• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.213-239
• /
• 2003

This paper intends to describe the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention of 1999 for the international cargo, comparing to those of the existing Warsaw Convention system. Also this paper deals with main issues of the Montreal Convention which are relevant for the carrier's liability in the carriage by air of cargo. The Warsaw Convention was adopted in 1929 and modified successively in 1955, 1961, 1971, 1975, and 1999. The Montreal Convention of 1999 modernized and consolidated the Warsaw Convention and related instruments. International air carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability as stated in the Montreal Convention : The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air, and the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. However, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the liability of the air carrier : potential conflicts between the Montreal Convention and the Warsaw Convention, the amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, the exessive litigation, and the aviation insurance. Therefore, the conditions and limits of the carrier's liability under the Montreal Convention should be readjusted and regulated in detail.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.4
• /
• pp.65-85
• /
• 1992

The air waybill is supposed to be made out by the consignor. If the carrier makes it out, he is deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three original parts. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier", and shall be signed by the consignor. The second part shall be marked "for the consignee", it shall be signed by the consignor and by the carrier and shall accompany the goods. The third part shall be signed by the carrier and handed by him to the consignor, after the goods have been accepted. According to the original Warsow Convention article 8, the air waybill must contain 17 particulars or items. However, the Hague Protocol reduced to three the number of particulars required to appear on the air waybill. Only one item is obligatory, namely, the notice that the carriage is subject to the rules of the Warsaw Convention. The absence of the air waybill entails unlimited liability of the carrier because it deprives him of the right to avail himself of the provisions of the Warsaw Convention which exclude or limit his liability. The consignor shall be liable for all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statements in the air waybill. Although the contract of the carriage of goods by air is not a formal contract, the document of carriage is issued. The issue of air wayhill is not essential for the existence or validity of the contract, but serves merely as a means of proof. The Hague Protocol has lessened the consequences of the carrier's neglect to faithfully accomplish the required formalities. Henceforth, these formalities no longer constitute legal obligations. The air waybill is the consignment note used for the carriage of goods by air. It is often called an air consignment note and is not a document of title or transferable/negotiable instrument. It is basically a receipt for the goods for despatch and is prima facie evidence of the conditions of carriage. Each of the original parts of the air waybill has evidential value and possession of his part is a condition for the exercise by the consignor or cosignee of his rights under the contract of carriage. Oveall, it is an usage that under a documentary letter of credit, the consignee on the air waybill is the opening bank of the letter of credit, and the notify party is the importer who applied for the letter of credit. In Korea there is an usage as to process of cargo delivery in air transportation as follows: The carrier carries the cargo into the bonded area of the airport and gives both the notice of arrival of the cargo and the consignee's air waybill to the notify party who is the importer. Then the notify party obtains the Letter of Guarantee from the opening bank in exchange for reimbursing the amount of the letter of credit or tendering the security therefor to the opening bank. The notify party then presents this document to the customs authorities for the process of customs clearance. The opening bank becomes a consignee only to ensure repayment of the funds it has expended, and the only interest of the opening bank as consignee is the reimbursement of the money paid to the exporter under the documentary letter of credit. Just as the bill of lading in maritime law, the air waybill has always been considered negotiable although the Warsaw Convention does not emphasize this aspect of negotiability. However, the Hague Protocol article 4 corrected the situation by stating that "nothing in this Convention prevents the issue of a negotiable air waybill." This provision officially recognizes that the air waybill must meet the needs of the present day business circles by being a negotiable instrument. Meanwhile, Montreal Additional Protocol no. 4 has brought important changes. Registration by computer is acceptable and the parties to the contract of carriage are allowed to replace the air waybill with a receipt for the goods. In conclusion, as the Warsaw Convention has not details of provisions relating to the issuing of the negotiable air waybill, it is hoped that there should be supplement to the Warsaw Convention and establishment of international commercial usage with regard to the negotiable air waybill.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to research the requirements and effect of the document of carriage in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999, IATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo, and the judicial precedents of Korea and foreign countries. Under the Article 4 of Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, an air waybill shall be delivered. If any other means which preserves a record of the carriage are used, the carrier shall, if so requested by the consignor, deliver to the consignor a cargo receipt. Under the Article 7 of Montreal convention, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three original parts. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier", and shall be signed by the consignor. The second part shall be marked "for the consignee", and shall be signed by the consignor and by the carrier. The third part shall be signed by the carrier who shall hand it to the consignor after the goods have been accepted. Under the Article 5 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or the cargo receipt shall include (a) an indication of the places of departure and destination, (b) an indication of at least one agreed stopping place, (c) an indication of the weight of the consignment. Under the Article 10 of Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. Under the Article 9 of Montreal Convention, non-compliance with the Article 4 to 8 of Montreal Convention shall not affect the existence of the validity of the contract, which shall be subject to the rules of Montreal Convention including those relating to limitation of liability. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Article 11 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or cargo receipt is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. Under the Article 12 of Montreal Convention, if the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of that part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt. According to the precedent of Korea Supreme Court sentenced on 22 July 2004, the freight forwarder as carrier was not liable for the illegal delivery of cargo to the notify party (actual importer) on the air waybill by the operator of the bonded warehouse because the freighter did not designate the boned warehouse and did not hold the position of employer to the operator of the bonded warehouse. In conclusion, as the Korea Customs Authorities will drive the e-Freight project for the carriage of cargo by air, the carrier and freight forwarder should pay attention to the requirements and legal effect of the electronic documentation of the carriage of cargo by air.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2006

This paper intends to describe the carrier's duty for the delivery of international air cargo and the carrier's liability for the illegal delivery of cargo under the Montreal Convention, lATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo and judicial precedents. Under the Article 13 of Montreal Convention, the consignee is entitled, on arrival of the cargo at the place of destination, to require the carrier to deliver the cargo to it, on payment of the charge due and on complying with the conditions of carriage. And unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as soon as the cargo arrives. Under the Article 18 of Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or less of or damage to, cargo upon condition only that the event which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air. And the carriage by air comprises by the period during which the cargo is in the carriage of the carrier. Under the Article 11 of lATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo, carrier is liable to shipper, consignee of any other person for damage sustained in the event of destruction of loss of, or damage to, or delay in the carriage of cargo only if the occurrence which caused to the damage so sustained took place during the carriage as defined under Article 1. According to the precedent of Korean Supreme Court sentenced on 22 July 2004, the freight forwarder as carrier was not liable for the illegal delivery of cargo to the notify party (actual importer) on the airway bill by the bonded warehouse operator because the freight forwarder did not designate the bonded warehouse and did not hold the position of employer to the bonded warehouse operator. In conclusion, the carrier or freight forwarder should pay always attention the movement and condition of the cargo not to be liable for the illegal delivery of cargo.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.6
• /
• pp.149-164
• /
• 1994

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.11
• /
• pp.143-168
• /
• 1999

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.78
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2018

This article demonstrates that both the Warsaw Convention Systemand the Montreal Convention are not designed for multimodal transport, let alone for "Door to Door" transport. The polemic directed against the "Door to Door" application of the Warsaw Convention systemand the Montreal Convention is predominantly driven by the text and the drafting philosophy of the said Contentions that since 1929 support unimodalism-with the rule that "the period of the carriage by air does not expend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport" playing a profound role in restricting their multimodal aspirations. The drafters of the Montreal Convention were more adventurous than their predecessors with respect to the boundaries of the Montreal Convention. They amended Art. 18(3) by removing the phrase "whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever", however, they retained the first sentence of Art. 18(4). The deletion of the airport limitation fromArt. 18(3) creates its own paradox. The carrier can be held liable under the Montreal Convention for the loss or damage to cargo while it is in its charge in a warehouse outside an airport. Yet, damage or loss of the same cargo that occurs during its surface transportation to the aforementioned warehouse and vice versa is not covered by the Montreal Convention fromthe moment the cargo crosses the airport's perimeter. Surely, this result could not have been the intention of its drafters: it certainly does not make any commercial sense. I think that a better solution to the paradox is to apply the "functional interpretation" of the term"airport". This would retain the integrity of the text of the Montreal Convention, make sense of the change in the wording of Art. 18(3), and nevertheless retain the Convention's unimodal philosophy. English courts so far remain loyal to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Quantum, which constitutes bad news for the supporters of the multimodal scope of the Montreal Convention. According the US cases, any losses occurring during Door to Door transportation under an air waybill which involves a dominant air segment are subject to the international air law conventions. Any domestic rules that might be applicable to the road segment are blatantly overlooked. Undoubtedly, the approach of the US makes commercial. But this policy decision by arguing that the intention of the drafters of the Warsaw Convention was to cover Door to Door transportation is mistaken. Any expansion to multimodal transport would require an amendment to the Montreal Convention, Arts 18 and 38, one that is not in the plans for the foreseeable future. Yet there is no doubt that air carriers and freight forwarders will continue to push hard for such expansion, especially in the USA, where courts are more accommodating.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2016

Recently, the Supreme Court of Korea delivered a milestone judgment about air related multimodal transport. At there, the mattered cargo, some expensive jewellery, was transported from Qingdao, China to downtown office of consignee at Seoul via Incheon airport in Korea. As an air waybill was issued in this case, there was an air transport agreement between consignor and air courier operator. After arriving at Incheon airport, the shipment was transport by land arranged by the air courier operator, who was a defendant in this case. Upon arriving at the final destination, it was found that the jewellery was lost partly and based on circumstantial evidence, the damage presumed to be occurred during the land transport. As a subrogee, the insurance company who paid for consignee filed an action against the air courier operator for damage compensation. Defendant contended that Montreal convention should be applicable in this case mainly for limited liability. The lower court of this case confirmed that applying the limited liability clause under Montreal Convention is improper under the reason that the damage in this case was or presumed to be occurred during surface transport. It was focused on the Montreal Convention article 18 which says that the period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision. The delivered opinion is that the terms of condition on the air waybill including limited liability clause should be prevailed in this case. It seems that the final judgment was considered the fact that the only contract made in this case was about air transport. This article is for analysis the above decisions from the perspective that it is distinguishable between a pure multimodal transport and an expanded air transport. The main idea of this article is that under the expanded air transport, any carriage by land, sea or inland waterway only for the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or transhipment is still within the scop of air transport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.163-191
• /
• 1989

The accident of the midair collision, passengers' falling or goods' dropping occurs or supersonic aircraft make a sonic boom during their conveying passengers or goods to the destination. The accident in transmit damages the their parties on the surface or their properties. In these cases, the third parties who were harmed to their lives or properties have the right to claim damages against the air carrier who caused them. These matters have become one of the important things since aircraft conveyed passengers and goods. Therefore, it is a great concern to settle these matters by law. But the Safety of the present aircraft has been much increased and the aircraft have become larger in size. Its flight altitude became higher than before. So the relationship of the aircraft to the third parties is much different from that of the earlier aircraft. The air transport is now indispensable to our life. It is not so easy to control these matters. In the early part of 20th century, when the third parties suffered the damage, many European countries made laws on the basis of the principle of liability without fault. But each country had a variety of its own law, and different kinds of difficulties have been brought about. Accordingly, the Rome Convention on Surface Damage (1933, 1952, 1978) has been made and revised. In spite of being revised, it contains many problems, and is not carried into effect world-wide. On the other hand, there are no regulations about the compensation of the third parties damaged in Korean existing laws. In case the damage is brought about to them, it is obviously true that the settlement of the liability of compensation for damage should be made by the general principle on the tort in domestic laws. At this point, it is urgent that we make a special law though the domestic legislation as a preliminary measure before we sign the international convention to save third damaged. It is desirable that we should, for the responsibility of the air carriage for the demage of the third parties on the surface, bring in the theory of the absolute liability in view of the legislation of many conutries. As the aircraft fly in the sky, their flight always contains some danger. It is very difficult to prove the fault, and the operator should suffer the principle of liability without fault or the similiar one. In case the liability without fault will be imposed upon the operator for the damage of the third parties, it is necessary to bring in the liability protection system for the protection and up upbringing of the air carriage. The Burden of danger of the air carriage will be reduced by introducing the system. A domestic legislation measure should be necessarily taken as soon as possible as a legal security measure on these matters.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2017

The Korean government enacted the Chapter 6 as of Air Transportation to the Korean Commercial Act, which was enforced in 2011, in order to treat some arguments occurred from air transportation Contracts since air transportations has rapidly increased in Korea. Air transportations has been used more in the field of international market than in the field of domestic market under it's own characteristic. Therefore, many international agreements and protocols related to the air transportations has been appeared from old times and the 1999 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ("Montreal Convention") is one of them. The Montreal Convention was adopted in May 28, 1999 at International Conference of Air Law hosted by the International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO") in Montreal, Canada where the Headquarter of ICAO is located. The Montreal Convention has been effected from September 5, 2003 and the Korean government ratified the convention in 2007. Therefore, the Montreal Convention came in to force in Korea since 2007. This year, 2017, is the 10th anniversary year since the Montreal Convention has taken effect in Korea. However, there are rare cases that argued the Montreal Convention's scope of application and this Article examines the Korean Supreme Court's case that argued the Convention's scope of application. Thus the Article basically analyzes the case from the perspective of the Montreal Convention's scope of application and examines the Montreal Convention's articles related to the air carrier's liability and extent of compensation for damage that occurred from the international carriage by air. Also this Article analyzes the Korean Commercial Act Chapter 6, which regulated the air carrier's liability and the Article tries to make a comparison between the Montreal Convention and the Korean Commercial Act in order to draw some scheme for the betterment of Korean Commercial Act. It is the hope that the Article contribute to the improvement of Korean Commercial Act through the comparison with the chance of the 10th Anniversary of the Montreal Convention in Korea.