• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.4
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.11
• /
• pp.93-141
• /
• 1999

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.6
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2020

The term "accident" in the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, which govern carrier liability in international air transport, is an important criterion for determining carrier liability. However, because there is no explicit definition of the term in the treaty provisions, the term is largely subjected to the judgment and interpretation of the courts. Although there have been numerous changes in purpose and circumstance in the transition from the Warsaw regime to the conclusion of the Montreal Convention, there was no discussion on the concept of "accident" therefore, even after the adoption of the Montreal Convention, there is no doubt that the term is to be interpreted in the same manner as before. On this point, the United States Supreme Court's Air France v. Saks clarified the concept of "accident" and is still cited as an important precedent. Recently, the CJEU, in GN v. ZU, presented a new concept of "accident" introduced in the Montreal Convention: that "reference must be made to the ordinary meaning" in interpreting "accident" and that the term "covers all situations occurring on aboard an aircraft." Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the term does not include the applicability of "hazards typically associated with aviation," which was controversial in previous cases. Such an interpretation can be reasonably seen as the court's expansion of the concept of "accident," with a focus on "protecting consumer interests," a core tenet of both the Montreal convention and the European Union Regulations(EC: No 889/2002). The CJEU's independent interpretation of "accident" is a departure from the Warsaw Convention and the Saks case, with their focus on "carrier protection," and instead focuses on the "passenger protection" standard of the Montreal Convention. Consequently, this expands both the court's discretion and the carrier's risk management liability. Such an interpretation by the CJEU can be said to be in line with the purpose of the Montreal Convention in terms of "passenger protection." However, there are problems to be considered in tandem with an expanded interpretation of "accident." First, there may be controversy concerning "balance" in that it focused on "passenger protection" in relation to the "equitable balance of interests" between air carriers and passengers, which is the basic purpose of the agreement. Second, huge losses are expected as many airlines fly to countries within the European Union. Third, there is now a gap in the interpretation of "accident" in Europe and the United States, which raises a question on the "unity of rules," another basic tenet of the Convention. Fourth, this interpretation of "accident" by the CJEU raises questions regarding its scope of application, as it only refers to the "hazards typically associated with aviation" and "situations occurring aboard an aircraft." In this case, the CJEU newly proposed a novel criterion for the interpretation of "accident" under the Montreal Convention. As this presents food for thought on the interpretation of "accident," it is necessary to pay close attention to any changes in court rulings in the future. In addition, it suggests that active measures be taken for passenger safety by recognizing air carriers' unlimited liability and conducting systematic reforms.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.199-220
• /
• 2004

The Montreal Convention which came into force on November 4, 2003 over the world, has brought a fundamental change to the scope of carrier liability and expanded the sue scope of the carrier. Not only confirms the carrier liability, it also reflects the effects of code-share. In addition to integrate the existing principles that adopted by many conventions, the Montreal Convention has systematized the unity of international air transport into a single convention. It even successfully increased the extremely low compensation amount which was pointed out as a problem in the Warsaw Convention before. The Warsaw Convention, originally stood for the carriers, began to reflect the standpoint of the passengers. The Chinese Civil Aviation Law came into force on March 1, 1996. One of the significant characteristics of the law is that, the regulation on public and private law is mixed combined. Therein, the content of carrier liability system is prescribed in Chapter 9, which is explained in detail in this study. Besides, the relationship between the Montreal Convention and China will be expounded too. So far, China ranks the 5th in RPK and the 6thin FrK. However, in spite of the high ranks, China has not yet joined this convention. This can be regarded as a serious problem. China should join it as soon as possible for a further development and deeper cooperation with the air-industry-developed countries. Once the government ratifies the Montreal Convention, it will benefit both the Chinese passengers and the airlines.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.29-63
• /
• 2006

This paper studied and introduced the aviation law cases in applying the treaties of the Warsaw System to the liability of the international air carrier by categorizing four main sections. Firstly, this paper handled the cases regarding the defining an international flight, exclusivity of the treaties as international air carrie's liability Convention, determining treaty relationship between the countries which one country has ratified only the Hague Protocol, an amended version of the Warsaw Convention, while the other has ratified only the original, unamended Warsaw Convention. Annotation assisted the case if it needed. Secondly, the cases relating to the issues of actual and contracting carrier, successive carrier, agents and servants of the carrier and others were studied. Thirdly, the issues relating to the accident in the course of any operations of embarking or disembarking of passengers, the occurrence during the transportation by air of baggage or goods and delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods in addition to the cancellation of the flights were studied according to the applicable range. Fourthly, I studied the time issue with effective date of the treaties. Conclusively, it is not excessive to emphasize the importance of cases in Aviation Law like all other legal areas, therefore, a full-dress future reaserch of aviation cases is expected in here Korea with this paper as a foundation although it studied and introduced only a part of numerous aviation law cases.