• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.101-133
• /
• 2012

The paper aims to analyse the obligations and Responsibilities of shipper in the Rotterdam Rules. The Rotterdam Rules, has underlying intention that it will provide uniform law for the international carriage of goods by sea. It is highly expected that the Rotterdam Rules will create the new international legal regime replacing Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules. Rotterdam Rules provide the obligations and responsibilities of shipper in express. The shippers obliged to provide, (a) duty as to the condition in which the cargo has to be delivered to the carrier, (b) cooperation of the shipper and the carrier in providing information and instruction, and (c) shipper's obligation to provide information, instructions and documents. The shipper is liable for loss or damage sustained by the carrier if the carrier proves that such loss or damages was caused by a breach of the shipper's obligations. However, the shipper is relieved of all or part of its liability if the cause or one of the causes of the loss or damage is not attributable to its fault or to the fault. But, the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against loss or damage resulting from the inaccuracy of such information. Rotterdam Rules is providing rather concrete as to the shipper's responsibilities and burden of proof in separate chapter. The question is whether such burden of proof of the fault should be imposed to the shipper.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.147-170
• /
• 2016

International maritime law conventions concerned with cargo liabilities have sought to achieve solutions which will be acceptable to a wide range of states. The Rotterdam Rules was approved by the UN Assembly on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules are intended to replace The Hague and Hamburg Rules. This paper is comparing The Rotterdam Rules with The Hague and Hamburg Rules for the carrier' liabilities and exceptions in order to find carrier' liability System, the burden of proof and exceptions in the International maritime Rules. The purpose of this paper is considering the carrier's principal recourse for defending himself inmost cargo claims. The first area analyze the transfer of carrier's fundamental Liability system in the International Rules. The second is the matter on the appointment of proof in order to establish liability or to be relieve of liability. And the third is the change of the carrier's possible exclusions from liability in the International maritime Rules. From the result of the said analysis, my paper suggests differences of the exclusions in the Rotterdam Rules comparing with the Hague and Hamburg Rules, and features of the Rotterdam Rules appling exceptions on the basis of the Hague and Hamburg Rules with regard to carrier's liability and burden of proof. The former is the inclusion of three exclusions, the deleted natural fault, and The provision making the carrier responsible for the acts of its servants or agents in the 'fire on the ship' of the Rotterdam Rules. The latter is deleting the principle of overriding obligation related to carrier's obligation of seaworthiness in the Rotterdam Rules, the burden of proof being diverted from the carrier to the carrier and the shipper in the cargo damage caused by two factors(one for which the carrier was liable and the other for which it was excusable) in the new rules.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.23 no.7
• /
• pp.881-888
• /
• 2019

Dangerous cargo in maritime transportation is increasing in international trade. The types and forms of dangerous cargo are very diverse, complex, and the scope is expanding widely. For this reason, it is increase risk of accident threatens the safety of ships and other cargoes, as well as serious damage. Carriers' require special care and handling of dangerous cargo and have a duty of care for safe transport. The shipper is obliged to notify the carrier of the nature and characteristics of the dangerous cargo prior to loading on the ship, the responsibility of the carrier varies depending on the notification or not. This study compares and analyzes the concept and classification of dangerous cargoes, the provisions of the Hague rules, Hamburg Rules and Rotterdam Rules about Carriers' Dangerous Cargo Liability Regulations, after reviewing case studies. We intend to provide information to dangerous cargo handling, the carrier.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2006

In the Bill of Lading of The Irbenskiy Proliv is not subject to the Hague-Visby Rules in accordance with paragraphs (A) and/or (E) of cl.1 or to the Hague Rules in accordance with paragraphs (B) and/or (D) of cl.1. The Irbenskiy Proliv is very rare case that is effective to exempt the carrier as literal words of Bill of Lading. The action concerns cargoes of perishable goods shipped from Brazil to Japan, under Bills of Lading each of which contained an extensive carrier's exemption clause. A preliminary issue was ordered to be determined on the question whether c1.4 is effective to exempt the ralliers from any potential liability for the claims in this case. The court held that there is no reason to reject c1.4 as part of each of the contracts contained in or evidenced by the bills of lading; and it protects the carrier where damage to the goods shipped results from such causes. It is therefore effective to exempt the carriers from any potential liability for those claims.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.125-150
• /
• 2014

The number of dangerous goods are increasing in maritime transport. As a result, a number of nations and international organizations are establishing or amending the rules of dangerous goods. There is necessarily the transport of dangerous goods like fuel and the importance of the definition and scope of the goods is increased. In addition, the responsibility between the parties is different with the notification of the goods and its awareness of transporters. In particular, responsible clauses of the transport rule show antithetical concepts between the scope of immunity and the responsibility of a shipper concerned with wether transporters aware. This research performs two works. First, this research analyzes the definitions and scope of dangerous goods through prior research. Second, this research suggests the necessary of united interpretation of the articles through a comparative analysis on judical decisions concerned with awareness of transporters to dangerous goods. Dangerous goods have a distinctive feature and that is why responsibility and immunity between parties should be differently interpreted with general rules. Parties have duty concerned with faults on general goods and the scope of duty between parties can be specifically made. However, if there is no specific articles concerned with responsibility between parties to dangerous goods, they could confuse the responsibility on duties concerned with risk. Therefore, this research suggests solutions and necessary of the united criteria for the articles to dangerous goods through analyzing precedent cases.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.21-54
• /
• 2011

International commercial arbitration has established itself as the primary dispute resolution mechanism for international business transactions. Certainly, there are commonly-accepted standards that have evolved to reflect an internationally-harmonized approach to issues relating to the taking of evidence. This is reflected in International Bar Association("IBA") Rules for Taking of Evidence in International Evidence("IBA Rules"). This IBA Rules were revised in 2010. Designed to assist parties in determining what procedures to use in their particular case, IBA Rules present some of the methods for conducting international arbitration proceedings. Parties and arbitral tribunals may adopt IBA Rules in whole or in part - at the time of drafting the arbitration clause in a contract or once an arbitration commences - or they may use them as guidelines. They supplement applicable national laws and institutional or ad hoc rules. The IBA Rules were an ambitious undertaking, designed to overcome fundamental cultural differences relating to the taking of evidence under different national court systems. While it is difficult to assess how frequently the IBA Rules are actually adopted by parties, it is fair to say that they have had a considerable influence on the practice of taking evidence in international arbitration. This article mainly describes the essential provisions of IBA Rules, as revised in 2010, including but not limited to production of document, witnesses of fact, party-appointed experts, and tribunal-appointed experts. It also provides a comparison of relevant procedural rules of civil law and common law systems to each of the above mentioned provisions. It is important for arbitration practitioners to understand the differences in the taking of evidence under civil law and common law systems, respectively. This article will be helpful for practitioners and academics not only to understand the revised IBA Rules themselves but also to prepare for, and adequately deal with, the frictions that may arise as a result of the differences in approach for taking evidences. Indeed, so prepared, the arbitration practitioner will be able to anticipate the expectations, perceptions and the conduct of the parties, their counsel and the tribunal members.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.265-301
• /
• 1993

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.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.66-77
• /
• 2001

The contents and results of teaching should be evaluated periodically and intermationally in the age of globalization. The Third Internatinal Geography Competition, held from August 13 to August 19,2000 in Seoul, was a good opportunity to compare the level of achievement in geography among Korean students with that of other countries. Students from 13 countries competed with one another by demonstrating their geographical knowledge via three kinds of test. The aim of this study is to evaluate the international level of high school students in geography education in light of the result of the competiton. Four specific contents ate analysed here: 1)the process and result of the competiton, 2) the analysis of test scores of all students, 3) the international comparison of achievement level of the Korean students, and 4)the evaluation of the examination items and their comparison with those of the first competition. The result of this study will help to evaluate ths competitive achievement of geography education in high school. Although the Korean studenrs scored high marks overall, their were relafively weak in the fieldwork assignment. This shows that instructions in geography are unbalanced.

• 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.