• 환경영향평가
• /
• 제4권3호
• /
• pp.41-48
• /
• 1995

In former times the protection of our environment didn't play an important role due to the fact that emissions and effluents were not considered as serious impacts. However, opinions and scientific measurements meanwhile confirmed that the impacts are more serious than expected. Thus measures to protect our earth has to be taken into consideration. A part of these measures in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). One of the most important parts of the EIA is the collection of basic datas and the following evaluation. Experience out of the daily business of Gerling Consulting Group shows that the content of the EIA has to be revised and enlarged in certain fields. The historical development demonstrated that in areas in which the population and the industrial activities reached high concentration there is a high necessity to develop strict environmental laws and regulations. Maximum values of the concentration of hazardous materials were fixed concerning the emission into and water. Companies not following these regulations were punished. The total amount of environmental offences increased rapidly during the last decade, at least in Germany. During this development the public consciousness concerning environmental affairs increased as well in the industrialized countries. But it could clearly be seen that the development in the field of environmental protection went into the wrong direction. The technologies to protect the environment became more and more sophisticated and terms as: "state of the art" guided more and more to lower emissions, Filtertechnologies and wastewater treatment for example reached a high technical level-but all these sophisticated technologies has one and the same characteristic: they were end-of-the pipe solutions. A second effect was that this kind of environmental protection costs a lot of money. High investments are necessary to reduce the dust emission by another ppm! Could this be the correct way? In Germany the discussion started that the environmental laws reduce the attractivity to invest or to enlarge existing investments within the country. Other countries seem to be not so strict with controlling the environmental laws which means it's simply cheaper to produce in Portugal or Greece. Everybody however knows that this is not the correct way and does not solve the environmental problems. Meanwhile the general picture changes a little bit and we think it changes into the correct direction "End-of-the-pipe" solutions are still necessary but this word received a real negative touch and nobody wants to be brought into connection with this word received a real negative touch and nobody wants to be brought into connection with this word especially in connection with environmental management and safety. Modern actual environmental management starts in a different way. Thoughts about emissions start in the very beginning of the production, they start with the design of the product and modification of traditional modes of production. Basis of these ideas are detailed analyses of products and processes. Due to the above mentioned facts that the public environmental consciousness changed dramatically a continous environmental improvement of each single production plant has to be guarantied. This question is already an important question of the EIA. But it was never really checked in a wholistic approach. Environmental risks have to be taken into considerations during the execution of an EIA. This means that the environmental risks have to be reduced down to a capable risk-level. Environmental risks have to be considered within the phase of planning, during the operation of a plant and after shut down. The experience shows that most of the environmental relevant accidents were and caused by human fault. Even in highly protected plants the human risk-factor can not be excluded during evaluation of the risk-potential. Thus the approach of an EIA has to regard technical evaluations as well as organizational thoughts and the human factor. An environmental risk is a threat to the environment. An analysis of the risk concerning the organizational and human aspect however never was properly executed during an EIA. A possible solution could be to use an instrument as the actual EMAS (Environmental Management System) of the EC for more accurate evaluation of the impact to the environment during an EIA. Organizations or investors could demonstrate by an approved EMAS or even by showing their installment of EMAS that not only the technical level of the planned investment meets the requested standards but as well the actual or planned management is able to reduce the environmental impact down to a bearable level.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.53-75
• /
• 1993

This article is concerned with the comment on "Some New Problems of International Aviation Security-Considerations Forcused on its Legal Aspects". Ever since 1970, in addition to the problem of failure to accept the Tokyo, Hague and Montreal Conventions, there has been also the problem of parties to them, failing to comply with their obligations under the respective treaties, in the form especially of nominal penalties or the lack of any effort to prosecute after blank refusals to extradite. There have also been cases of prolonged detention of aircraft, passengers and hostages. In this regard, all three conventions contain identical clauses which submit disputes between two or more contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of the respective conventions to arbitration or failing agreement on the organization of the arbitration, to the International Court of Justice. To the extent to which contracting States have not contracted out of this undertaking, as I fear they are expressly allowed to do, this promision can be used by contracting States to ensure compliance. But to date, this avenue does not appear to have been used. From this point of view, it may be worth mentioning that there appears to be an alarming trend towards the view that the defeat of terrorism is such an overriding imperative that all means of doing so become, in international law, automatically lawful. In addition, in as far as aviation security is concerned, as in fact it has long been suggested, what is required is the "application of the strictest security measures by all concerned."In this regard, mention should be made of Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention on Security-Safeguarding International Civil Aviation against Acts of Unlawful Intereference. ICAO has, moreover, compiled, for restricted distribution, a Security Manual for Safeguarding Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference, which is highly useful. In this regard, it may well be argued that, unless States members of ICAO notify the ICAO Council of their inability to comply with opecific standards in Annex 17 or any of the related Annexes in accordance with Article 38 of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, their failure to do so can involve State responsibility and, if damage were to insure, their liability. The same applies to breaches of any other treaty obligation. I hope to demonstrate that although modes of international violence may change, their underlying characteristics remain broadly similar, necessitating not simply the adoption of an adequate body of domestic legislation, firm in its content and fairly administered, but also an international network of communication, of cooperation and of coordination of policies. Afurther legal instrument is now being developed by the Legal Committee of ICAO with respect to unlawful acts at International airports. These instruments, however, are not very effective, because of the absence of universal acceptance and the deficiency I have already pointed out. Therefore, States, airports and international airlines have to concentrate on prevention. If the development of policies is important at the international level, it is equally important in the domestic setting. For example, the recent experiences of France have prompted many changes in the State's legislation and in its policies towards terrorism, with higher penalties for terrorist offences and incentives which encourage accused terrorists to pass informations to the authorities. And our government has to tighten furthermore security measures. Particularly, 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 acquiescence 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. The general opinion is that the legal oystem 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. 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 sovereign rights of states, and the human rights of the individuals. 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. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co - ordinated measures.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

1982년 UN해양법협약 제86조에 의하면 공해는 영해와 내수는 물론이고 접속수역, 배타적 경제수역이 아닌 수역을 의미하므로 기존의 공해였던 부분이 상당히 연안국관할권 하에 놓이게 되었다. 이와 같은 공해의 상공비행과 관련된 국제법에 관한 사항으로 다음과 같은 결론을 얻을 수 있다. 첫째, 항공기의 국적에 관하여 1944년 시카고협약 제17조에 의하면 항공기는 등록한 국가의 국적을 갖는다. 여기서 항공법이 해양법과 구별되는 측면이 있는데, 선박에는 통용되는 '편의치적'(便宜置籍 또는 편의기국, flags of convenience)이 항공기에는 적용되지 않기 때문에 항공기에 대한 실질적 소유와 효과적 통제가 유지된다. 둘째, UN해양법협약 제95조는 공해상 군함의 면제권에 대하여 설명하고 있는데, 공해에 있는 군함은 기국외의 어떠한 국가의 관할권으로부터도 완전히 면제된다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 군용항공기(또는 군용기)의 경우도 이에 준하는 면책권을 향유한다고 해석할 수 있다. 셋째, UN해양법협약은 해적에 관한 정의를 제101조에 명시하고 있는데, 해적행위가 공해상의 선박에 대하여 행해 질 경우, 공해상의 선박뿐만 아니라 항공기에 의해서도 행해질 수 있음을 분명히 하고 있다. 넷째, UN해양법협약 제111조는 추적권에 관하여 상세하게 규정하고 있는데 이러한 추적권은 군함이나 군용항공기 또는 기타 정부역무에 종사함이 명백히 표시되고 식별되며 이에 대한 권한이 부여된 선박이나 항공기에 의해서만 행사되어질수 있음을 명시하여 선박 뿐 아니라 항공기에 의해서 추적이 행사될 수 있음을 규정하고 있다. 다섯째, UN해양법협약 제110조는 임검권(right of approach)에 관하여 설명하고 있는데, 외국선박을 공해에서 만난 군함은 일정 혐의를 가지고 있다는 합리적 근거가 있는 한 그 선박을 임검하는 것은 정당화되는데, 이러한 규정은 군용항공기에도 준용되고, 이러한 규정은 또한 정부 업무에 사용 중인 것으로 명백히 표시되어 식별이 가능하며 정당하게 권한이 부여된 그 밖의 모든 선박이나 항공기에도 적용된다. 여섯째, 1982년 UN해양법협약은 해양오염과 항공기의 관계를 규정하고 있는데, 제212조는 대기에 의한 또는 대기를 통한 오염을 규정하고, 제222조는 대기에 의한 또는 대기를 통한 오염관련 법령집행을 규정하고 있고, UN해양법협약은 제1항에서 '투기'(dumping)에 의한 오염을 규정하고 있는데 각 조항은 자국기를 게양하고 있는 선박 또는 자국에 등록된 선박뿐만 아니라 항공기에도 적용되는 법령을 채택한다고 규정하고 있다. 일곱 번째, 공해상공에서 발생한 범죄에 관하여 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)의 주관하에 1963년 도쿄에서 개최된 회의에서 이러한 문제를 종합적으로 해결한 협약인 도쿄협약이 제정되었다. 또한 ICAO의 주관 하에 하이재킹문제를 해결하기 위하여 1970년 12월 16일 헤이그협약이 체결되었으며, 사보타지문제를 해결하기 위하여 ICAO에 의해서 1971년 9월 23일 몬트리올협약이 체결되었다. 도쿄협약, 헤이그협약, 몬트리올협약 모두 공해상에서 발생한 범죄에 대하여 항공기의 기국관할권(flag State jurisdiction)을 인정하고 있다. 여덟 번째, 공해상에서 연안국의 영토에 진입하지 않고 실시하는 정찰행위는 국제법 위반행위가 아니다. 이는 관련항공기의 공해상 정찰행위는 연안국 영토를 침범하지 않고 행해지는 것으로 공해상공비행의 자유가 우선적으로 적용되기 때문이다. 아홉 번째, 연안국에 의한 공해상 설치된 '방공식별구역'(또는 방공확인구역, Air Defence Identification Zone: ADIZ)이 국제법상 합법적인가 하는 문제가 있는데, 이에 관하여 합의된 결론은 없고, 실제로 실행국가의 국내법에 따라 규율되고 있다. 마지막으로 북극해는 얼어있는 바다가 대부분이므로 북극해의 상공비행은 공해의 상공비행과 유사하다. 20세기후반부터 아시아, 북아메리카, 유럽을 잇는 항공로가 북극을 경유하도록 고안되었는데, 매우 추운 지방임에도 불구하고 지금까지 북극 항공노선에서 사고가 발생한 경우는 없다. 그러나 최근 기후온난화로 얼음이 녹기시작하면서 북극을 이용한 선박의 해로가 개발되면서 북극에 대한 자원개방을 둘러싼 연안국가들의 관할권주장이 열기를 띠고 있으므로 배타적 경제수역(EEZ)과 같은 연안국들의 해역선포는 북극해 비행에 지대한 영향을 미칠 수 있을 것이다.