• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2009

A treaty that governs the compensation on damage caused by aircraft to the third parties on surface was first adopted in Rome in 1933, but without support from the international aviation community it was replaced by another convention adopted again in Rome in 1952. Despite the increase of the compensation amount and some improvements to the old version, the Rome Convention 1952 with 49 State parties as of today is not considered universally accepted. Neither is the Montreal Protocol 1978 amending the Rome Convention 1952, with only 12 State parties excluding major aviation powers like USA, Japan, UK, and Germany. Consequently, it is mostly the local laws that apply to the compensation case of surface damage caused by the aircraft, contrary to the intention of those countries and people who involved themselves in the drafting of the early conventions on surface damage. The terrorist attacks 9/11 proved that even the strongest power in the world like the USA cannot with ease bear all the damages done to the third parties by the terrorist acts involving aircraft. Accordingly as a matter of urgency, the International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) picked up the matter and have it considered among member States for a few years through its Legal Committee before proposing for adoption as a new treaty in the Diplomatic Conference held in Montreal, Canada 20 April to 2 May 2009. Accordingly, two treaties based on the drafts of the Legal Committee were adopted in Montreal by consensus, one on the compensation for general risk damage caused by aircraft, the other one on compensation for damage from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft. Both Conventions improved the old Convention/Protocol in many aspects. Deleting 'surface' in defining the damage to the third parties in the title and contents of the Conventions is the first improvement because the third party damage is not necessarily limited to surface on the soil and sea of the Earth. Thus Mid-air collision is now the new scope of application. Increasing compensation limit in big gallop is another improvement, so is the inclusion of the mental injury accompanied by bodily injury as the damage to be compensated. In fact, jurisprudence in recent years for cases of passengers in aircraft accident holds aircraft operators to be liable to such mental injuries. However, "Terror Convention" involving unlawful interference of aircraft has some unique provisions of innovation and others. While establishing the International Civil Aviation Compensation Fund to supplement, when necessary, the damages that exceed the limit to be covered by aircraft operators through insurance taking is an innovation, leaving the fate of the Convention to a State Party, implying in fact the USA, is harming its universality. Furthermore, taking into account the fact that the damage incurred by the terrorist acts, where ever it takes place targeting whichever sector or industry, are the domain of the State responsibility, imposing the burden of compensation resulting from terrorist acts in the air industry on the aircraft operators and passengers/shippers is a source of serious concern for the prospect of the Convention. This is more so when the risks of terrorist acts normally aimed at a few countries because of current international political situation are spread out to many innocent countries without quid pro quo.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.53-83
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to study precedent cases of the Air carrier liability for passengers. The article 17 of Warsaw Convention (also in Montreal Convention article 17-1) provides the Air carrier liability for passengers which is the most essential part of the Air carrier liability. According to these Conventions, 1) the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger. Precedents and theories have disagreements on whether the damage covers the mental injury as well. 2) The carrier is liable for damage sustained from aviation accident. The definition of 'aviation accident' is becoming problematic. 3) The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. The question at issue is the range of the operations of embarking or disembarking. This paper introduces the precedents (also, the model precedents) about the carriers liability for passengers and related cases, so as to help understand the trend of judicial decisions. Furthermore, the cases, once took all of the attention of the international air carriers, concerned with the 'Economy class syndrome' (DVT : Deep Vein Thrombosis) are also presented. Under the new Montreal Convention, the carriers liability for passengers will continue to be the main issue. Thus it is required that academics as well as practical businesses may keep up their studies about this issue.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.55-95
• /
• 2010

The meaning and application of 'lesion corporelle' in the context of a variety of mental or psychic injuries is less clear, while there is very little disagreement about its literal translation. U.S. Court decisions since Floyd allow recovery for a range of claims involving emotional injury under Article 17; in some cases there is no recovery, while in others there is full recovery, depending on the allegations and the nexus between the alleged injury and any related or accompanying physical injury. Courts are in agreement that pure emotional injury is not compensable under the Convention. Most courts agree that emotional injury is not compensable in those cases where it has resulted only in physical manifestations such as weight loss or sleeplessness. At the same time, most courts generally agree that emotional injury is compensable if it proximately flows from a physical injury. The issue as to whether the courts would associate PTSD with bodily injury as envisioned in the present Warsaw structure or even the new regime reflected in the Convention proposed by ICAO would largely depend on the extent to which courts would be ready to embrace the compelling scientific findings with regard to mental distress and its application within the term 'bodily injury'. Taken together, these points when the current under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, 'physical injury' notion of 'mental injury' is to be extended. Of course, the current terms of the Warsaw Convention have been maintaining a precedent for many countries appear to have a statue of the original purpose of the treaty does not contribute to the diffusion. Therefore, in future treaties 'bodily injury', the term 'injury', the term 'personal injury' or 'health undermined' the term should be replaced or revised.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.45-85
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of "accident" under the Warsaw system including the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999. Most leading case on this subject is Air France v. Saks(470 U.S. 392 (1985)). In the Saks case, it was held that the definition of an accident must be applied flexibly, and most courts have adhered to the definition of accident in Saks case, the application of accident has been less than consistent. However, most cases have held that if the event is usual and expected operation of the aircraft, then no accident has occurred. Courts have also held that where the injury results from passenger's own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operations of the aircraft, it is not caused by an accident. As the Warsaw drafters intended to create a system of liability rules that would cover all hazards of air travel, the carrier should liable for the inherent risks of air travel. It is right in that the carrier is in a better position than the passenger to control the risks during air travel. Most US courts have held that carriers are not liable for one passenger's assault on the other passenger. The interactions between passengers are not part of the normal operations of the aircraft and are therefore not covered by the word "accident" under Art 17 of the Warsaw Convention. It is regretful that the Montreal Convention did not attempt to clarify the concepts of accident in itself. In the light of an emerging tendency to hold the air carrier liable for occurrences that do not exactly go to the operation of the aircraft, it is desirable to regulate that the carrier is liable for an "event" instead of an "accident" in accordance with the Guatemala City protocol.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.95-116
• /
• 2015

Air transport agreement can be divided into air passenger contract of carriage and aviation also of the contract of carriage. And air carriers for damages greater (1) cause reason, of (2) limit reason, (3) exemption reason. Exemption reason for the extinction of the liability for damages in our Commercial Code, the Convention and domestic law are mixed. Convention on the Commercial Code and air transport, air transport people, if it is proved and that it has taken all the measures that are needed for the prevention of damage to overdue damage of passengers, liability is waived. So what was to achieve the requirements of all the actions that are reasonably necessary in any case is a problem. Amendment has the feature that the treaty for the International Air Transport reflect in accordance with the domestic situation, while being struck by international standards encompassing land, sea and air transport, even on the system. However, Commercial Code while mainly reflect the Montreal Convention governing air carrier's liability issues on the contract of carriage, a problem which the Convention had also began to occur together. So the problem due to accept the treaty to fit the domestic situation occurs. There is a need for analysis of all of the actions that are "reasonably necessary, which is defined in the Commercial Code. If there is no claim within Value Date rotor two years to air carriers on the court for the damage caused by air transport, the responsibility of air carriers disappear, sued the period of such two years, what kind of meaning on domestic law extension and stop to be whether it is interpreted, it should be determined to do their aggressive measures for the reasonable care and accident prevention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2013

Air transport today is a means of transport that is optimized for exchanges between nations. Around the world, has experienced an increase in operating and the number of airline route expansion that has entered into the international aviation agreements in order to take advantage of the air transport efficient, but the possibility of the occurrence of air transport accidents increased. When compared to the accident of other means of transport, development of air transport accidents, not high, but it leads to catastrophe aviation accident occurs. Air Transport accident many international transportation accident than domestic transportation accident, in the event of an accident, the analysis of the legal responsibility of the shipper or the like is necessary or passenger air carrier. Judgment of the legal order of discipline of air transport accident is a classification of the type of air transport agreement. Depending on the object, air transport agreements are classified into the contract of carriage of aviation of the air passenger transportation contract. For casualties occurs, air passenger transportation accident is a need more discussion of legal discipline for this particular. Korean Commercial Code, it is possible to reflect in accordance with the actual situation of South Korea the contents of the treaty, which is utilized worldwide in international air transport, even on the system, to control land, sea, air transport and welcoming to international standards. However, Korean Commercial Code, the problem of the Montreal Convention has occurred as it is primarily reflecting the Montreal Convention. As a cause of liability for damages, under the Commercial Code of Korea and the contents of the treaty precedent is reflected, the concept of accident is necessary definition of the exact concept for damages of passengers in particular. Cause of personal injury or death of passengers, in the event of an accident to the "working for the elevation" or "aircraft" on, the Montreal Convention is the mother method of Korea Commercial Code, liability for damages of air carrier defines. The Montreal Convention such, continue to be a matter of debate so far in connection with the scope of "working for the lifting of" the concepts defined in the same way from Warsaw Convention "accident". In addition, it is discussed and put to see if you can be included mental damage passenger suffered in air transport in the "personal injury" in the damage of the passenger is in the range of damages. If the operation of aircraft, injury accident, in certain circumstances, compensation for mental damage is possible, in the same way as serious injury, mental damage caused by aviation accidents not be able to live a normal life for the victim it is damage to make. So it is necessary to interpret and what is included in the injury to the body in Korea Commercial Code and related conventions, non-economic damage of passengers, clearly demonstrated from the point of view of prevention of abuse of litigation and reasonable protection of air carrier it must compensate only psychological damage that can be. Since the compensation of delay damages, Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention, Korea Commercial Code, there are provisions of the liability of the air carrier due to the delayed arrival of passenger and baggage, but you do not have a reference to delayed arrival, the concept of delay arrangement is necessary. The strict interpretation of the concept of delayed arrival, because it may interfere with safe operation of the air carrier, within the time agreed to the airport of arrival that is described in the aviation contract of carriage of passenger baggage, or, these agreements I think the absence is to be defined as when it is possible to consider this situation, requests the carrier in good faith is not Indian or arrive within a reasonable time is correct. The loss of passenger, according to the international passenger Conditions of Carriage of Korean Air, in addition to the cases prescribed by law and other treaties, loss of airline contracts, resulting in passengers from a service that Korean Air and air transport in question do damage was is, that the fact that Korean Air does not bear the responsibility as a general rule, that was caused by the negligence or intentional negligence of Korean Air is proof, negligence of passengers of the damage has not been interposed bear responsibility only when it is found. It is a clause in the case of damage that is not mandated by law or treaty, and responsible only if the negligence of the airline side has been demonstrated, but of the term negligence "for" intentional or negligent "Korean Air's Terms" I considered judgment of compatibility is required, and that gross negligence is appropriate. The "Korean Air international passenger Conditions of Carriage", airlines about the damage such as electronic equipment that is included in the checked baggage of passengers does not bear the responsibility, but the loss of baggage, international to arrive or depart the U.S. it is not the case of transportation. Therefore, it is intended to discriminate unfairly passengers of international flights arriving or departure to another country passengers of international flights arriving or departure, the United States, airlines will bear the responsibility for the goods in the same way as the contents of the treaty it should be revised in the direction.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.79-112
• /
• 2010

The Beijing Convention of 2010 taken together effectively establishes a new broader and stronger civil aviation security framework. This adoption would significantly advance cooperation in prevent of the full range of unlawful acting relation to civil aviation and the prosecution and punishment of offenders. First, the Beijing Convention of 2010 will require parties to criminalize a number of new and emerging threats to the safety of civil aviation, including using aircraft as a weapon and organizing, directing and financing acts of terrorism. These new treaties reflect the international community's shared effort to prevent acts of terrorism against civil aviation and to prosecute and punish those who would commit them. Second, this convention will also require States to criminalize the transport of biological, chemical, nuclear weapons and related material. These provisions reflect the nexus between non-proliferation and terrorism and ensure that the international community will act to combat both. Third, this Convention shall not apply to aircraft used in military, customs or police services. As a substitute, International Humanitarian Law will be applied in a case. Moreover, the National Jurisdiction and the application of the law will be extended farther. The treaty promotes cooperation between States while emphasizing the human rights and fair treatment of terrorist suspects.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.107-142
• /
• 2012

An aircraft has been one of the most important transportation means and disputes due to damage caused by delay of the aircraft happen many times out of ones related to the air transport. In 2011, the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law was established to regulate national air transport and the legislative system of air carrier's liability to handle delay of passengers or baggage was legislated here. Although there are some clauses related to the legislative system of air carrier's liability, they are very important because they deal with disputes due to damage caused by delay of the aircraft. The Air Transport Act in Commercial Law has a good point of adopting the global standard of 1999 Montreal Convention, but it has also a bad point of having the problems of 1999 Montreal Convention. There are some contents to be modified in the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law. First, the definition of 'Delay of Aircraft' needs to be enacted because it is important to materialize air carrier's liability due to damage caused by delay. Second, it is necessary to modify the clause in which air carrier's liability due to damage caused by delay of passengers is divided into two things, one is in case of national air transport and the other is in case of international air transport, and the limited amount of air carrier's liability in national air transport is eight times less than the latter because they are not so helpful to air carriers but too disadvantageous to aircraft passengers. Third, it is also necessary to amend the clause in which the limited amount of air carrier's liability due to damage caused by loss damage or delay of baggage has been legislated same without classifying the case into loss damage and delay, because they are generally different from each other in terms of extent of damage, therefore the limited amount of air carrier's liability by delay of baggage should be classified into in case of loss damage and in case of delay. It is desired that the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law including the clauses related to air carrier's liability by aircraft damage be developed continually by sufficient study and discussion about the necessity of amending it such as the one mentioned above.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2008

The volume of air passengers and cargo transportation has increased rapidly in recent years. This trend will be even more noticeable as the high-tech service industry expands and the globalization progresses. In an effort to reflect and to cope with this trend, many conventions concerning international air transportation have been concluded. The Republic of Korea has also acceded to the Montreal Convention of 1999 on September 20th, 2007 which became effective on December 29th 2007. However, Korea currently does not provide any private law on the liability of domestic air carrier, leaving the regulation wholly to the general conditions of carriage of private air lines. These general conditions of carriage, however, are not sufficient to regulate the liabilities of domestic air carriers, because they cannot be fully recognized as a legitimate source of law applicable in the court. This situation is inconvenient for both air carrier and their customers. Thus, the Ministry of Justice of Korea has decided to enact a law that will regulate domestic air transportation, namely, "Domestic Carriage by Air Act", as a part of the Korean Commercial Code. So was composed a special committee for legislation of the Domestic Carriage by Air Act. This writer has led the committee as a chairman. The committee has held in total 10 meetings so far and has completed a draft bill for the part VI of the Korean Commercial Code, "Air Carriage." The essentials of the draft are as follows: First, the establishment of Part VI in the Commercial Code. The Korean Commercial Code already includes a series of provisions on road transportation in part II and carriage by sea in part V. In addition to these rules regulating different types of transportation, the Domestic Carriage by Air Act will newly establish part VI to regulate air carriages. Eventually, the Commercial Code will provide an integrated legal system on the transportation industry. Second, the acceptance of the basic liability system which major international conventions, such as Montreal Convention of 1999 and Guadalajara Convention of 1961, have adopted. This is very important, because the law of air carriage is unified worldwide through various international conventions, making it necessary and significant for the new act to achieve conformity between rules of international air carriage and that of domestic air carriage. Third, the acceptance of Rome Convention system on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface. Fourth, the application of rules on domestic road carriage or carriage by sea mutatis mutandis with necessary modifications. This very point is the merit of inserting domestic air transportation law into the Commercial Code. By doing so, the number of articles can be reduced and the rules on air carriage can conform to that of road transportation and carriage by sea. The bill is expected to be passed by the parliament at the end of this year and is expected to be effective by end of July 2009.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.109-133
• /
• 2007

The legal labyrinth through which we have just walked is one in which even a highly proficient lawyer could easily become lost. Warsaw Convention's original objective of uniformity of private international aviation liability law has been eroded as the world community ha attempted again to address perceived problems. Efforts to create simplicity and certainty of recovery actually may have created less of both. In any particular case, the issue of which international convention, intercarrier agreement or national law to apply will likely be inconsistent with other decisions. The law has evolved faster for some nations, and slower for others. Under the Warsaw Convention of 1929, strict liability is imposed on the air carrier for damage, loss, or destruction of cargo, luggage, or goods sustained either: (1) during carriage in air, which is comprised of the period during which cargo is 'in charge of the carrier (a) within an aerodrome, (b) on board the aircraft, or (c) in any place if the aircraft lands outside an aerodrome; or (2) as a result of delay. By 2007, 151 nations had ratified the original Warsaw Convention, 136 nations had ratified the Hague Protocol, 84 had ratified the Guadalajara Protocol, and 53 nations had ratified Montreal Protocol No.4, all of which have entered into force. In November 2003, the Montreal Convention of 1999 entered into force. Several airlines have embraced the Montreal Agreement or the IATA Intercarrier Agreements. Only seven nations had ratified the moribund Guatemala City Protocol. Meanwhile, the highly influential U.S. Second Circuit has rendered an opinion that no treaty on the subject was in force at all unless both affected nations had ratified the identical convention, leaving some cases to fall between the cracks into the arena of common law. Moreover, in the United States, a surface transportation movement prior or subsequent to the air movement may, depending upon the facts, be subject to Warsaw, or to common law. At present, International private air law regime can be described as a "situation of utter chaos" in which "even legal advisers and judges are confused." The net result of this barnacle-like layering of international and domestic rules, standards, agreements, and criteria in the elimination of legal simplicity and the substitution in its stead of complexity and commercial uncertainty, which manifestly can not inure to the efficient and economical flow of world trade. All this makes a strong case for universal ratification of the Montreal Convention, which will supersede the Warsaw Convention and its various reformulations. Now that the Montreal Convention has entered into force, the insurance community may press the airlines to embrace it, which in turn may encourage the world's governments to ratify it. Under the Montreal Convention, the common law defence is available to the carrier even when it was not the sole cause of the loss or damage, again making way for the application of comparative fault principle. Hopefully, the recent entry into force of the Montreal Convention of 1999 will re-establish the international legal uniformity the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought to achieve, though far a transitional period at least, the courts of different nations will be applying different legal regimes.