• Journal of Advanced Navigation Technology
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.16-22
• /
• 2023

Terrorists have been attacking in the vulnerable points of aviation sector with the diverse methods of attacks. Recently, Vulnerability is increasing because the Modus Operandi of Terrorism is carried out by exploitation of people in the form of employee working in aviation sector whose role provides them with privileged access to secured locations, secured items or security sensitive information. Furthermore, cases of insider threat are rising across the world with the phenomenon of personal radicalization through internet and social network service. The government of ROK must respond to insider threat could exploit to acts of unlawful interference and the security regulations should be established to prevent from insider threat in advance refer to the acts of unlawful interference carried out in foreign countries and the recommendations by USA, UK and ICAO.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.43-77
• /
• 2010

The development of the aviation industry has exponentially increased the volume of passengers and cargo and gradually expanded the damage scope of all kinds of accidents in the process of transportation. As a result, the need for aviation insurance has accordingly grown bigger and bigger every day. That is why most nations have a law to force mandatory insurance on the aviation industry. However, the Montreal Convention of 1999, which Korea also signed and today has the most extensive effect in the international civil aviation community, offers no clear interpretations about the coverage of aviation insurance along with the Air Transport Business Promotion Act of Korea. The advanced nations of air transport business such as EU, the U. S. A. and Canada prescribe the coverage of aviation insurance and have a law that makes it mandatory for all the passengers and third parties to cover air carrier's liability. EU requires them to include cargo and baggage in scope of coverage, and the U. S. A. and Canada recommend insuring by having a shipper receive a written notice containing information about whether the concerned cargo is insured or not. Making the scope of coverage of aviation insurance clear by law serves several purposes including diversifying risks for air transport companies, providing the victims with enough protection, observing the international accountability required in the air transport industry, and promoting the productive and sustainable growth of the aviation industry. Thus problems with Korea's aviation insurance should be resolved by clearly stating the coverage of aviation insurance that the Korean air carriers and operators need to insure according to the current state of Korea's air transport by consulting the legislations of the advanced nations in air transports. and enacting a law to comprehensively govern Korea's aviation insurance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2017

On 12 October 2017, the English Royal Courts of Justice delivered its decision about air carrier's compensation liability for the flight delay. In the cases the passengers suffered delays at a connecting point and, consequently, on arrival at their final destination. They claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), as applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") in Sturgeon v. Condor [2009]. The principal issues were whether delays suffered by the passengers during the second leg of their respective journeys were compensable under the Regulation, whether there was jurisdiction under the Regulation and whether the right to compensation under the Regulation is, insofar as non-Community air carriers are concerned, excluded by virtue of the exclusive liability regime established under the Montreal Convention 1999. The passengers, the plaintiff, argued that the relevant delay was not that on flight 1 but that suffered at the "final destination". They maintained that there was no exercise by the EU of extraterritorial jurisdiction as the delay on flight 2 was merely relevant to the calculation of the amount of compensation due under the Regulation. The air carrier, the defendant, however argued that the only relevant flights for the purpose of calculating any delay were the first flights (flights 1) out of EU airspace, as only these flights fell within the scope of the Regulation; the connecting flights (flights 2) were not relevant since they were performed entirely outside of the EU by a non-Community carrier. Regarding the issue of what counts as a delay under the Regulation, the CJEU held previously on another precedents that the operating carrier's liability to pay compensation depends on the passenger's delay in arriving at the "final destination". It held that where the air carrier provides a passenger with more than one directly connecting flight to enable him to arrive at their destination, the flights should be taken together for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours' or more delay on arrival; and that in case of directly connecting flights, the final destination is the place at which the passenger is scheduled to arrive at the end of the last component flight. In addition, the Court confirmed that the Regulation applied to flights operated by non-Community carriers out of EU airspace even if flight 1 or flight 2 lands outside the EU, since the Regulation does not require that a flight must land in the EU. Accordingly, the passengers' appeal from the lower Court was allowed, while that of air carrier was dismissed. The Court has come down firmly on the side of the passengers in this legal debate. However, this result is not a great surprise considering the recent trends of EU member states' court decisions in the fields of air transport and consumer protection. The main goal of this article is to review the Court's decision and to search historical trend of air consumer protection especially in EU area.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2020

Worldwide, so-called 'over-booking' of Air Carriers is established in practice. Although not invalid, despite their current contracts, passengers can be refused boarding, which can hinder travel planning. The Korean Supreme Court ruled that an airline carrier who refused to board a passenger due to over-booking was liable for compensation under the "Nonperformance of obligation". But what the court should be thinking about is when the benefit(transport) have been disabled. Thereforeit may be considered that the impossibility of benefit (Transport) due to the rejection of boarding caused by 'Over-booking' may be not the 'subsequent impossibility', but not the 'initialimpossibility '. The legal relationship due to initial impossibility is nullity (imposibilium nulla est obligation). When benefits are initial impossibile, our civil code recognizes liability for damages in accordance with the law of "Culpa in Contrahendo", not "nonperformance of obligation". On this reason, the conclusion that the consumer will be compensated for the loss of boarding due to overbooking by the Air Carrier is the same, but there is a need to review the legal basis for the responsibility from the other side. However, it doesn't matter whether it is non-performance or Culpa in Contrahendo. Rather, the recognition of this compensation is likely to cause confusion due to unstable contractual relationships between both parties. Even for practices permitted by Air Carriers, modifications to current customary overbooking that consumers must accept unconditionally are necessary. At the same time, if Air Carriers continue to be held liable for non-performance of obligations due to overselling tickets, it can be fatal to the airline business environment that requires overbooking for stable profit margins. Therefore, it would be an appropriate measure for both Air Carriers and passengers if the Air Carrier were to be given a clearer obligation to explain (to the consumer) and, at the same time, if the explanation obligation is fulfilled, the Air Carrier would no longer be forced to take responsibility for overbooking.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.99-144
• /
• 2016

The summary of the case is as follows: a Korean passenger booked and purchased a business class ticket from Air France that was scheduled to depart from Paris and arrive in Seoul. When the passenger arrived at the check-in counter, he was told that all business class seats were occupied. It was because the flight was overbooked by Air France. The passenger cancelled the Air France flight and took another air carrier. After arriving in Korea, he brought suit against Air France for damages. The purpose of this article is to discuss the governing law when interpreting the contract of international air carriage in accordance with the Korean Private International Act (2001) and to analyze air carrier's civil liability for the bumped passenger in the overbooking case. If the parties have not chosen the applicable law the contract shall be governed by the law of the habitual residence of the consumer in the following situations: prior to the conclusion of the contract, the opposite party of the consumer conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement in that country or conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement into that country from the areas outside that country and the consumer took all the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract in that country or in case the opposite party of the consumer received an order of the consumer in that country [Article 27 (1), (2) of the Private International Act]. Since the contract of international carriage falls into the consumer contract, the Supreme Court viewed that the governing law of the contract in this case would be the law of the habitual residence of the consumer (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da8410 decided on Aug. 28, 2014). This interpretation differs from the article 5 (4) of Rome Convention(80/934/EEC) which declares that the consumer contract article shall not apply to neither a contract of carriage nor a contract for the supply of services where the services are to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that in which he has his habitual residence. Even though overbooking can be considered as a common industry practice, an air carrier must burden civil liability in case of breach of contract for the involuntary bumped passenger(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na48391 decided on Jan. 29, 2015). In case of involuntary bumping, an air carrier must offer re-routing to passenger's final destination by an alternative flight. If an air carrier fails to effect performance in accordance with the tenor and purport of the obligation, the involuntary bumped passenger may claim damages(Article 390 of the Civil Code).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.27-54
• /
• 2010

Soon after September 11 attacks in 2001, there were strong demands in Korea on making relevant laws and regulations on aviation security, and Korean parliament legislated "Aviation Safety and Security Act"to fulfill the demands on safety and security of aircrafts during aviation. However, the current Aviation Safety and Security Act seems to have many problems which do not meet the practical needs in Korea, because there were not enough considerations on the practical needs and extinguishable national circumstances on civil aviation system in Korea, but only regarded the relevant international conventions and foreign practices on it. In this context, it is necessary to amend several provisions in Aviation Safety and Security Act to enhance more practical efficiencies in its implementation through systematization of the provisions on crimes which may happen during aviation. In this context, this article argues two main issues. First, Article 39 of Aviation Safety and Security Act does not express whether it is possible to punish the attempt of crime of causing damage to aircraft. Therefore, regarding a principle of legality, it is impossible to punish the perpetrator even when coincidently failed to destruct or damage aircraft. In this context, this article argues that the necessity to introduce the possibility to punish the attempt of crime of causing damage to aircraft. Second, regarding Article 160 of Civil Aviation Act of Korea, current Aviation Safety and Security Act should be amended by guaranteeing the culpability of negligence of crime of causing damage to aircraft.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2014

While the numbers of overseas travelers has been increased rapidly each year, the numbers of passengers in the aircraft also has continued to be increased gradually. In the mist of these increasing numbers, such accidents as threatening an aircraft safety like riot, aircraft hijacking and terrorism have happened constantly. In these circumstances, South Korean government has prescribed "Aviation on Security Act" in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation and other international agreements. This act aims to prevent illegal activities and illegal items on the aircraft to ensure the safety and security of civil aviation. However, this act is not sufficiently regulating all the illegal crimes and illegal items on the flight. For the worse, there is a lack of effective supervisory capacity. Likewise, the inherent problems of the current laws relating to the prevention of the illegal items on the aircraft are appearing on the surface continually. Above all, illegal items on the aircraft are directly connected to the issue of aviation safety and security as well as a safe utilization of the flight service. Thus, when there occurs a serious accident on board, it surely would be led to a huge economic loss not mentioning the loss of lives following the accident. Therefore safety of the flight passengers cannot be guaranteed without ensuring the safety of aircraft facilities and good supervisory mechanism of illegal items on the aircraft. Accordingly, establishing a safe operation order tends to influence economy and tourism of a country in no small measure. Therefore, it is an urgent issue to settle down a reasonable and adequate supervisory regulations regarding the prevention of the illegal items on the aircraft. Consequently, in this article, I studied on a reasonal and effective mechanism to control the prevention of the illegal items and illegal acts on the aircraft in order to ensure a safety and security of civil aircraft.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.267-290
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews and criticizes the EU Case of C-452/13, Germanwings GmbH v. Ronny Henning. Under this case, Ronny Henning later sued Lufthansa's budget carrier Germanwings after it refused to pay him 250 euros compensation for a delay he said totalled more than three hours. Germanwings, however, maintained his flight had arrived only two hours and 58 minutes behind schedule. In those circumstances, the following question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling: What time is relevant for the term time of arrival used in Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation [No 261/2004]: (a) the time that the aircraft lands on the runway (touchdown); (b) the time that the aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or the chocks have been applied (in-block time); (c) the time that the aircraft door is opened; (d) a time defined by the parties in the context of party autonomy? ECJ says that the situation of passengers on a flight does not change substantially when their aircraft touches down on the runway at the destination airport, when that aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or when the chocks are applied, as the passengers continue to be subject, in the enclosed space in which they are sitting, to various constraints. Therefore, it is only when the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft and the order is given to that effect to open the doors of the aircraft that the passengers may in principle resume their normal activities without being subject to those constraints. ECJ rules that it is apparent that Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'arrival time', which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, corresponds to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.201-230
• /
• 2010

With starting the industry of automobiles, railroads and mining, the legal principle of "erlaubtes Risiko" that began as a means of maintaining the revitalized world for the cause of social utility has interpreted as a system of negligence theory in the precedent while it has gained academic recognition. Yet in aircraft operation, which is one area of high technology, CAT which can be the cause of some accidents or events or thunderstorm with turbulence is an abnormal meteorological phenomenon with frequent change that cannot be monitored perfectly just as some patient with unstable condition and that cannot be ascertained about not only the possibility of its happening but also the degree of how big the accident is. Yet the use of jet current which has the possibility of CAT can be an act of high social utility where we not only drastically cut down on time fuel also guarantee the arrival and departure on schedule when landing in airports that have thunderstorm which does not appear as fatal risk. Although we could take some measures where we can predict and avoid the potential risk, easing the regular duty of care is necessary by applying the legal principles of permitted risk concerning the incidents and accidents caused by operating in areas with the risk of turbulence or CAT with the low probability by the reason of social utility.