• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.67-97
• /
• 2015

In Korea, a single emergency number, such as 911 of the USA and 999 of the UK, does not exist. This issue became highly controversial, when the Sewol Ferry Sinking disaster occurred last year. So, the Korean government has planned to adopt a single emergency number, integrating 112 of the Police, 119 of the Fire and Ambulance, 122 of the Korean Coast Guard, and many other emergency numbers. However, the integration plan recently proposed by the Ministry of Public Safety Security seems to be, what is called, a "partial integration model" which repeals the 122 number, but still maintains 112, 119, and 110 respectively. In this context, the study looks into USA's (diverse) 911 operating system, and subsequently tries to draw general features or characteristics. Further, the research attempts to derive policy implication from the general features. If the proposed partial integration model reflects the policy implications, the model can virtually operate like the 911 system -i.e. a single emergency number system - creating inter-operability between responding agencies such as police, fire, and ambulance, even though it is not a perfect integration model. The features drawn are (1) integration of emergency call-taking, (2) functional separation of call-taking and dispatching, (3) integration of physical facilities for call-taking and dispatching, and (4) professional call-takers and dispatchers. Moreover, the policy implications derived from the characteristics are (1) a user-friendly system - fast but accurate responses, (2) integrated responses to accidents, (3) professional call-taking and dispatching & objective and comprehensive risk assessment, and finally (4) active organizational learning in emergency call centers. Considering the policy implications, the following suggestions need to be applied to the current proposed plan: 1. Emergency services' systems should be tightly linked and connected in a systemic way so that they can communicate and exchange intelligence with one another. 2. Public safety answering points (call centers) of each emergency service should share their education and training modules, manuals, etc. Common training and manuals are also needed for inter-operability. 3. Personal management to enable-long term service in public safety answering points (call centers) should be established as one of the ways to promote professionalism.

• 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.