Until Montreal Convention was established in 1999, the Warsaw System is undoubtedly accepted private international air law treaty and has played major role on the carrier's liability in international aviation transport industry. But the whole Warsaw System, though it was revised many times to meet the rapid developments of the aviation transport industry, is so complicated, tangled and outdated. This thesis, therefore, aim to introduce the Montreal Convention by interpreting it as a new legal instrument on the air carrier's liability, specially on the passenger's, and analyzing all the issues relating to it. The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing international carriage by air. The Montreal Convention has modernized and consolidated the old Warsaw System of international instruments of private international air law into one legal instrument. One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is that it sifted its priority to the protection of the interest of the consumers from the protection of the carrier which originally the Warsaw Convention intended to protect the fledgling international air transport business. Two major features of the Montreal Convention adopts are the Two-tier Liability System and the Fifth Jurisdiction. In case of death or bodily injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier liability system. The first tier includes strict liability up to 100,000SDR, irrespective of carriers' fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of carrier and has no limit of liability. Regarding Jurisdiction, the Montreal Convention expands upon the four jurisdiction in which the carrier could be sued by adding a fifth jurisdiction, i.e., a passenger can bring suit in a country in which he or she has their permanent and principal residence and in which the carrier provides a services for the carriage of passengers by either its own aircraft or through a commercial agreement. Other features are introducing the advance payment, electronic ticketing, compulsory insurance and regulation on the contracting and actual carrier etc. As we see some major features of the Montreal Convention, the Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation liability and there can be no doubt it will prevail the international aviation transport world in the future. Our government signed this Convention on 20th Sep. 2007 and it came into effect on 29th Dec. 2007 domestically. Thus, it was recognized that domestic carriers can adequately and independently manage the change of risks of liability. I, therefore, would like to suggest our country's aviation industry including newly-born low cost carrier prepare some countermeasures domestically that are necessary to the enforcement of the Convention.
지적재산권의 속지주의 원칙에 따라 전통적으로 지적재산권의 침해에 있어서 결과의 발생이 없는 행위지를 침해지로 인정하지 않았다. 어문과 예술작품을 보호하기 위해 1886년 체결된 베른협약(Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) 제5조 제1항은 저작자가 베른협약에 따라 보호되는 저작물에 관하여 본국 이외의 동맹국에서 각 법률이 현재 또는 장래에 자국민에게 부여하는 권리 및 이 협약이 특별히 부여하는 권리를 향유한다고 규정하여 내국민대우원칙을 천명하고 있다. 또한 베른협약 제5조 제2항은 저작권의 보호와 향유는 저작물의 본국에서 보호가 존재하는 여부와 관계가 없이, 보호의 범위와 저작자의 권리를 보호하기 위하여 주어지는 구제의 방법은 오로지 보호가 주장되는 국가의 법률의 지배를 받는다라고 규정하여 저작권 침해가 발행한 국가의 법률의 적용을 명시하고 있다. 인터넷과 무선통신 기술의 발달은 저작물을 디지탈 형식으로 실시간에 전세계에 배포하는 것을 가능하게 하였다. 특히 저작물의 인터넷상에서의 배포는 다국적 저작권 침해행위를 야기하여, 저작권자가 다수의 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 제기하여 판결을 집행하는 것이 필요하게 되었다. 헤이그국제사법회의(Hague Conference on Private International Law)에서 1992년부터 논의되어 온 민사 및 상사사건의 국제재판관할과 외국판결에 관한 협약(Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters)에서 채택된1999년의 예비초안(preliminary draft) 및 2001년 외교회의에서 수정된 잠정초안(Interim text) (이하 헤이그 협약 )은 저작권자가 저작권침해행위가 발생한 각 국가에서 저작권 침해행위를 금지하는 소송을 제기할 필요없이, 동 협약의 한 가맹국가의 법원의 저작권침해금지판결을 다른 가맹국가에서도 집행할 수 있는 가능성을 제시해 주는데 의미가 있다. 헤이그 협약 제10조는 불법행위(torts)에 관한 일반적인 재판관할에 관한 규정을 두고 있으며, 저작권침해에 관한 분쟁은 동 조항의 적용을 받는다. 제10조에 의해 당사자는 가해행위지 국가의 법원 또는 결과발생지 국가의 법원에서 소송을 제기할 수 있다. 결과발생지의 경우 제10조 1항 (b)는 피고가 자신의 행위가 본국의 법규에 비추어 동일한 성격의 손해를 초래할 수 있다라고 합리적으로 예견할 수 없었던 경우에 본 조항의 적용을 배제하고 있다. 인터넷을 통한 저작권침해의 경우, 피고가 자신의 국가의 법규하에서 합법적으로 저작물을 웹사이트에 게시하였으나, 그 행위가 다운로딩이 행해진 국가에서 불법인 경우, 피고는 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었으므로 이에 문제가 제기된다. iCrave TV사건에서, 피고인 캐나다회사가 미국 및 캐나다에서 방송되는 텔레비젼 방송 프로그램을 자신의 웹사이트에 게시하여 이용자들로 하여금 컴퓨터를 통하여 방송을 재시청 할 수 있도록 하였는데 이는 캐나다에서 합법인 반면에 미국에서는 저작권 침해에 해당한다. 피고는 방송 프로그램을 인터넷상에서 재방송하는 것은 캐나다법상 합법이므로 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었다고 주장하면서, 해당 사이트에 오직 캐나다 거주자만의 접속을 허용하고 미국 거주자의 접속을 제한하는 일련의 Click-Wrap 계약과 스크린 장치를 제공하였다고 주장하였다. 본 사건 피고의 주장을 받아들인다고 가정할 때, 제10조 1항(b)에 의해 원고는 결과발생지인 미국법원의 재판관할을 강제할 수 없을 것이다. 지적재산권을 둘러싼 분쟁에 관한 재판관할과 국제법상의 판결의 승인 및 집행의 통일성을 기하기 위하여 2001년 1월 세계지적재산권기구(World Intellectual Property Organization)가 제안한 WIPO 협약초안(Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments in Intellectual Property Matters)은 헤이그 협약이 재판관할과 판결의 승인 및 집행에 대한 일반적인 접근을 하고 있는 점에 반하여 지적재산권자의 보호라는 측면을 고려하여 지적재산권침해소송에 국제재판관할권을 규정하고 있다. WIPO 협약초안 제6조는 저작권자가 저작권 침해를 막기 위한 합리적인 조치를 취한 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 피할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 본 조항에 의할 경우, iCrave TV사건의 피고는 미국에서의 저작권 침해소송을 회피할 수 있을 것이다. 이상과 같이 헤이그 협약이 외국판결의 승인 및 집행을 가능하게 하고 있음에도 불구하고, 외국법원의 판결이 다수의 가맹국가에서 집행되지 못하는 가장 큰 장애는 대다수의 국가들이 외국법원의 판결이 공서양속(Public Policy)에 반하는 경우 판결을 승인하지 않는 예외규정을 두고 있기 때문이다. 미국의 경우, Uniform Recognition Act와 Restatement(Third) of Foreign Relations에 따른 공서양속의 예외규정(Public Policy exception)은 외국법원의 판결의 승인을 부인하는 근거가 된다. Yahoo! 사건에서 Yahoo! Inc.의 옥션 사이트를 통해 독일 나치 소장물의 판매가 이루어졌는데, 프랑스 형법상 이는 범죄행위에 해당하므로, 프랑스 법원은Yahoo! Inc.에게 프랑스 이용자가 당해 옥션 사이트에 접속할 수 없도록 모든 가능한 조치를 취할 것을 명하였다. 이에 미국 법원은 프랑스 법원의 판결은 Yahoo! Inc.의 미국헌법 제1 수정(First Amendment)의 언론의 자유(freedom of speech)에 반하므로 판결의 집행을 거부하였는데 이는 공서양속의 예외규정을 보여주는 예이다. 헤이그 협약 제28조와 WIPO 협약초안 제25조 또한 공서양속의 예외규정을 두고 있다. 본 논문은 인터넷과 통신기술의 발달로 야기되는 다국적 저작권 침해사건에서 한 국가의 법원의 저작권 침해금지판결이 다수의 국가에서 승인 및 집행될 수 있는 능성을 헤이그 협약과 WIPO 협약초안 및 미국판결을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 국제적으로 통일된 저작권법이 존재하지 않고 외국 판결의 승인을 부인하는 예외조항과 외국판결의 집행에 관한 각국의 이해관계와 준거법의 해석이 다른 현시점에서 지적재산권의 속지주의를 뛰어넘어 외국법원의 판결을 국제적으로 집행하는 것은 다소 어려움이 있어 보이나 국제적인 집행가능성의 열쇠를 제시하는 헤이그 협약과 장래의 국제조약에 그 기대를 걸어볼 수 있겠다.
In Korea the number of unlawful interference act on board aircrafts has been increased continuously according to the growth of aviation demand, and there were 55 incidents in 2000, followed by 354 incidents in 2014, and an average of 211 incidents a year over the past five years. In 1963, a number of states adopted the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (the Tokyo Convention 1963) as the first worldwide international legal instrument on aviation security. The Tokyo Convention took effect in 1969 and, shortly afterward, in 1970 the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Hague Convention 1970) was adopted, and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(the Montreal Convention 1971) was adopted in 1971. After 9/11 incidents in 2001, to amend and supplement the Montreal Convention 1971, the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation(the Beijing Convention 2010) was adopted in 2010, and to supplement the Hague Convention 1970, the Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Beijing Protocol 2010) was adopted in 2010. Since then, in response to increased cases of unruly behavior on board aircrafts which escalated in both severity and frequency,, the Montreal Protocol which is seen as an amendment to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(the Tokyo Convention 1963) was adopted in 2014. Korea ratified the Tokyo Convention 1963, the Hague Convention 1970, the Montreal Convention 1971, the Montreal Supplementary Protocol 1988, and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosive 1991 which have proven to be effective. Under the Tokyo Convention ratified in 1970, Korea further enacted the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in 1974, as well as the Aviation Safety and Security Act that replaced the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in August 2002. Meanwhile, the title of the Aviation Safety and Security Act was changed to the Aviation Security Act in April 2014. The Aviation Security Act is essentially an implementing legislation of the Tokyo Convention and Hague Convention. Also the language of the Aviation Security Act is generally broader than the unruly and disruptive behavior in Sections 1-3 of the model legislation in ICAO Circular 288. The Aviation Security Act has reflected the considerable parts of the implementation of national legislation under the Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol 2010, and the Montreal Protocol 2014 that are the modernized international conventions relating to aviation security. However, in future, when these international conventions would come into effect and Korea would ratify them, the national legislation that should be amended or provided newly in the Aviation Security Act are as followings : The jurisdiction, the definition of 'in flight', the immunity from the actions against the aircraft commander, etc., the compulsory delivery of the offender by the aircraft commander, etc., the strengthening of penalty on the person breaking the law, the enlargement of application to the accomplice, and the observance of international convention. Among them, particularly the Korean legislation is silent on the scope of the jurisdiction. Therefore, in order for jurisdiction to be extended to the extra-territorial cases of unruly and disruptive offences, it is desirable that either the Aviation Security Act or the general Crime Codes should be revised. In conclusion, in order to meet the intelligent and diverse aviation threats, the Korean government should review closely the contents of international conventions relating to aviation security and the current ratification status of international conventions by each state, and make effort to improve the legislation relating to aviation security and the aviation security system for the ratification of international conventions and the implementation of national legislation under international conventions.
지난 6월 3일 동경에서 있었던, 아시아 항공/우주법 학술대회 제 3분과에서 영국 Bin Cheng교수의 "The Warsaw System: Mess up, Tear up, or Shore up?"이라는 주제의 논문발표가 있었다. Bin Cheng교수는 특히 유럽의 EC Consultant Paper 와 일본항공사들의 1992년의 무한책임보상주의 채택에 대하여, 마치 무한 책임보상주의의 이론이 승리하였으며, 위의 상황들이 그 시작이라고 단정하였는데 이러한 견해는 아직까지 시기상조라고 생각한다. 본 글에서는 동경회의에서의 Bin Cheng교수의 논문중 특히 10항의 결론 부분을 중점으로 반대되는 의견을 제시하고자 한다. 국제항공사법인 와르소체제가 과연 발전하고 있는 것인가? 퇴보하고 있는 것인가? 와르소체제의 반대론자들은 미국의 소송변호사들, 일본항공사들과 일부 순수이론을 고수하는 학자들로써 이들은 와르소체제로부터의 탈퇴와 무한책임보상주의를 고수하고 있다. EC Consultation Paper (각주 122 참조)에서 보듯이, 비록 항공운송시의 손해배상액이 타 운송시의 손해배상액보다 적기는 하지만 이것이 곧 '무한책임보상주의'를 의미하는 것은 아니다. 미국의 판례중 불법행위로 인한 소송 (Nichole Fortman v. Hemeo Inc.)에서 보면, 작은 창자의 대부분을 병원의 과실때문에 잃은 Brooklin의 한 여인에게 500억 정도의 손해배상이 주어진 것을 보면, 과연 완전 보상에 맞는 무한책임이 과연 항공소송에 적용될 수 있는 것인가를 알아야 한다. 무한책임보상주의는 특히 개발도상국의 항공사들에게 보험료가 너무 과중하고, 와르소협약의 근본목적인 국제항공법의 통일성에 반하고 있기 때문에 국제사회 전반에 적용하기에는 비현실적이다. 와르소체제의 통일 성에 대한 거부는 만약 와르소체제에 버금가는 다른 보상체제가 있는 경우에는 다르지만, 현실적으로는 결국 국제적 혼란만을 야기사킬 것이다. 또한 와르소체제 반대자들은 항공운송인과 승객들의 관계를 갈등관계로 보고 있지만, 근본적으로 와프소협약에서의 항공운송인파 승객들의 관제는 공동이악관계로 보아야 한다. 항공운송사업의 목적도 또한 이윤추구인 바, 승객들이 항공운송인에게 과다한 손해배상을 요구하면, 결국 항공운송인은 승객들의 주머니에서 그 댓가를 찾으려고 할 것이다. 절국 양자의 이익을 보는 것은 소송변호사들 뿐이라고 볼 수 있다. 또한 'Unlimited Liability' 에서 'Unlimited' 란 'Full-Compensation' 을 의미하는 것으로, 'Wilful-Misconduct' 의 경우에는, 'Full-Compensation' 의 개념과 다르게, 그 보상액이 Warsaw협약 제 22조 1항에 적용되지 않는 'No-limited' 의 개념으로 해석하여야 한다. 항공소송의 경우에 통상 'Wilful-Misconduct' 의 경우에 손해배상액이 약 $700,000 인 것을 보더라도 'Full-Compensation'의 의미로 해석할 수 없다. 몬트리올 제 3추가의정서에서 'WilfulMisconduct' 의 개념을 삭제하고자 하는 것은, 이에 대비하여 추가보상제도, 임액수의 종액, 영격책임추의 등의 요소들을 전제로 하고 있기 때문이다. 몬트리올 제 3추가의정서가 최근의 발전적인 손해배상제도인가에 대하여, Bin Cheng 교수는 반대를 하고 있지만, 최선의 제도를 찾는 입장에서 몬트리올 추가 의정서는 여러가지로 부족하다. 그러나, 유한책임제도의 개선, 엄격책임주의의 도입, 빠른 소송타결의 제도, 재판관할권의 확대 그리고, SDR 화폐단위의 채택 등은 헤이그 의정서 이후의 보다 나은 제도적 장치를 하고 있다고 해석하여야 할 것이다. 시대의 변화에 따라 점진적으로 발전된 보상제도를 채택하였다면, 오늘날과 같이 시대에 뒤떨어진 보상체제로 혼란을 겪고 있지 않았을 것이다.
The rule of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 are well known and still being all over the world. The Warsaw Convention is undoubtedly the most widely accepted private international air law treaty with some 140 countries. In the international legal system for air transportation, the Warsaw Convention has played a major role for more than half century, and has been revised many times in consideration of the rapid developments of air high technology, changes of social and economic circumstances, need for the protection of passengers. Some amendments became effective, but others are still not effective. As a result, the whole international legal system for air transportation is at past so complicated and tangled. However, the 'Warsaw system' consists of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, a supplementary convention, and the following six protocols: (1) the Hague Protocol of 1955, (2) the Guatemala Protocol of 1971, (3) the Montreal Additional Protocols, No.1, (4) the Montreal Additional Protocol No.2, (5) the Montreal Additional Protocol No.3, and (6) the Montreal Additional Protocol No.4. of 1975. As a fundamental principle of the air carrier's liability in the international convention and protocols, for instance in the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol, the principle of limited liability and a presumed fault system has been adopted. Subsequently, the Montreal Inter-carrier Agreement of 1966, the Guatemala City Protocol, the Montreal Additional Protocol No.3, and the Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 of 1975 maintained the limited liability, but substituted the presumed liability system by an absolute liability, that is, strict liability system. The Warsaw System, which sets relatively low compensation limits for victims of aircraft accidents and regulates the limited liability for death and injury of air passengers, had become increasingly outdated. Japanese Airlines and Inter-carrier Agreement of International Air Transport Association in 1995 has been adopted the unlimited liability of air carrier in international flight. The IATA Inter-Carrier Agreement, in which airlines in international air transportation agree to waive the limit of damages, was long and hard in coming, but it was remarkable achievement given the political and economic realities of the world. IATA deserves enormous credit for bringing it about. The Warsaw System is controversial and questionable. In order to find rational solution to disputes between nations which adopted differing liability systems in international air transportation, we need to reform the liability of air carriers the 'Warsaw system' and fundamentally, to unify the liability system among the nations. The International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) will therefore reinforce its efforts to further promote a legal environment that adequately reflects the public interest and the needs of the parties involved. The ICAO Study Group met in April, 1998, together with the Drafting Committee. The time between the "Special Group on the Modernization and Consolidation of the 'Warsaw system'(SGMW)" and the Diplomatic Conference must be actively utilized to arrange for profound studies of the outstanding issues and for wide international consultations with a view to narrowing the scope of differences and preparing for a global international consensus. From 11 to 28 May 1999 the ICAO Headquarters at Montreal hosted a Diplomatic Conference convened to consider, with a view to adoption, a draft Convention intended to modernize and to integrate replace the instruments of the Warsaw system. The Council of ICAO convened this Conference under the Procedure for the Adoption of International Conventions. Some 525 participants from 121 Contracting States of ICAO attended, one non-contracting State, 11 observer delegations from international organizations, a total of 544 registered participants took part in the historic three-week conference which began on 10 May. The Conference was a success since it adopted a new Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air. The 1999 Montreal Convention, created and signed by representatives of 52 countries at an international conference convened by ICAO at Montreal on May 28, 1999, came into effect on November 4, 2003. Representatives of 30 countries have now formally ratified the Convention under their respective national procedures and ratification of the United States, which was the 30th country to ratify, took place on September 5, 2003. Under Article 53.6 of the Montreal Convention, it enters into force on the 60th day following the deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification or acceptation. The United States' ratification was deposited with ICAO on September 5, 2003. The ICAO have succeeded in modernizing and consolidating a 70-year old system of international instruments of private international law into one legal instrument that will provide, for years to come, an adequate level of compensation for those involved in international aircraft accidents. An international diplomatic conference on air law by ICAO of 1999 succeeded in adopting a new regime for air carrier liability, replacing the Warsaw Convention and five other related legal instruments with a single convention that provided for unlimited liability in relation to passengers. Victims of international air accidents and their families will be better protected and compensated under the new Montreal Convention, which modernizes and consolidates a seventy-five year old system of international instruments of private international law into one legal instrument. A major feature of the new legal instrument is the concept of unlimited liability. Whereas the Warsaw Convention set a limit of 125,000 Gold Francs (approximately US$ 8,300) in case of death or injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier system. The first tier includes strict liability up to l00,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR: approximately US$ 135,000), irrespective of a carrier's fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of a carrier and has no limit of liability. The 1999 Montreal Convention also includes the following main elements; 1. In cases of aircraft accidents, air carriers are called upon to provide advance payments, without delay, to assist entitled persons in meeting immediate economic needs; the amount of this initial payment will be subject to national law and will be deductable from the final settlement; 2. Air carriers must submit proof of insurance, thereby ensuring the availability of financial resources in cases of automatic payments or litigation; 3. The legal action for damages resulting from the death or injury of a passenger may be filed in the country where, at the time of the accident, the passenger had his or her principal and permanent residence, subject to certain conditions. The new Montreal Convention of 1999 included the 5th jurisdiction - the place of residence of the claimant. The acceptance of the 5th jurisdiction is a diplomatic victory for the US and it can be realistically expected that claimants' lawyers will use every opportunity to file the claim in the US jurisdiction - it brings advantages in the liberal system of discovery, much wider scope of compensable non-economic damages than anywhere else in the world and the jury system prone to very generous awards. 4. The facilitation in the recovery of damages without the need for lengthy litigation, and simplification and modernization of documentation related to passengers. In developing this new Montreal Convention, we were able to reach a delicate balance between the needs and interests of all partners in international civil aviation, States, the travelling public, air carriers and the transport industry. Unlike the Warsaw Convention, the threshold of l00,000 SDR specified by the Montreal Convention, as well as remaining liability limits in relation to air passengers and delay, are subject to periodic review and may be revised once every five years. The primary aim of unification of private law as well as the new Montreal Convention is not only to remove or to minimize the conflict of laws but also to avoid conflict of jurisdictions. In order to find a rational solution to disputes between nations which have adopted differing liability systems in international air transport, we need fundamentally to reform their countries's domestic air law based on the new Montreal Convention. It is a desirable and necessary for us to ratify rapidly the new Montreal Convention by the contracting states of lCAO including the Republic of Korea. According to the Korean and Japanese ideas, airlines should not only pay compensation to passengers immediately after the accident, but also the so-called 'condolence' money to the next of kin. Condolence money is a gift to help a dead person's spirit in the hereafter : it is given on account of the grief and sorrow suffered by the next of kin, and it has risen considerably over the years. The total amount of the Korean and Japanese claims in the case of death is calculated on the basis of the loss of earned income, funeral expenses and material demage (baggage etc.), plus condolence money. The economic and social change will be occurred continuously after conclusion of the new Montreal Convention. In addition, the real value of life and human right will be enhanced substantially. The amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accident has increased in dollar amount as well as in volume. All air carrier's liability should extend to loss of expectation of leisure activities, as well as to damage to property, and mental and physical injuries. When victims are not satisfied with the amount of the compensation for damage caused by aircraft accident for which an airline corporation is liable under the current liability system. I also would like to propose my opinion that it is reasonable and necessary for us to interpret broadly the meaning of the bodily injury on Article 17 of the new Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence. Furthermore, Korea and Japan has not existed the Air Transport Act regulated the civil liability of air carrier such as Air Transport Act (Luftverkehrsgestz) in Germany. It is necessary for us to enact "the Korean Air Transport Contract Act (provisional title)" in order to regulate the civil liability of air carrier including the protection of the victims and injured persons caused by aircraft accident.
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.