• 한국항공우주법학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2008.05a
• /
• pp.219-231
• /
• 2008

" Analyzing on an object in the sphere of domestic law with the method of international law" has been already on the horizon in international law. For the lawyers of international law and space law, it is quite natural that they utilize the method of international law, whatever objects they may choice. The reason is that the characteristic of international law do not depend upon object in itself, but depend upon method in itself. The object of this paper is the idea of Peaceful Use(IPU or PU) in Japanese Space Policy. The method to be applied to this analysis is the international law's interpretation theory on legal principles, i.e., the method of international law. One of the aims of this paper is to explain critically the need of review on IPU in Japanese Space Policy; in particular with respect to the positive reconstruction of IPU through historical analyzing on the transfiguration and the mere shell of the Post-War Japanese Pacifism(PJP) as the starting point of IPU The historical process of the transfiguration and the mere shell is as followed .i.e.," from the ultranationalism in the pre-war Japan to PJP in the post-war Japan, from PJP to IPU, and from IPU to IPU's regression. In particular with respect to the interpretation theory, the meaning of the teleological, aims and objects school's approach on the interpretation of legal principles(P) has been emphasized. The reason is that the promising development of IPU will be realized by cooperating with the interpretation theory on P in international law. At the end of the beginning, I'd like to quote K. Marx's thesis in order to make the positions and missions the lawyers of international law and space clear. It is as follows, i.e.," THE PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ONLY INTERPRETED THE WORLD IN VARIOUS WAYS - THE POINT, HOWEVER IS TO CHANGE IT.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.14
• /
• pp.175-206
• /
• 2001

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.78
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2018

This article demonstrates that both the Warsaw Convention Systemand the Montreal Convention are not designed for multimodal transport, let alone for "Door to Door" transport. The polemic directed against the "Door to Door" application of the Warsaw Convention systemand the Montreal Convention is predominantly driven by the text and the drafting philosophy of the said Contentions that since 1929 support unimodalism-with the rule that "the period of the carriage by air does not expend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport" playing a profound role in restricting their multimodal aspirations. The drafters of the Montreal Convention were more adventurous than their predecessors with respect to the boundaries of the Montreal Convention. They amended Art. 18(3) by removing the phrase "whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever", however, they retained the first sentence of Art. 18(4). The deletion of the airport limitation fromArt. 18(3) creates its own paradox. The carrier can be held liable under the Montreal Convention for the loss or damage to cargo while it is in its charge in a warehouse outside an airport. Yet, damage or loss of the same cargo that occurs during its surface transportation to the aforementioned warehouse and vice versa is not covered by the Montreal Convention fromthe moment the cargo crosses the airport's perimeter. Surely, this result could not have been the intention of its drafters: it certainly does not make any commercial sense. I think that a better solution to the paradox is to apply the "functional interpretation" of the term"airport". This would retain the integrity of the text of the Montreal Convention, make sense of the change in the wording of Art. 18(3), and nevertheless retain the Convention's unimodal philosophy. English courts so far remain loyal to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Quantum, which constitutes bad news for the supporters of the multimodal scope of the Montreal Convention. According the US cases, any losses occurring during Door to Door transportation under an air waybill which involves a dominant air segment are subject to the international air law conventions. Any domestic rules that might be applicable to the road segment are blatantly overlooked. Undoubtedly, the approach of the US makes commercial. But this policy decision by arguing that the intention of the drafters of the Warsaw Convention was to cover Door to Door transportation is mistaken. Any expansion to multimodal transport would require an amendment to the Montreal Convention, Arts 18 and 38, one that is not in the plans for the foreseeable future. Yet there is no doubt that air carriers and freight forwarders will continue to push hard for such expansion, especially in the USA, where courts are more accommodating.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.77-100
• /
• 1993

The paper is to study and analyze the major issues and current problems of space law and policy to suggest the direction of Korean aerospace policy for future development facing the 21st century of air and space industry. It briefs the development of aerospace science and space law. It also outlines the special characteristics and present status of space law. It further reviews the regulatory regime of commercial space carriers, international telecommunication satelite and space environmental problems. Finally, it suggests the future directions of Korean space policy to develop as one of leading space countries in the 21st century.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.157-188
• /
• 1990

The objective of this presentation is to describe major air transport problems which international civil aviation is faced with at present and those which may be encountered in the last decade of the 20th century. ICAO's role in tackling these problems as well as some aspects of cooperation between Contracting States and ICAO are also being discussed.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.99-144
• /
• 2016

The summary of the case is as follows: a Korean passenger booked and purchased a business class ticket from Air France that was scheduled to depart from Paris and arrive in Seoul. When the passenger arrived at the check-in counter, he was told that all business class seats were occupied. It was because the flight was overbooked by Air France. The passenger cancelled the Air France flight and took another air carrier. After arriving in Korea, he brought suit against Air France for damages. The purpose of this article is to discuss the governing law when interpreting the contract of international air carriage in accordance with the Korean Private International Act (2001) and to analyze air carrier's civil liability for the bumped passenger in the overbooking case. If the parties have not chosen the applicable law the contract shall be governed by the law of the habitual residence of the consumer in the following situations: prior to the conclusion of the contract, the opposite party of the consumer conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement in that country or conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement into that country from the areas outside that country and the consumer took all the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract in that country or in case the opposite party of the consumer received an order of the consumer in that country [Article 27 (1), (2) of the Private International Act]. Since the contract of international carriage falls into the consumer contract, the Supreme Court viewed that the governing law of the contract in this case would be the law of the habitual residence of the consumer (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da8410 decided on Aug. 28, 2014). This interpretation differs from the article 5 (4) of Rome Convention(80/934/EEC) which declares that the consumer contract article shall not apply to neither a contract of carriage nor a contract for the supply of services where the services are to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that in which he has his habitual residence. Even though overbooking can be considered as a common industry practice, an air carrier must burden civil liability in case of breach of contract for the involuntary bumped passenger(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na48391 decided on Jan. 29, 2015). In case of involuntary bumping, an air carrier must offer re-routing to passenger's final destination by an alternative flight. If an air carrier fails to effect performance in accordance with the tenor and purport of the obligation, the involuntary bumped passenger may claim damages(Article 390 of the Civil Code).

• Journal of Aerospace System Engineering
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.44-51
• /
• 2014

This thesis analyzes the latest operating concept and status for Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) researching overseas ADIZ CONOPS, international legal basis for ADIZ, the intention & background of proclamation for China Air Defense Identification Zone(CADIZ). Firstly, ADIZ is lawful concerning international connivance for ADIZ where around 20 countries have operated, Article 56 "Rights, jurisdiction & duties of the coastal State" and Article 301 "Peaceful uses of the seas" on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLS). Secondly, ADIZ has been regarded as a support means for national interest & policy as well as military air defense one. Thirdly, Based on legal re-interpretation for UNCLS relating to ADIZ, China proclaimed CADIZ where can ensure national maritime policy and strategy including A2/AD(Anti-Access & Area Defence), inroad into the ocean, claim for Senkaku Islands possession, etc..

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.31-67
• /
• 1990

One of the first issues which arose in the evolution of air law was the determination of the vertical limits of airspace over private property. In 1959 the UN in its Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, started to give attention to the question of the meaning of the term "outer space". Discussions in the United Nations regarding the delimitation issue were often divided between those in favour of a functional approach ("functionalists"), and those seeking the delineation of a boundary ("spatialists"). The functionalists, backed initially by both major space powers, which viewed any boundary as possibly restricting their access to space(Whether for peaceful or military purposes), won the first rounds, starting with the 1959 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space which did not consider that the topic called for priority consideration. In 1966, however, the spatialists, were able to place the issue on the agenda of the Outer Sapce Committee pursuant to Resolution 2222 (xxx1). However, the spatialists were not able to present a common position since there existed a variety of propositions for delineation of a boundary. Over the years, the funtionalists have seemed to be losing ground. As the element of location is a decisive factor for the choice of the legal regime to be applied, a purely functional approach to the regulation of activities in the space above the Earth does not offer a solution. It is therefore to be welcomed that there is clear evidence of a growing recognition of the defect inherent to such an approach and that a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a growing number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution of the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above the Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated, and a number of countries, among them Argentina, Belgium, France, Italy and Mexico have already advocated the acceptance of the lower boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. The adoption of the principle of sovereignty at that height does not mean that States would not be allowed to take protective measures against space activities above that height which constitute a threat to their security. A parallel can be drawn with the defence of the State's security on the high seas. Measures taken by States in their own protection on the high seas outside the territorial waters-provided that they are proportionate to the danger-are not considered to infringe the principle of international law. The most important issue in this context relates to the problem of a right of passage for space craft through foreign air space in order to reach outer space. In the reports to former ILA Conferences an explanation was given of the reasons why no customary rule of freedom of passage for aircraft through foreign territorial air space could as yet be said to exist. It was suggested, however, that though the essential elements for the creation of a rule of customary international law allowing such passage were still lacking, developments apperaed to point to a steady growth of a feeling of necessity for such a rule. A definite treaty solution of the demarcation problem would require further study which should be carried out by the UN Outer Space Committee in close co-operation with other interested international organizations, including ICAO. If a limit between air space and outer space were established, air space would automatically come under the regime of the Chicago Convention alone. The use of the word "recognize" in Art. I of chicago convention is an acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as a general principle of law, the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. Further it is important to note that the Aricle recognizes this sovereignty, as existing for every state, holding it immaterial whether the state is or is not a contracting state. The functional criteria having been created by reference to either the nature of activity or the nature of the space object, the next hurdle would be to provide methods of verification. With regard to the question of international verification the establishment of an International Satelite Monitoring Agency is required. The path towards the successful delimitation of outer space from territorial space is doubtless narrow and stony but the establishment of a precise legal framework, consonant with the basic principles of international law, for the future activities of states in outer space will, it is still believed, remove a source of potentially dangerous conflicts between states, and furthermore afford some safeguard of the rights and interests of non-space powers which otherwise are likely to be eroded by incipient customs based on at present almost complete freedom of action of the space powers.