• 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 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.

• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

In Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication, Realice's anchor became entangled with a working fiber-optic submarine cable during its voyage and are presentative of the shipowner(the captain) cut the cable. The owner of the cable brought a claim for the repair cost against the shipowner. The shipowner then advanced a third party claim against a liability insurance underwriter. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that the shipowner was entitled to limit its liability under the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The SCC also ruled that even though the misdeed of the shipowner was insufficient to break its right to limitation of liability, its wrongdoing constituted willful misconduct under the 1993 Canada Marine Insurance Act, allowing the underwriter to deny coverage for the incident. Thecasewasthefirsttoaddresstheinterrelationship between the shipowner's right to limit liability under the international convention regime and the availability of liability insurance with respect to such limited liability. This study analyzes the reasoning behind the SCC's judgment and evaluates the appropriateness of this court's decision based on the current maritime industry as well as prevailing maritime law. It concludes that the SCC's decision to declare that the shipowner retained the right to limit its liability is appropriate under the Limitation Convention (1976). However, its declaration that the liability insurer was discharged from liability is not correct in due consideration of the common recognition in the maritime industry, the intended purpose of a third party's right against the liability insurer, and the adoption process of the conduct barring limitation. Based on the SCC's decision, this study finally reviews the issue of the shipowner's right to limit and the coverage of the liability insurer in the Sewol case (2014).

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.189-210
• /
• 2009

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea(hereinafter referred to as "The Rotterdam Rules") on 11 December 2008. Rotterdam Rules aims to create a contemporary and uniform law providing for modern door-to-door container transport including an international sea leg. but not limited to port-to port carriage of goods. The structure of the liability regime in Rotterdam Rules are globally close to that of the Hague-Visby Rule even though it differs from that of the Hague-Visby Rules in some significant aspects. The Rotterdam Rules are very long. Therefore the Rotterdam Rules will be difficult to understand for even the skilled ship operator or owner or charterer or shipper or consignee or receiver because they are so complicated. This paper only seeks to highlight the salient features of the liability and limitation of liability regime under the Rotterdam Rules. It is expected that the harmonization and modernization of the international legal regime. coupled with the bold attempt to balance the carrier and cargo interests should lead to an overall reduction in transaction costs. increased predictability and greater commercial confidence for international business transactions.

• 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 Environmental Policy
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.107-135
• /
• 2003

This study reviews the proposed liability and redress regime under the Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity. Several core elements for the regime are discussed in comparison with those listed in the 1999 Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage resulting from the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. These are (1) scope of the rules and procedures; (2) channeling of liability; (3) legal standing; (4) definition of damage; (5) standard of care; (6) ancillary sources of compensation; (7) limitation of liability; (8) financial guarantees; and (9) mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. Korea has given relatively little attention to the issue of liability and redress in the context of LMOs trade. As the Protocol is expected to enter into force soon, Korea needs to develop appropriate implementing domestic mechanisms for the Biosafety Protocol. Establishing an adequate domestic liability and compensation scheme will be one of the most important mechanisms not only to comply the Protocol but to ensure safety of LMOs in general. A further research is needed on the basis of a comparision of relevant legislations in different countries as well as analysis of current laws related to the accidents arising from LMOs trade, such as product liability laws, food safety laws, liability provisions in some environmental legislations.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.31-55
• /
• 2009

This study attempts to provide a comparative overview of the liability systems Korean law and the PELS adopt, that is, the approaches taken by Korean law and the PELS to deal with various irregularities of contractual performance. In addition, it examines in a comparative way the questions of what is the position of the seller's liability for his delivery of defective goods under the chosen liability system and what is the legal nature of the seller's liability. The study finds that the dual liability system taken by Korean law has caused some complexities as to the matter of which liability is applicable in some borderline cases. The problem in such complexities is originated in that the remedies available and the limitation period applicable are differentiated in accordance with one's different categorization among three types of default under the general liability and defective performance under the seller's guarantee liability. In this light, the study argues that the unified liability system under the PELS is superior because its concept of non-performance embraces in a unitary manner all the aspects of default including defects in quality, quantity and title. In addition, it finds that Korean law has suffered endless debates on the question of what are the true contents of the same remedies of rescission and damages provided under the seller's guarantee liability as under the general liability. The debates have been come along on the basis of the traditional presumption among some of civil law jurisdictions that two liabilities be different in terms of not only their legal nature but also their contents of remedies. The study argues that the problem may be circumvented, first, by another way of thinking that the unified liability in Korean law is inferred from the specification of the identical remedies for both the general liability and the seller's guarantee liability under the KCC, second, by the preposition that the requirement of fault be depended upon what remedy the buyer seeks to claim rather than what liability he does to rely on.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.97-118
• /
• 2015

This study reviews the judgements by the Korean Supreme Court on the time of delivery of goods, as it depends on which bonded place the goods are kept for the purpose of the customs clearance. Thereafter, this study analyzes the Ocean Carrier's liability, when the cargoes are mis-delivered without the presentation of bill of lading in relation to the specific bonded place such as an independent bonded warehouse or a self-use bonded warehouse. Furthermore, considering that voyage charter is a kind of marine transport, this study also reviews whether or not the Court's judgements, which has been developed in respect of the carriage of affreightment, could be applied to voyage charter in respect of the time of delivery goods and the Ocean Carrier's liability for mis-delivery. Lastly, in the case that the substantial importer takes the goods from the independent bonded warehouse without the presentation of bill of lading after the customs clearance, it is noted that the Court has made the Ocean Carrier liable for the mis-delivery through the application of theory of double deposit contract. The position of the Court would be understandable in terms of the protection for the bona-fide holder of bill of lading, but this study reviews the limitation of liability as the device for the protection of the Ocean Carrier, considering the situation where the Ocean Carrier is somewhat unreasonably sacrificed under the bonded system provided for the convenience of substantial importer.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 2004

Delay in the air transport occurs when passengers, baggage or cargo do not arrive at their destination at the time indicated in the contract of carriage. The causes of delay in the carriage of cargo are no reservation, lack of space, failure to load the cargo on board, loading the cargo on the wrong plane, failure to off-load the cargo at the right place, or to deliver the covering documents at the right place. The Montreal Convention of 1999 Article 19 provides that "The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures." The Montreal Convention Article 22 provides liability limits of the carrier in case of delay for cargo. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to 17 SDR per kilogram unless a special declaration as to the value of the cargo has been made. The Montreal Convention Article 19 has shortcomings: it is silent on the duration of the liability for carriage. It does not give any indication concerning the circumstances to be taken into account in cases of delay, and about the length of delay. In conclusion, it is desirable to define the period of carriage with accuracy, and to insert the word 'unreasonable' in Article 19.