• 제목/요약/키워드: prescribing

검색결과 362건 처리시간 0.018초

아시아 주요국가(主要國家)들에 있어서의 바르샤바 체제(體制)의 적용실태(適用實態)와 전망(展望) (The Current Status of the Warsaw Convention and Subsequent Protocols in Leading Asian Countries)

  • 이태희
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제1권
    • /
    • pp.147-162
    • /
    • 1989
  • The current status of the application and interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent Protocols in Asian countries is in its fredgling stages compared to the developed countries of Europe and North America, and there is thus little published information about the various Asian governments' treatment and courts' views of the Warsaw System. Due to that limitation, the accent of this paper will be on Korea and Japan. As one will be aware, the so-called 'Warsaw System' is made up of the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Hague Protocol of 1955, the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 1975. Among these instruments, most of the countries in Asia are parties to both the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol. However, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia are parties only to the Hague Protocol, while Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are parties only to the Warsaw Convention. Thailand and Taiwan are not parties only to the convention or protocol. Among Asian states, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Pakistan are also parties to the Guadalajara Convention, but no country in Asia has signed the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 or the Montreal Additional Protocols, which Protocols have not yet been put into force. The People's Republic of China has declared that the Warsaw Convention shall apply to the entire Chinese territory, including Taiwan. 'The application of the Warsaw Convention to one-way air carriage between a state which is a party only to the Warsaw Convention and a state which is a party only to the Hague Protocol' is of particular importance in Korea as it is a signatory only to the Hague Protocol, but it is involved in a great deal of air transportation to and from the united states, which in turn is a party only to the Warsaw Convention. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Korea appears to be, that parties to the Warsaw Convention were intended to be parties to the Hague Protocol, whether they actually signed it or not. The effect of this decision is that in Korea the United States and Korea will be considered by the courts to be in a treaty relationship, though neither State is a signatory to the same instrument as the other State. The first wrongful death claim in Korea related to international carriage by air under the Convention was made in Hyun-Mo Bang, et al v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. case. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed for damages based upon breach of contract as well as upon tort under the Korean Civil Code. The issue in the case was whether the time limitation provisions of the Convention should be applicable to a claim based in tort as well as to a claim based in contract. The Appellate Court ruled on 29 August 1983 that 'however founded' in Article 24(1) of the Convention should be construed to mean that the Convention should be applicable to the claim regardless of whether the cause of action was based in tort or breach of contract, and that the plaintiffs' rights to damages had therefore extinguished because of the time limitation as set forth in Article 29(1) of the Convention. The difficult and often debated question of what exactly is meant by the words 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' in Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, has also been litigated. The Supreme Court of Japan dealt with this issue in the Suzuki Shinjuten Co. v. Northwest Airlines Inc. case. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, and decided that 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' under Article 25(1) of the Convention was within the meaning of 'gross negligence' under the Japanese Commercial Code. The issue of the convention of the 'franc' into national currencies as provided in Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol has been raised in a court case in Korea, which is now before the District Court of Seoul. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the gold franc equivalent must be converted in Korean Won in accordance with the free market price of gold in Korea, as Korea has not enacted any law, order or regulation prescribing the proper method of calculating the equivalent in its national currency. while it is unclear if the court will accept this position, the last official price of gold of the United States as in the famous Franklin Mint case, Special Drawing Right(SDR) or the current French franc, Korean Air Lines has argued in favor of the last official price of gold of the United States by which the air lines converted such francs into us Dollars in their General Conditions of Carriage. It is my understanding that in India, an appellate court adopted the free market price valuation. There is a report as well saying that if a lawsuit concerning this issue were brought in Pakistan, the free market cost of gold would be applied there too. Speaking specifically about the future of the Warsaw System in Asia though I have been informed that Thailand is actively considering acceding to the Warsaw Convention, the attitudes of most Asian countries' governments towards the Warsaw System are still wnot ell known. There is little evidence that Asian countries are moving to deal concretely with the conversion of the franc into their own local currencies. So too it cannot be said that they are on the move to adhere to the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 3 & 4 which attempt to basically solve many of the current problems with the Warsaw System, by adopting the SDR as the unit of currency, by establishing the carrier's absolute liability and an unbreakable limit and by increasing the carrier's passenger limit of liability to SDR 100,000, as well as permiting the domestic introduction of supplemental compensation. To summarize my own sentiments regarding the future, I would say that given the fact that Asian air lines are now world leaders both in overall size and rate of growth, and the fact that both Asian individuals and governments are becoming more and more reliant on the global civil aviation networks as their economies become ever stronger, I am hopeful that Asian nations will henceforth play a bigger role in ensuring the orderly and hasty development of a workable unified system of rules governing international commercial air carriage.

  • PDF

KSLV발사에 따른 제작 및 제3자피해 책임에 대한 우주법적 소고 (Legal Study for the KSLV launching - Products & Third Party Liability -)

  • 신성환
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제21권1호
    • /
    • pp.169-189
    • /
    • 2006
  • 2007년 고흥 우주센타에서 우리가 만든 KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle)이 발사될 예정이며, 우리나라의 우주개발을 체계적으로 진흥하고 우주물체를 효율적으로 이용관리하기 위하여'우주개발진흥법'이 제정되었고 효력을 발휘하고 있다. '우주개발진흥법'제3조 (1)항에서"정부는 다른 국가 및 국제기구와 대한민국이 맺은 우주 관련 조약을 지키며 우주공간의 평화적 이용을 도모한다."라고 규정하고 있는바, 대표적으로 우주조약(1967)과 책임협약(1972)등이 그 대표적인 국제협약들이다. 우주물체로 야기된 손해에 대한 책임협약 제2조에서 발사국은 자국의 우주물체에 대하여"지상(on the surface of the earth) 또는 비행중인 항공기(aircraft in flight)에서 발생된 손해에 대하여 절대적(absolutely liable)으로 배상할 책임이 있다고 규정하고 있다. 우주개발진흥법 제14조 (우주사고에 따른 손해배상책임)에는"우주물체를 발사한 자는 그 우주물체로 인한 우주사고에 따른 손해배상책임을 부담하여야 한다."는 규정은 발사허가의 문제를 넘어, 우주발사자에게 명백하게 책임을 부담하고 있는 것이다. 또한 우주책임협약(1972) 제2조에는 발사국(A launching State)이 배상책임의 주체가 되어 있다. 따라서, 현재 다른 나라의 사례에서 보면, 우주발사자는 제3자 피해 등에 대한 책임보험까지만 배상을 하고 그 보다 많은 배상액이 요구될 때에는 국가가 손해배상을 부담하는 체재로 수행하고 있다. 여기서, 우주발사자에게 제조물책임법을 적용시킬 수 있느냐의 문제가 제기된다. 우리나라는 2002년 7월 1일부터 시행하고 있다. KSLV개발에 있어서 KARl와 러시아제작사간 계약은 공동개발인지 기술이전개발 인지에 대한 명확한 이해가 부족하다. 특히, 러시아 회사들에 대한 책임면책에 대한 규정들이 없는 것으로 알고 있는데, 우주개발의 통념상 상호면책을 한다는 인식만으로 러시아 회사들의 제작 및 개발책임들을 면책할 수 있는 방안은 없다고 판단된다. 따라서, 명백한 책임면책 조항이 없다면, 러시아 회사들에 대하여, 한국의 제조물책임법이 적용될 수 있다고 판단된다. 가장 중요한 법적논점은 KARl와 주요부품업체간에 제조물책임법을 적용할 수 있는가에 대한 문제이다. KARl는 모 주요부품업체간의 물품구매계약특수조건에 대한 합의서 제17조에 제조물책임법에 대한 규정을 하고 있다. 참고로, Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas 사례를 검토할 필요가 있는데, 본 사건은 Western Union Telegraph사 소유의 원거리 전기통신위성이 본 궤도 진입에 실패한 사례이다. Western Union의 보험회사는 완전한 손실로 간주하여 그 위성에 대해 Western Union 사에 1억 5백만 달러의 보험금을 지급하였다. 5개의 보험회사- Appalachian 보험 회사, Commonwealth 보험회사, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus 보험회사 - 는 McDonnell Douglas와 Morton Thiokol 그리고 Hitco사를 상대로 과실과 제품에 대한 엄격한 책임을 물어 고소를 했다. Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas사례를 참고로, KARl는 주요 제작업체의 제조물책임을 면책시켜주는 계약을 맺어야 한다. 주요제작업체가 제조물 책임을 면하기 위하여, 자비로 보험을 들게 되면 곧 KSLV 제작비만 증가하게 되기 때문이다. 따라서, Government Contractor Defense(정부계약자 항변)'의 법적개념을 적용시킬 수 있는지 여부에 대한 연구가 필요하다.

  • PDF