• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.48-62
• /
• 2005

In aviation criminal law is negligence different from in civil law and in general criminal law. The Interpretation of aviation criminal negligence must be elucidated in characteristic own way. The thesis considers the principle of trust, permissible risk and the accomplice offender.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

Although aviation safety and security have been improving, which has made air transportation more reliable, the international aviation community has witnessed a steady increase in the number of unruly passenger incidents. Under international law, the Tokyo Convention (The Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft of 1963) is applicable to unruly passenger issues. While the Tokyo Convention has been a successful convention which 185 member states have ratified, it has its shortcomings. Three major shortcomings are related to definition, jurisdiction, and enforcement. Firstly, the Tokyo Convention does not provide for a definition of unruly passengers, thereby resulting in a situation where conduct that may be considered to be a criminal offence in the country of embarkation may not be a criminal offence in the country where the aircraft lands. Having different definitions may lead to ineffective action on the part of air carriers. Secondly, the fact that the state of landing does not bear jurisdiction produces circumstances in which it is impossible to punish an unruly passenger who clearly committed an offence on board. Thirdly, the Tokyo Convention only recognizes the competence of the state of registry to exercise criminal jurisdiction but does not impose the duty to actually use that competence in any specific case. Along with ratifying the Tokyo Convention, Korea enacted the Aviation Navigation Safety Act in 1974 as a domestic legal approach to dealing with the problem of unruly passengers. Partially reflecting the ICAO's model legislation, Circular 288, the Aviation Safety and Security Act was enacted in 2002. Although the Korean Aviation Safety and Security Act is a comprehensive act which has been constantly updated, there is no provision with respect to jurisdiction and only the Korean criminal code is applicable to jurisdiction. The Korean criminal code establishes its jurisdiction in connection with territoriality, nationality and registration, which is essentially the same as the jurisdictional principles of the Tokyo Convention. Thus, the domestic legal regime cannot close the jurisdictional gap either. Similarly, Korean case law would not take an active posture to jurisdiction unless the offence in question is a serious one, such as hijacking. A Special Sub Committee of the ICAO Legal Committee (LCSC) was established to examine the feasibility of introducing amendments to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft of 1963 with particular reference to the issue of unruly passengers. The result of the ICAO's findings should lead to the modernization of the Tokyo Convention, thereby reducing the number of incidents caused by unruly passengers and enabling all parties concerned to respond to unruly passengers more effectively.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.163-177
• /
• 2004

Wenn man das fahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt in Bezug auf ein Niveau eines Risiko der objektiv vorhandenen tatbestandlichen Erfolgsm${\"{o}}$glichkeit und auf die n${\"{o}}$tige Sorgfaltspflicht, die die T${\"{a}}$ter nimmt, um das solches Risiko abzuhalten, berucksichtigt, ergibt sich der spezielle Fall selten bei der Person, mit dem hoch-gefahrlichen Berufszweig besch${\"{a}}$ftigt ist, auf den die bestehende Allgemeine-Theorie ${\"{u}}$ber das gafahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt gleichm${\"{a}}$ssig unanwendbar ist. Bez${\"{u}}$glich des Piloten des Milit${\"{a}}$rflugzeug ergibt sich oftmals ein bestmmter Fall, die die KontroIIe des Risiko gesch${\"{a}}$ftlich uber sein eigenes pers${\"{o}}$nliches Ermessen geht, und er nimmt die Pflicht, die notwendige milit${\"{a}}$rische Zielsetzung zuerst vor allem zu ber${\"{u}}$cksichtigen, wenn auch technisch, klimatisch und umstandehalber ein normales Niveau von Risiko ${\"{u}}$bersteigt wird und zugleich ein bedenkliches hoches Risiko mit sich gebracht wird. Aus diesem Anla${\beta}$ kann man folgem, da${\beta}$ der Pilot des Milit${\"{a}}$rflugzeug ein besonderer Fall ist, auf den die Kriterien in Bezug auf das Gebiet der Regel ${\"{u}}$ber das fahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt gleichm${\"{a}}$ssig unanwendbar sind. Und weil die Vermehrung der Gefahr des Flugzeug sofort an die Vermehrung der Gefahr seines eigenen Leben angeschlossen wird und daher es eine M${\"{o}}$glichkeit gibt, da${\beta}$ der Pilot dem Resultat eines Gefahr zum ersten Opfer f${\"{a}}$llt, ist die Regelung in der Punkt der Generalpr${\"{a}}$vention gegen das fahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt sinnlos. Und auch muB die militarpolitische Punkt, die Piloten des Milit${\"{a}}$rflugzeug gem${\"{a}}$${\beta}$ dem notwendigen Ausma${\beta}$ auszubilden und das Ausma${\beta}$ zu behalten, aktuell berucksichtigt werden.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

With controlling Drones, although it was discussed in the previous study which showed a possibility. Which is personality and property rights of third parties could be violated while operating the drone with a video camera. But It's hard to find out precedents related to drones in Korea. In case of that someone try to control the drone which is equipped with a camera in a yard of neighborhood, the German District Court (Potsdam) considered an operator of drone has little bit of careless to do his duty and admit nonfeasance claim in the owner of the one's property for prevention to repetition of similar situation according to a nonfeasance claim for prevention to Section 1004 (1) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code(BGB). The drone which is equipped with a camera have possibilities to disrupt property and personal rights of the owner. Because a danger in repetition is getting larger regarding the violation of law. Moreover, there is a case that someone shot down the drone which is equipped with a camer. Because it has a risk to interrupt private life and cause some dangerous in our life. The German district court(Riesa) recently have considered that controlling the drone with a camera in private spaces is illegal as a violation of personal life. In addtion to, the action of property owner shot down drone is a legal according to § 228 of the German Civil Code(BGB) which is caleed "Necessity". Although it is difficult to apply to foreign cases directly to Korea, similar cases are likely to be occurred in Korea. The decision of the German District Court showed implications to Korea. As demand for the camera-equipped drone increases in Korea, it is time to discuss specific measures for drone violations.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.83-109
• /
• 2008

According to 1944 Chicago Convention aircraft are classified into public aircraft(or state aircraft) and private aircraft(or civil aircraft). However even if public aircraft owned by government are used as commercial flights, those are classified into private aircraft. But as far as space activities are concerned in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, those are related to all activities and all space objects, thus there being no differentiation between the public spacecraft and private spacecraft. As for the institutions of air law there are ICAO, IATA, ECAC, AFCAC, ACAC, LACAC in the world. However in the field of space law there is no International Civil Space Organization like ICAO. There is only COPUOS in the United Nations. The particular institutions such as INTELSAT, INMARSAT, ITU, WIPO, ESA, ARABSAT would be helpful to space law field. In the near future there is a need to establish International Civil Space Organization to cover problems rising from all space activities. According to article 1 of the 1944 Chicago Convention the contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. It means that absolute airspace sovereignty is recognized by not only the treaty law and but also customary law which regulates non-contracting States to the treaty. However as for the space law in the article n of the 1967 Space Treaty outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. It creates res extra commercium like the legal status of high seas in the law of the sea. However the 1979 Moon Agreement proclaimed Common Heritage of Mankind as far as the legal status of the outer space is concerned which is like the legal status of deep sea-bed in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea. As far as the liabilities of air transport system are concerned there are two kinds. One is the liabilities to passenger on board aircraft and the other is the liabilities to the third person or thing on the ground by the aircraft. The former is regulated by the Warsaw System, the latter by the Rome Convention. As for the liabilities of space law the 1972 Liability Convention applies. The Rome Convention and 1972 Liability Convention stipulate absolute liability. In the field of space transportation there would be new liability system to regulate the space passengers on board spacecraft like Warsaw System in the air transportation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.143-166
• /
• 2012

This paper deals in depth with airline over-booking practices and legal questions therefrom in the light of public interests. Chapter I as an introduction gives clear ideas of what are the over-booking, fact-revealing current state of denied boarding and nature of the problems inherent but veiled in those practices. In Chapter II, it is reviewed whether legal instruments for DBC(Denied Boarding Compensation) are adequately equipped for airline passengers in R. O. K. Upon the results of the review that international law to which Korea is a party, domestic law and administrative preparedness for the DBC are either null or virtually ineffective, the Chapter by contrast illustrates how well the U. S. and the E. U. safeguard civil rights of their passengers from such an 'institutionalized fraud' as the over-booking. In Chapter III on which a main emphasis lies, it is examined whether the over-booking practice constitutes a criminal offense: Fraud. In section 1, the author identifies actus reus and mens rea required for fraud then compares those with every aspect of the over-booking. In conjunction with the structural element analysis, he reviews the Supreme Court's precedents that lead the section into a partial conclusion that the act of over-booking judicially constitutes a crime of fraud. Despite the fulfillment of drawing up an intended answer, the author furthers the topic in section 2 by arguing a dominant view from Korean academia taking opposite stance to the Supreme Court. The commentators assert, "To consummate a crime of fraud, there must be property damage of the victim." For this notion correlates with a debate on legally protected interest in criminalization of fraud, the section 2 shows an argument over 'Rechtgut' matters specific to fraud. The view claims that the Rechtgut comes down rather to 'right to property' than 'transactional integrity' or 'fair and equitable principles'. However, the section concludes that the later values shall be deemed as 'freedom in economic decision-making' which are the benefit and protection of the penal law about fraud. Section 3 demonstrates the self-contradiction of the view as it is proved by a conceptual analysis that the infringement on freedom in economic decision-making boils down to the 'property damage'. Such a notion is better grounded in section 4 by foreign court decisions and legislation in its favour. Therefore, this paper concludes that the airline's act of over-booking is very likely to constitute fraud in both theory and practice.

• 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.30 no.2
• /
• pp.201-248
• /
• 2015

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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2008

The development of the aviation technology is beyond the people's imagination. For example, with some exaggeration, If the autopilot engage upon take off, You will realize that you are on the centerline of the foggy JFK runway 13R after 15 hours with only once or twice of intervention. But the more aviation technology develops, the more responsible the pilot will be who has the final authority of the aviation safety. In the JAL 706 accident caused by unidentified reason, the pilot increased pitch abruptly and overrode the control from the autopilot. The result of this process made the death of a flight attendant and some injuries of a few passengers. The district court found the pilot not guilty at the first trial on the ground that the control override was not connected to the possibility of foresight and avoidance of the human death. The pilot was proved to be innocent through the analysis of the DFDR and ADAS that the override did not precede the unidentified pitch up motion. The judicial precedent related to aviation accidents in Korea requires pilots' absolute and extended care compared to the ordinarily prudent or reasonably careful behaviors in the vehicle and medical accidents. Although there is some controversy about the standard care, the care required in the actual operation of high tech aircraft by a pilot should include objective and standard care and be judged by analysis of the scientific data. Although the pilot maintained the unusual hi speed that doesn't have safety margin and descended under turbulence in case of the JAL 706 accident, the court negatived its relation to the cause of pitch up. Also, the override of the control after initial pitch up might have caused the possibility of the death and injury, but the court denied it. Because of this complex cause of the aviation accidents, it is important for a court to figure out the core reason of the event and casual relationship with the pilot Now, It is required that the judgement of negligence in the aviation accidents should include an objective care with scientific data from simulated circumstances(or a simulator) as the Japanese court not from the theory of vehicle's negligence.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2017

This writer have thus far reviewed the civil and criminal obligations of the directors of a parent company that sponsored financially troubled affiliates. What was discussed here applies to logistics companies in the same manner. Hanjin Shipping cannot expect its parent company, Korean Air to prop it up financially. If such financial aid is offered without any collateral, under Korean criminal law, the directors of the parent company bears the burden of civil and criminal responsibility. One way to get around this is to secure fairness in terms of the process and the content of aid. Fairness in terms of process refers to the board of directors making public all information and approving such aid. Fairness in terms of content refers to impartial transactions that block out any possibilities of the chairman of the corporate group acting in his private interest. In the case of Korean Air bailing out Hanjin, the meeting of board of directors were held five times and a thorough review was conducted on the risks involved in the loans being repaid or not. After the review, measures to guard against undesirable scenarios were established before finally deciding on bailing out Hanjin. As such, there are no issues. In terms of the fairness of content, too, there were practically no room for the majority shareholder or controlling shareholder to pocket profits at the expense of the company. This is because the continued aid offered to a financially troubled company (i.e. Hanjin Shipping) was a posing a burden to even the controlling shareholder. This writer argues that the concept of the interest of the entire corporate group needs to be recognized. That is, it must be recognized that the relationship of control and being controlled between parent company and affiliate company, or between affiliate companies serves a practical benefit to the ongoing concern and growth of the group and is therefore just. Moreover, the corporate group and its affiliates, as well as their directors and management must recognize that they have an obligation to prioritize the interests of the corporate group ahead of the interests of the company that they are directly associated with. As such, even if Korean Air offered a loan to Hanjin Shipping without collateral, the act cannot be treated as an offense to law, nor can the directors be accused of damages that they bear the responsibility of compensating under civil law.