• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.4
• /
• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.7-12
• /
• 2006

Purpose: This is for the purpose to help the bill related to technologists be systematic and unitary by carefully analyzing a legislation, an enforcement ordinance, and enforcement regulations in the connection with the radiological worker and the radiation workers from the law and regulations related to technologists. Materials and Methods: Concerning technologists, a legislation, an enforcement ordinance, and enforcement regulations for a sort of medical technician, regarding the radiological worker, the rules of diagnosis radiation equipment safety management, and concerning the radiation workers, atomic energy law, an enforcement ordinance and enforcement regulations were gathered, compared with one another, and analyzed. Results: Among technologists, in the case of working in the department of diagnosis radiation, the title 'Radiological Worker' is used by the Medical Service Law, and in the case of working in the department of radiation tumors or the one of nucleus medicine, the title 'Radiation Workers' is used by the Atomic Energy Law. Conclusion: Besides the technical term that is used by characteristic tasks, unification of the terms that can be used in common is necessary for sure. And when a legislation, an enforcement ordinance, enforcement regulations, and notification, things like that in the radiation field are amended, certainly they should be done by mutual agreement through negotiation between the organization related to radiation and the governmental organization.

• 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 Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.109-134
• /
• 2014

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation of assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (Regulation No 261/2004) provides extra protection to air passengers in circumstances of denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay. The Regulation intends to provide a high level of protection to air passengers by imposing obligations on air carriers and, at the same time, offering extensive rights to air passengers. If denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay are caused by reasons other than extraordinary circumstances, passengers are entitled for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA(Case C-549/07, [2008] ECR I-11061), the Court did, however, emphasize that this does not mean that it is never possible for technical problems to constitute extraordinary circumstances. It cited specific examples of where: an aircraft manufacturer or competent authority revealed that there was a hidden manufacturing defect on an aircraft which impacts on safety; or damage was caused to an aircraft as a result of an act of sabotage or terrorism. Such events are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin. One further point arising out of the court's decision is worth mentioning. It is not just necessary to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances test for the airline to be excused from paying compensation. It must also show that the circumstances could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It is clear from the language of the Court's decision that this is a tough test to meet: the airline will have to establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able - unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time - to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.