• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.145-168
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the limitation of liabilities of multimodal transport operators(MTO) in Korea. Also, this paper reviews the revised draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015. This paper analyzes Korean multimodal transport systemand the limitation of liabilities of MTO by analyzing articles, regulations and practices of Korean Commercial Code and it's the draft in 2015. The paper, also, studies multimodal transport rules by comparing specifically international treaty, rules, or practices. In Korea, Article 816 of Commercial Code treats multimodal transportation adopting the network liability regime. The Article describes only the case of the multimodal transportation where the maritime carriage is engaged. Korea proposed the draft of multimodal transport regulation of Commercial Code in 2015 because present law could not apply for the multimodal transportation involved in the air or land carriage. This paper support the draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015 because it is necessary to make a predictable legal system of multimodal transport and the limitation of liability reflecting practices or customs.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.155-181
• /
• 2001

International Trade has led to the increase of the demand of international transport, and also the development of international transport not only incurs claims concerning transportation but also establishes various international rules to settle the claims between the shippers and carriers incurred in the course of transport. With a view to settling the claims successfully, the men who are concerned in the transport have to know the principle and scopes of carrier's liability. In this paper, I would like to find out the scopes of liability of multimodal carriers based on the principles of liability. In order to perform the purpose of this study, I classify the liability principle of the international carrier under the UNs Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Good(1980) and UNCTDAD/ICC Rules(1991) in three system-Network Liability System, Uniform Liability System and Modified Liability System. And that I show the results-the scopes of multimodal carriers' liability based on the UN's Multimodal Convention(1980) and the ICC/UNCTAD Rules(1991), and transport vehicles.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.9
• /
• pp.277-298
• /
• 1997

Air transportation industry was established on a basis of liability limitation from the outset. Many treaties, however, had to be drafted since 1960' s to meet the need of the Unites States, who argued full compensation without limitation like other torts cases, but most of them were in vain. The Japanese Initiative in 1992, though being aimed to lower a level of compensation in air crash cases to that of other transportation accidents, showed a way to the U.S. how to solve the issue. Instead of obtaining an multilateral agreement through ICAO, the U.S. persuaded IATA to organize intercarrier consensus for voluntary waive the limitation. IATA succeeded in adopting Intercarrier Liability Agreement in 1995, in which carriers agreed not to use Warsaw limitation and accepted strict liability up to 100,000SDRs. Through a series of negotiation to implement the Intercarrier agreement, US DOT tried to insert a domicile standard provision to the agreement which enable US victims to be compensated according to the law of the U.S. regardless of the situation. IATA opposed the intent aggressively. The U.S. set back to the starting point remaining issues for further discussion. The liability limitation under the Warsaw system is being collapsed. It is the result of a simple logic; liability limitation cannot be maintained without appropriate compensation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.303-328
• /
• 2000

International Trade has led to the increase of the demand of international transport, and also the development of transport vehicles has been promoting the volumes of international trade. Therefore, the development of international transport not only incurs claims concerning transportation but also establishes various international rules to settle the claims between the shippers and the carriers in the course of transport. With a view to settling the claims successfully, the men who are concerned in the transport have to know the principle and scope of carrier's Liability. In this paper, I would like to find out the principle of Liability for the shippers. Therefore, I classify the Liability principle of the international transporter under the UNs Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Good(1980) and UNCTDAD/ICC Rules(1991) in three system - Network Liability System, Uniform Liability System and Modified Uniform Liability System.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.147-176
• /
• 2011

China is experiencing rapid economic development and the volume of air passengers and cargo transportation has increased significantly in recent years. To the contray, the regulations on liability of air carrier in china fall behind and are not sufficiently applicable in disputes. Their lack of sufficient protection for air passenger's interests became obstructive factor for further developments of Chinese air transportation industry. The legal system of air carrier's liability mainly consists of the contents as followed. The liability period, the scope of liability, amount of compensation for damage, limitation of liability, liability exemption of air carrier, jurisdiction, limitation of action, applicable law etc. Laws and rules concerning these issues are regulated in Civil Aviation Law and regulations published by Civil Aviation Administration of China. This article described the main contents of air carrier's liability and examined the legislative problems in their applications in real cases. In order to solve the legal problems on the air carrier's liability and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for china to amend revelvant provisions. One of my proposals is to raise the amount of compensation limitation for damage. And I also would like to suggest that Civil Aviation Law should treat international and domestic transportation equally on the limitation of compensation for air carrier's liability. China has also acceded to the Montreal Convention of 1999 on July 31, 2005. This is an effort to make the law of air carriage unified worldwide through various international conventions to achieve conformity between rules of international air carriage and that of Chinese domestic aircarriage. Furthermore, there should be additional detailed implementation rules for air carrier to assume liability for the losses to passengers, baggage or cargoes caused by delays in the air transport. Significant clarifications are also needed for provisions concerning whether and how air carrier assume liability for moral damage caused by accident.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.26 no.5
• /
• pp.959-965
• /
• 2014

Transporting of live fish requires subcontract with an independent contractor. During the transporting of live fish, civil liability problems can be caused by damage of fish. Before transporting of live fish, responsibility of negligence and tort liability were arisen, after transporting of live fish, default on an obligation was arisen. To avoid this problems, it is important to put a bond on each other and live fish transporting contract can be made a legal contract. Also, transporting of live fish must be made safe, after transporting, and discharge of obligation, perfect transaction is achieved.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.119-136
• /
• 2021

Due to the restriction of movement caused by the Corona epidemic and the expansion of the "big face" through human distance, the "unmanned system" based on artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things has been widely used in modern life. "Self-driving," one of the transportation systems based on artificial technology, has taken the initiative in the transportation system as the spread of Corona has begun. Self-driving technology eliminates unnecessary contact and saves time and manpower, which can significantly impact current and future transportation. Accidents may occur, however, due to the performance of self-driving technology during transportation albeit the U.S. allows ordinary people to drive automatically through experimental operations, and the product liability law will resolve the dispute. Self-driving has become popular in the U.S. after the experimental stage, and in the event of a self-driving accident, product liability should be applied to protect drivers from complicated self-driving disputes. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether disputes caused by defects in ordinary cars can be resolved through arbitration through U.S. precedents and to investigate whether disputes caused by defects in autonomous cars can be arbitrated.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.147-156
• /
• 2006

In all cargo cases one of the first things the person handling the claim must do is decide who is potentially liable as a carrier of the goods. This issue arises because bills of lading often do not identify the carrier. The "carrier" could be the shipowner or the charterer or both. The issue of the identity of the "carrier" is a question of fact. The question to ask in each case is who undertook or agreed to carry and deliver the goods. The answer to this question will largely depend on the facts. The shipowner is almost always liable as a carrier under Common law provided there is no demise charter of the ship. The more recent case law, however, suggests that in the usual situation both the charterer and shipowner will be liable. Accordingly, both the owner and charterer should be put on notice of any claim and, in the event an extension of suit time is required, the extension should be obtained from both. An alternative method by which the charterer can avoid liability is to insert and 'Identity of Carrier' clause in the bill of lading.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.171-205
• /
• 1993

On the contrary to the general principle of private law, carriers' liability for passengers and cargo owners have been quantatively limited in some cases. The author traces the rule of liability limitation in the law of Korea and United States to verify two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the rule of liability limitation has been introduced to motivate investment when new technology with high risk has been adopted in business. The second hypothesis is that the rule of liability limitation can be maintained only when damages have been fully compensated. The former is a necessary condition for liability limation, and the latter sufficient condition. There are strong evidences for the first hypothesis. Navigation or aviation, artificial satellite lauching, urban transportation system are good examples. The second hypothesis is supported by the fact that there have been continuous controversies on the Warsaw System, including the failure of ratification of Montreal Additional Protocols No.3 & 4 by the U.S. Senate and voluntary removal of liability limitation by the Japanese airline companies. Loss of cargo can be compensated fully, but damages from personal injury and death not. The value of human body and life is not easy to be estimated. Passengers, moreover, do not usually buy insurance for accidents in travel. Passengers do not accept insurance premium as the cost of being whole and alive. They do not accept accident rates realistically. They have no bargaining power in dealing with insurers. The rule of liability limitation in personal losses would not be supported in future because damages have not fully compensated.