• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 2009

The Rome Convention System (1933, 1952, 1978) which deal the third party lability relating to damage caused by aircraft to third parties on the surface have not been so effective and successful like the Warsaw Convention System. This paper briefs the development of the Rome Convention System and the reasons of their failure which are the low level of the limit of liability and non-parties of major civil aviation states such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and etc. The Diplomatic Conference hosted by ICAO at Montreal during April 20 to May 2 has successfully produced two Conventions; One is Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties (General Risk Convention), the other is Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference involving Aircraft (Unlawful Interference Convention). The major contents and some problems of these two Conventions are reviewed in comparison with the exisiting Rome Convention System and other legal system. Particularly, the entrance into force of the Unlawful Interference Convention may take some time, at least more than 5 years, due to the realistic problems arising from the operation of International Civil Aviation Fund.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.19-45
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to research the contents and issues of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Act of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, comparing to the related provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Montreal Convention in respect of the international carriage by air was adopted in 1999, and Korea has ratified the Montreal Convention in 2007. However, there is now no national legislation in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. Thus, the Ministry of Justice has prepared the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code in July 2008, and the draft legislation is now being reviewed by the National Assembly. The draft provisions of Part VI the Carriage by Air are basically adopting most of the related provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of cargo by air and some draft provisions are applying the related provisions of the Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage of cargo by land and sea. In respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, the contents of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by air are composed of the provisions in respect of the cause of the liability of the and the application for the non-contractual claim, the limit of liability, the exoneration from liability, the extinguishment of liability, the notice of damage to cargo, the liability of the agents and servants of the carrier, and the liability of the actual carrier and successive carrier. The draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code is different from the provisions of the Montreal Convention is respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air as follows : the draft Article 913 paragraph 1 provides additionally the riot, civil war and quarantine as the exoneration causes from the liability for damage to the cargo of the carrier in the Article 18 paragraph 2 of the Montreal Convention. In respect of the liability of the carrier in carriage of cargo by air, the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air does not provide the settlement by arbitration of dispute relating to the liability of the carrier and the requirement of adequate insurance covering the liability of the carrier which are provided in the Montreal Convention. In author's opinion, it is desirable that the above mentioned provisions such as the arbitration and the insurance shall be inserted into the draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code. In conclusion, the legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code shall be made by the National Assembly as soon as possible for the smooth and equitable compensation for damage to cargo arising during the carriage by air.

• 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.24 no.2
• /
• pp.47-67
• /
• 2009

In recent years, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction has become high priority issue in international aviation. GHG emissions from the aviation sector only accounts for approximately 2 percent of total GHG emissions in the world. However, as with GHG gases in other sectors, it has been pointed out as a contributing factor to global warming and there is an ongoing conversation in the aviation community to establish international framework for emissions reductions. In the case of international aviation, effects of aviation activities of a State go beyond the airports and airspace of that State. This makes compiling of GHG emissions data very difficult. There are also other legal and technical issues, namely the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR)” under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and “Fair Opportunity” principle of the Chicago Convention. For all these reason, it is expected that it will not be an easy job to establish an internationally agreed mechanism for reducing emissions in spite of continuing collaboration among States. UN adopted the UNFCCC in 1990 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to impose common but differentiated responsibility on emissions reductions. In international aviation, ICAO has been taking the lead in measures for the aviation sector. In this role, ICAO held the High-level Meeting on International Aviation and Climate Change on 7 to 9 October 2009 at its Headquarters in Montreal and endorsed recommendations on reducing GHG from international aviation which will also be reported to the 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15). Key items include basic principle in global aviation emissions reduction: aspirational goals and implementation options: strategies and measures to achieve goals: means to measure and monitor the implementation; and financial and human resources. It is very likely that the Republic of Korea will be included among the Parties subject to mandatory limitation or reduction of GHG emissions after 2013. Therefore, it is necessary for Korea to thoroughly analyze ICAO measures to develop comprehensive measures for reducing aviation emissions and to take proactive actions to prepare for future discussions on critical issues after COP15.

• 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.

• Journal of Conservation Science
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.283-291
• /
• 2009

Methyl Bromide that was used as fumigation gas turned out to be the substance of destroying the ozone layer. For that reason, at the Montreal Protocol in 1987 the use of methyl bromide was forbidden starting 2005 in the advanced country. Also according to the 2007 Bali Protocolly methyl bromide is expected to be forbidden and therefore the purpose of this study is to find out the effects of substitution fumigation gas (Ethylene Oxide+HFC 134a, Methyl Iodide, Cyanogen and Argon) on the metal(silver, copper and iron), wood(oregon pine), pigment(yellow, red, blue, white and black), textile(hemp, ramie, jute, silk1 and silk2 / indigo, safflower and cork) and paper. After the fumigation test, ethylene oxide+HFC 134a did not have changes in the weight and color of the material itself before and after the experiment. On exterior alteration, color change occurred partly on paper and metal. Also, in most materials color change extent was 0.5 to 1.5 on the average and showed scanty difference. The materials after the fumigation test with methyl iodide did not show weight changes after the test. However, color changes more than 1.0 was shown in most of the materials especially in dyed textile material. In blue pigment, the discoloration on the surface could be seen by naked eyes. Fumigation test with cyanogen gas did not show weight changes and discoloration is more than 1.5 before and after the test. The weight changes of test materials with the argon gas was decreased about 3 to 6%. It can be observed that discoloration on paper was generated. Color changes can be seen on jute dyed with safflower and cork for two weeks with argon gas and the extent was 6.3 and 6.0.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2017

On 12 October 2017, the English Royal Courts of Justice delivered its decision about air carrier's compensation liability for the flight delay. In the cases the passengers suffered delays at a connecting point and, consequently, on arrival at their final destination. They claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), as applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") in Sturgeon v. Condor [2009]. The principal issues were whether delays suffered by the passengers during the second leg of their respective journeys were compensable under the Regulation, whether there was jurisdiction under the Regulation and whether the right to compensation under the Regulation is, insofar as non-Community air carriers are concerned, excluded by virtue of the exclusive liability regime established under the Montreal Convention 1999. The passengers, the plaintiff, argued that the relevant delay was not that on flight 1 but that suffered at the "final destination". They maintained that there was no exercise by the EU of extraterritorial jurisdiction as the delay on flight 2 was merely relevant to the calculation of the amount of compensation due under the Regulation. The air carrier, the defendant, however argued that the only relevant flights for the purpose of calculating any delay were the first flights (flights 1) out of EU airspace, as only these flights fell within the scope of the Regulation; the connecting flights (flights 2) were not relevant since they were performed entirely outside of the EU by a non-Community carrier. Regarding the issue of what counts as a delay under the Regulation, the CJEU held previously on another precedents that the operating carrier's liability to pay compensation depends on the passenger's delay in arriving at the "final destination". It held that where the air carrier provides a passenger with more than one directly connecting flight to enable him to arrive at their destination, the flights should be taken together for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours' or more delay on arrival; and that in case of directly connecting flights, the final destination is the place at which the passenger is scheduled to arrive at the end of the last component flight. In addition, the Court confirmed that the Regulation applied to flights operated by non-Community carriers out of EU airspace even if flight 1 or flight 2 lands outside the EU, since the Regulation does not require that a flight must land in the EU. Accordingly, the passengers' appeal from the lower Court was allowed, while that of air carrier was dismissed. The Court has come down firmly on the side of the passengers in this legal debate. However, this result is not a great surprise considering the recent trends of EU member states' court decisions in the fields of air transport and consumer protection. The main goal of this article is to review the Court's decision and to search historical trend of air consumer protection especially in EU area.