• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제9권
• /
• pp.85-143
• /
• 1997

The main purpose of the investigation of an accident caused by aircraft is to be prevented the sudden and casual accidents caused by wilful misconduct and fault from pilots, air traffic controllers, hijack, trouble of engine and machinery of aircraft, turbulence during the bad weather, collision between birds and aircraft, near miss flight by aircrafts etc. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability for offender of aircraft accidents. Accidents to aircraft, especially those involving the general public and their property, are a matter of great concern to the aviation community. The system of international regulation exists to improve safety and minimize, as far as possible, the risk of accidents but when they do occur there is a web of systems and procedures to investigate and respond to them. I would like to trace the general line of regulation from an international source in the Chicago Convention of 1944. Article 26 of the Convention lays down the basic principle for the investigation of the aircraft accident. Where there has been an accident to an aircraft of a contracting state which occurs in the territory of another contracting state and which involves death or serious injury or indicates serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. That inquiry will be in accordance, in so far as its law permits, with the procedure which may be recommended from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO). There are very general provisions but they state two essential principles: first, in certain circumstances there must be an investigation, and second, who is to be responsible for undertaking that investigation. The latter is an important point to establish otherwise there could be at least two states claiming jurisdiction on the inquiry. The Chicago Convention also provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the state holding the inquiry must communicate the report and findings in the matter to that other state. It is worth noting that the Chicago Convention (Article 25) also makes provision for assisting aircraft in distress. Each contracting state undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable and to permit (subject to control by its own authorities) the owner of the aircraft or authorities of the state in which the aircraft is registered, to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by circumstances. Significantly, the undertaking can only be given by contracting state but the duty to provide assistance is not limited to aircraft registered in another contracting state, but presumably any aircraft in distress in the territory of the contracting state. Finally, the Convention envisages further regulations (normally to be produced under the auspices of ICAO). In this case the Convention provides that each contracting state, when undertaking a search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to the Convention. Since 1944 further international regulations relating to safety and investigation of accidents have been made, both pursuant to Chicago Convention and, in particular, through the vehicle of the ICAO which has, for example, set up an accident and reporting system. By requiring the reporting of certain accidents and incidents it is building up an information service for the benefit of member states. However, Chicago Convention provides that each contracting state undertakes collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation. To this end, ICAO is to adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with, among other things, aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents. Standards and Recommended Practices for Aircraft Accident Injuries were first adopted by the ICAO Council on 11 April 1951 pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and were designated as Annex 13 to the Convention. The Standards Recommended Practices were based on Recommendations of the Accident Investigation Division at its first Session in February 1946 which were further developed at the Second Session of the Division in February 1947. The 2nd Edition (1966), 3rd Edition, (1973), 4th Edition (1976), 5th Edition (1979), 6th Edition (1981), 7th Edition (1988), 8th Edition (1992) of the Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) of the Chicago Convention was amended eight times by the ICAO Council since 1966. Annex 13 sets out in detail the international standards and recommended practices to be adopted by contracting states in dealing with a serious accident to an aircraft of a contracting state occurring in the territory of another contracting state, known as the state of occurrence. It provides, principally, that the state in which the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint an accredited representative to be present at the inquiry conducted by the state in which the serious aircraft accident occurs. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention does not indicate what the accredited representative is to do but Annex 13 amplifies his rights and duties. In particular, the accredited representative participates in the inquiry by visiting the scene of the accident, examining the wreckage, questioning witnesses, having full access to all relevant evidence, receiving copies of all pertinent documents and making submissions in respect of the various elements of the inquiry. The main shortcomings of the present system for aircraft accident investigation are that some contracting sates are not applying Annex 13 within its express terms, although they are contracting states. Further, and much more important in practice, there are many countries which apply the letter of Annex 13 in such a way as to sterilise its spirit. This appears to be due to a number of causes often found in combination. Firstly, the requirements of the local law and of the local procedures are interpreted and applied so as preclude a more efficient investigation under Annex 13 in favour of a legalistic and sterile interpretation of its terms. Sometimes this results from a distrust of the motives of persons and bodies wishing to participate or from commercial or related to matters of liability and bodies. These may be political, commercial or related to matters of liability and insurance. Secondly, there is said to be a conscious desire to conduct the investigation in some contracting states in such a way as to absolve from any possibility of blame the authorities or nationals, whether manufacturers, operators or air traffic controllers, of the country in which the inquiry is held. The EEC has also had an input into accidents and investigations. In particular, a directive was issued in December 1980 encouraging the uniformity of standards within the EEC by means of joint co-operation of accident investigation. The sharing of and assisting with technical facilities and information was considered an important means of achieving these goals. It has since been proposed that a European accident investigation committee should be set up by the EEC (Council Directive 80/1266 of 1 December 1980). After I would like to introduce the summary of the legislation examples and system for aircraft accidents investigation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Swiss, New Zealand and Japan, and I am going to mention the present system, regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation in Korea. Furthermore I would like to point out the shortcomings of the present system and regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation and then I will suggest my personal opinion on the new and dramatic innovation on the system for aircraft accident investigation in Korea. I propose that it is necessary and desirable for us to make a new legislation or to revise the existing aviation act in order to establish the standing and independent Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation under the Korean Government.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.223-243
• /
• 1989

The practical application of modern space science and technology have resulted in many actual and potential gains of mankind. These successes have conditioned and increased the need for a viable space law regime and the challenge of space has ultimately led to the formation of an international legal regime for space. Space law is no longer a primitive law. It is a modern law. Yet, in its stages of growth, it has not reached the condition of perfection. Therefore, under the existing state of thing, we could carefully say that the space law is one of the most newest fields of jurisprudence despite the fact that no one has so far defined it perfectly. However, if space law can be a true jurisprudential entity, it must be definable. In defining the space law, first of all, the grasp of it's nature iis inevitable. Although space law encompasses many tenets and facets of other legal discriplines, its principal nature is public international law, because space law affects and effects law relating intercourse among nations. Since early 1960s when mankind was first able to flight and stay in outer space, the necessity to control and administrate the space activities of human beings has growingly increased. The leading law-formulating agency to this purpose is the United Nation's ad hoc Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space("COPUOS"). COPUOS gave direction to public international space law by establishing the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of the States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space("1963 Declaration"). The 1963 Declaration is very foundation of the five international multilateral treaties that were established successively after the 1963 Declaration. The five treaties are as follows: 1) The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including Moon and other Celestial Bodies, 1967. 2) The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1968. 3) The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972. 4) The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1974. 5) The Agreement Governing Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Moon Treaty, 1979. The other face of space law is it's commercial aspect. Space is no longer the sole domination of governments. Many private enterprise have already moved directly or indirectly into space activities in the parts such as telecommunications and space manufacturing. Since space law as the public international law has already advanced in accordance with the developments of space science and technology, there left only a few areas untouched in this field of law. Therefore the possibility of rapid growth of space law is expected in the parts of commerical space law, as it is, at this time, in a nascent state. The resources of the space environment are also commercially both valuable and important since the resources include the tangible natural resources to be found on the moon and other celestial bodies. Other space-based resources are solar energy, geostationary and geosynchronous orbital positions, radio frequencies, area possibly suited to human habitations, all areas and materials lending themselves to scientific research and inquiry. Remote sensing, space manufacturing and space transportation services are also another potential areas in which commercial. endeavors of Mankind can be carried out. In this regard, space insurance is also one of the most important devices allowing mankind to proceed with commercial space venture. Thus, knowlege of how space insurance came into existence and what it covers is necessary to understand the legal issues peculiar to space law. As a conclusion the writer emphasized the international cooperation of all nations in space activities of mankind, because space commerce, by its nature, will give rise many legal issues of international scope and concern. Important national and world-community interests would be served over time through the acceptance of new international agreements relating to remote sencing, direct television broadcasting, the use of nuclear power sources in space, the regularization of the activities of space transportation systems. standards respecting contamination and pollution, and a practical boundary between outer space and air space. If space activity regulation does not move beyond the national level, the peaceful exploration of space for all mankind will not be realized. For the efficient regulation on private and governmental space activities, the creation of an international space agency, similar to the International Civil Aviation Organization but modified to meet the needs of space technology, will be required. But prior to creation of an international organization, it will be necessary to establish, at national level, the Office of Air and Space Bureau, which will administrate liscence liscence application process, safety review and sale of launch equipment, and will carry out launch service.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

인도네시아의 에어 아시아 QZ8501 제트여객기가 2014년 12월 28일, 오전 5시 35분에 인도네시아, Surabaya도시에 있는 Juanda 국제공항을 출발하여 같은 날 8시 반 싱가포르 Changi 국제공항에 도착할 예정이었다. 그러나 인도네시아의 에어아시아(에어버스 A320-200) 여객기는 인도네시아 제 2의 도시인 수라바야공항에서 승개 162명을 태우고 싱가포를 향하여 비행도중 동년 12월 28일 Java 바다에 추락하였다. 인도네시아의 에어아시아 제트여객기의 잔해가 Juanda 국제공항에서 약 66 마일 떨어진 위치에서 발견되었으며 이곳에서 12월 28일 지상에 있는 항공교통관제관 (ATC) 과 조정사간에 교신이 끊겼다. 레이더에서 사라진 여객기 (QZ 8501)에는 승객 155명과 승무원 7명이 탔으며 희생된 여객 가운데에는 155명의 인도네시아어인, 3명의 한국인, 싱가포르인, 말레이시아인, 영국인이 각각 1명이었다. 말레이시아여객기 추락사건을 살피어 본다면, 말레이시아 여객기 (MH370)는 현지 시간 2014년 3월 8일 밤 12시41분 쿠알라룸푸르 국제공항을 출발하여 같은 날 새벽 6시 30분 (현지시간) 중국 베이징수도국제공항에 착륙 할 예정이었다. 그러나 말레이시아 여객기 (MH370) 는 쿠알라룸푸르 국제공항을 출발하여 베이징수도국제공항을 향하하여 비행도중 (쿠알라룸푸르와 북경 간에 비행거리: 4,414km 2,743마일) 갑자기 살아져 3월 8일 남인도양에 추락하였다. 이 말레이시아여객기는 쿠알라룸푸르 국제공항을 이륙한 후 1시간 만에 지상에 있는 항공교통관제관 (ATC) 과 조정사간에 교신이 두절되었으며 이 여객기에 227명의 승객 (15개국)과 12명의 승객이 타고 있었다. 상기 227명의 승객가운데에는 중국인 153명, 말레이시아인이 38명, 인도네시아 인이 7명, 호주인이 6명, 인도인이 5명, 프랑스인이 4명, 미국인이3명, 이란인이2명, 캐나다인이2명, 뉴질랜드인이 2명, 우크라이나인이 2명, 러시아인이 1명, 네덜란드인이 1명, 대만인이 1명이었음으로 중국인 승객이 거의 3분의 2 이상을 차지하고 있었다. 본 인도네시아 및 말레이시아 여객기 추락사건에 있어 승객 및 승무원들은 전원 사망하였고 가해자(국)인 인도네시아 및 말레이시아뿐만 아니라 피해자(국) 인 중국, 한국, 호주인, 인도, 프랑스, 미국, 인도네시아 및 말레이시아 등이 모두 1999년의 몬트리올조약의 가맹국이기 때문에 인도네시아 및 말레이시아의 항공사들은 동 조약 제21조에 따라 손해배상금액으로서 113,100 특별인출권 (SDR, 계산단위, 미화 155,000달러)를 유족들에게 무조건 지급하여야만 된다. 그러나 인도네시아 및 말레이시아 여객기 추락사건에 있어 유족들은 상기 배상금액에 만족하고 있지 않기 때문에 승객사망자에 대한 유족들의 손해배상청구소송 사건에 있어 일부 유족들은 자국법원에 소송을 제기하는 것보다는 손해배상금액을 많이 탈수 있는 미국 법원에 소송을 제기하고 있다. 미국은 현재 국제항공운송에 있어 항공여개운송인의 책임이 국제조약에 따라 유한책임 제도를 채택하고 있지만 국내항공운송에 있어서는 항공여개운송인의 책임이 무한책임제도를 채택하고 있다. 현재 미국법원은 국제 및 국내항공운송을 막론하고 항공여객운송인이 Wilful-misconduct (인식이 있는 중대한 과실) 범하였을 때에 무한책임을 인정하여 손해배상금액에 관한 판결내용이 30만 달러 내지 500만 달러를 상회하고 있음으로 유족들은 몬트리올조약 제33조 (재판관할권) 및 미국에서 제조한 여객기의 결함을 이유로 한 "제조물책임법"에 근거하여 본 소송사건에 있어 일부 유족들은 미국이변호사에 소송사건을 의뢰하여 미국법원에 손해배상청구소송사건을 제기한바 있다. 한편 필자의 의견으로는 1999년의 몬트리올조약 제17조에 규정되어 있는 국제항공운송인의 손해배상책임사유로 bodily injury라고 신체상의 상해만을 규정하고 있어 피해자 보호에 만전을 기할 수가 없음으로 앞으로 ICAO 법률위원회에서 가까운 장래에 몬트리올조약을 개정 할 때에 이 문구를 피해자의 정신적손해도 다 포함될 수 있도록 personal injury 라는 문구로 수정하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다.