• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

Although aviation safety and security have been improving, which has made air transportation more reliable, the international aviation community has witnessed a steady increase in the number of unruly passenger incidents. Under international law, the Tokyo Convention (The Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft of 1963) is applicable to unruly passenger issues. While the Tokyo Convention has been a successful convention which 185 member states have ratified, it has its shortcomings. Three major shortcomings are related to definition, jurisdiction, and enforcement. Firstly, the Tokyo Convention does not provide for a definition of unruly passengers, thereby resulting in a situation where conduct that may be considered to be a criminal offence in the country of embarkation may not be a criminal offence in the country where the aircraft lands. Having different definitions may lead to ineffective action on the part of air carriers. Secondly, the fact that the state of landing does not bear jurisdiction produces circumstances in which it is impossible to punish an unruly passenger who clearly committed an offence on board. Thirdly, the Tokyo Convention only recognizes the competence of the state of registry to exercise criminal jurisdiction but does not impose the duty to actually use that competence in any specific case. Along with ratifying the Tokyo Convention, Korea enacted the Aviation Navigation Safety Act in 1974 as a domestic legal approach to dealing with the problem of unruly passengers. Partially reflecting the ICAO's model legislation, Circular 288, the Aviation Safety and Security Act was enacted in 2002. Although the Korean Aviation Safety and Security Act is a comprehensive act which has been constantly updated, there is no provision with respect to jurisdiction and only the Korean criminal code is applicable to jurisdiction. The Korean criminal code establishes its jurisdiction in connection with territoriality, nationality and registration, which is essentially the same as the jurisdictional principles of the Tokyo Convention. Thus, the domestic legal regime cannot close the jurisdictional gap either. Similarly, Korean case law would not take an active posture to jurisdiction unless the offence in question is a serious one, such as hijacking. A Special Sub Committee of the ICAO Legal Committee (LCSC) was established to examine the feasibility of introducing amendments to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft of 1963 with particular reference to the issue of unruly passengers. The result of the ICAO's findings should lead to the modernization of the Tokyo Convention, thereby reducing the number of incidents caused by unruly passengers and enabling all parties concerned to respond to unruly passengers more effectively.

• 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.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.199-236
• /
• 2014

This paper analyses from the perspective of distributive justice the legal mechanisms for international allocation of orbital slots, which are of co-owned nature and thereby limited natural resources in outer space. The allocative function is delegated to the International Telecommunication Union. The Radio Regulation, amongst such other legal instruments as the Constitution and Convention, by which the ITU and contracting States thereof abides, dictates how the orbital positions are distributed. Thus, the RR is thoroughly reviewed in the essay. The mechanisms are in a broad sense categorized into two systems: 'a posteriori system' where the 'first come, first served' principle prevails; and 'a priori system' designed to foster the utilisation of the slots by those who lack space resources and are, in especial, likely to be marginalised under the former system. The argument proceeds on the premise that a posteriori system places the under-resourced States in unfavourable positions in the securement of the slots. In contrast with this notion, seven factors were instantiated for an assertion that the degradation of the distributive justice derived from the 'first come, first served' rule, which lays the foundation for the system, could be either mitigated or counterbalanced by the alleged exceptions to the rule. However, the author of this essay argues for counterevidences against the factors and thereby demonstrating that the principle still remains as an overwhelming doctrine, posing a threat to the pursuit of fair allocation. The elements he set forth are as in the following: 1) that the 'first come, first served' principle only applies to assignments capable of causing harmful interferences; 2) the interoperability of the principle with the 'rule of conformity' with the all the ITU instruments; 3) the viability of alternative registrations, as an exception of the application of the principle, on the condition of provisional and informational purposes; 4) another reference that matters in deciding the priority: the types of services in the TFA; 5) the Rule of Procedure H40 proclaiming a ban on taking advantage of coming first to the Register; 6) the technical factors and equity-oriented norms under international and municipal laws along with; 7) the changes of 'basic characteristics' of registered assignments. The second half of this essay illustrates by examining the relevant Annexes to the Regulation that the planned allocation, i.e., a priori system, bear the structured flaws that hinder the fulfillment of the original purpose of the system. The Broadcasting and Fixed Satellite Systems are the reviewed Plans in which the 'first come, first served' principle re-emerges in the end as a determining factor to grant the 'right to international recognition' to administrations including those who has not the allotted portions in the Plan.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.9-58
• /
• 2005

The Warsaw Convention-officially denominated the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air"- is a major multilateral agreement governing the rights and responsibilities of passengers, consignor/consignee and air carriers in international transportation. Article 29(1) of the Warsaw Convention provides that the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within 2 years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the transportation stopped. There has been disagreement as to the nature of this provision. It has been viewed on one hand as a statute of limitations, which may be tolled in appropriate circumstances. Some US Courts which have taken this approach read Article 29(2)-which states that the method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is submitted-as leaving to local law the determination of when the 2-year limitation period provided for in Article 29(1) runs. Therefore, they conclude, under Article 29(2), whenever state law would toll a state statute of limitations, the statute of limitations contained in Article 29(1) would be tolled as well. On the other hand, some other US courts have viewed the 2-year provision contained in Article 29(1) as a condition precedent to the right to bring suit, which will absolutely bar any action not brought within 2 years of the events giving rise to the action. These courts view Article 29(2) as providing only that the forum court should look to the law of the forum on the question whether the plaintiff has taken the necessary measures within the 2-year period to invoke that particular court's jurisdiction over the action. These courts have placed great weight on the "legislative" history of the Convention in reaching this position, noting in particular that the delegates to the Convention expressly considered and rejected a provision, which would have incorporated local tolling provisions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.31-64
• /
• 2015

The Chicago Convention and Annexes have become the basis of aviation safety regulations for every contracting state. Generally, aviation safety regulations refer to the SARPs provided in the Annexes of the Chicago Convention. In order to properly reflect international aviation safety regulations, constant studies of the aviation fields are of paramount importance. Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea. Each contracting state to the Chicago Convention should meet ICAO SARPs about AOC and FAOC. According to ICAO SARPs, Civil Aviation Authorities shall issue AOC to air carriers of the state, but don't require to issue for foreign air carrier. However some contracting states of the Chicago Convention issue FAOC and/or Operations Specifications for the foreign operators. This FAOC is being expanded from USA to the other contracting states. Foreign operators have doubly burden to implement AOC of the ICAO SARPs because FAOC is an additional requirement other than that prescribed by the ICAO SARPs In Article 33, the Chicago Convention stipulates that each contracting state shall recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting states as long as they are equal to or above the minimum standards of the ICAO. In ICAO Annex 6, each contracting state shall recognize as valid an air operator certificate issued by another contracting state, provided that the requirements under which the certificate was issued are at least equal to the applicable Standards specified in this Annex. States shall establish a programme with procedures for the surveillance of operations in their territory by a foreign operator and for taking appropriate action when necessary to preserve safety. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the states issuing the FAOC to the foreign air carriers of other states is against the Convention. Hence, I make some proposals on the FAOC as an example of comprehensive problem solving after comparative study with ICAO SARPs and the contracting state's regulations. Some issues must be improved and I have made amendment proposals to meet ICAO SARPs and to strengthen aviation development. Operators should be approved by FAOC at most 190 if all states require FAOC. Hence, it is highly recommended to eliminate the FAOC or reduce the restrictions it imposes. In certain compliance-related issues, delayed process shall not be permitted to flight operations. In addition, it is necessary for the ICAO to provide more unified and standardized guidelines in order to avoid confusion or bias regarding the arbitrary expansion of the FAOC. For all the issue mentioned above, I have studied the ICAO SARPs and some state's regulation regarding FAOC, and suggested some proposals on the FAOC as an example of comprehensive problem solving. I hope that this paper is 1) to help understanding about the international issue, 2) to help the improvement of korean aviation regulations, 3) to help compliance with international standards and to contribute to the promotion of aviation safety, in addition.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.239-272
• /
• 2014

The rights and obligations of the Member States of ITU in the domain of international frequency management of the spectrum/orbit resource are incorporated in the Constitution and Convention of the ITU and in the Radio Regulations that complement them. These instruments contain the main principles and lay down the specific regulations governing the major elements such as rights and obligations of member administrations in obtaining access to the spectrum/orbit resource, as well as international recognition of these rights by recording frequency assignments and, as appropriate, any associated orbits, including the geostationary-satellite orbits used or intended to be used in the Master International Frequency Register (MIFR) Coordination is a further step in the process leading up to notification of the frequency assignments for recording in the MIFR. This procedure is a formal regulatory obligation both for an administration seeking to assign a frequency in its network and for an administration whose existing or planned services may be affected by that assignment. Regulatory problem lies in allowing administrations to fulfill their "bringing into use" duty for preserving his filing simply putting any satellites, whatever nationlity or technical specification may be, into filed orbit. This sort of regulatory lack may result in the emergence of the secondary market for satellite orbit. Within satellite orbit secondary market, the object of transaction may be the satellite itself, or the regulatory rights in rem, or the orbit registered in the MIFR. Recent case of selling the Koreasat belongs to the typical example of orbit transaction between private companies, the legality of which remains doubtedly controversial from the perspective of international space law as well as international transaction law. It must be noted, however, that the fact is the Koreasat 3 and its filed orbit is for sale.

• 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.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.