• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.29-63
• /
• 2006

This paper studied and introduced the aviation law cases in applying the treaties of the Warsaw System to the liability of the international air carrier by categorizing four main sections. Firstly, this paper handled the cases regarding the defining an international flight, exclusivity of the treaties as international air carrie's liability Convention, determining treaty relationship between the countries which one country has ratified only the Hague Protocol, an amended version of the Warsaw Convention, while the other has ratified only the original, unamended Warsaw Convention. Annotation assisted the case if it needed. Secondly, the cases relating to the issues of actual and contracting carrier, successive carrier, agents and servants of the carrier and others were studied. Thirdly, the issues relating to the accident in the course of any operations of embarking or disembarking of passengers, the occurrence during the transportation by air of baggage or goods and delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods in addition to the cancellation of the flights were studied according to the applicable range. Fourthly, I studied the time issue with effective date of the treaties. Conclusively, it is not excessive to emphasize the importance of cases in Aviation Law like all other legal areas, therefore, a full-dress future reaserch of aviation cases is expected in here Korea with this paper as a foundation although it studied and introduced only a part of numerous aviation law cases.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.3
• /
• pp.113-141
• /
• 1991

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.27-70
• /
• 2001

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.7
• /
• pp.63-83
• /
• 1995

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.213-233
• /
• 2004

• Current Industrial and Technological Trends in Aerospace
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.11-21
• /
• 2008

This paper focuses on finding the way of aerospace industry promotion in Korea compatible with fair trade system under international rules by considering and analysing the WTO subsidy rules and WTO dispute settlement cases. As for subsidy rules in WTO, the paper deals with two matters such as financial contribution and benefit and further studies provisions on the prohibited subsidies and actionable subsidies. And as for the dispute settlement matters, it reviews the Brazil-Canada case and the US-EC case on civil aircraft export subsidies. While aerospace industry in Korea is not yet internationally competitive still requiring government's continuous supports, it must not be in conflict with subsidy rules under WTO mechanism. This paper makes several suggestions to meet these conditions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.67-100
• /
• 2017

Throughout the history of the aviation industry, from its origins in the $20^{th}$century to the present, accidents have always occurred. This paper deals with the legal liability of air traffic controllers, who represent one of the human factors causing these accidents. Though controller negligence turns out to be a main cause of the accident, Korea does not have additional judical case, since it was firstly declared that controller negligence was accountable for the air traffic accident in 1971. As such, we examine the liability of air traffic controllers as public officers. This paper looks not only at the role of air traffic controllers and pilots in accidents, but also at the applicability of controller liability in the context of Korean law. We determine that despite the high-stress environment, air traffic controllers must share in the responsibility to provide safe air navigation. Therefore, they cannot avoid legal liability.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2020

The current air transportation industry is facing a lot of changes not only in the quantitative growth of the market, but also in the legal aspects. For many years, the Warsaw Convention has contributed to the uniform discipline of civil carriers' legal liabilities arising from international aviation accident and has fulfilled the duties of legal guardians for the development of the air transport industry. In the process, however, the consumer interests of the air transport industry did not have much protection compared to other industries. In response, the Montreal Convention has effected for protecting the interests of aviation consumers, and there are numerous legal changes around the world to protect aviation consumers like passengers. The mental damages of airline passengers arising from the accident can also be understood as part of the protection of air consumers. Considering that the US Federal Court has dealt with the recognition of mental damages for air passengers since the early 1990s. However, Korean judicial precedent still excludes mental anguishes from the scope of damage compensation. From this point of view, it is considered academically meaningful to analyze the latest case of the US federal court. Recently, the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit in Doe v Etihad Airways applied a different interpretation against the traditional opinion: passengers could not recover for mental distress unless that mental distress resulted from a bodily injury sustained in an airplane accident. The background of the court's conclusions can be explained in many ways, among other things, unlike the Warsaw Convention the new international rule, Montreal Convention is recognizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution.

• 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.