• 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.4
• /
• pp.167-176
• /
• 1992

1957년에 서명된 로마조약(條約)을 처음 개정한 단일(單一)유럽법(法)이 1987년 7월 1일에 발효(發效)되었을 때 유럽공동체(共同體) 12개 회원국(會員國)들은 공동정책(共同政策)에 의거 상업(商業), 농업(農業), 운송(運送), 금융(金融) 및 기타 관련부분에 있어 단일역내시장(單一域內市場)을 형성하기로 약속했다. 물론 완전한 역내공동시장(域內共同市場)은 자유로운 운송시장(運送市場)을 전제로 한다. 따라서 EC조약(條約)은 모든 회원국(會員國)들이 서어비스의 자유에 근거하여 공동운송정책(共同運送政策)을 따를 것을 강제하고 있다. 항공운송(航空運送)에 있어서의 목표도 역시 다른 모든 경제활동의 목표와 마찬가지로 로마조약(條約)이 적용되는 공동운송정책(共同運送政策)의 일부를 구성하고 있다. 종합적인 공동체항공정책(共同體航空政策)의 작업에는 운임(運賃), 공급량(供給量), 시장진출(市場進出) 및 경쟁상(競爭上)의 일괄적인 자유화 조치 이상의 것을 내포하고 있다. 그것은 국가장벽으로 방해되지 않는 공동체(共同體)의 항공운송망(航空運送網)의 개발과 확장뿐만 아니라 경제(經濟), 안전(安全), 환경(環境) 및 사회적(社會的) 요인(要因)들 간에 합리적인 균형을 이루는 공동체항공운송정책(共同體航空運送政策)의 개발을 위한 공동항공운송정책(共同航空運送政策)의 공식화(公式化)를 요한다. 1987년의 항공(航空)에 관한 일괄입법조치, 1989년의 제 2 차 항공(航空)에 관한 일괄입법조치 및 1992년 이후로 예정된 제 3 차 일괄입법조치에 따라 EC는 초국가적(超國家的)인 항공운송(航空運送) 분야에 있어서의 개방적인 국제경쟁(國際競爭)을 본격적으로 추구하고 있다. 결국 이러한 일괄규칙은 EC와 제(第) 3 국(國)들간의 관계에 중대한 의미를 가지게 될 것이다. EC항공운송정책(航空運送政策)이 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)의 상업운선(商業運船)에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 것인가는 모든 아시아 국가들이 알아야 할 중요한 문제이다. 이론적으로 말해서, 역내공동체(域內共同體) 항공운송(航空運送)의 자유화는 아시아 국가들에 대한 치외법권적(治外法權的) 효과를 일으킬 수 있는 로마조약(條約)과 유럽사법재판소(司法裁判所)에 의해 형성된 원칙들에 필연적으로 영향을 미칠 것이다. 이와 관련하여 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)은 무차별원칙(無差別原則), 설립(設立)의 자유(自由), 서어비스의 자유(自由) 및 EEC 경쟁법(競爭法)과 같은 제(第) 3 국(國)의 국제항공운송에 영향을 미치는 일련의 새로운 원칙과 법률의 출현에 큰 관심을 갖고 있다. 실무적인 관점에서, 1992년 이후의 종합적인 공동체항공운송정책(共同體航空運送政策)의 작업에는 항공운화(航空運貨), 시장진출(市場進出), 제(第)3 및 제(第)4의 운륜자유권(運輪自由權), 복수지정(複數指定), 제(第)5의 자유(自由), 캐보타지(cabotage), 손상(損傷)(derogation), 공급량(供給量), 편수(便數), 불정기운항(不定期運航) 및 기타 부문항공기소음(部門航空機騷音), 최저(最低) 안전(安全) 및 사회적(社會的) 조치(措置), 항공종사자면허(航空從事者免許), 감항증명(堪航證明), 운항시간제도(運航時間制度), 컴퓨터 예약제도(豫約制度), 탑승거절보상의 공동최저기준(共同最低基準), 공중혼잡(空中混雜), 공항이착륙시간할당법(空港離着陸時間割當法), 공항시설(空港施設), 정부지원(政府支援 등). 이와 같은 모든 공동체항공운송정책(共同體航空運送政策)의 주요문제들은 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)에 여러 각도로 영향을 미치게 될 것이다. 위와 같은 문제들 가운데, 제(第) 3국(國) 항공사(航空社)들의 역내공동체(域內共同體) 항로(航路)의 접근, 공급량(供給量), 운임(運賃), 제(第)5의 자유(自由) 및 캐보타지가 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)에 관심이 큰 문제가 되고 있다. 아시아 항공사(航空社)들의 EEC시장(市場)에로의 상업운항(商業運航)이 다소 영향을 받게 될 것이다. 첫째, 복수(複數) 목적지(目的地) 문제이다. 둘째, 항공(航空)서어비스의 운임(運賃) 및 료솔(料率)문제이다. 셋째, 항공운송구역(航空運送區域)에서의 사업에 대한 경쟁원칙의 적용 문제이다. 넷째, 제(第)5 자유(自由) 운륜권(運輪權) 문제이다. 다섯째, 캐보타지(cabotage)문제이다. 끝으로, 유럽 항공사(航空社)들간의 합병(合倂)의 문제이다. 결론적으로 유럽공동체항공운송(共同體航空運送)의 자유화는 1993년까지 공동체(共同體) 역내(域內)와 역외(域外)의 항공운송법제(航空運送法制)의 현재의 모습을 극적으로 바꾸어 놓을 정도로 가속화(加速化)되고 있다. 한편 항공운송(航空運送)의 자유화(自由化)에 대한 EC의 제의는 대담하고 급진적이다. 반면에 그것이 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)에 미칠 영향 또한 중대하다. 의심할 여지없이 항공사(航空社)와 고객들의 이익면에서 EEC와 비(非)EEC국가들의 항공운송산업(航空運送産業)에서 더욱 경제적으로 경쟁적이 되도록 할 필요가 있다. 전세계 항공운송산업(航空運送産業) 운영(運營)의 대부분을 정부가 소유하거나 통제하는 것은 정말로 국제항공운송(國際航空運送)의 발전에 불필요한 장애를 일으킨다. 따라서 國內航空社와 전세계 항공사(航空社)들간의 이해관계의 조화를 협상하는 것이 중요하다. 아마도 아시아 항공사(航空社)들간의 지역적 협조가 미국(美國)뿐만 아니라 유럽으로 부터의 압력 증가에 대해 균형을 이루는 힘이 될 수 있을 것이다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.235-268
• /
• 2019

Under the Aviation Safety Act of Korea, any person who intends to operate a drone is required to follow the operational conditions listed below, unless approved by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; (i) Operation of drones in the daytime, (ii) Operation of drones within Visual Line of Sight, (iii) Maintenance of a certain operating distance between drones and persons or properties on the ground/ water surface, (iv) Do not operate drones over event sites where many people gather, (v) Do not transport hazardous materials such as explosives by drone, (vi) Do not drop any objects from drones. Requirements stated in "Airspace in which Flights are Prohibited" and "Operational Limitations" are not applied to flights for search and rescue operations by public organizations in case of accidents and disasters. This paper analyzes legal issues as to definition and regulations of drones in Korean Aviation Safety Act. This paper, also, offers some implications and suggestions for regulations of drones under Korean Aviation Safety Act by comparing the regulations of drones in Japanese Civil Aeronautics Act.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2020

The term "accident" in the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, which govern carrier liability in international air transport, is an important criterion for determining carrier liability. However, because there is no explicit definition of the term in the treaty provisions, the term is largely subjected to the judgment and interpretation of the courts. Although there have been numerous changes in purpose and circumstance in the transition from the Warsaw regime to the conclusion of the Montreal Convention, there was no discussion on the concept of "accident" therefore, even after the adoption of the Montreal Convention, there is no doubt that the term is to be interpreted in the same manner as before. On this point, the United States Supreme Court's Air France v. Saks clarified the concept of "accident" and is still cited as an important precedent. Recently, the CJEU, in GN v. ZU, presented a new concept of "accident" introduced in the Montreal Convention: that "reference must be made to the ordinary meaning" in interpreting "accident" and that the term "covers all situations occurring on aboard an aircraft." Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the term does not include the applicability of "hazards typically associated with aviation," which was controversial in previous cases. Such an interpretation can be reasonably seen as the court's expansion of the concept of "accident," with a focus on "protecting consumer interests," a core tenet of both the Montreal convention and the European Union Regulations(EC: No 889/2002). The CJEU's independent interpretation of "accident" is a departure from the Warsaw Convention and the Saks case, with their focus on "carrier protection," and instead focuses on the "passenger protection" standard of the Montreal Convention. Consequently, this expands both the court's discretion and the carrier's risk management liability. Such an interpretation by the CJEU can be said to be in line with the purpose of the Montreal Convention in terms of "passenger protection." However, there are problems to be considered in tandem with an expanded interpretation of "accident." First, there may be controversy concerning "balance" in that it focused on "passenger protection" in relation to the "equitable balance of interests" between air carriers and passengers, which is the basic purpose of the agreement. Second, huge losses are expected as many airlines fly to countries within the European Union. Third, there is now a gap in the interpretation of "accident" in Europe and the United States, which raises a question on the "unity of rules," another basic tenet of the Convention. Fourth, this interpretation of "accident" by the CJEU raises questions regarding its scope of application, as it only refers to the "hazards typically associated with aviation" and "situations occurring aboard an aircraft." In this case, the CJEU newly proposed a novel criterion for the interpretation of "accident" under the Montreal Convention. As this presents food for thought on the interpretation of "accident," it is necessary to pay close attention to any changes in court rulings in the future. In addition, it suggests that active measures be taken for passenger safety by recognizing air carriers' unlimited liability and conducting systematic reforms.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.103-125
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews the EU Case, Claudia Wegener v. Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, Case C-537/17. It analyzes some issues as to Wegener case by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, entitled scope, provides: "this Regulation shall apply: (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier." ECJ held that must be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft. According to the Court, it is apparent from the regulation and case-law that when, as in the present case, two (or more) flights are booked as a single unit, those flights constitute a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers. Those flights must therefore be considered as one and the same connecting flight.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.85-112
• /
• 2022

The maritime blockade has long been used as a means of war in that it serves as a bridge for economic warfare by paralyzing enemy maritime transport, although it is not a decisive battle, and in the Korean War, U.N. forces have achieved significant results in the war with limited maritime blockade through the Clark Line. However, with China emerging as a maritime powers based on its strong naval power, there is a lack of consideration on how to set up a blockade to block maritime activities and how to respond neutral ships or carrying wartime contraband products if war breaks out again on the Korean Peninsula, In addition, since maritime blockade should be used as a sensitive and flexible naval force projection in that it has interests with neutral countries, it should be carefully reviewed in that it can be used only through careful and reasonable judgment considering the principle of ensuring the legality of maritime blockade Therefore, in this study, Reexamine the process of change in the application of the International Law of Blockade, and through this, Derive the basic principle of ensuring the legitimacy of maritime blockade. In addition, by reviewing the application of these basic principles in the waters off the Korean Peninsula at wartime, we presented answers to research questions by reviewing what needs to be done to neutral ships and ships carrying wartime contraband products, and considered the implications for us

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.101-127
• /
• 2017

Even with the most advanced aviation technology benefits, aircraft accidents are constantly occurring while air passenger transportation volume is expected to double in the next 15 years. Since it is not possible to secure aviation safety only by the post aircraft accident safety action of accident investigations, it has been recognized and consensus has been formed that proactive and predictive prevention measures are necessary. In this sense, the aviation safety management system (SMS) was introduced in 2008 and has been carried out in earnest since 2011. SMS is a proactive and predictive aircraft accident preventive measure, which is a mechanism to eliminate the fundamental risk factors by approaching organizational factors beyond technological factors and human factors related to aviation safety. The methodology is to collect hazards in all the sites required for aircraft operations, to build a database, to analyze the risks, and through managing risks, to keep the risks acceptable or below. Therefore, the improper implementation of SMS indicates that the aircraft accident prevention is insufficient and it is to be directly connected with the aircraft accident. Reports of duty performance related hazards including their own errors are essential and most important in SMS. Under the policy of just culture for voluntary reporting, the guarantee of information providers' anonymity, non-punishment and non-blame should be basically secured, but to this end, under-reporting is stagnant due to lack of trust in their own organizations. It is necessary for the accountable executive(CEO) and senior management to take a leading role to foster the safety culture initiating from just culture with the safety consciousness, balancing between safety and profit for the organization. Though a Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's order, "Guidance on SMS Implementation" states the training required for the accountable executive(CEO) and senior management, it is not legally binding. Thus it is suggested that the SMS training completion certificates of accountable executive(CEO) and senior management be included in SMS approval application form that is legally required by "Korea Aviation Safety Program" in addition to other required documents such as a copy of SMS manual. Also, SMS related items are missing in the aircraft accident investigation, so that organizational factors in association with safety culture and risk management are not being investigated. This hinders from preventing future accidents, as the root cause cannot be identified. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Manuals issued by ICAO contain the SMS investigation wheres it is not included in the final report form of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. In addition, the US National Transportation Safety Board(NTSB) that has been a substantial example of the aircraft accident investigation for the other accident investigation agencies worldwide does not appear to expand the scope of investigation activities further to SMS. For these reasons, it is believed that investigation agencies conducting their investigations under Annex 13 do not include SMS in the investigation items, and the aircraft accident investigators are hardly exposed to SMS investigation methods or techniques. In this respect, it is necessary to include the SMS investigation in the organization and management information of the final report format of Annex 13. In Korea as well, in the same manner, SMS item should be added to the final report format of the Operating Regulation of the Aircraft and Railway Accident Investigation Board. If such legal and institutional improvement methods are complemented, SMS will serve the purpose of aircraft accident prevention effectively and contribute to the improvement of aviation safety in the future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.225-246
• /
• 2020

More than technical or academic matter, mitigation of height restriction around airports is about up-dating out-dated policies that have not kept up with rapidly developing aircraft and air traffic control technologies. Above all, instead of calling out 'flight safety' that the public do not comprehend, it is important to examine and carry out measures that can protect people's right of property. MOLIT(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport) after reviewing ICAO's Obstacle Limitation Surface TF, made an announcement to provide further plans that would apply to contracting states from 2026. However, residents of redevelopment areas near Kimpo international airport asserted that MOLIT's policy overlooks the reality of the redevelopment zone. ICAO, UN's specialized agency for civilian aviation, recommends in Annex 14, 4.2.4 that contracting states conduct an aeronautical study to determine the flight safety of horizontal surface(45m), excluding approach surface, and to mitigate height restrictions if no threat is found. Numerous countries including the United States have been following this recommendation and have been able to effectively protect people's right of property, whereas the South Korean government have not following it so far. The number of height restriction mitigation cases in the recent three months (2019. 7. 15~10. 14.) FAA of the United States have allowed after conducting an aeronautical study reaches 14,706. Japan and Taiwan also reconstruct airspace around airports in metropolitan areas in order to protect people's right of property. Just as the United States is following, MLIT should follow ICAO's recommendation in Annex 14. 4.2.4(Vol. 1. Airport Construction / Operation) and protect people's right of property by first applying aeronautical studies to the horizontal surface(45m) of flight safety zones until the specifics of ICAO's 2026 TF materialize.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2017

On 12 October 2017, the English Royal Courts of Justice delivered its decision about air carrier's compensation liability for the flight delay. In the cases the passengers suffered delays at a connecting point and, consequently, on arrival at their final destination. They claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), as applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") in Sturgeon v. Condor [2009]. The principal issues were whether delays suffered by the passengers during the second leg of their respective journeys were compensable under the Regulation, whether there was jurisdiction under the Regulation and whether the right to compensation under the Regulation is, insofar as non-Community air carriers are concerned, excluded by virtue of the exclusive liability regime established under the Montreal Convention 1999. The passengers, the plaintiff, argued that the relevant delay was not that on flight 1 but that suffered at the "final destination". They maintained that there was no exercise by the EU of extraterritorial jurisdiction as the delay on flight 2 was merely relevant to the calculation of the amount of compensation due under the Regulation. The air carrier, the defendant, however argued that the only relevant flights for the purpose of calculating any delay were the first flights (flights 1) out of EU airspace, as only these flights fell within the scope of the Regulation; the connecting flights (flights 2) were not relevant since they were performed entirely outside of the EU by a non-Community carrier. Regarding the issue of what counts as a delay under the Regulation, the CJEU held previously on another precedents that the operating carrier's liability to pay compensation depends on the passenger's delay in arriving at the "final destination". It held that where the air carrier provides a passenger with more than one directly connecting flight to enable him to arrive at their destination, the flights should be taken together for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours' or more delay on arrival; and that in case of directly connecting flights, the final destination is the place at which the passenger is scheduled to arrive at the end of the last component flight. In addition, the Court confirmed that the Regulation applied to flights operated by non-Community carriers out of EU airspace even if flight 1 or flight 2 lands outside the EU, since the Regulation does not require that a flight must land in the EU. Accordingly, the passengers' appeal from the lower Court was allowed, while that of air carrier was dismissed. The Court has come down firmly on the side of the passengers in this legal debate. However, this result is not a great surprise considering the recent trends of EU member states' court decisions in the fields of air transport and consumer protection. The main goal of this article is to review the Court's decision and to search historical trend of air consumer protection especially in EU area.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.203-234
• /
• 2019

The concept of denied boarding is defined in Article 2(j) of Regulation 261/2004 thus: "denied boarding means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation." So far as relevant to this case, to be entitled to compensation, if denied boarding, Article 3(2) provides a passenger must first come within the scope of the protection of the Regulation, which applies under the following conditions: "${\cdots}$.that passengers (a) have a confirmed reservation on the flight concerned and, except in the case of cancellation referred to in Article 5, present themselves for check-in, as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance and in writing (including by electronic means) by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time." This paper reviews the EU Cases such as Rodríguez Cachafeiro v. Iberia [2012] Case C-321/11; Finnair Oyj v. Timy Lassooy [2012] Case C-22/11; Caldwell v. easyJet Airline Co. Ltd. [2015] ScotSC 64. ECJ and Sheriff court of Scotland held that the concept of denied boarding, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation No 295/91, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons. Also, ECJ ruled that Articles 2(j) and 4(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.