• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.145-181
• /
• 2013

General aviation is an integral part of civil aviation and involves the widest range of aviation segments except commercial aviation. Featured with different operational procedures and practices to satisfy the economic needs and safety requirements of a sovereign state, general aviation tends to be regulated by an individual state. The last three decades have seen exponential growth of commercial air transport in China, but its general aviation sector has remained disproportionally underdeveloped. With the deepening of the reform of low-altitude airspace, the sector is poised for a radical change and rapid growth. However, legislation governing general aviation activities in China is distorted causing inconsistency and confusions in their application and implementation. This paper aims to analyse China's prevailing legislation regulating general aviation activities. It first discusses the various definitions adopted by ICAO and its member states and reviews the development of general aviation in the US, EU, Australia and China. It then examines the sources of China's general aviation laws, e.g. Chicago Convention and its annexes, and Chinese domestic legislature which covers legislation, laws, directives, rules and procedures. The paper continues to analyse and establish the deficiencies of its prevailing legal framework by pointing out the following: variation of definitions in different regulations, inconsistency of principles in existing laws and regulations, legal vacuum concerning government subsidy, environment protection, safety and security, and other operational areas such as aerial club, sightseeing, and search and rescue. In this process, the paper argues that a coherent, consistent and systematic legal framework is required in order to ensure fair competition and safety for a healthy, progressive and sustainable general aviation growth. Suggestions for rectification and improvement are proposed.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.4
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2018

In December 2015, the Paris Agreement was adopted to cope with global warming caused by greenhouse gas emission and to prevent the average temperature of the Earth from rising. Renewable energy sources have become important to address environmental problems such as rising sea levels, depletion of forests and fine dust. In order to grow renewable energy, government support is needed. However, excessive government support for the renewable energy industry could pose problems that include undermining fair competition and raising costs. The WTO already has heard cases involving renewable energy subsidies. This article focuses on subsidies and countervailing tariffs as well as examines WTO disputes related to renewable subsidies, and also analyze legal issues that are problematic in granting subsidies for the development of new renewable energy industries. In WTO dispute involving renewable energy subsidies, legal issues are SCM Agreement article 2 Specificity, article 3 (b) import substitution subsidy and GATT article 20. This paper proposes improvement measures such as the reintroduction of article 8 Non-Actionable Subsidies or special provisions on energy subsidy. In addition, it is necessary to clarify the interpretation of Article 3 of the subsidy agreement. However, excessive government subsidies can lead to trade friction, so the WTO rules should be improved in line with the WTO goals of environmental protection, equity in free trade, and sustainable development.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.