• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

본 논문은 5대 국제항공테러범죄협약, 다시 말해서 UN의 전문기구인 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)에서 제정된 1963년 도쿄협약, 1970 헤이그협약, 1971 몬트리올협약, 1988년 몬트리올 의정서 그리고 1991년 가소성폭약협약에 규정된 관할권조항의 내용과 그 문제점을 연구하였는데 국제항공테러 협약의 관할권을 연구하면서 얻은 결론을 다음과 같다. 첫째, 항공테러협약의 관할권규정에서 공통으로 발견되는 것은 어느 협약도 관할권의 우선순위를 명시하지 않고 있다는 점이다. 결국 하이재킹 된 항공기가 착륙한 국가와 항공기등록국간 관할권문제가 발생하는데 대부분의 경우 착륙국이 하이재커를 처벌하는 예가 많다. 둘째, 국제법상 전통적인 관할권이론에서 많은 이론이 제기되었던 소극적 국적주의(passive personality principle)가 국제항공테러협약의 제정 이후 각종 국제테러협약에서 점차적으로 발전되어가고 있는 경향을 볼 수 있다. 1973년의 뉴욕협약 제3조 1항, 1979년 인질협약 제5조 1항 (d) 그리고 1988년 로마협약 제6조 2항 (b)가 그 예이다. 또한 1979년 인질협약 제5조 1항 (c)와 1988년 로마협약 제6조 2항 (c)에서는 자국에게 작위 또는 부작위를 강요하기 위한 범행의 경우에도 그 대상국가가 관할권을 행사할 수 있도록하고 있다. 만일 장래에 국제항공테러협약이 개정이 될 경우에는 국제항공 테러범죄를 좀 더 효과적으로 억제하기 위하여 소극적 국적주의를 고려할 필요가 있다. 셋째, 헤이그협약이나 몬트리올협약은 범인의 국적주의를 부여하고 있지않으나 인질협약은 제5조 1항 (b)에 인질억류범의 국적국가에게 관할권을 부여하고 있다. 만일 A국가의 국민이 어떤 국가나 제3자의 작위나 부작위를 강요할 목적으로 B국가에서 인질을 억류했다면 A국가도 그자에 대한 관할권을 행사할 권리를 가진다는 것이다. 따라서 만일 국제항공테러협약이 개정이 될 때는 이 문제도 고려할 필요가 있다. 마지막으로 인질협약 제 5조 1항 (b)는 무국적자가 상주하는 국가에서 만약 그가 인질억류범죄를 행했고, 그 국가가 그렇게 하는 것이 적절하다고 고려하는 경우 그에 대하여 관할권을 행사할 권리를 부여한다. 이와 같은 목적에서 볼 때 무국적거주자를 국민과 동일하게 보고 있는데 헤이그협약이나 몬트리올협약에서는 없는 조항이다. 만일 국제항공테러협약이 개정이될 때는 이 문제도 함께 고려할 필요가 있다고 생각한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.147-162
• /
• 1989

The current status of the application and interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent Protocols in Asian countries is in its fredgling stages compared to the developed countries of Europe and North America, and there is thus little published information about the various Asian governments' treatment and courts' views of the Warsaw System. Due to that limitation, the accent of this paper will be on Korea and Japan. As one will be aware, the so-called 'Warsaw System' is made up of the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Hague Protocol of 1955, the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 1975. Among these instruments, most of the countries in Asia are parties to both the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol. However, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia are parties only to the Hague Protocol, while Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are parties only to the Warsaw Convention. Thailand and Taiwan are not parties only to the convention or protocol. Among Asian states, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Pakistan are also parties to the Guadalajara Convention, but no country in Asia has signed the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 or the Montreal Additional Protocols, which Protocols have not yet been put into force. The People's Republic of China has declared that the Warsaw Convention shall apply to the entire Chinese territory, including Taiwan. 'The application of the Warsaw Convention to one-way air carriage between a state which is a party only to the Warsaw Convention and a state which is a party only to the Hague Protocol' is of particular importance in Korea as it is a signatory only to the Hague Protocol, but it is involved in a great deal of air transportation to and from the united states, which in turn is a party only to the Warsaw Convention. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Korea appears to be, that parties to the Warsaw Convention were intended to be parties to the Hague Protocol, whether they actually signed it or not. The effect of this decision is that in Korea the United States and Korea will be considered by the courts to be in a treaty relationship, though neither State is a signatory to the same instrument as the other State. The first wrongful death claim in Korea related to international carriage by air under the Convention was made in Hyun-Mo Bang, et al v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. case. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed for damages based upon breach of contract as well as upon tort under the Korean Civil Code. The issue in the case was whether the time limitation provisions of the Convention should be applicable to a claim based in tort as well as to a claim based in contract. The Appellate Court ruled on 29 August 1983 that 'however founded' in Article 24(1) of the Convention should be construed to mean that the Convention should be applicable to the claim regardless of whether the cause of action was based in tort or breach of contract, and that the plaintiffs' rights to damages had therefore extinguished because of the time limitation as set forth in Article 29(1) of the Convention. The difficult and often debated question of what exactly is meant by the words 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' in Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, has also been litigated. The Supreme Court of Japan dealt with this issue in the Suzuki Shinjuten Co. v. Northwest Airlines Inc. case. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, and decided that 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' under Article 25(1) of the Convention was within the meaning of 'gross negligence' under the Japanese Commercial Code. The issue of the convention of the 'franc' into national currencies as provided in Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol has been raised in a court case in Korea, which is now before the District Court of Seoul. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the gold franc equivalent must be converted in Korean Won in accordance with the free market price of gold in Korea, as Korea has not enacted any law, order or regulation prescribing the proper method of calculating the equivalent in its national currency. while it is unclear if the court will accept this position, the last official price of gold of the United States as in the famous Franklin Mint case, Special Drawing Right(SDR) or the current French franc, Korean Air Lines has argued in favor of the last official price of gold of the United States by which the air lines converted such francs into us Dollars in their General Conditions of Carriage. It is my understanding that in India, an appellate court adopted the free market price valuation. There is a report as well saying that if a lawsuit concerning this issue were brought in Pakistan, the free market cost of gold would be applied there too. Speaking specifically about the future of the Warsaw System in Asia though I have been informed that Thailand is actively considering acceding to the Warsaw Convention, the attitudes of most Asian countries' governments towards the Warsaw System are still wnot ell known. There is little evidence that Asian countries are moving to deal concretely with the conversion of the franc into their own local currencies. So too it cannot be said that they are on the move to adhere to the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 3 & 4 which attempt to basically solve many of the current problems with the Warsaw System, by adopting the SDR as the unit of currency, by establishing the carrier's absolute liability and an unbreakable limit and by increasing the carrier's passenger limit of liability to SDR 100,000, as well as permiting the domestic introduction of supplemental compensation. To summarize my own sentiments regarding the future, I would say that given the fact that Asian air lines are now world leaders both in overall size and rate of growth, and the fact that both Asian individuals and governments are becoming more and more reliant on the global civil aviation networks as their economies become ever stronger, I am hopeful that Asian nations will henceforth play a bigger role in ensuring the orderly and hasty development of a workable unified system of rules governing international commercial air carriage.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.201-248
• /
• 2015

우리나라는 항공수요의 증가에 따라 항공기내 불법방해 행위의 발생건수도 계속 증가하고 있는데, 2010년에 55건, 2014년에 354건이 발생하여, 지난 5년간 매년 평균 211건이 발생하였다. 1963년 항공보안에 관한 최초의 전 세계적 국제법률문서로서 새로운 "항공기내에서 범한 범죄 및 기타행위에 관한 협약"인 동경협약이 채택되었다. 동경협약이 발효된 1969년 직후 바로 1970년에 "항공기내 불법납치 억제를 위한 협약"인 헤이그협약이 채택되었고, 1971년에 "민간항공의 안전에 대한 불법적 행위의 억제를 위한 협약"인 몬트리올협약이 채택되었다. 2001년 9/11 사건이후 1971년에 채택된 몬트리올협약을 수정 보완하는 "국제민간항공과 관련된 불법행위억제에 관한 협약"인 2010년 베이징협약과 1970년에 채택된 "항공기 불법납치의 억제를 위한 협약"인 헤이그협약을 보충하는 2010년 베이징의정서가 채택되었다. 그 후 항공기내 난동행위의 심각성과 빈번함이 확대되고 있음에 따라 1963년에 채택된 "항공기내에서 범한 범죄 및 기타행위에 관한 협약"인 동경협약을 개정하는 2014년 몬트리올의정서가 채택되었다. 우리나라가 가입한 발효된 항공보안 관련 국제협약으로는 1963년 동경협약, 1970년 헤이그협약, 1971년 몬트리올협약, 1988년 몬트리올보충의정서, 1991년 가소성폭약표지협약 등이 있다. 우리나라는 1971년에 동경협약을 비준함에 따라 1974년에 항공기운항안전법을 제정하였고, 2002년 8월에 항공기운항안전법을 대체한 항공안전 및 보안에 관한 법률이 제정되었으며, 2014년 4월에 항공안전 및 보안에 관한 법률은 항공보안법으로 명칭이 변경되었다. 항공보안법은 본질에 있어서 1963년 동경협약과 1970년 헤이그협약의 이행입법이다. 또한 항공보안법상의 용어는 ICAO 회람장 288(Circular 288)의 모델입법 제1조 내지 제3조의 난동 및 방해 행위보다 넓다. 한편 항공보안법은 현대화된 항공보안 관련 국제협약인 2010년 베이징협약 및 베이징의정서 그리고 2014년 몬트리올의정서상의 국내입법 사항들을 상당부분 반영하고 있다. 그러나 앞으로 이들 국제협약들이 발효되고 우리나라가 가입할 경우 국내입법인 항공보안법 상 개정 또는 신설되어야 할 사항들로는 재판관할권, 비행 중의 정의, 기장 등의 소송상 면책, 기장 등의 범인 인도 의무화, 범법자의 처벌 강화, 공범의 적용확대 및 국제협약의 준수 등에 관한 규정을 들 수 있다. 이 들 가운데 특히 재판관할권의 범위에 관하여 우리나라 입법은 침묵하고 있다. 그러므로 항공기내 난동 및 방해 범죄의 영토외적 사건 등에 대하여 재판관할권이 확대되기 위하여 항공보안법이나 형법총칙을 개정하는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 결론적으로, 점차 지능화 및 다양화되어 가고 있는 항공보안 위협에 대응하기 위하여 우리정부는 항공보안 관련 국제협약의 내용 및 각국의 비준현황을 면밀히 검토하여, 우리나라의 협약 가입 및 협약 상 국내입법 사항의 이행을 위해 항공보안 관련 입법과 항공보안제도를 개선하도록 노력하여야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.191-215
• /
• 1994

The concept of 'wilful misconduct" was initally used in article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concept was defined in the Hague Protocol, 1955, as having the following two differing concepts: i) "with the intent to cause damage" and ii) "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." The concepts contained in the Hague Protocol were used in various international Conventions on carriage by sea, such as Article 2(e) and Article 3(4) of the Protocol adopted at Brussels on Feb. 23, 1968 to amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1929(Hague-Visby Rules), Article 13 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, Dec. 13. 1974, Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Article 8(1) of the U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978(Hamburg Rules) and Article 21 (1) of the U.N. Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 1980. The same concepts were also adopted in Article 746, 789-2(1), 789-3(2) of the Korean Maritime Commercial Law, revised in 1991. As of yet, the legal system of Korean Private Law recognizes only the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit", as is the case with German Private Law. The problem is that the concepts in the Convention do not coincide precisely with the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit". The author has conducted a comparative analysis of the treatment of the concepts of wilful misconduct and its varied interpretations, that is, "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" in the Anglo-American law and in the continental European law in the following manner: 1. Background in which the concept of wilful misconduct was introduced in the Warsaw Convention. 2. The concept of "dol" in French private law. 3. The concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in Korean private law. 4. Analysis of the concept of wilful misconduct in Anglo-American case law. 5. Analysis of the cases interpreting the concepts of "with intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result" in various jurisdictions. 6. The need to incorporate the concepts of "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." 7. Faute inexcusable in French private law. Based upon the comparative analysis, the author points out the difference between the concepts of "wilful misconduct" or "with the intent to cause damage" and "Vorsatz", and between the concepts of "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in the Convention and that of the Korean Private Law system. Additionally, the author emphasizes the importance of the unification in the interpretation of the provisions of the Conventions world wide.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제16권
• /
• pp.160-196
• /
• 2002

In this thesis. I have first introduced and studied Chubb & Son. Inc. v. Asiana Airlines. 214 F.3d 301 (2nd Cir. 2000). which held that at the time that the dispute in this case arose. there was no treaty relationship between the United States and South Korea under the Original Warsaw convention. the Hague Protocol. or a treaty consisting of those provisions of the Original Convention that were not amended by the Protocol. And I have analyzed U.S. government s position that was expressed in Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae on petition for a writ certiorari to the 2nd Circuit on Chubb & Son case and 2nd Circuit s Fujitsu Limited v. Federal Express Corporation. 247 F.3d 423 (2001) which was held in a related question afterwards but was somewhat inconsistent with Chubb & Son s holding. Furthermore. I also examined U.S. government s measures which have been considered and taken to cope with consequences of Chubb & Son case's ruling. Lastly. I have examined several effects which Chubb & Son s ruling would give our nation s airlines and suggested our government's countermeasures.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.385-405
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to investigate liability risk of air cargo carrier and suggests ideas for solving problems which could be happen to air transporters on the future. because of Air transport remains one of the world's fastest growing and most important industries. And important treaties and contracts specifying transporters' responsibility regarding big scale aircraft accidents are such as Warsaw Convention in 1929, Hague Protocol in 1955, Montreal Convention in 1999. The Montreal Convention, formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage, is a treaty adopted by Diplomatic meeting of ICAO member states in 1999. It amended important provisions of the Warsaw Convention's concerning compensation for the victims of air disasters. In conclusion, suggests to the method of air cargo security and cargo legal liability insurance which is for air cargo carrier's risk management.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2009

항공범죄의 개념에는 민간 항공의 안전을 위해하는 행위, 항공기 불법납치 그리고 불법 파괴행위 등이 포함된다. 이러한 항공범죄는 주로 ICAO에서 국제 조약 및 협약으로 규정하고 있다. 아래의 조약과 협약은 모든 국가에 적용되는 무조건적이고 절대적인 규범이다. 항공기내에서 행한 범죄 및 기타 행위에 관한 협약(Convention on Offences and Certain other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft), 항공기의 불법납치 억제를 위한 협약(Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation), 공항에서의 불법적 폭력행위의 억제를 위한 의정서(Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation), 가소성 폭약의 탐지용 표지에 관한 협약(Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection) 본 논문에서는 상기 조약에서 언급하고 있는 항공범죄의 의미와 재판관할에 대한 내용을 살펴본다. 또한 항공범죄가 비행중이거나 지상에서 발생하였을 경우의 사후구제수단에 대하여 설명한다. 마지막으로 항공범죄와 관련된 사례들을 통해 피해자를 보호할 수 있는 방안을 고찰한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제7권
• /
• pp.101-134
• /
• 1995

Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Warsaw Convention regulates the requirements of passenger tickets, Article 4 Paragraph 3, the requirements of baggage tickets, Article 8, the requirements of airway bills. In this article the writer has discussed the legal nature of the documents of air carriage, such as air waybills, passenger tickets and baggage checks. Further, the writer has also discussed several issues relating to the use of the documents of air carriage under the Warsaw Convention. Article 3 Paragraph 2, as well as Article 4 Paragraph 4 and 9 provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Convention which evade or limit his liability. In particular, the Montreal Agreement of 1966 provides that the notification on the carrier's liability in passenger ticket should be printed in more than 10 point type size with contrasting ink colors. However, another question is whether the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention in case the type size is below 10 points. The Convention does not specify the type size of certain parts in passenger tickets and only provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of liability limit, when a carrier fails to deliver the ticket to passenger. However, since the delivery of passenger tickets is to provide an opportunity for passengers to recognize the liability limit under the Convention and to map out a subsequent measures, the carrier who fails to give this opportunity shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention. But some decisions argue that when the notice on the carrier's liability limit is presented in a fine print in a hardly noticeable place, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself under the Convention. Meanwhile, most decisions declare that regardless of the type size, the carrier is entitled to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention. The reason is that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement stipulate that the carrier is deprived from the right to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when violating the notice requirement. In particular, the main objective of the Montreal Agreement is not on the notice of liability limit but on the increase of it. The latest decisons also maintain the same view. This issue seems to have beeen settled on the occasion of Elisa Chan, et al. vs. Korean Airlines Ltd. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the type size of passenger ticket can not be a target of controversy since it is not required by law, after a cautious interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement highlighting the fact that no grounds for that are found both in the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement. Now the issue of type size can hardly become any grounds for the carrier not to exclude himself from the liability limit. In this regard, any challenge to raise issue on type size seems to be defeated. The same issue can be raised in both airway bills and baggage tickets. But this argument can be raised only to the tranportation where the original Convention is applied. This creates no problem under the Convention revised by the Hague Protocol, because the Hague Protocol does not require any information on weight, bulk, size, and number of cargo or baggage. The problem here is whether the carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when no information on number or weight of the consigned packages is available in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. Currently the majority of decisions show positive stance on this. The carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when the requirement of information on number and weight of consigned packages is skipped, because these requirements are too technical and insubstancial. However some decisions declare just the opposite. They hold that the provisions of the Convention Article 4 is clear, and their meaning and effect should be imposed on it literally and that it is neither unjust nor too technical for a carrier to meet the minimum requirement prescribed in the Convention. Up to now, no decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue is available.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제4권
• /
• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제17권
• /
• pp.9-28
• /
• 2003

1929년 바르샤바조약은 그 후속 개정조약들을 포함해 국제항공운송분야에서 70년 이상 중요한 역할을 해왔다. 동조약은 2003년 11월 4일 몬트리올조약을 대체될 예정이다. 몬트리올조약은 운송인의 책임의 범위에 있어서 많은 변화를 가져왔고 운송인이 제소될 수 있는 법원의 범위를 확대하였다. 그리고 운송인의 책임을 인정함에 있어 코드쉐어의 영향을 반영하였다. 몬트리올조약은 1920년대 국제항공운송에 있어서의 국제적 노력이 시작된 이후 가장 커다란 변화가 야기된 조약이다. 몬트리올조약은 그 동안 수많은 조약들이 채택했던 원칙들을 집대성하여 국제항공운송의 통일성을 단일조약에 체계화하였다. 바르샤바조약체계의 문제점으로 지적되었던 낮은 배상한도액이 몬트리올조약에서 상향조정되었다. 항공운송인들의 입장을 보호하기 위한 조약으로서 특성지워졌던 바르샤바조약은 이제 몬트리올조약을 통해 승객의 입장을 반영한 조약이 되었다. 한국정부가 몬트리올조약을 비준한다면 한국의 승객들은 그로 인한 이익을 향유하게 될 것이다. 몬트리올조약의 비준은 승객들과 항공사 모두의 이익이 될 것이다.