• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.9-58
• /
• 2005

The Warsaw Convention-officially denominated the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air"- is a major multilateral agreement governing the rights and responsibilities of passengers, consignor/consignee and air carriers in international transportation. Article 29(1) of the Warsaw Convention provides that the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within 2 years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the transportation stopped. There has been disagreement as to the nature of this provision. It has been viewed on one hand as a statute of limitations, which may be tolled in appropriate circumstances. Some US Courts which have taken this approach read Article 29(2)-which states that the method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is submitted-as leaving to local law the determination of when the 2-year limitation period provided for in Article 29(1) runs. Therefore, they conclude, under Article 29(2), whenever state law would toll a state statute of limitations, the statute of limitations contained in Article 29(1) would be tolled as well. On the other hand, some other US courts have viewed the 2-year provision contained in Article 29(1) as a condition precedent to the right to bring suit, which will absolutely bar any action not brought within 2 years of the events giving rise to the action. These courts view Article 29(2) as providing only that the forum court should look to the law of the forum on the question whether the plaintiff has taken the necessary measures within the 2-year period to invoke that particular court's jurisdiction over the action. These courts have placed great weight on the "legislative" history of the Convention in reaching this position, noting in particular that the delegates to the Convention expressly considered and rejected a provision, which would have incorporated local tolling provisions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 2009

The Rome Convention System (1933, 1952, 1978) which deal the third party lability relating to damage caused by aircraft to third parties on the surface have not been so effective and successful like the Warsaw Convention System. This paper briefs the development of the Rome Convention System and the reasons of their failure which are the low level of the limit of liability and non-parties of major civil aviation states such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and etc. The Diplomatic Conference hosted by ICAO at Montreal during April 20 to May 2 has successfully produced two Conventions; One is Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties (General Risk Convention), the other is Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference involving Aircraft (Unlawful Interference Convention). The major contents and some problems of these two Conventions are reviewed in comparison with the exisiting Rome Convention System and other legal system. Particularly, the entrance into force of the Unlawful Interference Convention may take some time, at least more than 5 years, due to the realistic problems arising from the operation of International Civil Aviation Fund.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.183-221
• /
• 2013

While in the early stages of space activities only a few states engaged in the use of outer space, as is well known, commercial space activities have grown dramatically in recent years. Both states, state institutions, and international governmental organizations as well as many private enterprises are engaged in such commercial use of outer space by now. This development is not reflected in the present state of space law. The existing international instruments of space law were developed and finalized before this development and thus only provide very few and sometimes unfitting provisions for the commercial use of outer space and particularly the use by private enterprises. Law formulated in an era when the word "privatization" had not even been coined cannot contain potential problems caused by the increasing commercialization of outer space. For the promotion and further development of such commercial use of outer space it is necessary to clarify and establish the legal framework for such use, because participants will need this information for their future investments in this field. The purpose of this paper is to research and make an analysis of the contents and international regulation of international space commerce, which is rapidly proliferating and to review the process of improvement on national legislations relating to the commercialization of outer space in a few main space advanced countries to make the sustainable progress of commercial space activities project in international society. The legal implications of matters such as international commercial launch services, the liability aspects of such services, intellectual property rights, insurance, product liability insurance and materials processing could one day will be subject to regulated by international space law as well as domestic law. In fact, the question of commercialization is linked to the question of sharing benefits of space activities, and this currently is an agenda item in the Legal Subcommittee of UN COPUOS. Most of developed countries have enacted the national legislation for commercial space activities relating to the development of our space as follows : The National Aeronautic and Space Act of 1958 and the Commercial Space Act of 1998 in the United States, Outer Space Act of 1986 in England, Establishment Act of National Space Center of 1961 in France, Canadian Space Agency Act of 1990 in Canada, Space Basic Act of 2008 in Japan, and Law on Space Activity of 1993 in Russia. Becides there are currently three national legislations relating to space development and commercial space activities in Korea as follows : Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. Commercial space great promise for the utilization and expansion of human outer space activities but aspring commercial actors must recognize that foreign policy, as well as obligations to the international community as a whole, ensure that commercial space activities will not operate in a legal and regulatory vacuum. As commercial space matures the law and accompanying regulation will most certainly evolve and choose to become participants in the inevitable evolution of law and regulation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2009

Space law(or outer space law) and the law of the sea are branches of international law dealing with activities in geographical ares which do not or do only in part come under national sovereignty. Legal rules pertaining to the outer space and sea began to develop once activities emerged in those areas: amongst others, activities dealing with transportation, research, exploration, defense and exploitation. Naturally the law of the sea developed first, followed, early in the twentieth century, by air law, and later in the century by space law. Obviously the law of the sea, of the air and of outer space influence each other. Ideas have been borrowed from one field and applied to another. This article examines some analogies and differences between the outer space law and the law of the sea, especially from the perspective of the legal status, the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources and environment. As far as the comparisons of the legal status between the outer space and high seas are concerned the two areas are res extra commercium. The latter is res extra commercium based on both the customary international law and treaty, however, the former is different respectively according to the customary law and treaty. Under international customary law, whilst outer space constitutes res extra commercium, celestial bodies are res nullius. However as among contracting States of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, both outer space and celestial bodies are declared res extra commercium. As for the comparisons of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources between the Moon including other celestial bodies in 1979 Moon Agreement and the deep sea bed in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the both areas are the common heritage of mankind. The latter gives us very systematic models such as International Sea-bed Authority, however, the international regime for the former will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Thus Moon Agreement could not impose a moratorium, but would merely permit orderly attempts to establish that such exploitation was in fact feasible and practicable, by allowing experimental beginnings and thereafter pilot operations. As Professor Carl Christol said until the parties of the Moon Agreement were able to put into operation the legal regime for the equitable sharing of benefits, they would remain free to disregard the Common Heritage of Mankind principle. Parties to one or both of the agreements would retain jurisdiction over national space activities. In so far as the comparisons of the protection of the environment between the outer space and sea is concerned the legal instruments for the latter are more systematically developed than the former. In the case of the former there are growing tendencies of concerning the environmental threats arising from space activities these days. There is no separate legal instrument to deal with those problems.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.161-198
• /
• 2014

The idea of creating an International Space Exploitation Agency (tentative title: hereinafter referred to ISEA) is only my academic and theoretical opinion. It is necessary for us to establish ISEA as an international organization for the efficient and rapid exploitation of natural resources in the moon and other celestial bodies. The creation of ISEA as a new international organization is based on the Article 11, 5 and Article 18 of the 1979 Moon Agreement. In order to create it as a preliminary procedure, it needs to make the Draft for the Convention on the Establishment an ISEA among the space-faring countries. The main contents of this paper is composed of (1) introduction, (2) joint exploitation of the natural resources (Heliumn-3, etc.) in the moon and ISEA, (3) activities for the exploitation of moon and other celestial bodies by the space-faring powers, (4) legal problems and Solution for the exploitation and mining rights of the natural resources in the moon, mars and celestial bodies, (5) procedure of creating an ISEA, (6) the principal points that need to be included in the draft for the ISEA convention, (7) conclusion. The creation of an ISEA would lead to a strengthening of the cooperation among the States deemed essential by the global community towards joint undertakings in space and would act as a catalyst for the efforts on the exploitation of the natural resources moon, mars, Venus, Mercury and other celestial bodies and allow resources, technology, manpower and finances to be centrally managed in an independent fashion to the benefit of the space-faring countries. It is desirable and necessary for us to create ISEA in order to promote cooperation in the field of space policy, law, science technology and industry etc. among the space-faring countries. The creation of the ISEA will be promoted the international cooperation among the space-faring countries in exploration and exploitations of the natural resources in the moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury and other celestial bodies. Finally, it should be noted that the political drive will be necessary not only to set up the organization ISEA, but also study a subsequent measures. It is also necessary for us to create the ISEA in order to develop the space industry, to strengthen friendly relations and to promote research cooperation among the space-faring countries based on the new ideology and creative ideas. If the heads (president or prime minister) of the space super-powers including the UNCOPUOS will be agreed to establish ISEA at a summit conference, 1 believe that it is possible to establish an ISEA in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.95-116
• /
• 2015

Air transport agreement can be divided into air passenger contract of carriage and aviation also of the contract of carriage. And air carriers for damages greater (1) cause reason, of (2) limit reason, (3) exemption reason. Exemption reason for the extinction of the liability for damages in our Commercial Code, the Convention and domestic law are mixed. Convention on the Commercial Code and air transport, air transport people, if it is proved and that it has taken all the measures that are needed for the prevention of damage to overdue damage of passengers, liability is waived. So what was to achieve the requirements of all the actions that are reasonably necessary in any case is a problem. Amendment has the feature that the treaty for the International Air Transport reflect in accordance with the domestic situation, while being struck by international standards encompassing land, sea and air transport, even on the system. However, Commercial Code while mainly reflect the Montreal Convention governing air carrier's liability issues on the contract of carriage, a problem which the Convention had also began to occur together. So the problem due to accept the treaty to fit the domestic situation occurs. There is a need for analysis of all of the actions that are "reasonably necessary, which is defined in the Commercial Code. If there is no claim within Value Date rotor two years to air carriers on the court for the damage caused by air transport, the responsibility of air carriers disappear, sued the period of such two years, what kind of meaning on domestic law extension and stop to be whether it is interpreted, it should be determined to do their aggressive measures for the reasonable care and accident prevention.

• 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.