• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.213-233
• /
• 2004

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.359-378
• /
• 2011

UCP600 Article 20 (a) (v) states that contents of terms and conditions of carriage will not be examined and Article 34 states that a bank assumes no liability or responsibility for the general or particular conditions stipulated in a document. From this perspective, banks may seem to have no obligation to examine the pre-printed clause of B/L. However, ICC decided that no opinion could be given in relation to the issues surrounding B/Ls that contain delivery clauses. Accordingly, it is agreed by previous cases and some scholars that banks may refuse the B/Ls that contain delivery clauses which are not present in other B/Ls of the same goods and transport routes. Also, ICC published ICC Decision in July 2010 regarding on board notation. In this decision, if a B/L indicates a place of receipt that is different from the port of loading and there is an indication of a means of pre-carriage, then a dated on board notation will be required indicating the name of the vessel and the port of loading. Therefore, banks may,, in some cases, need to scrutinize the pre-printed clauses especially appearing in the front page of B/Ls.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제47권
• /
• pp.337-353
• /
• 2010

On payment of the insurance money the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to all right and remedies of the assured in respect of the interest insured in so far as he has indemnified the insured. The purpose of subrogation is to prevent the assured from recovering more than once for the same loss, e.g. where goods are lost owing to a collision, the assured cannot claim the insurance money from the insurer and then sue the owners of the ship that negligently caused the collision. Under the doctrine of subrogation the right to sue owners of the negligent ship passes from the assured to the insurer on payment of the insurance money. The insurer is subrogated to the assured 'rights against the carrier under the contract of carriage. To defeat the cargo underwriters' subrogation righters, the carriers inserted in their B/L a clause allowing the carriers to have the "benefit of the shipper's insurance. But, in the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, its makes void any clause that assigns a benefit of insurance of the goods in favour of the carrier. In practice the insurer asks the assured to sign a letter of subrogation and retains the documents in order to prosecute the rights subrogated to him.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제78권
• /
• 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.

• International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.60-68
• /
• 2018

A series of tests in an ice tank was carried out using a model-scale ship to investigate the ice loading process. The ship model Uikku was mounted on a rigid carriage and towed through a level ice field in the ice tank of the Marine Technology Group at Aalto University. The carriage speed and ice thickness were varied. In this paper, ice loading process was described and the corresponding ice forces on the horizontal plane were analysed. A new method is proposed to decompose different ice force components from the total ice forces measured in the model tests. This analysis method is beneficial to understanding contributions of each force component and modelling of ice loading on hulls. The analysed experimental results could be used for comparison with further numerical simulations.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제75권
• /
• pp.1-28
• /
• 2017

Article 67 of CISG which provides for the passing of risk of loss of the goods applies to the contract of sale involving carriage of the goods. The risk here is in nature the price risk. Under Article 67(1), if the seller is bound to hand the goods over to a carrier at a particular place, the risk passes to the buyer when the goods are handed over to the carrier at that place; if the seller is not bound to hand them over at a particular place, the risk passes to the buyer when the goods are handed over to the carrier. In these cases, the risk passes even though the seller duly retains documents controlling the disposition of the goods. Article 69 of CISG applies to the contract of sale that does not involve carriage of the goods. Under Article 69(1) which covers the situation that the buyer is bound to take over the goods at the place of business of the seller, the risk passes when the buyer takes over the goods, however if the buyer does not take over the goods in due time, the risk passes at the time when the goods are placed at the buyer's disposal and he commits a breach of contract by failing to take delivery. Under Article 69(2) which covers the situation that the buyer is bound to take over the goods at a place (including his own place of business) other than the place of business of the seller, the risk passes when delivery is due and the buyer is aware of the fact that the goods are placed at his disposal at that place. Under these provisions of CISG, this study suggests what should be the definition of the contract of sale involving carriage of the goods. This study goes further to looks into what should be the concepts of the handing over of the goods by the seller to the carrier, the taking over of the goods by the buyer and the placing the goods at the buyer's disposal by the seller. This study may, we hope, provide a guidance for clearer understanding of the exact time of passing of risk under CISG.

• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제4권
• /
• pp.7-35
• /
• 1992

The expansion of air transport on a global scale with ever increasing traffic densities has brought about problems that must be solved through new multilateral mechanisms. Looking to the immediate future, air transport will require new forms of international cooperation in technical and economic areas. Air transport by its very nature should have been a counterforce to nationalism. Yet, the regulatory system in civil aviation is still as firmly rooted in the principle of national sovereignty as when it was first proclaimed at t-11e Paris Convention of 1919 and reaffirmed in the Chicago Convention. Sovereignty over the airspace has remained the cornerstone of relations between states in all respects of air transport. The importance of sovereignty over air space embodied in article 1 of the Chicago Conrenton also is responsible for restricting the authority of ICAO as an intergovernmental regulatory agency. The Orgenization, for all its extensive efforts, has only limited authority. ICAO sets standards but cannot enforce them; it devises solutions but cannot impose them. To implement its rules ICAO most rely not so much on legal requirements as on the goodwill of states. It has been forty-eight years since international community set the foundations of the international system in civil aviation action. Profound political, economic and technological changes have taken place in air transport. The Chicago Convention is living proof that staes can work together to make air transport a safe mode of travel. The law governing international civil auiation is principally based on international treaties and on other regulation agreed to by governments, for the most part through the mechanism of ICAO. The role of ICAO international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with a broad range of technical matters could hardly be overestimated. The organization's ability to develop these standards and procedures, to adapt them continuously to the rapid sate of change and development of air transport, should be particularly stressed. The role of ICAO in the area of the development of multilateral conventions on international air law has been successful but to a certain degree. From the modest starting-point of the Tokyo Convention, we have seen more adequate international instruments prepared within the scope of ICAO activities, adopted: the Hague Convention of 1970 for the suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the Montreal Convention of 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. The work of ICAO in the new domain of international law conventions concerning what has been loosely termed above as the criminal problems connected with international air transport, in particular the problem of armed aggression against aircraft, should be positively appreciated. But ICAO records in the domain of developing a uniform legal system of international carriage by air are rather disappointing. The problem of maintaining and developing the uniformity of this regulation exceeds the scope of interest and competence of governmental transport agencies. The expectations of mankind linked to it are too great to give up trying to restore the uniform legal system of international air carriage that would create proper conditions for its further growth. It appears that ICAO has, at present, a good opportunity for doing this. The hasty preparation of ICAO draft conventions should be definitely excluded. Every Preliminary draft convention ought to be sent to Governments of all member-States for consideration, So that they could in form ICAO in due time of their observation. The problom of harmonizing a uniform law of international air carriage with that of other branches of international transport should demand more and more of its attention. ICAO cooperation with other international arganization, especially these working in the field of international transport, should be strengthened. ICAO is supposed to act as a link and a mediator among, at times the conflicting interests of member States, serving the happiness and peace of all of the world. The transformation of the contemporary world of developing international relations, stimulated by steadily growing international cooperation in its various dimensions, political, economic, scientific, technological, social and cultural, continuously confronts ICAO with new task.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2017

우리나라는 급증하는 항공운송과 그에 따른 분쟁의 신속하고도 합리적인 처리를 위하여 지난 2007년 상법 중 항공운송편에 대한 제정작업에 들어간 이래 2011. 4. 29에 "상법 중 항공운송편 제정(안)"이 국회를 통과하여 같은 해 11. 24부터 시행에 들어가게 되었다. 항공운송은 그 특성상 국내선을 이용한 운송보다는 국제선을 이용한 운송이 절대적이다. 따라서 국내뿐만 아니라 국제적으로도 이러한 항공운송의 특성에 기하여 이미 오래 전부터 많은 국제협약을 탄생시켜 왔다. 그 중에 하나가 몬트리올 협약인데, 우리나라는 항공운송편 제정작업을 본격적으로 시행하던 때인 2007년에 이 협약에 가입하였다. 몬트리올 협약은 지난 1999. 5. 10부터 5. 28까지 국제민간항공기구의 본부가 있는 캐나다 몬트리올에서 열린 외교회의에서 채택된 국제조약이다. 몬트리올 협약은 30개국 이상이 비준하면 그 효력이 발생토록 하였는데, 지난 2003. 9. 5. 미국과 카메룬이 30번째와 31번째로 이를 비준함으로써 효력이 발생하였고, 2017. 11. 28. 우간다가 협약에 가입함으로써 현재 지역경제공동체로서 유럽연합 (European Union)을 포함하여 129개 국가가 가입하여 총 130개 당사국이 가입한 상태이다. 이에 따라 우리나라와 몬트리올 협약 가입국 130개국 중 어느 나라와 발생한 항공운송에 관한 분쟁은 원칙적으로 이 몬트리올 협약이 적용되게 된다. 그러나 국제항공운송계약에 따른 국제항공운송에 있어 이 기본적인 원칙의 적용이 문제가 되는 경우가 왕왕 발생한다. 이글에서 다루게 될 2016년의 대법원 판결도 바로 국제항공운송계약에 있어 이 몬트리올 협약이 적용되는지가 쟁점이 된 사건이다. 사실 우리나라가 2007년 몬트리올 협약에 가입한 이후 만 10년이 되는 2017년 현재까지 국제항공운송계약에 있어 몬트리올 협약이 적용되어야 하는지 여부가 문제가 되어 대법원에서 판단한 사건으로는 이 사건이 유일해 보인다. 따라서 이 글에서는 국제항공운송계약에 있어 몬트리올 협약의 적용여부를 상법의 기준에서 살펴보고 국제항공운송인의 책임, 특히 화물에 대한 책임을 중심으로 몬트리올 협약과 우리 상법상 항공운송편의 내용도 함께 다루어 보고자 한다. 이 글을 계기로 우리나라에서 효력을 갖게 된 몬트리올 협약의 지난 10년을 되돌아보고 몬트리올 협약과 우리 상법간의 차이가 있다면 합리적인 범위내에서 이를 수정할 수 있는 계기가 되었으면 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제60권
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2013

The Incoterms and United Nations Convention on Contract for the international Sales of Goods(CISG) allocate a risk in their articles. These rules make a decision that the parties who make a transaction are bound to bear the risk or damages of goods. Though a goods have a damages or loss during a transportation, buyer is liable for the payment of purchase price. In this case, this paper defines the meaning whether who can bear the risk under Incoterms and CISG. In the majority cases which deal between parties, after shipment or at the end of carriage, the loss or damages are found in buyer's hand. If a damages or loss is made during transit, customarily these risk are covered by insurance. Otherwise, these rules provide a tools for solving this problems. Then, between parties should be accomplished their target equitably.