• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2008

국제거래에서 분쟁이 소송으로 발전될 경우 당해 사안에 적용될 준거법의 결정문제와 어느 나라의 법원에서 재판을 받을 것인가에 대한 국제재판관할권의 문제가 빈번히 대두되고 있다. 소송을 제기하는 당사자들로서는 자신에게 유리한 재판결과를 얻을 수 있는 법이 준거법으로 선택될 가능성이 있는 국가의 법원에 소송을 제기하는 소위 '포럼 쇼핑 (forum shopping)' 전략을 세우기도 한다. 이러한 포럼 쇼핑에 대응하기 위해 영미 판례법인 common law에서는 오래 전부터 forum non conveniens를 확립하였다. 본 논문에서는 forum non conveniens를 심리한 미국 대법원의 판단기준을 살펴보면 먼저, 적절한 대체관할지의 존재여부이며, 둘째 사적이익 부분에서 자국민이 현저하기 불리한 위치에 처하는지를 확인하고, 셋째 공적이익 부분에서 미국의 이익이 심각하게 침해되지는 않는지를 검토하여 판단하게 된다. 이러한 법리적 판단근거를 제시하고 이에 대한 적용사례를 분석하여 향후 무역거래를 포함한 일련의 국제계약에 있어 분쟁시 국내기업들이 미국법정에 재판받지 않고 국내법원으로 재판관할지를 선택할 수 있는 전략을 제시함으로써 패소가능성 등의 계약위험을 줄일 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.195-225
• /
• 2009

One of the most significant additions to the Warsaw Convention liability system, brought about by the coming into force of the Montreal Convention 1999(MC 99), was the creation of the new so-called fifth jurisdiction, whereby an Article 17 action for damages for passanger bodily injury or death only, may be brought at the option of the claimant/plaintiff. The fifth jurisdiction-the pernanent residence of the passenger at the time of the accident,provided that the carrier has a specified business presence in that jurisdiction-was one of the provisions of MC99 that provoked the most debate at the Montreal Conference leading to the adoption of MC99. Some scholars in China fear that the fifth jurisdiction will be abused after the MC99 came into force to China in 2005. The present article argues that the fifth jurisdiction would not be abused as long as such international private doctrines as forum non-conveniens are applied by the trial court appropriately. The article also points out that the challenge before the legislative body of China is to amend the civil aviation law and other related laws so that to solve the conflicts among the laws and meet the obligations provided by the MC99.

• 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.