• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.207-264
• /
• 1993

항공사의 외국인 소유는 이것으로 인하여 전체 항공운송 시스템이 변화될 수 있는 핵심적인 개념이다. 작금 항공운송산업을 둘러싼 환경은 급격하게 변화하고 있어서 많은 국가들이 항공사의 외국인 소유와 관련한 기존의 법제나 정책변경을 심각하게 고려하기 시작하였다. 항공기 및 항공사의 국적과 관련한 전통적인 개념은 양자사이에 '진정한' 또는 '효파적인' 관계가 있어야 한다는 것이다. 특별히 항공사의 '실질적인 및 효과적인 통제'조항은 양자 및 다자간 항공운송 협정에서 가장 핵심적인 역할을 해오고 있다. 그러나 변화의 바람이 거세게 일고 있다. 항공운송산업에서 이러한 변화는 미국에서 시작되고 미국의 국제항공관계에 적용되고 있는 규제완화에서 비롯되었다. 미국의 규제완화정책은 합병 및 흡수를 통한 항공사의 집중이라는 결과를 가져와서 항공운송 시장은 궁극적으로 소수의 거대 항공사에 의해 지배될 것이라는 우려를 낳고 있다. 이러한 새로운 추세에 대응하여 많은 국가틀이 다양한 형태의 지역협력체를 형성하고 있다. (예, EC, 아세안, 안데안 그룹, 야마스크로 선언 등) 또한 다수 국가들은 정치.경제적인 이웃에서 정부의 소유주식을 외국인 및 외국회사를 포함한 민간부문에 매각함으로써 사유.사영화를 추진하고 있다. 한편 제조업 분야에서 다국적기업 (IBM, 코카콜라 등)은 별 어력움이 없이 성립될 수 있다. GATT의 주관하에 열리고 있는 우루과이 협상에 참여하고 있는 국가들은 최혜국 대우, 내국인 대우, 시장접근 같은 상품교역의 개념및 원리를 항공운송서비스를 포함한 서비스교역에 적용하는데 기본적으로 합의하였다. 급격히 변화하는 환경에서 항공운송 산업만이 국가의 영공 주권, 항공사의 공익기업 개념, 상업적 이익의 균형교환 같은 자기류의 논리에 집착하여 언제까지나 홀로 고립될 수는 없을 것이다. 더구나 세계 항공운송 산업은 1980년 후반부터 큰 시련에 직면해 있다. 몇몇을 제외한 대부분의 항공사는 세계경제의 불황속에서 초과공급 및 운임전쟁으로 인한 엄청난 적자를 기록하고 있다. 모든점을 미루어볼 때 세계의 항공사들은 과거 어느 때보다도 외국인 투자를 필요로 하고 있으며 항공사가 속해 있는 정부는 외국인 소유에 관한 법제를 개정하고 나아가 전체 항공운송시스템을 개편하도록 압력을 받고 있다. 많은 국가에서 외국인 소유에 관한 법규의 개정은 현존 항공운송 시스템에 다각적인 영향을 가져올 것이다. 다시말하면 양자협상, 반독점및 경쟁볍규의 적용, 고용 및 카보타지등을 포함한 제반분야가 영향을 받을 것이다. 결국 외국인 소유에 관한 법제의 완화는 항공사의 세계화 또는 다국적화의 과정을 촉진시킬 것이고, 항공사간 다양한 형태의 제휴가 이러한 방향에서 계속될 것이다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.83-153
• /
• 2015

As our economy grows and the number of aircraft increase, the number of civil execution against aircraft cases are likely to increase as well in the future. The purpose of this article is to present the legal theory on the civil execution against aircrafts by drawing on the legal theory on the civil execution against vessels which constitute a relatively large number of cases thus observed. The provisions of the civil execution against immovables or vessel, shall basically apply mutatis mutandis to the civil execution against aircraft or light aircraft. The civil execution against ultra-light flying devices or a foreign aircraft shall be executed in conformity with the civil execution against movables. There are a compulsory auction, an auction to execute a security right to aircraft, and an auction under the right of retention, etc. in the civil execution against an aircraft. A compulsory execution against an aircraft means an execution carried out by a creditor against a debtor's aircraft to obtain satisfaction of claims for the purpose of payment of money. The court of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the airport of stoppage or storage of such aircraft at the time of seizure. The forums of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be exclusive forums. When a court has rendered an order on commencing an auction, it shall order an execution officer to receive a certificate of the aircraft's registration and other documents as required for its operation, and to submit them to the court. A court may revoke the procedures for a compulsory auction when an execution officer fails to obtain a transfer of the aircraft's registration certificate, etc. and the location of the aircraft is not evident, not later than an elapse of 2 months from the date on which an order on commencing an auction has been rendered. In the case where it is deemed that there exists a business-related need or other based on proper reasoning, the court may permit the aircraft's operation, upon the motion submitted by the debtor. In this case, there shall be a consent from the creditor, the highest bidder, the next highest bidder and successful bidder. A court may, upon a motion submitted by the creditor, make the dispositions required for observing and preserving the aircraft. When a debtor has submitted the documents under subparagraph 2 or 4 of the Article 49 of the Civil Execution Act, and furnished the guarantee equivalent to the claims of the execution creditors and the creditors demanding a distribution and to the costs for execution, before a declaration of bid, the court shall, upon request, revoke other procedures than those for distribution. The provisions of a obligatory auction against vessel or aircraft and an auction to execute a security right to real estate or vessel, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. In an auction to execute the security right to aircraft case, an executive title is not necessary. An executory exemplification is not necessary in an application for an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. A court should examine the existence of security right and claim secured. No order on commencing an auction procedure shall be issued with non-existence or invalidity of the security right and absence or extinguishment of the claim secured. Furthermore, these prohibitions are the reason of a decision on non-permit for sale, the court overlooked these prohibitions, and the decision on a permit for sale became final and conclusive, the successful bidder who paid the price and registered of ownership could not acquire ownership of the aircraft sold. A court may render a ruling to put plural aircrafts up for a blanket auction, only when they are in restraint and related matter (Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3688 dated on August 22, 2001). A righter of retention on aircraft may file a request for an auction against the aircraft. The provisions of an auction to execute a security right to aircraft shall apply mutatis mutandis to the formal auction. Airport facility fee and an aircraft are not in restraint and related matter, so an airport management corporation does not hold the right of retention on the aircraft (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29291 decided on April 10, 2014). In an auction in accordance with the right of retention, all encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) on the sold aircraft shall be extinguished by a sale under the legal conditions for sale. Not only creditors who have claims for preferential payment but also general creditors could demand for distribution. The precedence of the claim of the right of retention on aircraft and that of general creditor's claims are equal.

• 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.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2010

In this paper, we discuss patent pool and a patent valuation scheme for fair royalty distribution among the patents in a pool. In the knowledge-based economy, intellectual capital-the accumulation of technology and know-how-is recognized as the most important source of company's competitive advantage and economic growth. By providing exclusive rights to patent holders, the patent system aims to encourage innovation-invention & commercialization of new technologies-in order to raise the standard of living. However, drawbacks of patent system, which occur as the number of patents issued increases rapidly and patent ownership is fragmented, may slow down the innovation efforts seriously. A promising solution is the patent pool approach, which was for instance employed by the U.S. congress during World War I to free the airplane manufacturers from the patent tangle by letting them license all the patents for a fee. It is necessary to figure out relative technological contribution of patent for fair distribution of royalty revenues among patent holders. The Rating/Ranking Method seems to fit to that valuation purpose. We examined technology valuation models from various organizations and selected a set of more influential valuation factors which can be incorporated as scoring criteria in the Rating/Ranking Method.

• Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.143-162
• /
• 2021

This study reviews the progress of maquiladora industry in Mexico and the development of the IMMEX program. The maquiladora program allows foreign-invested factories in Mexico to import raw materials and components duty free and to export the finished products to the U.S. It contributed to the increase in employment and population of border cities. Low wage level of Mexico induced not only standardized labor-intensive industries but also the high-tech automated industries requiring assembly process. In 2006, the Mexican government merged the maquiladora program and PITEX for Mexican export-oriented firms into a single new program, the IMMEX program, in order to promote exports more efficiently. This study presents the distributions of the IMMEX firms by industrial sector and by region. It is revealed that transport equipment sector leads the export industries in Mexico, and Tijuana and Juárez accommodate largest agglomerations of the IMMEX firms.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.63-101
• /
• 2020

'Flight safety zone' means a zone that the Minister of National Defense designates under Articles 4 and 6 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter 'PMBIA') for the safety of flight during takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. The purpose of flight safety zone is to contribute to the national security by providing necessary measures for the protection of military bases and installations and smooth conduct of military operations. In this case, when the state set and used the flight safety zone, the landowner claimed restitution of unjust enrichment against the country. This article is an analysis based on the existing legal theory regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff's claim, and the summary of the discussion is as follows. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes loss to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit (Article 741 of the Civil Act). Since the subject matter is an infringing profit, the defendant must prove that he has a legitimate right to retain the profit. The State reserves the right to use over the land designated as a flight safety zone in accordance with legitimate procedures established by the PMBIA for the safe takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State gained an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent over the land without legal cause. Expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: provided, that in such a case, just compensation shall be paid (Article 23 (1) of the Constitution of The Republic of KOREA). Since there is not any provision in the PMBIA for loss compensation for the case where a flight safety zone is set over land as in this case, next question would be whether or not it is unconstitutional. Even if it is designated as a flight safety zone and the use and profits of the land are limited, the justification of the purpose of the flight safety zone system, the appropriateness of the means, the minimization of infringement, and the balance of legal interests are still recognized; thus just not having any loss compensation clause does not make the act unconstitutional. In conclusion, plaintiff's claim for loss compensation based on the 'Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for land, etc. for Public Works Projects', which has no provision for loss compensation due to public limits, is unjust.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.147-174
• /
• 2018

The air transportation industry is a field where control and interference of the state are generalized compared to other industries. However, the premise for national intervention in the air transportation industry is the determination of the nationality of the aircraft or airline company concerned. This is because it is necessary to clarify the distinction between the domestic and foreign carriers so that they can exercise airspace sovereignty. The purpose of this paper is to compare the current status and contents of Korean law and regulations on the determination of nationality with the foreign legal system. To this end, the starting point of the discussion is to look at the history of nationality restrictions on the US air transport industry and the issues that arise in the content and operation of the system today. In addition, this paper examined the provisions of the Japanese aviation law, which is very similar to that of Korea, and then compared the current legal provisions of the United States, Japan and Korea. As a conclusion, this paper sought the direction of revision of the Korean law on the basis of the foreign status of the restriction of nationality in the air transportation industry. Compared with our law, the US and Japan are generally regarded to be more concerned with the contents of their own airline companies than those of foreigners or non-citizen. In spite of the fact that there are many laws and regulations in the United States regarding the de facto dominance of domestic airline companies by foreigners, there have been a lot of controversies in this matter. By the way, Japan has been stipulating regulations on holding companies and affiliated companies. In the global era, it would be meaningful to check the status of the nationality restrictions in the aviation industry, which is based on internationality. I hope that this study will be able to build a legal institutional basis for Korea's aviation industry development from a reasonable protectionist point of view rather than a narrow nationalism in a rapidly changing era.

• 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.4
• /
• pp.167-176
• /
• 1992

1957년에 서명된 로마조약(條約)을 처음 개정한 단일(單一)유럽법(法)이 1987년 7월 1일에 발효(發效)되었을 때 유럽공동체(共同體) 12개 회원국(會員國)들은 공동정책(共同政策)에 의거 상업(商業), 농업(農業), 운송(運送), 금융(金融) 및 기타 관련부분에 있어 단일역내시장(單一域內市場)을 형성하기로 약속했다. 물론 완전한 역내공동시장(域內共同市場)은 자유로운 운송시장(運送市場)을 전제로 한다. 따라서 EC조약(條約)은 모든 회원국(會員國)들이 서어비스의 자유에 근거하여 공동운송정책(共同運送政策)을 따를 것을 강제하고 있다. 항공운송(航空運送)에 있어서의 목표도 역시 다른 모든 경제활동의 목표와 마찬가지로 로마조약(條約)이 적용되는 공동운송정책(共同運送政策)의 일부를 구성하고 있다. 종합적인 공동체항공정책(共同體航空政策)의 작업에는 운임(運賃), 공급량(供給量), 시장진출(市場進出) 및 경쟁상(競爭上)의 일괄적인 자유화 조치 이상의 것을 내포하고 있다. 그것은 국가장벽으로 방해되지 않는 공동체(共同體)의 항공운송망(航空運送網)의 개발과 확장뿐만 아니라 경제(經濟), 안전(安全), 환경(環境) 및 사회적(社會的) 요인(要因)들 간에 합리적인 균형을 이루는 공동체항공운송정책(共同體航空運送政策)의 개발을 위한 공동항공운송정책(共同航空運送政策)의 공식화(公式化)를 요한다. 1987년의 항공(航空)에 관한 일괄입법조치, 1989년의 제 2 차 항공(航空)에 관한 일괄입법조치 및 1992년 이후로 예정된 제 3 차 일괄입법조치에 따라 EC는 초국가적(超國家的)인 항공운송(航空運送) 분야에 있어서의 개방적인 국제경쟁(國際競爭)을 본격적으로 추구하고 있다. 결국 이러한 일괄규칙은 EC와 제(第) 3 국(國)들간의 관계에 중대한 의미를 가지게 될 것이다. EC항공운송정책(航空運送政策)이 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)의 상업운선(商業運船)에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 것인가는 모든 아시아 국가들이 알아야 할 중요한 문제이다. 이론적으로 말해서, 역내공동체(域內共同體) 항공운송(航空運送)의 자유화는 아시아 국가들에 대한 치외법권적(治外法權的) 효과를 일으킬 수 있는 로마조약(條約)과 유럽사법재판소(司法裁判所)에 의해 형성된 원칙들에 필연적으로 영향을 미칠 것이다. 이와 관련하여 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)은 무차별원칙(無差別原則), 설립(設立)의 자유(自由), 서어비스의 자유(自由) 및 EEC 경쟁법(競爭法)과 같은 제(第) 3 국(國)의 국제항공운송에 영향을 미치는 일련의 새로운 원칙과 법률의 출현에 큰 관심을 갖고 있다. 실무적인 관점에서, 1992년 이후의 종합적인 공동체항공운송정책(共同體航空運送政策)의 작업에는 항공운화(航空運貨), 시장진출(市場進出), 제(第)3 및 제(第)4의 운륜자유권(運輪自由權), 복수지정(複數指定), 제(第)5의 자유(自由), 캐보타지(cabotage), 손상(損傷)(derogation), 공급량(供給量), 편수(便數), 불정기운항(不定期運航) 및 기타 부문항공기소음(部門航空機騷音), 최저(最低) 안전(安全) 및 사회적(社會的) 조치(措置), 항공종사자면허(航空從事者免許), 감항증명(堪航證明), 운항시간제도(運航時間制度), 컴퓨터 예약제도(豫約制度), 탑승거절보상의 공동최저기준(共同最低基準), 공중혼잡(空中混雜), 공항이착륙시간할당법(空港離着陸時間割當法), 공항시설(空港施設), 정부지원(政府支援 등). 이와 같은 모든 공동체항공운송정책(共同體航空運送政策)의 주요문제들은 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)에 여러 각도로 영향을 미치게 될 것이다. 위와 같은 문제들 가운데, 제(第) 3국(國) 항공사(航空社)들의 역내공동체(域內共同體) 항로(航路)의 접근, 공급량(供給量), 운임(運賃), 제(第)5의 자유(自由) 및 캐보타지가 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)에 관심이 큰 문제가 되고 있다. 아시아 항공사(航空社)들의 EEC시장(市場)에로의 상업운항(商業運航)이 다소 영향을 받게 될 것이다. 첫째, 복수(複數) 목적지(目的地) 문제이다. 둘째, 항공(航空)서어비스의 운임(運賃) 및 료솔(料率)문제이다. 셋째, 항공운송구역(航空運送區域)에서의 사업에 대한 경쟁원칙의 적용 문제이다. 넷째, 제(第)5 자유(自由) 운륜권(運輪權) 문제이다. 다섯째, 캐보타지(cabotage)문제이다. 끝으로, 유럽 항공사(航空社)들간의 합병(合倂)의 문제이다. 결론적으로 유럽공동체항공운송(共同體航空運送)의 자유화는 1993년까지 공동체(共同體) 역내(域內)와 역외(域外)의 항공운송법제(航空運送法制)의 현재의 모습을 극적으로 바꾸어 놓을 정도로 가속화(加速化)되고 있다. 한편 항공운송(航空運送)의 자유화(自由化)에 대한 EC의 제의는 대담하고 급진적이다. 반면에 그것이 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)에 미칠 영향 또한 중대하다. 의심할 여지없이 항공사(航空社)와 고객들의 이익면에서 EEC와 비(非)EEC국가들의 항공운송산업(航空運送産業)에서 더욱 경제적으로 경쟁적이 되도록 할 필요가 있다. 전세계 항공운송산업(航空運送産業) 운영(運營)의 대부분을 정부가 소유하거나 통제하는 것은 정말로 국제항공운송(國際航空運送)의 발전에 불필요한 장애를 일으킨다. 따라서 國內航空社와 전세계 항공사(航空社)들간의 이해관계의 조화를 협상하는 것이 중요하다. 아마도 아시아 항공사(航空社)들간의 지역적 협조가 미국(美國)뿐만 아니라 유럽으로 부터의 압력 증가에 대해 균형을 이루는 힘이 될 수 있을 것이다.