• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.193-209
• /
• 2012

China's airline industry is experiencing a booming development as one hand, on the other hand the incidents involving unruly behaviour on board aircraft also becomes a growing concern for the whole industry. The thesis examines the basic issues concerning the unruly behaviour, such as definition of unruly behaviour, the impact and root causes of unruly behaviour. Then it focuses on the China's legal sources governing the problem of unruly behaviour. Generally speaking, China's legislation with this respect is systematic and self-contained, except some minor shortcomings which need to be revised. Finally the thesis holds the view that the preventative measures jointly contributed by all the parties concerned are something more important than the legislation itself.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

Although aviation safety and security have been improving, which has made air transportation more reliable, the international aviation community has witnessed a steady increase in the number of unruly passenger incidents. Under international law, the Tokyo Convention (The Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft of 1963) is applicable to unruly passenger issues. While the Tokyo Convention has been a successful convention which 185 member states have ratified, it has its shortcomings. Three major shortcomings are related to definition, jurisdiction, and enforcement. Firstly, the Tokyo Convention does not provide for a definition of unruly passengers, thereby resulting in a situation where conduct that may be considered to be a criminal offence in the country of embarkation may not be a criminal offence in the country where the aircraft lands. Having different definitions may lead to ineffective action on the part of air carriers. Secondly, the fact that the state of landing does not bear jurisdiction produces circumstances in which it is impossible to punish an unruly passenger who clearly committed an offence on board. Thirdly, the Tokyo Convention only recognizes the competence of the state of registry to exercise criminal jurisdiction but does not impose the duty to actually use that competence in any specific case. Along with ratifying the Tokyo Convention, Korea enacted the Aviation Navigation Safety Act in 1974 as a domestic legal approach to dealing with the problem of unruly passengers. Partially reflecting the ICAO's model legislation, Circular 288, the Aviation Safety and Security Act was enacted in 2002. Although the Korean Aviation Safety and Security Act is a comprehensive act which has been constantly updated, there is no provision with respect to jurisdiction and only the Korean criminal code is applicable to jurisdiction. The Korean criminal code establishes its jurisdiction in connection with territoriality, nationality and registration, which is essentially the same as the jurisdictional principles of the Tokyo Convention. Thus, the domestic legal regime cannot close the jurisdictional gap either. Similarly, Korean case law would not take an active posture to jurisdiction unless the offence in question is a serious one, such as hijacking. A Special Sub Committee of the ICAO Legal Committee (LCSC) was established to examine the feasibility of introducing amendments to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft of 1963 with particular reference to the issue of unruly passengers. The result of the ICAO's findings should lead to the modernization of the Tokyo Convention, thereby reducing the number of incidents caused by unruly passengers and enabling all parties concerned to respond to unruly passengers more effectively.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.201-248
• /
• 2015

In Korea the number of unlawful interference act on board aircrafts has been increased continuously according to the growth of aviation demand, and there were 55 incidents in 2000, followed by 354 incidents in 2014, and an average of 211 incidents a year over the past five years. In 1963, a number of states adopted the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (the Tokyo Convention 1963) as the first worldwide international legal instrument on aviation security. The Tokyo Convention took effect in 1969 and, shortly afterward, in 1970 the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Hague Convention 1970) was adopted, and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(the Montreal Convention 1971) was adopted in 1971. After 9/11 incidents in 2001, to amend and supplement the Montreal Convention 1971, the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation(the Beijing Convention 2010) was adopted in 2010, and to supplement the Hague Convention 1970, the Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Beijing Protocol 2010) was adopted in 2010. Since then, in response to increased cases of unruly behavior on board aircrafts which escalated in both severity and frequency,, the Montreal Protocol which is seen as an amendment to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(the Tokyo Convention 1963) was adopted in 2014. Korea ratified the Tokyo Convention 1963, the Hague Convention 1970, the Montreal Convention 1971, the Montreal Supplementary Protocol 1988, and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosive 1991 which have proven to be effective. Under the Tokyo Convention ratified in 1970, Korea further enacted the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in 1974, as well as the Aviation Safety and Security Act that replaced the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in August 2002. Meanwhile, the title of the Aviation Safety and Security Act was changed to the Aviation Security Act in April 2014. The Aviation Security Act is essentially an implementing legislation of the Tokyo Convention and Hague Convention. Also the language of the Aviation Security Act is generally broader than the unruly and disruptive behavior in Sections 1-3 of the model legislation in ICAO Circular 288. The Aviation Security Act has reflected the considerable parts of the implementation of national legislation under the Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol 2010, and the Montreal Protocol 2014 that are the modernized international conventions relating to aviation security. However, in future, when these international conventions would come into effect and Korea would ratify them, the national legislation that should be amended or provided newly in the Aviation Security Act are as followings : The jurisdiction, the definition of 'in flight', the immunity from the actions against the aircraft commander, etc., the compulsory delivery of the offender by the aircraft commander, etc., the strengthening of penalty on the person breaking the law, the enlargement of application to the accomplice, and the observance of international convention. Among them, particularly the Korean legislation is silent on the scope of the jurisdiction. Therefore, in order for jurisdiction to be extended to the extra-territorial cases of unruly and disruptive offences, it is desirable that either the Aviation Security Act or the general Crime Codes should be revised. In conclusion, in order to meet the intelligent and diverse aviation threats, the Korean government should review closely the contents of international conventions relating to aviation security and the current ratification status of international conventions by each state, and make effort to improve the legislation relating to aviation security and the aviation security system for the ratification of international conventions and the implementation of national legislation under international conventions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The aircraft crew operating on international routes performs almost identical tasks as police officials in terms of dealing with the unlawful interference in the aircraft. This means that the liability question which is related to the law enforcement by the police officer may arise regarding the crew's performance of his or her duties. With regard to the carrier's liability due to the crew's unlawful action, there are distinctive characteristics from the liability due to police officers' unlawful action. In case of the claim for damages by the crew's unlawful action, the first question should be whether such action complies with the requirements under the Tokyo Convention 1963. If such action does not conform with the Tokyo Convention 1963, we should examine that claim under the State Compensation Act, the Montreal Convention 1999, and the Civil Act of Korea. The examination under the Tokyo Convention 1963 is not so different from the Korean Court's precedents. However, the court should consider the characteristics of the environment surrounding the crew. The action which is not indemnified under the Tokyo Convention 1963 should be examined under the tort laws. Because the aircraft crew is private persons entrusted with public duties under Korean Law, the State Compensation Act may apply. However, further studies regarding the harmonious interpretation with the Montreal Convention 1999 is needed. With regard to the carrier's liability, the Montreal Convention of 1999 should be applied to the crew's unlawful actions onboard. This is because the Montreal Convention of 1999 preempts the national law for the events that occurred during transportation, and there is no provision which excludes such unlawful actions from the scope of its application. On the other hand, the national law, such as the Civil Act of Korea, applies to unlawful actions taken after transportation. This is because the interpretation that infinitely expands the scope of the Montreal Convention 1999 should not be allowed. Given the foregoing, the standard of the claim for damages due to the crew's unlawful action varies depending on the place where the specific action was taken. As a result, the type of damage recoverable and the burden of proof also varies accordingly. Carriers and crew members must perform their duties with this in mind, but in particular, they should observe the proportionality, and when interpreting the law, it is necessary for the court or lawyer to consider the special characteristics of the work environment.