technology to produce superior equipments. Japan's SDF has installed them in 19 locations across Japan. In addition, Japan's JASDF has installed advanced early warning RADAR to detect aircraft and high speed ballistic missile entering JADIZ with S-band in 28 locations across Japan. It is possible to detect missile launch preparations, engine tests, and launch moments at any time for operation of 6 satellites high resolution reconnaissance system and 6 aegis ships. In close cooperation with the US, Japan is accessible to the SBIRS networks which detects the launch of a ballistic missile in neighboring countries. In the future, Because the United States wants Japan to act as part of the United States in East, south Asia, it is believed that the exchange of intelligence on the surrounding countries between two countries will be enhanced.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.73-98
• /
• 2016

This is a case review of the Korean Supreme Court about international jurisdiction over a foreign-related case. This case is a guideline to other following cases how Korean court has international jurisdiction over the foreign elements cases. This case was an air crash accident in Busan, Korea. And the applicant was a chinese who was parents of flight attendant. The defendant was Air China. The applicant suid the defendant in Korea court, requesting for compensation for damages based on the contract of employment between died employee and the defendant and tort. The trial court rejected jurisdiction. But Supreme court granted jurisdiction on Korean court. The court determined the jurisdiction by the Korean Private International Law Act(KPILA). The KPILA has a concept of 'substantial connection', it is a main legal analysis to determine the jurisdiction. In the act, Article 2 Paragraph 1 says "In case a party or a case in dispute is substantively related to the Republic of Korea, a court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall obey reasonable principles, compatible to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction, in judging the existence of the substantive relations." And Article 2 Paragraph 2 declares "A court shall judge whether or not it has the international jurisdiction in the light of jurisdictional provisions of domestic laws and shall take a full consideration of the unique nature of international jurisdiction in the light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1)." In this case review find concepts, theories and cases out to clarify the meaning about Article 2 of the KPILA. Also it quoted from the concept of "the base rule" in Rome I (Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) to apply the contract of employment between flight attendant and Air carrier.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.59-158
• /
• 2005

When a military aircraft suffers damages due to the defects in its design, manufacturing or notification, all of which are generally understood as products liability defects, the obvious compensation is sought as it would in other consumer good case. However, there exist clear yet unappreciated difference between general consumer goods and military aircraft, as far as products liability law is concerned - some sort of recovery should be obtained even when there exist only defects, not damages, to the aircraft because of the implication of defective parts is much grave than what can be expected in a consumer goods case. While certain anticipatory measures do exist in manual or at negotiation stages for the safety of military aircraft, such measures are ineffective, if not ambiguous, in recovery effort in the post-accident stage In another word, the standardized military procurement contract manuals and boilerplate forms do not appreciate the unique and dangerous military nature of military aircraft. There are many unique legal issues which can arise when trying to prevent defective aircraft or parts, or to recover compensations for accident due to such defects. At two-level, the government should establish legal system (or countermeasures if you'd like) for purchasing safer military aircraft. First, one should be able to work with legal ground and policy that allows selecting and purchasing safer goods - the purpose of such contract is not litigious, but rather in acquiring what are most reliable. Second, in case the defects do arise and lead to damages, solid legal principles and instructions should be established for effectively pursuing appropriate company, (usually a aerospace industry giant with much experience) for products liability - the purpose of such pursuit is inevitable for a public official, since he or she is no private business man with much flexibilities, even to the point of waiving such compensatory right for future business purposes. This article tries to identify problems in methods of procuring military aircraft or parts - after reviewing on how the military can improve on legal and policy grounds for procuring what will be the focus of future military strength, it will offer some of the ways to effectively handling and resolving a liability issues.

• 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.29 no.2
• /
• pp.239-272
• /
• 2014

The rights and obligations of the Member States of ITU in the domain of international frequency management of the spectrum/orbit resource are incorporated in the Constitution and Convention of the ITU and in the Radio Regulations that complement them. These instruments contain the main principles and lay down the specific regulations governing the major elements such as rights and obligations of member administrations in obtaining access to the spectrum/orbit resource, as well as international recognition of these rights by recording frequency assignments and, as appropriate, any associated orbits, including the geostationary-satellite orbits used or intended to be used in the Master International Frequency Register (MIFR) Coordination is a further step in the process leading up to notification of the frequency assignments for recording in the MIFR. This procedure is a formal regulatory obligation both for an administration seeking to assign a frequency in its network and for an administration whose existing or planned services may be affected by that assignment. Regulatory problem lies in allowing administrations to fulfill their "bringing into use" duty for preserving his filing simply putting any satellites, whatever nationlity or technical specification may be, into filed orbit. This sort of regulatory lack may result in the emergence of the secondary market for satellite orbit. Within satellite orbit secondary market, the object of transaction may be the satellite itself, or the regulatory rights in rem, or the orbit registered in the MIFR. Recent case of selling the Koreasat belongs to the typical example of orbit transaction between private companies, the legality of which remains doubtedly controversial from the perspective of international space law as well as international transaction law. It must be noted, however, that the fact is the Koreasat 3 and its filed orbit is for sale.

• 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.