• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.33-54
• /
• 2008

The damage to the third parties caused by aircraft in flight shall be fully compensated to the extent that the damage didn't occur unless the damage is caused by innocent victims. However, related international Conventions limit operator's liability of compensation to certain levels, which is one of the main reasons that such international Conventions have not been ratified by many aviation leading States. However, international community has agreed, since 9/11, that the accidents caused by terrorists and the protection of the third parties need to be addressed more actively. And the amendment of the related Rome Conventions has been drafted under the ICAO leadership by the special committee that was organized to modernize the related international Conventions. This study addresses the issues related to the draft Conventions, the draft Convention for Damage caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, in case of Unlawful Interference and the draft Convention on compensation for Damage caused by Aircraft to Third Parties. It is expected that it takes considerable time to reach an agreement on all the issues from appropriate apportionment of liability between the government and operator to the details regarding the management of Supplementary Compensation Mechanism. Under the circumstances where the needs for the air transportation as well as threats of terrorism increase, the new international Convention should be prepared taking into consideration the balance between the protection of the innocent third parties and that of air transport industry including air carriers. Along with this, the Republic of Korea should actively participate in the process of amendment to the related international Conventions to protect the life and property of the people from anticipated damages.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.173-205
• /
• 2008

Space debris have frequently caused damage to space objects like satellites in orbits and sometimes have fallen on the earth. Such increase in space debris will lead to the high possibility of threatening space activities of mankind. However, it is not so easy for the damage caused both by identified and by unidentified space debris to be recovered since in the regime of the current international law, there is no legislation of prescribing the damage done by space debris. For overcoming the limitation it seems desirable that either the Liability Convention should partly be amended or new international law regime should be established. For instance, 'space debris' should be included in the new definition of 'space object' and the range of launching should also be defined clearly by making the concept of 'launching' somewhat more specified. Moreover, the subject of international liability for damage caused by space debris should be divided into two classes: the subject before and after registration. While in case of before-registration launch states should be held liable for any damage jointly or individually, in case of after-registration 'the state of registry' or 'owner' of the space debris should be. In the event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object of other State, 'fault-based liability' is currently applied. But it needs to be changed into 'absolutely liability'. In this paper, 'Liability Pool', 'Insurance', 'Market-Share Liability' are presented as aid devices of the damages resulting from unidentified space debris. They should be defined through the amendment of the Liability Convention or another international treaty. Some day there comes a time when our country shall possess many of the astronomical price of satellites. It means that we can't be free from the damage by the increasing number of space debris. Provided that our satellites are damaged by such space debris, it will do the satellites damage and cause impaired functioning or troubles in operation. As a result, if we are not paid for the damage by space debris, we will be confronted with tremendous economic loss because it is necessarily connected with the excess burden of taxation. Thus, an international agreement regarding the measures of the compensation for space debris damage must be made very soon.

• 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.30 no.2
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.