• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.265-301
• /
• 1993

지난 6월 3일 동경에서 있었던, 아시아 항공/우주법 학술대회 제 3분과에서 영국 Bin Cheng교수의 "The Warsaw System: Mess up, Tear up, or Shore up?"이라는 주제의 논문발표가 있었다. Bin Cheng교수는 특히 유럽의 EC Consultant Paper 와 일본항공사들의 1992년의 무한책임보상주의 채택에 대하여, 마치 무한 책임보상주의의 이론이 승리하였으며, 위의 상황들이 그 시작이라고 단정하였는데 이러한 견해는 아직까지 시기상조라고 생각한다. 본 글에서는 동경회의에서의 Bin Cheng교수의 논문중 특히 10항의 결론 부분을 중점으로 반대되는 의견을 제시하고자 한다. 국제항공사법인 와르소체제가 과연 발전하고 있는 것인가? 퇴보하고 있는 것인가? 와르소체제의 반대론자들은 미국의 소송변호사들, 일본항공사들과 일부 순수이론을 고수하는 학자들로써 이들은 와르소체제로부터의 탈퇴와 무한책임보상주의를 고수하고 있다. EC Consultation Paper (각주 122 참조)에서 보듯이, 비록 항공운송시의 손해배상액이 타 운송시의 손해배상액보다 적기는 하지만 이것이 곧 '무한책임보상주의'를 의미하는 것은 아니다. 미국의 판례중 불법행위로 인한 소송 (Nichole Fortman v. Hemeo Inc.)에서 보면, 작은 창자의 대부분을 병원의 과실때문에 잃은 Brooklin의 한 여인에게 500억 정도의 손해배상이 주어진 것을 보면, 과연 완전 보상에 맞는 무한책임이 과연 항공소송에 적용될 수 있는 것인가를 알아야 한다. 무한책임보상주의는 특히 개발도상국의 항공사들에게 보험료가 너무 과중하고, 와르소협약의 근본목적인 국제항공법의 통일성에 반하고 있기 때문에 국제사회 전반에 적용하기에는 비현실적이다. 와르소체제의 통일 성에 대한 거부는 만약 와르소체제에 버금가는 다른 보상체제가 있는 경우에는 다르지만, 현실적으로는 결국 국제적 혼란만을 야기사킬 것이다. 또한 와르소체제 반대자들은 항공운송인과 승객들의 관계를 갈등관계로 보고 있지만, 근본적으로 와프소협약에서의 항공운송인파 승객들의 관제는 공동이악관계로 보아야 한다. 항공운송사업의 목적도 또한 이윤추구인 바, 승객들이 항공운송인에게 과다한 손해배상을 요구하면, 결국 항공운송인은 승객들의 주머니에서 그 댓가를 찾으려고 할 것이다. 절국 양자의 이익을 보는 것은 소송변호사들 뿐이라고 볼 수 있다. 또한 'Unlimited Liability' 에서 'Unlimited' 란 'Full-Compensation' 을 의미하는 것으로, 'Wilful-Misconduct' 의 경우에는, 'Full-Compensation' 의 개념과 다르게, 그 보상액이 Warsaw협약 제 22조 1항에 적용되지 않는 'No-limited' 의 개념으로 해석하여야 한다. 항공소송의 경우에 통상 'Wilful-Misconduct' 의 경우에 손해배상액이 약 $700,000 인 것을 보더라도 'Full-Compensation'의 의미로 해석할 수 없다. 몬트리올 제 3추가의정서에서 'WilfulMisconduct' 의 개념을 삭제하고자 하는 것은, 이에 대비하여 추가보상제도, 임액수의 종액, 영격책임추의 등의 요소들을 전제로 하고 있기 때문이다. 몬트리올 제 3추가의정서가 최근의 발전적인 손해배상제도인가에 대하여, Bin Cheng 교수는 반대를 하고 있지만, 최선의 제도를 찾는 입장에서 몬트리올 추가 의정서는 여러가지로 부족하다. 그러나, 유한책임제도의 개선, 엄격책임주의의 도입, 빠른 소송타결의 제도, 재판관할권의 확대 그리고, SDR 화폐단위의 채택 등은 헤이그 의정서 이후의 보다 나은 제도적 장치를 하고 있다고 해석하여야 할 것이다. 시대의 변화에 따라 점진적으로 발전된 보상제도를 채택하였다면, 오늘날과 같이 시대에 뒤떨어진 보상체제로 혼란을 겪고 있지 않았을 것이다.

• Aerospace Industry
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.58-61
• /
• 1996

• 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.19 no.2
• /
• pp.137-162
• /
• 2004

Generally the aircraft accident caused a great loss of lives, severe property damages including aircraft's total loss and thus, affect enormous emotional and economic damages to the public. We, therefore, should try every efforts to prevent the re-occurrence of aircraft accident by examining the cause of accident closely and discovering it through aircraft accident investigation. Though the object of an accident investigation is not to apportion blame but to discover a cause or causes of an accident to prevent future accidents, the cause of an accident would play a vital role in determining the liability of the carrier, legal relationship with the third party and jurisdiction, etc. in the aviation litigation. Therefore, it is very important that aircraft accident investigation are carried out by a professional and independent agency. Also, it needs for us to be careful in applying investigation results in the courts not to be deterrent to discovering the cause of accident. Korea now has the Aviation Accident Investigation Agency Board under the Korean Ministry of Construction and Transportation, but unfortunately it is often pointed out that it lacks professionalism and independency due to the bureaucratism of the Government. We, therefore, should establish a professional and independent aircraft accident investigation agency like United States' NTSB and reflect the issues mentioned-above on the new Act.

• 복합운송
• /
• s.133
• /
• pp.15-17
• /
• 2001

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2008

Until Montreal Convention was established in 1999, the Warsaw System is undoubtedly accepted private international air law treaty and has played major role on the carrier's liability in international aviation transport industry. But the whole Warsaw System, though it was revised many times to meet the rapid developments of the aviation transport industry, is so complicated, tangled and outdated. This thesis, therefore, aim to introduce the Montreal Convention by interpreting it as a new legal instrument on the air carrier's liability, specially on the passenger's, and analyzing all the issues relating to it. The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing international carriage by air. The Montreal Convention has modernized and consolidated the old Warsaw System of international instruments of private international air law into one legal instrument. One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is that it sifted its priority to the protection of the interest of the consumers from the protection of the carrier which originally the Warsaw Convention intended to protect the fledgling international air transport business. Two major features of the Montreal Convention adopts are the Two-tier Liability System and the Fifth Jurisdiction. In case of death or bodily injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier liability system. The first tier includes strict liability up to 100,000SDR, irrespective of carriers' fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of carrier and has no limit of liability. Regarding Jurisdiction, the Montreal Convention expands upon the four jurisdiction in which the carrier could be sued by adding a fifth jurisdiction, i.e., a passenger can bring suit in a country in which he or she has their permanent and principal residence and in which the carrier provides a services for the carriage of passengers by either its own aircraft or through a commercial agreement. Other features are introducing the advance payment, electronic ticketing, compulsory insurance and regulation on the contracting and actual carrier etc. As we see some major features of the Montreal Convention, the Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation liability and there can be no doubt it will prevail the international aviation transport world in the future. Our government signed this Convention on 20th Sep. 2007 and it came into effect on 29th Dec. 2007 domestically. Thus, it was recognized that domestic carriers can adequately and independently manage the change of risks of liability. I, therefore, would like to suggest our country's aviation industry including newly-born low cost carrier prepare some countermeasures domestically that are necessary to the enforcement of the Convention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.279-310
• /
• 2015

The Montreal Convention is an agreement that governs the liability of air carriers for injury and death to passengers travelling internationally by air. The Montreal Convention serves as the exclusive legal framework for victims and survivors seeking compensation for injuries or death arising from accidents involving international air travel. The Montreal Convention sets monetary liability caps on damages in order to promote the financial stability of the international airline transport industry and protect the industry from exorbitant damages awards in courts that would inevitably bankrupt an airline. The Convention allows a litigant suing under the Convention to avoid the liability caps in instances where the airline's culpability for the injury or death is the direct result of negligence, another wrongful act, or an omission of the airline or its agents. The Montreal Convention identifies specific locations as appropriate venues to advance claims for litigants seeking compensation. These venues are closely tied to either the carrier's business operations or the passenger's domicile. In March 2015, in an act of suicide stemming from reactive depression, the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 intentionally crashed the aircraft into the French Alps killing the passengers and the remaining crew. Subsequent to the crash, there were media reports that Lufthansa made varying settlement offers to families of the passengers who died aboard the flight ranging from $8,300 USD to $4.5 Million USD depending on the passengers' citizenship. The unverified offers by Lufthansa prompted outcries from the families of the decedent passengers that they would institute suit against the airline in a more plaintiff friendly jurisdiction such as the United States. The first part of this article accomplishes two goals. First, it examines the Montreal Convention's venue requirement along with an overview of the recoverable damages from countries comprising the citizenship of the passengers who were not American. The intentional crash of Germanwings flight 9525 by its First Officer encompasses the possibility that Lufthansa may be exposed to unlimited compensatory damages beyond the liability caps contained in the Convention. The second part of this article explores the application of the Convention's liability limits to the Germanwings flight to demonstrate that the likelihood of escaping the liability limits is slim.

• 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.