• 제목/요약/키워드: Warsaw Convention

검색결과 45건 처리시간 0.025초

국제항공화물운송계약(國際航空貨物運送契約)의 법률관계(法律關係) -화주(貨主)의 권리의무(權利義務)를 중심(中心)으로- (Legal Relations of the Contract of International Carriage of Goods by Air)

  • 이강빈
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제1권
    • /
    • pp.193-222
    • /
    • 1989
  • The purpose of this study is to review the rights and duties of cargo owners, the party to the contract of international carriage of goods by air under the Warsaw Convention System and the IATA conditions. It is generally known that air freight is the most-cost mode of transportation. However, should there be considerations of total distribution cost, the use of air freight leads exporters to be advantageous in physical distribution. The Warsaw Convention System defined and limited the rights and duties of cargo owners and air carriers paticipating in the international carriage of goods, but it does not regulate every aspect of air transportation. Therefore, the unregulated parts are governed by national laws and by individual contracts of carriage. The International Air Transport Association(lATA), a worldwide organization of airlines, has formulated model conditions of contract for the carriage of cargo. These models are not uniformly followed but they serve as a basis for many of the individual standard form of contracts prepared by air carriers. The contract of air carriage of goods is a contract of adhesion, 'the consignor recognizing and accepting the conditions laid down by the carrier'. There are consignors and carriers as the parties to the contract of international carriage of goods. In addition to his basic right, implied in Warsaw Convention Article 18 and 19, to require devery of the goods in good condition and at the date agreed upon, the consignor has the right to dispose the goods in the course of the journey up to the moment when the consignee is entitled to require delivery. If it is impossible to carry out the orders of the consignor, the carrier must so inform him forthwith. The right conferred on the consignor ceases at the moment when that of the consignee begins in accordance with Warsaw Convention Article 13. Nevertheless, if the consignee declines to accept the air waybill or the goods, or if he cannot be communicated with, the consignor resumes his right of disposition. Unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as soon as the goods arrive. The consignee is entitled, on arrival of the goods at the place of destination, to require the carrier to hand over to him the air waybill and to deliver the goods to him, on payment of the charges due and on complying with the conditions of carriage set out in the air waybill. The air waybill is supposed to be made out by the consignor. If the carrier makes it out, he is deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor, whether there is one air waybill or several, each must be made out in three original parts. The first is for the carrier, the second is for the consignee, and the the third is handed to the consignor when the shipment has been accepted. The consignor is responsible for the correctness of the particulars and statement concerning the cargo appearing in the air waybill. Each of the original parts of the air waybill has evidential value and possession of his part is a condition for the exercise by the consignor or consignee of his rights under the contract of carriage. Hague Protocol set forth in Article 9 that nothing in this. Convention prevents the issue of a negotiable air waybill, but Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 deleted this article. All charges applicable to a shipment are payable in cash at the time of acceptance thereof by the carrier in case of a prepaid shipment or at the time of delivery thereof by the carrier in case of a collect shipment. The carrier shall have lien the cargo for unpaid charges and, in the event of non-payment thereof, shall have the right to dispose of the cargo at public or private sale and pay itself out of the proceeds of such sale any and all such amounts. In conclusion, the Warsaw Convention System has the character of ambiguity in various respects, not only in the part of the forms of documents but also in conditions of contract. Accordingly, the following propositions might be considered: (1) If the carrier does not obey the orders of the consignor for the disposition of the goods without proper reasons, he will be liable strictly for any damage which may be caused thereby to the cargo owner. The special agreement and carrier's conditions of carriage which limit unreasonably the consignor's right of disposition of the goods will be nullified. (2) The instrument of the Warsaw Convention System which is not yet in force(Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4) would considerably simplfy the processing and keeping of computerized records of the carriage. Until this instrument enters into force, the airlines will be faced with practical problems preventing them to substitute computerized data processing techniques for the formal issuance of the documents. Accordingly, Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 should become effective as soon as posisble. From a practical point of view in the international trade, the issuance of negotiable air waybill should be permitted for the security of the bank.

  • PDF

ACCIDENTS & INJURIES IN INTERNATIONAL AIR LAW : THE CLASH OF THE TITANS

  • Dempsey, Paul Stephen
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제24권2호
    • /
    • pp.235-270
    • /
    • 2009
  • This Article examines what is contemplated by the term "accident," what is meant by "bodily injury," and what damages are recoverable under Article 17 of both the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999. It examines differences in the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court, the UK House of Lords, and the Australian High Court in interpreting these terms, and the problems posed by these different interpretations in achieving the uniformity of international aviation liability law contemplated by the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions.

  • PDF

항공판례의 연구 - 여객운송인의 책임을 중심으로 - (A Study on the Aviation Case Law - Focusing on the Air Carrier's Liability for Passenger -)

  • 김종복
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제22권2호
    • /
    • pp.53-83
    • /
    • 2007
  • The purpose of this paper is to study precedent cases of the Air carrier liability for passengers. The article 17 of Warsaw Convention (also in Montreal Convention article 17-1) provides the Air carrier liability for passengers which is the most essential part of the Air carrier liability. According to these Conventions, 1) the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger. Precedents and theories have disagreements on whether the damage covers the mental injury as well. 2) The carrier is liable for damage sustained from aviation accident. The definition of 'aviation accident' is becoming problematic. 3) The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. The question at issue is the range of the operations of embarking or disembarking. This paper introduces the precedents (also, the model precedents) about the carriers liability for passengers and related cases, so as to help understand the trend of judicial decisions. Furthermore, the cases, once took all of the attention of the international air carriers, concerned with the 'Economy class syndrome' (DVT : Deep Vein Thrombosis) are also presented. Under the new Montreal Convention, the carriers liability for passengers will continue to be the main issue. Thus it is required that academics as well as practical businesses may keep up their studies about this issue.

  • PDF

항공화물운송상(航空貨物運送狀)의 성질(性質)과 유통성(流通性) (The Character and Negotiability of Air Waybill)

  • 이강빈
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제4권
    • /
    • pp.65-85
    • /
    • 1992
  • The air waybill is supposed to be made out by the consignor. If the carrier makes it out, he is deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three original parts. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier", and shall be signed by the consignor. The second part shall be marked "for the consignee", it shall be signed by the consignor and by the carrier and shall accompany the goods. The third part shall be signed by the carrier and handed by him to the consignor, after the goods have been accepted. According to the original Warsow Convention article 8, the air waybill must contain 17 particulars or items. However, the Hague Protocol reduced to three the number of particulars required to appear on the air waybill. Only one item is obligatory, namely, the notice that the carriage is subject to the rules of the Warsaw Convention. The absence of the air waybill entails unlimited liability of the carrier because it deprives him of the right to avail himself of the provisions of the Warsaw Convention which exclude or limit his liability. The consignor shall be liable for all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statements in the air waybill. Although the contract of the carriage of goods by air is not a formal contract, the document of carriage is issued. The issue of air wayhill is not essential for the existence or validity of the contract, but serves merely as a means of proof. The Hague Protocol has lessened the consequences of the carrier's neglect to faithfully accomplish the required formalities. Henceforth, these formalities no longer constitute legal obligations. The air waybill is the consignment note used for the carriage of goods by air. It is often called an air consignment note and is not a document of title or transferable/negotiable instrument. It is basically a receipt for the goods for despatch and is prima facie evidence of the conditions of carriage. Each of the original parts of the air waybill has evidential value and possession of his part is a condition for the exercise by the consignor or cosignee of his rights under the contract of carriage. Oveall, it is an usage that under a documentary letter of credit, the consignee on the air waybill is the opening bank of the letter of credit, and the notify party is the importer who applied for the letter of credit. In Korea there is an usage as to process of cargo delivery in air transportation as follows: The carrier carries the cargo into the bonded area of the airport and gives both the notice of arrival of the cargo and the consignee's air waybill to the notify party who is the importer. Then the notify party obtains the Letter of Guarantee from the opening bank in exchange for reimbursing the amount of the letter of credit or tendering the security therefor to the opening bank. The notify party then presents this document to the customs authorities for the process of customs clearance. The opening bank becomes a consignee only to ensure repayment of the funds it has expended, and the only interest of the opening bank as consignee is the reimbursement of the money paid to the exporter under the documentary letter of credit. Just as the bill of lading in maritime law, the air waybill has always been considered negotiable although the Warsaw Convention does not emphasize this aspect of negotiability. However, the Hague Protocol article 4 corrected the situation by stating that "nothing in this Convention prevents the issue of a negotiable air waybill." This provision officially recognizes that the air waybill must meet the needs of the present day business circles by being a negotiable instrument. Meanwhile, Montreal Additional Protocol no. 4 has brought important changes. Registration by computer is acceptable and the parties to the contract of carriage are allowed to replace the air waybill with a receipt for the goods. In conclusion, as the Warsaw Convention has not details of provisions relating to the issuing of the negotiable air waybill, it is hoped that there should be supplement to the Warsaw Convention and establishment of international commercial usage with regard to the negotiable air waybill.

  • PDF

국제항공(國際航空)테러리즘으로 인한 여객손해(旅客損害)에 대한 운송인(運送人)의 책임(責任) ("Liability of Air Carriers for Injuries Resulting from International Aviation Terrorism")

  • 최완식
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제1권
    • /
    • pp.47-85
    • /
    • 1989
  • The Fundamental purpose of the Warsaw Convention was to establish uniform rules applicable to international air transportation. The emphasis on the benefits of uniformity was considered important in the beginning and continues to be important to the present. If the desire for uniformity is indeed the mortar which holds the Warsaw system together then it should be possible to agree on a worldwide liability limit. This liability limit would not be so unreasonable, that it would be impossible for nations to adhere to it. It would preclude any national supplemental compensation plan or Montreal Agreement type of requirement in any jurisdiction. The differentiation of liability limits by national requirement seems to be what is occurring. There is a plethora of mandated limits and Montreal Agreement type 'voluntary' limits. It is becoming difficult to find more than a few major States where an unmodified Warsaw Convention or Hague Protocol limitation is still in effect. If this is the real world in the 1980's, then let the treaty so reflect it. Upon reviewing the Warsaw Convention, its history and the several attempts to amend it, strengths become apparent. Hijackings of international flights have given rise to a number of lawsuits by passengers to recover damages for injuries suffered. This comment is concerned with the liability of an airline for injuries to its passengers resulting from aviation terrorism. In addition, analysis is focused on current airline security measures, particularly the pre-boarding screening system, and the duty of air carriers to prevent weapons from penetrating that system. An airline has a duty to exercise a high degree of care to protect its passengers from the threat of aviation terrorism. This duty would seemingly require the airline to exercise a high degree of care to prevent any passenger from smuggling a weapon or explosive device aboard its aircraft. In the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescene to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. A finding of willful misconduct on the part of an air carrier, which is a prerequisite to imposing unlimited liability, remains a question to be determined by a jury using the definition or standard of willful misconduct prevailing in the jurisdiction of the forum court. Through the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention, air carrier face the possibility of unlimited liability for failure to implement proper preventive precautions against terrorist. Courts, therefore, should broadly construe the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention in order to find unlimited liability for passenger injuries whenever air carrier security precautions are lacking. In this way, the courts can help ensure air carrier safety and prevention against terrorist attack. Air carriers, therefore, would have an incentive to increase, impose and maintain security precautions designed to thwart such potential terrorist attacks as in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight No.858 incident having a tremendous impact on the civil aviation community. The crash of a commercial airliner, with the attending tragic loss of life and massive destruction of property, always gives rise to shock and indignation. The general opinion is that the legal system could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. I would like to remind all passengers that every discovery of the human spirit may be used for opposite ends; thus, aircraft can be used for air travel but also as targets of terrorism. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the soverign rights of the states, and the human rights of the individuals. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co-ordinated measures. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism.

  • PDF

바르샤바협약상(協約上) Wilful Misconduct의 개념(槪念) (The Role of the ICAO in Implementing the FANS and its Applications in Air and space Law)

  • 최준선
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제6권
    • /
    • pp.191-215
    • /
    • 1994
  • The concept of 'wilful misconduct" was initally used in article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concept was defined in the Hague Protocol, 1955, as having the following two differing concepts: i) "with the intent to cause damage" and ii) "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." The concepts contained in the Hague Protocol were used in various international Conventions on carriage by sea, such as Article 2(e) and Article 3(4) of the Protocol adopted at Brussels on Feb. 23, 1968 to amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1929(Hague-Visby Rules), Article 13 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, Dec. 13. 1974, Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Article 8(1) of the U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978(Hamburg Rules) and Article 21 (1) of the U.N. Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 1980. The same concepts were also adopted in Article 746, 789-2(1), 789-3(2) of the Korean Maritime Commercial Law, revised in 1991. As of yet, the legal system of Korean Private Law recognizes only the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit", as is the case with German Private Law. The problem is that the concepts in the Convention do not coincide precisely with the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit". The author has conducted a comparative analysis of the treatment of the concepts of wilful misconduct and its varied interpretations, that is, "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" in the Anglo-American law and in the continental European law in the following manner: 1. Background in which the concept of wilful misconduct was introduced in the Warsaw Convention. 2. The concept of "dol" in French private law. 3. The concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in Korean private law. 4. Analysis of the concept of wilful misconduct in Anglo-American case law. 5. Analysis of the cases interpreting the concepts of "with intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result" in various jurisdictions. 6. The need to incorporate the concepts of "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." 7. Faute inexcusable in French private law. Based upon the comparative analysis, the author points out the difference between the concepts of "wilful misconduct" or "with the intent to cause damage" and "Vorsatz", and between the concepts of "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in the Convention and that of the Korean Private Law system. Additionally, the author emphasizes the importance of the unification in the interpretation of the provisions of the Conventions world wide.

  • PDF

1999년 몬트리올 협약상 "사고"의 새로운 개념에 대한 고찰 - GN v. ZU, CJEU, 2019.12.19., C-532/18 - (On the Novel Concept of "Accident" in the 1999 Montreal Convention -GN v. ZU, CJEU, 2019. 12. 19., C-532/18-)

  • 안주연
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제35권2호
    • /
    • pp.3-40
    • /
    • 2020
  • 국제항공운송에서 운송인의 책임을 규율하는 1929년 바르샤바 협약과 1999년 몬트리올 협약의 "사고"는 운송인의 배상 책임을 결정하는 중요한 판단 기준임에도 불구하고, 조문상 명시된 바가 없어 법원의 판단과 해석에 상당 부분을 위임하고 있다. 바르샤바 체제에서 몬트리올 협약의 체결에 이르기까지 협약의 목적이나 사정 등에 많은 변화가 있었으나, 협약상 "사고"의 개념은 논의되지 않았으며, 심지어 몬트리올 협약이 채택된 이후에도 동일한 의미로 해석된다는 점에는 논쟁의 여지가 없었다. 이와 연관하여 미국 연방 대법원의 "Air France v. Saks" 판결은 "사고"의 개념을 명확히 하였으며 현재도 중요한 선례로써 인용되고 있다. 최근 유럽 사법재판소는 GN v. ZU 판결에서 몬트리올 협약상 "사고"의 새로운 개념을 제시하였다. "사고"는 "일반적 의미를 적용해야 하며, 이는 항공기 내에서 발생하는 모든 상황을 포괄하는 의미로 해석"되어야 한다고 보았다. 또한, 이전 선례에서 논쟁이 있었던 "항공과 연관된 위험"의 여부는 포함되지 않는다고 보았다. 이러한 해석은 몬트리올 협약과 유럽연합 규칙(Regulation EC: No.889/2002)의 기본 이념인 "소비자 이익 보호"에 초점을 맞추어 "사고"의 개념을 확대한 것으로 합리적인 예측이 가능하다. 유럽 사법재판소의 "사고"에 대한 자체적인 해석은 "운송인 보호"에 중점을 두었던 바르샤바 협약과 "Saks" 판결에서의 사고의 정의에서 탈피하여 "여객 보호" 중심의 몬트리올 협약에 기준을 맞추고 있으며, 법원의 판단영역과 운송인의 위험관리 책임을 확대하는 결과를 보여준다. 이러한 유럽 사법 재판소의 "사고"에 대한 해석은 "여객 보호"의 측면에서 몬트리올 협약의 취지에 부합한다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 "사고"의 확대해석으로 고려하여야 할 문제점이 상존한다. 첫째, 협약의 기본 취지인 항공운송인과 여객의 '공평한 이익 분배'와 관련하여 '여객 보호'에 치우쳤다는 점에서 '균형성'에 논란이 제기될 수 있다. 둘째, 유럽연합 내 국가를 취항하는 자국의 항공사가 많다는 점에서 막대한 손실이 예상된다. 셋째, 유럽과 미국의 "사고"를 해석함에 있어 간극이 발생하며, 이는 협약의 기본이념인 "규칙의 통일성"에 문제가 제기된다. 넷째, 유럽 사법재판소의 "사고"의 해석은 '항공기 운용과의 연관성' 및 '항공기 내의 상황'만을 언급하고 있다는 점에서 적용 범위에 의문이 제기된다. 대상 사안에서 유럽 사법재판소는 몬트리올 협약상 "사고"의 새로운 판단 기준을 최초로 제시하였는바, "사고"의 해석에 대한 논점을 제시하므로 추후 판례 변화를 주목할 필요성이 있다. 또한, 항공운송인의 위험관리에 대한 무한책임을 인식하고 체계적인 체제 개편을 실시함으로써 여객의 안전을 위해 적극적인 자구책을 모색해야 함을 시사한다.

중국민용항공법상 항공운송인의 책임제도 (The Carrier Liability System from the View Point of Chinese Civil Aviation Law)

  • 김선이;오춘연
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제19권2호
    • /
    • pp.199-220
    • /
    • 2004
  • 2003년 11월 4일부터 전세계적으로 발효된 몬트리올조약은 운송인의 책임의 범위에 있어서 많은 변화를 가져왔고 운송인이 제소될 수 있는 법원의 범위를 확대하였으며 운송인의 책임을 인정함에 있어 코드쉐어의 영향을 반영하였다. 몬트리올조약은 그 동안 수많은 조약들이 채택했던 원칙들을 접대성하여 국제항공운송의 통일성을 단일조약에 체계화하였다. 바르샤바조약체계의 문제점으로 지적되었던 낮은 배상한도액을 몬트리올조약에서 상향 조정하였고 항공운송인들의 입장을 보호하기 위한 조약인 바르샤바조약은 이제 몬트리올조약을 통해 승객의 입장을 반영한 조약이 되었다. 중국민용항공법은 1996년 3월 1일부터 발효되었는데 공법적인 규정과 사법적인 규정이 혼재되어 있는 것이 그 특색으로 나타나고 있다. 그 중 항공운송인의 책임제도에 관한 내용은 민용항공법 제9장에 규정되어 있는데 본 논문에서 구체적으로 다루고 또 앞에서 서술한 몬트리올협약과 중국의 관계도 적어보려고 한다. 현재 중국은 IATA회원국 중에서 항공여객수송량이 5위 권에 접어들고 있으며 항공화물수송량도 6위를 차지하고 있음에도 불구하고 아직도 이 조약에 가입을 하지않고 있음은 문제점으로 지적될 수 있고 세계의 항공산업선진국들과 어깨를 나란히하고 상호 협력하기 위해 조속히 중국도 이 조약에 가입하는 것이 필요하다고 본다. 중국정부가 몬트리올조약을 비준한다면 중국의 승객들은 그로 인한 이익을 향유하게 될 뿐만 아니라 승객들과 항공사 모두의 이익이 될 것이다.

  • PDF

항공판례의 연구 -국제항공운송조약의 적용문제를 중심으로- (A Study on the Aviation Case Law -Focusing on the Application of Treaties for the International Carriage by Air-)

  • 김종복
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제21권1호
    • /
    • pp.29-63
    • /
    • 2006
  • 본 논문은 국제항공운송인의 책임에 관한 조약의 적용문제에 관한 항공판례를 1) 공간적 적용문제, 2) 인적 적용문제, 3) 물적 적용문제, 4) 시간적 적용문제로 크게 4 부분으로 나누어 연구하였다. 첫째, 공간적 적용문제와 관련하여서는 (1) 국제선 구간에서의 적용의 해석에 관한 판례, (2) 조약의 배타적 적용에 관한 판례, (3) 원 조약 체결국과 개정조약 체결국간의 적용문제에 관한 판례를 살펴보았는데 특히 각각 다른 Legal Instrument에 가입하여 문제된 판례는 평석을 곁들였다. 둘째, 인적 적용문제와 관련하여서는 그 적용대상에 따라 (1) 계약운송인, 실제운송인, (2) 순차운송인, (3) 이행보조자, (4) 기타의 경우로 나누어 살펴보았다. 셋째, 물적 적용문제는 적용범위에 중점을 두어 (1) 항공기 승강중의 사고, (2)항공운송중의 사고, (3) 운항취소 및 운송지연의 경우로 나누어 살펴보았다. 넷째, 시간적 적용문제는 조약의 발효일 문제를 중심으로 살펴보았다. 다른 모든 법률분야와 마찬가지로 항공법 분야에서도 판례의 중요성은 아무리 강조해도 지나치다고 할 수 없다. 따라서 비록 본 논문이 방대한 항공판례 중 그 일부를 연구 소개하지만 앞으로 이것이 계기가 되어 우리나라에서도 제대로 된 본격적인 항공판례 연구가 이루어지길 기대한다.

  • PDF