• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.203-234
• /
• 2019

The concept of denied boarding is defined in Article 2(j) of Regulation 261/2004 thus: "denied boarding means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation." So far as relevant to this case, to be entitled to compensation, if denied boarding, Article 3(2) provides a passenger must first come within the scope of the protection of the Regulation, which applies under the following conditions: "${\cdots}$.that passengers (a) have a confirmed reservation on the flight concerned and, except in the case of cancellation referred to in Article 5, present themselves for check-in, as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance and in writing (including by electronic means) by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time." This paper reviews the EU Cases such as Rodríguez Cachafeiro v. Iberia [2012] Case C-321/11; Finnair Oyj v. Timy Lassooy [2012] Case C-22/11; Caldwell v. easyJet Airline Co. Ltd. [2015] ScotSC 64. ECJ and Sheriff court of Scotland held that the concept of denied boarding, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation No 295/91, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons. Also, ECJ ruled that Articles 2(j) and 4(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.

• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.1-50
• /
• 2016

This paper aims to investigate the cultural conflicts and characteristics of anti-Korean Wave discourse taken placed among Southeast Asian countries. To do this, it takes Vietnam and Indonesia as the study cases, which have been showing a trend of anti-Korean Wave discourse as well as high popularity of Hallyu. As research methods, the paper analyzes both on-line discourses of anti-Korean Wave and the email audience interviews from both countries. The results show some significant differences between the two countries as well as the similarity that Anti-Korean Wave discourses have been actively produced and disseminated through on-line media. As for Indonesia, the Anti-Korean Wave discourse pivots on the elements clashing between Indonesia's religion and cultural values and Korean consuming culture. According to the Anti-Korean Wave discourse, K-pop contents and entertainers are criticized for damaging the society's morals and cultural identities based on Islamic rules and values. Thus, the sentiment of the Anti-Korean Wave is likely to lead to the cultural nationalism for the sake of their cultural identity. As for Vietnam, anti-Korean Wave discourse mainly consists of issues on enthusiastic K-pop fans' anti-social behaviors and generational conflicts which are presumed attributed as the chief factor of the Anti-Korean Wave. In the Vietnamese discourse, social elites and adults treat the enthusiastic K-pop fans as those who are in need of educational care or psychological therapy. Unlike the Indonesian case, anti-Korean Wave discourse in Vietnam criticized the K-pop and the performer's competence for being cheap sexy and incompetence. They also denounce Korean dramas for their trite, typical story lines, use of excessive emotion, and unrealistic nature. However, the two country's interview participants have in common both acknowledged that rather than considering the Anti-Korean Wave as an issue that needs to be resolved it should be embraced as a natural cultural phenomenon.