• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

1982년 UN해양법협약 제86조에 의하면 공해는 영해와 내수는 물론이고 접속수역, 배타적 경제수역이 아닌 수역을 의미하므로 기존의 공해였던 부분이 상당히 연안국관할권 하에 놓이게 되었다. 이와 같은 공해의 상공비행과 관련된 국제법에 관한 사항으로 다음과 같은 결론을 얻을 수 있다. 첫째, 항공기의 국적에 관하여 1944년 시카고협약 제17조에 의하면 항공기는 등록한 국가의 국적을 갖는다. 여기서 항공법이 해양법과 구별되는 측면이 있는데, 선박에는 통용되는 '편의치적'(便宜置籍 또는 편의기국, flags of convenience)이 항공기에는 적용되지 않기 때문에 항공기에 대한 실질적 소유와 효과적 통제가 유지된다. 둘째, UN해양법협약 제95조는 공해상 군함의 면제권에 대하여 설명하고 있는데, 공해에 있는 군함은 기국외의 어떠한 국가의 관할권으로부터도 완전히 면제된다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 군용항공기(또는 군용기)의 경우도 이에 준하는 면책권을 향유한다고 해석할 수 있다. 셋째, UN해양법협약은 해적에 관한 정의를 제101조에 명시하고 있는데, 해적행위가 공해상의 선박에 대하여 행해 질 경우, 공해상의 선박뿐만 아니라 항공기에 의해서도 행해질 수 있음을 분명히 하고 있다. 넷째, UN해양법협약 제111조는 추적권에 관하여 상세하게 규정하고 있는데 이러한 추적권은 군함이나 군용항공기 또는 기타 정부역무에 종사함이 명백히 표시되고 식별되며 이에 대한 권한이 부여된 선박이나 항공기에 의해서만 행사되어질수 있음을 명시하여 선박 뿐 아니라 항공기에 의해서 추적이 행사될 수 있음을 규정하고 있다. 다섯째, UN해양법협약 제110조는 임검권(right of approach)에 관하여 설명하고 있는데, 외국선박을 공해에서 만난 군함은 일정 혐의를 가지고 있다는 합리적 근거가 있는 한 그 선박을 임검하는 것은 정당화되는데, 이러한 규정은 군용항공기에도 준용되고, 이러한 규정은 또한 정부 업무에 사용 중인 것으로 명백히 표시되어 식별이 가능하며 정당하게 권한이 부여된 그 밖의 모든 선박이나 항공기에도 적용된다. 여섯째, 1982년 UN해양법협약은 해양오염과 항공기의 관계를 규정하고 있는데, 제212조는 대기에 의한 또는 대기를 통한 오염을 규정하고, 제222조는 대기에 의한 또는 대기를 통한 오염관련 법령집행을 규정하고 있고, UN해양법협약은 제1항에서 '투기'(dumping)에 의한 오염을 규정하고 있는데 각 조항은 자국기를 게양하고 있는 선박 또는 자국에 등록된 선박뿐만 아니라 항공기에도 적용되는 법령을 채택한다고 규정하고 있다. 일곱 번째, 공해상공에서 발생한 범죄에 관하여 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)의 주관하에 1963년 도쿄에서 개최된 회의에서 이러한 문제를 종합적으로 해결한 협약인 도쿄협약이 제정되었다. 또한 ICAO의 주관 하에 하이재킹문제를 해결하기 위하여 1970년 12월 16일 헤이그협약이 체결되었으며, 사보타지문제를 해결하기 위하여 ICAO에 의해서 1971년 9월 23일 몬트리올협약이 체결되었다. 도쿄협약, 헤이그협약, 몬트리올협약 모두 공해상에서 발생한 범죄에 대하여 항공기의 기국관할권(flag State jurisdiction)을 인정하고 있다. 여덟 번째, 공해상에서 연안국의 영토에 진입하지 않고 실시하는 정찰행위는 국제법 위반행위가 아니다. 이는 관련항공기의 공해상 정찰행위는 연안국 영토를 침범하지 않고 행해지는 것으로 공해상공비행의 자유가 우선적으로 적용되기 때문이다. 아홉 번째, 연안국에 의한 공해상 설치된 '방공식별구역'(또는 방공확인구역, Air Defence Identification Zone: ADIZ)이 국제법상 합법적인가 하는 문제가 있는데, 이에 관하여 합의된 결론은 없고, 실제로 실행국가의 국내법에 따라 규율되고 있다. 마지막으로 북극해는 얼어있는 바다가 대부분이므로 북극해의 상공비행은 공해의 상공비행과 유사하다. 20세기후반부터 아시아, 북아메리카, 유럽을 잇는 항공로가 북극을 경유하도록 고안되었는데, 매우 추운 지방임에도 불구하고 지금까지 북극 항공노선에서 사고가 발생한 경우는 없다. 그러나 최근 기후온난화로 얼음이 녹기시작하면서 북극을 이용한 선박의 해로가 개발되면서 북극에 대한 자원개방을 둘러싼 연안국가들의 관할권주장이 열기를 띠고 있으므로 배타적 경제수역(EEZ)과 같은 연안국들의 해역선포는 북극해 비행에 지대한 영향을 미칠 수 있을 것이다.

• 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.