• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.27-51
• /
• 2007

The cumulative result of the work by the ICAO Secretariat, the Secretariat Study Group and the Council Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 are two draft Conventions, namely: "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, in case of Unlawful Interference", and "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" The core provisions of the former draft Convention are as follows: The liability of the operator is strict, that is, without the necessity of proof of fault. It would be liable for damage sustained by third parties on condition only that the damage was caused by an aircraft in flight(Article 3). However, such liability is caped based on the weight of the aircraft(Article 4). It is envisaged to create an independent organization called the Supplementary Compensation Mechanism, with the principle purpose to pay compensation to persons suffering damage in the territory of a State Party, and to provide financial support(Article 8). Compensation shall be paid by the SCM to the extent that the total amount of damages exceeds the Article 4 limits(Article 19). The main issues on the farmer draft Convention are relating to breaking away from Montreal Convention 1999, no limits on individual claims but a global limitation on air carrier liability, insurance coverage, cap of operators' strict liability, and Supplementary Compensation Mechanism. The core provisions of the latter draft Convention are as follows: the liability of the operator is strict, up to a certain threshold tentatively set at 250,000 to 500,000 SDRs. Beyond that, the operator is liable for all damages unless it proves that such damage were not due to its negligence or that the damages were solely due to the negligence of another person(Article 3). The provisions relating to the SCM and compensation thereunder do not operate under this Convention, as the operator is potentially for the full amount of damages caused. The main issues on the latter draft Convention are relating to liability limit of operator, and definition of general risks. In conclusion, we urge ICAO to move forward expeditiously on the draft Convention to establish a third party liability and compensation system that can stand ready to protect both third party victims and the aviation industry before another 9/11-scale event occurs.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.139-175
• /
• 2017

국회는 2017년 3월 30일 제조물책임법 일부개정법률안을 국회본회의에서 통과시켰다. 본 개정안에는 무엇보다 피해자인 소비자의 입증책임을 완화시키며 제조물책임의 배상책임을 3배까지 증액하는 신설조항이 있어서, 제조물책임관련 소송이 증대될 것이며, 제조물책임보험 가입이 증가할 것이다. 군용항공기 제작사는 군용항공기의 제작목적이 기동성 위주이며, 군의 작전성을 위주로 운용되기 때문에 현실적으로 군용항공기 제조사들이 군용항공기 제조물책임보험을 들 수 없는 현실 상황하에 군용항공기제작사는 제조물책임법과 하자담보책임, 채무불이행책임의 손해배상 위험에 직면하여 있다. 제조물책임법의 시원지인 미국은 1970년대 제조물책임법이 시행되게 되자, 군용항공기제작사의 책임한도에 대하여 학계, 법조계, 보험업계에서 큰 논란이 있었으며, 군용항공기 제작사의 책임문제를 해결하기 위하여, Government Contractor Defense (GCD, 정부계약자항변) 라는 법리를 판례로 만들어 냈다. 한국과 미국정부가 맺고 실제 적용하고 있는 Foreign Military Sales(FMS) 계약서에는 군용항공기제작사에 대한 면책조항이 있다. 군용항공기 제작사가 높은 제조물책임보험을 들 수 없고, 방산원가에도 제조물책임보험료를 반영시키지 않는 현실에서 외국의 수출을 확대하고 있는 군용항공기제작사는 위기 그 자체에 직면하고 있음을 정확히 알고, 시급히 이러한 위기를 해결할 수 있는 입법개정, 정책수립을 하여야만 한다.

• 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.

• 유통과학연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.5-10
• /
• 2016

Purpose - This paper analyzed the accident of drone and related insurance goods which can be coverable with regard to drone accident. The study range is limited in the owner's care, custody, and the control of drone in South Korea, but military area and law and regulation of the drone would be exceptional. Research design, data, and methodology - With regard to drone's flight, drone can make possible risks and can give severe damage to the people. To carry out this research, literature survey and review such as journal, thesis and publications were adopted. Results - As for the insurance coverage from drone's accident involved in the purpose of business, insurance coverage depends on 'commercial general liability insurance'. However, in case of personal hobby including leasure intention, insurance coverage depends on 'living liability insurance'. Conclusions - From a drone's accident, operator and owner of the drone may face the property damage to the drone itself, and then can give severe damage or loss to the people such as physical injuries and property damage. Peoples should be concerned about having the awareness of drone's accident with insurance coverage.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.53-72
• /
• 1991

The marine cargo insurance compensates the cargo losses that happened during navigation . at the early days of the marine insurance, the insurer inclusively covered all risks that happended during navigation. But since the feature of the risks have been changed due to the development of the shipbuilding technique and commerce, the insurer could not bear all of the perils inclusively. So, the insurer have taken the limitation of the risks insured and the losses paid by exclusion clauses. Therefore, the purpose ;of this paper is to compare the exclusion clauses in the new Institute Cargo Clause (hereafter I.C.C.) with those in the former I.C.C.(all risks, F.P.A) and to make clear the scope of insurer's liability through the theoretical interpretation, clarification of various excluded risks in laws and clauses relating to marine cargo insurance. From what 1 mentioned above, 1 conclude that through continued study on the exclusion sin the new I.C.C., we should organize and establish a system which will satisfy both underwriters and the assured in making the application and the effectiveness equal for each party.

• 정보화정책
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.67-88
• /
• 2023

제조물책임 범위 확장이 필요한 것은 제조물책임법 제정 시 산업 환경이 변했기 때문이다. 사람이 코딩한 알고리즘과 다르게, 인공지능은 기계학습에 따라 블랙박스화 되면서 개발자도 결과를 설명하지 못한다. 특히, 인공지능으로 인하여 발생하는 문제의 원인을 알 수 없기 때문에 책임소재도 불분명할뿐더러 피해자 배상도 쉽지 않다. 동산 등으로 한정된 제조물책임법에 따라 소프트웨어(SW)나 인공지능은 무체물로 제조물성이 인정되지 않기 때문이다. 고육지책으로 매체에 저장되거나 내장된 경우에는 제조물성이 인정될 수 있다고 한다. 그러나 매체에 따라 달리 적용되는 것은 타당하지 않다. EU는 인공지능이 포함된 경우, 제조물책임을 인정하는 제조물책임지침 개정을 추진 중이다. 피해자에 대한 보상이 제조물책임법이 추구하는 가치임에도 제조물성에 치중하여 본질을 간과해왔다. 다만, 인공지능이 채택된 서비스를 이용하여 발생한 사고라도 무조건적으로 제조물책임을 지우는 것이 아닌 실질적인 위험성에 따른 기준이 제시되는 것이 바람직하다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제34권
• /
• pp.77-108
• /
• 2007

The traditional name given to the insurance of third party liabilities and certain contractual liabilities which arise in connection with the operation of ships is protection and indemnity(P & I) insurance. P & I insurance is very different from traditional hull and machinery insurance in that shipowners' hull and machinery insurance is designed primarily to protect the assured against losses to his vessel, whereas P & I insurance seeks to indemnify an shipowner in respect of the discharge of legal liabilities he has incurred in operating his own vessels. This study is to examine the background of establishment of British P & I clubs md, therefore, the identity of P & I insurance. The present British P & I clubs are the remote descendants of the many small and local hull mutual insurance clubs that were formed by British shipowners in the end of 18th century. At that time, British shipowners were dissatified with the state of marine insurance market and, therefore, established clubs together in mutual hull insurance clubs. After the removal of the company monopoly in 1824, greater competition had a good effect on the rates, terms of cover and service offered by the commercial marine insurance market and by Lloyd's underwriters, and the hull clubs became less necessary and went into decline. The burden of British shipowners on liabilities to third parties was steadily increased after the middle of the 19th century, but the amount insured under hull policy was limited in the insured value of the ship. Eventually, the first protection club, that is, the Shipowners' Mutual Protection Society was formed in 1855. It was designed to like past mutual hull clubs, but to cover liabilities for loss of life and personal injury and also the collision risks excluded from the current marine policies, particularly the excess above the limits in hull policies. In 1870, the risks of liability for loss of or damage to cargo carried on board the insured ship was first awarded by the British shipowners. After 1874, many protection clubs formed indemnity club to cover the risk of liability for loss or damage to cargo. As mentioned above, British P & I clubs have been steadily changed according to the response of shipowners under the rapidly changing law of British shipowners' liability, and so on in the future.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.43-67
• /
• 2011

Humankind history is faced with one gigantic turning point due to development of Living genetically Modified Organisms. Food production by means of LMO is on the acceleration in an effort to solve the shortage of food problems. Food is also used as alternative energy source. Use of LMO product is not only limited to food and energy, but is actively utilized in various fields of medicines. This paper is first to check out the state of biomedicine developed and associated problems from industries that use LMO, after which we made an attempt on legislative approach to find out means of relief, through examples of such laws legislated for the sufferer from the adverse effect of the biomedicine. As for the liable subject to bear the responsibility for compensatory damage in a way of relieving the victim owing to adverse effect of biomedicine, those who manufactured and sold biomedicine and who are related to the damage to the victim due to the accident and medical doctors and pharmacists who prescribe and administer the medicine in question have been looked into. Accidents involving medicines and medical supplies could take place without reason for imputation on part of the liable subjects or fault of the victim, in which case the victim can't receive damage compensation from any of both parties. When such accidents happened turn out to be no fault accidents, introduction of damage relief measures might have to be reviewed against side effects of medicine and medical supplies as no fault compensation in order for actual relief to be possible. Talking about technicality of legislation, we can suggest a method of strengthening the accountability of manufacturer for stereotypical agenda on biomedicines by newly legislating special regulation with an issue that resists claim on risks associated with the development of medicine and incorporating the same into Manufactured Product Liability Law. After all, when an accident happens associated with biomedicine, the damage will be done to the consumer. And the consumer will be exposed to fatal danger even without the time to cope with potential risks associated with medicine and medical supplies they take. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the potential victim by having the manufacturer of biomedicines bear the liability of medical risks.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제11권8호
• /
• pp.353-364
• /
• 2011

본 연구는 기존 디지털미디어에 관한 논의들이 기술 생산성과 효과성에 주목하며 낙관적 관점에 경도되어 있다는 비판에서 출발, 디지털미디어가 초래할 수 있는 위험을 구체적으로 확인하고 이러한 위험들에 대한 이용자들의 위험성평가와 위험관리에 대한 의견 등 총체적 위험인식을 확인하였다. 대표적 디지털융합매체인 스마트폰을 구체적 연구대상으로 삼은 결과, 총 4개 차원의 위험유형, '경제적 차원의 위험, 사회-문화적 차원의 위험, 개인적 차원의 위험, 병리적 차원의 위험'을 포함한 17개 위험유형이 분류되었다. 각 위험유형별로 위험성(발생가능성${\times}$위험심각성)을 분석한 결과 발생가능성 측면에 있어서 병리적 차원의 위험이 타 위험들에 비해서 상대적으로 그 발생가능성이 낮은 것으로 나타났고, 심각성 평가에서는 개인적차원의 위험을 타 위험유형들보다 상대적으로 위험성이 높다고 평가하는 경향이 있었다. 다음으로 위험예방과 대응측면에서 예상 외로 정부에 대한 신뢰가 높지 않고, 개인의 역할론에 대한 기대감과 책임성을 높게 평가하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 스마트폰의 위험에 대한 심각성과 발생가능성, 책임성에 대한 평가, 예방대책, 사후처리 방식 등의 요인들을 면밀히 분석하고 적용한다면 향후 타 분야의 디지털미디어 위험을 저감할 수 있는 중요한 정책적 대응방안으로도 확장 할 수 있을 것이다.