• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.193-222
• /
• 1989

The purpose of this study is to review the rights and duties of cargo owners, the party to the contract of international carriage of goods by air under the Warsaw Convention System and the IATA conditions. It is generally known that air freight is the most-cost mode of transportation. However, should there be considerations of total distribution cost, the use of air freight leads exporters to be advantageous in physical distribution. The Warsaw Convention System defined and limited the rights and duties of cargo owners and air carriers paticipating in the international carriage of goods, but it does not regulate every aspect of air transportation. Therefore, the unregulated parts are governed by national laws and by individual contracts of carriage. The International Air Transport Association(lATA), a worldwide organization of airlines, has formulated model conditions of contract for the carriage of cargo. These models are not uniformly followed but they serve as a basis for many of the individual standard form of contracts prepared by air carriers. The contract of air carriage of goods is a contract of adhesion, 'the consignor recognizing and accepting the conditions laid down by the carrier'. There are consignors and carriers as the parties to the contract of international carriage of goods. In addition to his basic right, implied in Warsaw Convention Article 18 and 19, to require devery of the goods in good condition and at the date agreed upon, the consignor has the right to dispose the goods in the course of the journey up to the moment when the consignee is entitled to require delivery. If it is impossible to carry out the orders of the consignor, the carrier must so inform him forthwith. The right conferred on the consignor ceases at the moment when that of the consignee begins in accordance with Warsaw Convention Article 13. Nevertheless, if the consignee declines to accept the air waybill or the goods, or if he cannot be communicated with, the consignor resumes his right of disposition. Unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as soon as the goods arrive. The consignee is entitled, on arrival of the goods at the place of destination, to require the carrier to hand over to him the air waybill and to deliver the goods to him, on payment of the charges due and on complying with the conditions of carriage set out in the air waybill. The air waybill is supposed to be made out by the consignor. If the carrier makes it out, he is deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor, whether there is one air waybill or several, each must be made out in three original parts. The first is for the carrier, the second is for the consignee, and the the third is handed to the consignor when the shipment has been accepted. The consignor is responsible for the correctness of the particulars and statement concerning the cargo appearing in the air waybill. Each of the original parts of the air waybill has evidential value and possession of his part is a condition for the exercise by the consignor or consignee of his rights under the contract of carriage. Hague Protocol set forth in Article 9 that nothing in this. Convention prevents the issue of a negotiable air waybill, but Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 deleted this article. All charges applicable to a shipment are payable in cash at the time of acceptance thereof by the carrier in case of a prepaid shipment or at the time of delivery thereof by the carrier in case of a collect shipment. The carrier shall have lien the cargo for unpaid charges and, in the event of non-payment thereof, shall have the right to dispose of the cargo at public or private sale and pay itself out of the proceeds of such sale any and all such amounts. In conclusion, the Warsaw Convention System has the character of ambiguity in various respects, not only in the part of the forms of documents but also in conditions of contract. Accordingly, the following propositions might be considered: (1) If the carrier does not obey the orders of the consignor for the disposition of the goods without proper reasons, he will be liable strictly for any damage which may be caused thereby to the cargo owner. The special agreement and carrier's conditions of carriage which limit unreasonably the consignor's right of disposition of the goods will be nullified. (2) The instrument of the Warsaw Convention System which is not yet in force(Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4) would considerably simplfy the processing and keeping of computerized records of the carriage. Until this instrument enters into force, the airlines will be faced with practical problems preventing them to substitute computerized data processing techniques for the formal issuance of the documents. Accordingly, Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 should become effective as soon as posisble. From a practical point of view in the international trade, the issuance of negotiable air waybill should be permitted for the security of the bank.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제4권
• /
• pp.65-85
• /
• 1992

The air waybill is supposed to be made out by the consignor. If the carrier makes it out, he is deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three original parts. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier", and shall be signed by the consignor. The second part shall be marked "for the consignee", it shall be signed by the consignor and by the carrier and shall accompany the goods. The third part shall be signed by the carrier and handed by him to the consignor, after the goods have been accepted. According to the original Warsow Convention article 8, the air waybill must contain 17 particulars or items. However, the Hague Protocol reduced to three the number of particulars required to appear on the air waybill. Only one item is obligatory, namely, the notice that the carriage is subject to the rules of the Warsaw Convention. The absence of the air waybill entails unlimited liability of the carrier because it deprives him of the right to avail himself of the provisions of the Warsaw Convention which exclude or limit his liability. The consignor shall be liable for all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statements in the air waybill. Although the contract of the carriage of goods by air is not a formal contract, the document of carriage is issued. The issue of air wayhill is not essential for the existence or validity of the contract, but serves merely as a means of proof. The Hague Protocol has lessened the consequences of the carrier's neglect to faithfully accomplish the required formalities. Henceforth, these formalities no longer constitute legal obligations. The air waybill is the consignment note used for the carriage of goods by air. It is often called an air consignment note and is not a document of title or transferable/negotiable instrument. It is basically a receipt for the goods for despatch and is prima facie evidence of the conditions of carriage. Each of the original parts of the air waybill has evidential value and possession of his part is a condition for the exercise by the consignor or cosignee of his rights under the contract of carriage. Oveall, it is an usage that under a documentary letter of credit, the consignee on the air waybill is the opening bank of the letter of credit, and the notify party is the importer who applied for the letter of credit. In Korea there is an usage as to process of cargo delivery in air transportation as follows: The carrier carries the cargo into the bonded area of the airport and gives both the notice of arrival of the cargo and the consignee's air waybill to the notify party who is the importer. Then the notify party obtains the Letter of Guarantee from the opening bank in exchange for reimbursing the amount of the letter of credit or tendering the security therefor to the opening bank. The notify party then presents this document to the customs authorities for the process of customs clearance. The opening bank becomes a consignee only to ensure repayment of the funds it has expended, and the only interest of the opening bank as consignee is the reimbursement of the money paid to the exporter under the documentary letter of credit. Just as the bill of lading in maritime law, the air waybill has always been considered negotiable although the Warsaw Convention does not emphasize this aspect of negotiability. However, the Hague Protocol article 4 corrected the situation by stating that "nothing in this Convention prevents the issue of a negotiable air waybill." This provision officially recognizes that the air waybill must meet the needs of the present day business circles by being a negotiable instrument. Meanwhile, Montreal Additional Protocol no. 4 has brought important changes. Registration by computer is acceptable and the parties to the contract of carriage are allowed to replace the air waybill with a receipt for the goods. In conclusion, as the Warsaw Convention has not details of provisions relating to the issuing of the negotiable air waybill, it is hoped that there should be supplement to the Warsaw Convention and establishment of international commercial usage with regard to the negotiable air waybill.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.29-63
• /
• 2006

본 논문은 국제항공운송인의 책임에 관한 조약의 적용문제에 관한 항공판례를 1) 공간적 적용문제, 2) 인적 적용문제, 3) 물적 적용문제, 4) 시간적 적용문제로 크게 4 부분으로 나누어 연구하였다. 첫째, 공간적 적용문제와 관련하여서는 (1) 국제선 구간에서의 적용의 해석에 관한 판례, (2) 조약의 배타적 적용에 관한 판례, (3) 원 조약 체결국과 개정조약 체결국간의 적용문제에 관한 판례를 살펴보았는데 특히 각각 다른 Legal Instrument에 가입하여 문제된 판례는 평석을 곁들였다. 둘째, 인적 적용문제와 관련하여서는 그 적용대상에 따라 (1) 계약운송인, 실제운송인, (2) 순차운송인, (3) 이행보조자, (4) 기타의 경우로 나누어 살펴보았다. 셋째, 물적 적용문제는 적용범위에 중점을 두어 (1) 항공기 승강중의 사고, (2)항공운송중의 사고, (3) 운항취소 및 운송지연의 경우로 나누어 살펴보았다. 넷째, 시간적 적용문제는 조약의 발효일 문제를 중심으로 살펴보았다. 다른 모든 법률분야와 마찬가지로 항공법 분야에서도 판례의 중요성은 아무리 강조해도 지나치다고 할 수 없다. 따라서 비록 본 논문이 방대한 항공판례 중 그 일부를 연구 소개하지만 앞으로 이것이 계기가 되어 우리나라에서도 제대로 된 본격적인 항공판례 연구가 이루어지길 기대한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.163-191
• /
• 1989

The accident of the midair collision, passengers' falling or goods' dropping occurs or supersonic aircraft make a sonic boom during their conveying passengers or goods to the destination. The accident in transmit damages the their parties on the surface or their properties. In these cases, the third parties who were harmed to their lives or properties have the right to claim damages against the air carrier who caused them. These matters have become one of the important things since aircraft conveyed passengers and goods. Therefore, it is a great concern to settle these matters by law. But the Safety of the present aircraft has been much increased and the aircraft have become larger in size. Its flight altitude became higher than before. So the relationship of the aircraft to the third parties is much different from that of the earlier aircraft. The air transport is now indispensable to our life. It is not so easy to control these matters. In the early part of 20th century, when the third parties suffered the damage, many European countries made laws on the basis of the principle of liability without fault. But each country had a variety of its own law, and different kinds of difficulties have been brought about. Accordingly, the Rome Convention on Surface Damage (1933, 1952, 1978) has been made and revised. In spite of being revised, it contains many problems, and is not carried into effect world-wide. On the other hand, there are no regulations about the compensation of the third parties damaged in Korean existing laws. In case the damage is brought about to them, it is obviously true that the settlement of the liability of compensation for damage should be made by the general principle on the tort in domestic laws. At this point, it is urgent that we make a special law though the domestic legislation as a preliminary measure before we sign the international convention to save third damaged. It is desirable that we should, for the responsibility of the air carriage for the demage of the third parties on the surface, bring in the theory of the absolute liability in view of the legislation of many conutries. As the aircraft fly in the sky, their flight always contains some danger. It is very difficult to prove the fault, and the operator should suffer the principle of liability without fault or the similiar one. In case the liability without fault will be imposed upon the operator for the damage of the third parties, it is necessary to bring in the liability protection system for the protection and up upbringing of the air carriage. The Burden of danger of the air carriage will be reduced by introducing the system. A domestic legislation measure should be necessarily taken as soon as possible as a legal security measure on these matters.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.191-215
• /
• 1994

The concept of 'wilful misconduct" was initally used in article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concept was defined in the Hague Protocol, 1955, as having the following two differing concepts: i) "with the intent to cause damage" and ii) "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." The concepts contained in the Hague Protocol were used in various international Conventions on carriage by sea, such as Article 2(e) and Article 3(4) of the Protocol adopted at Brussels on Feb. 23, 1968 to amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1929(Hague-Visby Rules), Article 13 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, Dec. 13. 1974, Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Article 8(1) of the U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978(Hamburg Rules) and Article 21 (1) of the U.N. Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 1980. The same concepts were also adopted in Article 746, 789-2(1), 789-3(2) of the Korean Maritime Commercial Law, revised in 1991. As of yet, the legal system of Korean Private Law recognizes only the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit", as is the case with German Private Law. The problem is that the concepts in the Convention do not coincide precisely with the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit". The author has conducted a comparative analysis of the treatment of the concepts of wilful misconduct and its varied interpretations, that is, "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" in the Anglo-American law and in the continental European law in the following manner: 1. Background in which the concept of wilful misconduct was introduced in the Warsaw Convention. 2. The concept of "dol" in French private law. 3. The concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in Korean private law. 4. Analysis of the concept of wilful misconduct in Anglo-American case law. 5. Analysis of the cases interpreting the concepts of "with intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result" in various jurisdictions. 6. The need to incorporate the concepts of "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." 7. Faute inexcusable in French private law. Based upon the comparative analysis, the author points out the difference between the concepts of "wilful misconduct" or "with the intent to cause damage" and "Vorsatz", and between the concepts of "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in the Convention and that of the Korean Private Law system. Additionally, the author emphasizes the importance of the unification in the interpretation of the provisions of the Conventions world wide.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2008

본 연구의 목적은 몬트리올협약 및 IATA 항공화물운송약관상의 관련규정과 국내 및 외국의 법원판례를 중심으로 국제항공화물운송에 관한 운송증서인 항공화물운송장과 화물수령증의 작성 교부 요건 효력에 관하여 고찰하는데 있다. 몬트리올협약 제4조에 의하면, 항공화물의 운송에 관하여 항공화물운송장을 교부하여야 한다. 한편 이행될 운송에 관한 기록을 보존하는 다른 수단으로 항공화물운송장의 교부를 대체할 수 있으며, 이러한 다른 수단이 사용되는 경우, 운송인은 송하인의 요청에 따라 송하인에게 적송품을 증명하는 화물수령증을 교부하여야 한다. 몬트리올협약 제7조에 의하면, 항공화물운송장은 송하인에 의하여 원본 3통이 작성된다. 제1원본에는 "운송인용"이라고 기재하고 송하인이 서명한다. 제2원본에는 "수하인용"이라고 기재하고 송하인 및 운송인이 서명한다. 제3원본에는 운송인이 서명하고 화물을 인수받은 후 송하인에게 그것을 인도한다. 만약 송하인의 청구에 따라 운송인이 항공화물운송장을 작성하였을 경우, 반증이 없는 한 운송인은 송하인을 대신하여 그렇게 한 것으로 간주한다. 몬트리올협약 제5조에 의하면, 항공화물운송장 또는 화물수령증에는 (1) 출발지 및 도착지의 표시, (2) 출발지 및 도착지가 단일 당사국 영역내에 있거나 약정기항지가 다른 국가의 영역내에 있을 경우 최소한 한곳의 기항지의 표시, (3) 적송품의 중량의 표시 등을 기재하여야 한다. 몬트리올협약 제10조에 의하면, 송하인은 본인 또는 그의 대리인이 제공한 기재사항의 불비, 부정확 또는 불완전으로 인하여 운송인 또는 운송인이 책임을 부담하는 타인이 입은 모든 손해에 대하여 운송인에게 보상한다. 몬트리올협약 제9조에 의하면, 동 협약 제4조 내지 제8조의 운송증서에 관한 요건을 준수하지 아니하는 경우 운송계약의 존재 또는 효력에 영향을 미치지 아니하며, 책임제한에 관한 규정을 포함한 이 협약의 규정들이 적용된다. 항공화물운송장은 유가증권이나 유통증권이 아니다. 몬트리올협약 제11조에 의하면, 항공화물운송장 또는 화물수령증은 계약의 체결, 화물의 인수 및 운송의 조건에 관한 추정적 증거가 된다. 몬트리올협약 제12조에 의하면, 운송인은 항공화물운송장 또는 화물수령증의 제시를 요구하지 아니하고 화물의 처분에 관한 송하인의 지시를 따른 경우, 이로 인하여 항공화물운송장 또는 화물수령증의 정당한 소지인에게 발생된 손해에 대하여 책임을 진다. 우리 대법원 판례에 의하면, 운송인으로서 운송주선인은 보세창고업자가 항공화물 운송장상의 통지처(실수입자)에게 화물을 불법인도한데 대해 책임을 지지 아니하는바, 그 이유는 운송주선인이 보세창고를 지정하지 아니하였으며, 보세창고업자에 대한 고용자의 입장에 있지 않았기 때문이다. 결론적으로, 우리나라 관세청은 항공화물서류의 전자화 사업인 e-Freight를 오는 2012년완결을 목표로 적극 추진해 나갈 계획이다 따라서 향후 항공화물운송에서 전자 운송서류의 사용이 활발해 질 것이므로 운송인 및 운송주선인은 전자 운송서류의 작성요건 및 법적 효력에 세심한 관심을 가져야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2013

오늘날 항공운송은 국가 간 인적 물적 교류를 위한 최적화된 운송 수단이다. 우리나라는 물론 세계 각국은 효율적인 항공운송을 이용하기 위해 국제항공협정을 체결하여 항공사 노선확장과 운항횟수의 증가 등을 이룩하였지만 동전의 양면처럼 항공운송 사고의 발생가능성도 높아졌다. 항공운송 사고의 발생 빈도는 타교통수단 사고와 비교하였을 때 높지는 않아도 항공사고가 발생하면 대형 참사로 이어진다. 항공운송 사고는 국내 운송사고보다 국제 운송사고가 많으며, 사고가 발생하였을 경우에 항공운송인과 여객 또는 송하인 등의 법적 책임에 대한 분석이 필요하다. 항공운송 사고의 법적 규율에 대한 선순위 판단은 항공운송계약의 종류의 구분이다. 항공운송계약은 객체에 따라 항공여객운송계약과 항공물건운송계약으로 분별된다. 특히 항공여객운송 사고는 인명 피해를 발생시키기 때문에 이에 대한 법적 규율에 대한 논의가 더욱 필요하다. 개정 "상법" 항공운송편은 국제항공운송에서 세계적으로 활용되는 조약들의 내용을 우리 실정에 맞게 반영하여 국제적 기준에 맞으면서 체계상으로도 육상 해상 항공 운송을 포괄하는 특징을 갖고 있다. 그러나 "상법"은 운송계약상 항공운송인의 손해배상책임 문제를 규율하는 몬트리올협약을 주로 반영하면서 동 협약이 가지고 있던 문제로 인하여 국내 상황에 맞게 변형 및 생략을 통해 동 협약의 규정을 수용함으로 인해 발생하는 문제들도 생겨나게 되었다. 특히 여객 손해에 대한 손해배상책임의 발생 원인으로서 사고의 개념은 판례의 해석이 반영된 관련 조약과 "상법"에서 어느 정도 명확한 개념 정의가 필요하다고 할 것이다. "상법" 항공운송편의 모법인 몬트리올 협약은 여객의 사망 또는 신체상해의 원인이 된 사고가 '항공기상에서' 또는 '승강을 위한 작업 중' 발생한 경우에 항공운송인의 손해배상책임에 대하여 규정하고 있으며 이는 바르샤바 협약부터 이를 개정한 전 협약에 걸쳐 동일하게 규정되었고 '사고'의 개념 및 '승강을 위한 작업 중'의 범위와 관련하여 지금까지 논란이 계속되고 있는 중이다. 또한 손해배상의 대상 범주인 여객 손해 중 '신체상해'에 여객이 항공운송 중에 입은 정신적 손해를 포함시킬 수 있는지 여부를 두고 논쟁 중이다. 현행법상 신체적 상해의 경우 특정 상황에서 정신적 손해에 대한 배상이 가능하고 항공사고로 인한 발생한 정신적 손해는 중대한 신체적 상해와 같이 피해자로 하여금 정상적인 생활을 할 수 없게 할 만큼 심각한 피해이다. 그래서 여객의 정신적 손해는 관련 조약이나 "상법"상 신체적 상해에 포함하는 것으로 해석할 필요가 있으며 항공운송인의 합리적인 보호와 남소의 예방 측면에서 명백히 증명될 수 있는 정신적 손해만을 배상하여야 할 것이다. 연착 손해의 배상은 바르샤바 협약, 몬트리올 협약, "상법"은 여객 수하물 및 운송물의 연착으로 인한 항공운송인의 손해배상책임 규정은 있지만 연착에 대한 언급을 하고 있지 않기 때문에 연착에 대한 개념 정리가 필요하다. 연착의 개념에 대한 엄격한 해석은 항공운송인의 안전한 운항을 저해할 소지가 있으므로 여객 수하물 또는 운송물이 항공운송계약에 명시된 도착 예정인 공항에 합의된 시간 내에 또는 이러한 합의가 없을 경우 당해 상황을 고려해 선의의 운송인에게 요구할 수 있는 합리적인 시간 내에 도착 또는 인도되지 아니한 경우를 말한다와 같이 정의하는 것이 옳다고 생각한다. 항공사 약관의 손해는 여객 손해는 대한항공의 국제여객운송약관에 의하면 협약이나 기타 법령에서 정하는 경우 이외에 해당하는 항공운송이나 대한항공이 행하는 서비스로부터 여객에게 발생한 손해는 대한항공이 원칙적으로 책임을 부담하지 않고 대한 항공의 태만 또는 고의적인 과실에 기인하여 발생하였다는 사실이 증명되고 동 손해에 여객의 과실이 개재되지 않았다는 점이 판명된 경우에만 책임을 부담한다. 협약 또는 법령에서 정하지 않은 손해의 경우에는 항공사 측의 과실이 증명된 경우에만 책임을 부담한다는 조항인데 대한항공 약관상 '태만' 또는 '고의적인 과실'이라는 용어의 적합성에 대한 판단이 필요하며 중과실이라고 함이 타당하다고 생각된다. 수하물 손해는 대한항공 국제여객운송약관은 여객의 위탁수하물에 포함되어 있는 전자제품 등의 손상 또는 인도의 지연에 대하여 대한항공은 사실을 알고 있는지 여부에 관계없이 책임을 부담하지 않지만 미국을 출발 또는 도착하는 국제선 운송의 경우에는 그렇지 않다. 따라서 미국을 출발 또는 도착하는 국제선 여객을 다른 나라에 출발 또는 도착하는 국제선 여객을 불합리하게 차별하는 것으로 조약의 내용과 동일하게 물품에 대하여 항공사가 책임을 부담하는 방향으로 개정되어야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제16권
• /
• pp.160-196
• /
• 2002

In this thesis. I have first introduced and studied Chubb & Son. Inc. v. Asiana Airlines. 214 F.3d 301 (2nd Cir. 2000). which held that at the time that the dispute in this case arose. there was no treaty relationship between the United States and South Korea under the Original Warsaw convention. the Hague Protocol. or a treaty consisting of those provisions of the Original Convention that were not amended by the Protocol. And I have analyzed U.S. government s position that was expressed in Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae on petition for a writ certiorari to the 2nd Circuit on Chubb & Son case and 2nd Circuit s Fujitsu Limited v. Federal Express Corporation. 247 F.3d 423 (2001) which was held in a related question afterwards but was somewhat inconsistent with Chubb & Son s holding. Furthermore. I also examined U.S. government s measures which have been considered and taken to cope with consequences of Chubb & Son case's ruling. Lastly. I have examined several effects which Chubb & Son s ruling would give our nation s airlines and suggested our government's countermeasures.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2010

L/C provides the exporter and the importer with safe assurance in the exchange of goods for payment in international trade. It involves a number of parties. Although the parties may have confidence in their client, bad faith or ignorance of international banking practice by any of these parties could cause the failure of transaction, which makes international trade a risky business. Most of the risks are found in transport document, which can cause disputes. There are many factors in the risk of transport documents under L/C transaction. One most common risk factor for the beneficiary in all transport documents is even if there is no discrepancy in document, the issuing bank or the applicant refuses to pay or delay payment insisting there is a discrepancy. In some very rare cases, the beneficiary may not get paid due to unfair injunction of the local court of the applicant. For the applicant, most common risk factors are fake bill and fraud. Risks classified according to the sorts of transport documents are as follows. 1. In B/L, payment can be refused because it is regarded as charter party B/L, although there is no real charter party contract. And the applicant can bear the potential risk of the loss or deterioration of cargo through transhipment of the cargo loaded on board in container if transhipment is prohibited without excluding of UCP 600 article 20 (c). 2. In charter party B/L, the applicant may take delivery without paying when charter party B/L is signed by charterer, which can result in a big loss for the beneficiary and the negotiating bank. And risks may arise when cargo is seized because the charterer does not pay the hire. The applicant and the issuing bank are also vulnerable to a risk - Against whom should they file a suit when cargo gets damaged during transportation? 3. In multimodal transport document, which is subject to a conflict because there is a big difference in viewpoints between transport industry and banks, conflicts may also arise when L/C requires ocean B/L and accepts multimodal transport document at the same time, but does not specify the details. 4. In air waybill, where the consignee is not the issuing bank but the applicant, risks may take place to the beneficiary when the applicant takes delivery but refuses to pay asserting minor discrepancies in document. The applicant may also bear the risk when cargo may not be loaded because air waybill is a received bill. Another risk may arise when although the applicant prohibits transhipment without excluding UCP 600 article 23 (c), the cargo may be transhipped, provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same air waybill.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.109-133
• /
• 2007

The legal labyrinth through which we have just walked is one in which even a highly proficient lawyer could easily become lost. Warsaw Convention's original objective of uniformity of private international aviation liability law has been eroded as the world community ha attempted again to address perceived problems. Efforts to create simplicity and certainty of recovery actually may have created less of both. In any particular case, the issue of which international convention, intercarrier agreement or national law to apply will likely be inconsistent with other decisions. The law has evolved faster for some nations, and slower for others. Under the Warsaw Convention of 1929, strict liability is imposed on the air carrier for damage, loss, or destruction of cargo, luggage, or goods sustained either: (1) during carriage in air, which is comprised of the period during which cargo is 'in charge of the carrier (a) within an aerodrome, (b) on board the aircraft, or (c) in any place if the aircraft lands outside an aerodrome; or (2) as a result of delay. By 2007, 151 nations had ratified the original Warsaw Convention, 136 nations had ratified the Hague Protocol, 84 had ratified the Guadalajara Protocol, and 53 nations had ratified Montreal Protocol No.4, all of which have entered into force. In November 2003, the Montreal Convention of 1999 entered into force. Several airlines have embraced the Montreal Agreement or the IATA Intercarrier Agreements. Only seven nations had ratified the moribund Guatemala City Protocol. Meanwhile, the highly influential U.S. Second Circuit has rendered an opinion that no treaty on the subject was in force at all unless both affected nations had ratified the identical convention, leaving some cases to fall between the cracks into the arena of common law. Moreover, in the United States, a surface transportation movement prior or subsequent to the air movement may, depending upon the facts, be subject to Warsaw, or to common law. At present, International private air law regime can be described as a "situation of utter chaos" in which "even legal advisers and judges are confused." The net result of this barnacle-like layering of international and domestic rules, standards, agreements, and criteria in the elimination of legal simplicity and the substitution in its stead of complexity and commercial uncertainty, which manifestly can not inure to the efficient and economical flow of world trade. All this makes a strong case for universal ratification of the Montreal Convention, which will supersede the Warsaw Convention and its various reformulations. Now that the Montreal Convention has entered into force, the insurance community may press the airlines to embrace it, which in turn may encourage the world's governments to ratify it. Under the Montreal Convention, the common law defence is available to the carrier even when it was not the sole cause of the loss or damage, again making way for the application of comparative fault principle. Hopefully, the recent entry into force of the Montreal Convention of 1999 will re-establish the international legal uniformity the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought to achieve, though far a transitional period at least, the courts of different nations will be applying different legal regimes.