• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제18권
• /
• pp.9-39
• /
• 2003

프로펠러여객기 운항시대에 만들어졌던 국제항공운송인의 민사책임관계를 규정한 1992년의 바르샤바조약은 1955년의 헤이그 개정의정서, 1961년의 과다라하라조약, 1971년의 과테말라의정서 및 1975년의 몬트리올 제1, 제2, 제3및 제4의 정서 등 한개의 조약과 여섯 개의 의정서 등에 의하여 여러 차례 개정이 되었고 보완되면서 70여 년간 전세계를 지배하여 왔지만 오늘날 초음속(마하)으로 나르고 있는 제트여객기 운항시대에 적합하지 않아 "바르샤바조약체제" 상의 문제점이 많이 제기되어 왔다. 특히 시대에 뒤떨어진 "바르샤바조약체제" 는 2개의 조약과 여섯 개의 의정서로 매우 복잡하게 구성되어 있었으며 항공기사고로 인한 국제항공운송인의 손해배상사건에 있어 배상한도액이 유한책임으로 규정되어 있어 항상 가해자인 항공사와 피해자인 여객들간에 분쟁(소송 등)이 끊이지 않고 있으므로 이를 어느정도 해결하기 위하여 UN산하 ICAO에서는 상기 여러 개 조약과 의정서를 하나의 조약으로 통합(integration)하여 단순화시키고 현대화(modernization)시키기 위하여 20여 년간의 작업 끝에 1999년 5월에 몬트리올에서 새로운 국제항공운송인의 민사책임에 관한 조약(몬트리올 조약)을 제정하였다. "바르샤바조약체제" 를 근본적으로 개혁한 몬트리올 조약은 71개국과 유럽통합지역기구가 서명하였으며 미국을 비롯하여 33개국이 비준하여 2003년 11월 3일부터 전세계적으로 발효되었음으로 이 조약은 앞으로 전세계의 항공운소업계를 지배하게 되리라고 본다. 본 논문에서는 몬트리올 조약의 성립경위와 주요내용(국제항공여객운송인의 손해배상책임: (1)총설, (2)조약의 명칭, (3)조약의 전문, (4)국제항공여객에 대한 책임원칙과 배상액((ㄱ)국제항공여객의 사상에 대한 배상, (ㄴ)국제항공여객의 연착에 대한 배상), (5)손해배상 한도액의 자동조정, (6)손해배상금의 일부전도, (7)손해배상청구소송의 제기관계, (8)국제항공여객의 주거지에서의 재판관할관계, (9)항공계약운송인과 항공실제운송인과의 관계, (10)항공보험)을 요약하여 간략하게 설명하였다. 1999년 몬트리올 조약의 핵심사항은 국제항공운송인의 손해배상책임에 관하여 무한책임을 원칙으로 하되 100,000 SDR까지는 무과실책임주의를 채택하였고 이 금액을 초과하는 부분에 대하여서는 과실추정책임주의를 채택하였음으로 "2단계의 책임제도" 를 도입한 점과 항공기사고로 인한 피해자(여객)는 주소지의 관할법원에 가해자(항공사)를 상대로 손해배상청구소송을 제기할 수 있는 제 5재판관할권을 새로이 도입하였다는 점이다. 현재 우리 나라는 전세계에서 항공여객수송량이 11위 권에 접어들고 있으며 항공화물수송량도 3위 권을 차지하고 있음에도 불구하고 아직도 이 조약에 서명 내지 비준을 하지 않고 있음은 문제점으로 지적될 수가 있음으로 그 해결방안으로 세계의 항공산업선진국들과 어깨를 나란히 하고 상호 협력하기 위하여 조속히 우리 나라도 이 조약에 서명하고 비준하는 것이 필요하다고 본다. 한편 우리 나라와 일본은 국내항공운송에 있어서는 국내에서 항공기사고가 발생하였을 때에 국내항공여객운송인의 민사책임을 규정한 법률이 없기 때문에 항상 항공사 측과 피해자간에 책임원인과 한계 및 손해배상액을 놓고 분규가 심화되어 가고있으며 법원에서 소송이 몇 년씩 걸리어 피해자 보호에 만전을 기 할 수가 없는 실정에 있다. 현재 이와 같은 분규의 신속한 해결을 위하여 국내항공운송약관과 민상법의 규정을 적용 내지 준용하여 처리할 수밖에 없는 실정인데 항공기사고의 특수성을 고려하여 볼 때 여러 가지 문제점이 많이 제기되고 있다. 이와 같은 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 국내항공여객운송인의 책임한계 및 손해배상액을 분명하게 정하고 재판의 공평성과 신속성을 도모하기 위하여서는 항공운송계약 당사자간의 책임관계를 명확하게 규정한 "가칭, 항공운송법" 의 국내입법이 절실히 필요하다고 본다.

• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제17권
• /
• pp.9-28
• /
• 2003

1929년 바르샤바조약은 그 후속 개정조약들을 포함해 국제항공운송분야에서 70년 이상 중요한 역할을 해왔다. 동조약은 2003년 11월 4일 몬트리올조약을 대체될 예정이다. 몬트리올조약은 운송인의 책임의 범위에 있어서 많은 변화를 가져왔고 운송인이 제소될 수 있는 법원의 범위를 확대하였다. 그리고 운송인의 책임을 인정함에 있어 코드쉐어의 영향을 반영하였다. 몬트리올조약은 1920년대 국제항공운송에 있어서의 국제적 노력이 시작된 이후 가장 커다란 변화가 야기된 조약이다. 몬트리올조약은 그 동안 수많은 조약들이 채택했던 원칙들을 집대성하여 국제항공운송의 통일성을 단일조약에 체계화하였다. 바르샤바조약체계의 문제점으로 지적되었던 낮은 배상한도액이 몬트리올조약에서 상향조정되었다. 항공운송인들의 입장을 보호하기 위한 조약으로서 특성지워졌던 바르샤바조약은 이제 몬트리올조약을 통해 승객의 입장을 반영한 조약이 되었다. 한국정부가 몬트리올조약을 비준한다면 한국의 승객들은 그로 인한 이익을 향유하게 될 것이다. 몬트리올조약의 비준은 승객들과 항공사 모두의 이익이 될 것이다.

• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

본 논문은 5대 국제항공테러범죄협약, 다시 말해서 UN의 전문기구인 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)에서 제정된 1963년 도쿄협약, 1970 헤이그협약, 1971 몬트리올협약, 1988년 몬트리올 의정서 그리고 1991년 가소성폭약협약에 규정된 관할권조항의 내용과 그 문제점을 연구하였는데 국제항공테러 협약의 관할권을 연구하면서 얻은 결론을 다음과 같다. 첫째, 항공테러협약의 관할권규정에서 공통으로 발견되는 것은 어느 협약도 관할권의 우선순위를 명시하지 않고 있다는 점이다. 결국 하이재킹 된 항공기가 착륙한 국가와 항공기등록국간 관할권문제가 발생하는데 대부분의 경우 착륙국이 하이재커를 처벌하는 예가 많다. 둘째, 국제법상 전통적인 관할권이론에서 많은 이론이 제기되었던 소극적 국적주의(passive personality principle)가 국제항공테러협약의 제정 이후 각종 국제테러협약에서 점차적으로 발전되어가고 있는 경향을 볼 수 있다. 1973년의 뉴욕협약 제3조 1항, 1979년 인질협약 제5조 1항 (d) 그리고 1988년 로마협약 제6조 2항 (b)가 그 예이다. 또한 1979년 인질협약 제5조 1항 (c)와 1988년 로마협약 제6조 2항 (c)에서는 자국에게 작위 또는 부작위를 강요하기 위한 범행의 경우에도 그 대상국가가 관할권을 행사할 수 있도록하고 있다. 만일 장래에 국제항공테러협약이 개정이 될 경우에는 국제항공 테러범죄를 좀 더 효과적으로 억제하기 위하여 소극적 국적주의를 고려할 필요가 있다. 셋째, 헤이그협약이나 몬트리올협약은 범인의 국적주의를 부여하고 있지않으나 인질협약은 제5조 1항 (b)에 인질억류범의 국적국가에게 관할권을 부여하고 있다. 만일 A국가의 국민이 어떤 국가나 제3자의 작위나 부작위를 강요할 목적으로 B국가에서 인질을 억류했다면 A국가도 그자에 대한 관할권을 행사할 권리를 가진다는 것이다. 따라서 만일 국제항공테러협약이 개정이 될 때는 이 문제도 고려할 필요가 있다. 마지막으로 인질협약 제 5조 1항 (b)는 무국적자가 상주하는 국가에서 만약 그가 인질억류범죄를 행했고, 그 국가가 그렇게 하는 것이 적절하다고 고려하는 경우 그에 대하여 관할권을 행사할 권리를 부여한다. 이와 같은 목적에서 볼 때 무국적거주자를 국민과 동일하게 보고 있는데 헤이그협약이나 몬트리올협약에서는 없는 조항이다. 만일 국제항공테러협약이 개정이될 때는 이 문제도 함께 고려할 필요가 있다고 생각한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제7권
• /
• pp.101-134
• /
• 1995

Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Warsaw Convention regulates the requirements of passenger tickets, Article 4 Paragraph 3, the requirements of baggage tickets, Article 8, the requirements of airway bills. In this article the writer has discussed the legal nature of the documents of air carriage, such as air waybills, passenger tickets and baggage checks. Further, the writer has also discussed several issues relating to the use of the documents of air carriage under the Warsaw Convention. Article 3 Paragraph 2, as well as Article 4 Paragraph 4 and 9 provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Convention which evade or limit his liability. In particular, the Montreal Agreement of 1966 provides that the notification on the carrier's liability in passenger ticket should be printed in more than 10 point type size with contrasting ink colors. However, another question is whether the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention in case the type size is below 10 points. The Convention does not specify the type size of certain parts in passenger tickets and only provides that the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of liability limit, when a carrier fails to deliver the ticket to passenger. However, since the delivery of passenger tickets is to provide an opportunity for passengers to recognize the liability limit under the Convention and to map out a subsequent measures, the carrier who fails to give this opportunity shall not be entitled to avail himself of the liability limit under the Convention. But some decisions argue that when the notice on the carrier's liability limit is presented in a fine print in a hardly noticeable place, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself under the Convention. Meanwhile, most decisions declare that regardless of the type size, the carrier is entitled to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention. The reason is that neither the Warsaw Convention nor the Montreal Agreement stipulate that the carrier is deprived from the right to avail himself of liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when violating the notice requirement. In particular, the main objective of the Montreal Agreement is not on the notice of liability limit but on the increase of it. The latest decisons also maintain the same view. This issue seems to have beeen settled on the occasion of Elisa Chan, et al. vs. Korean Airlines Ltd. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the type size of passenger ticket can not be a target of controversy since it is not required by law, after a cautious interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement highlighting the fact that no grounds for that are found both in the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Agreement. Now the issue of type size can hardly become any grounds for the carrier not to exclude himself from the liability limit. In this regard, any challenge to raise issue on type size seems to be defeated. The same issue can be raised in both airway bills and baggage tickets. But this argument can be raised only to the tranportation where the original Convention is applied. This creates no problem under the Convention revised by the Hague Protocol, because the Hague Protocol does not require any information on weight, bulk, size, and number of cargo or baggage. The problem here is whether the carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when no information on number or weight of the consigned packages is available in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. Currently the majority of decisions show positive stance on this. The carrier is entitled to avail himself of the liability limit of the provisions of the Convention when the requirement of information on number and weight of consigned packages is skipped, because these requirements are too technical and insubstancial. However some decisions declare just the opposite. They hold that the provisions of the Convention Article 4 is clear, and their meaning and effect should be imposed on it literally and that it is neither unjust nor too technical for a carrier to meet the minimum requirement prescribed in the Convention. Up to now, no decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue is available.

• 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
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.147-162
• /
• 1989

The current status of the application and interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent Protocols in Asian countries is in its fredgling stages compared to the developed countries of Europe and North America, and there is thus little published information about the various Asian governments' treatment and courts' views of the Warsaw System. Due to that limitation, the accent of this paper will be on Korea and Japan. As one will be aware, the so-called 'Warsaw System' is made up of the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Hague Protocol of 1955, the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 1975. Among these instruments, most of the countries in Asia are parties to both the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol. However, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia are parties only to the Hague Protocol, while Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are parties only to the Warsaw Convention. Thailand and Taiwan are not parties only to the convention or protocol. Among Asian states, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Pakistan are also parties to the Guadalajara Convention, but no country in Asia has signed the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 or the Montreal Additional Protocols, which Protocols have not yet been put into force. The People's Republic of China has declared that the Warsaw Convention shall apply to the entire Chinese territory, including Taiwan. 'The application of the Warsaw Convention to one-way air carriage between a state which is a party only to the Warsaw Convention and a state which is a party only to the Hague Protocol' is of particular importance in Korea as it is a signatory only to the Hague Protocol, but it is involved in a great deal of air transportation to and from the united states, which in turn is a party only to the Warsaw Convention. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Korea appears to be, that parties to the Warsaw Convention were intended to be parties to the Hague Protocol, whether they actually signed it or not. The effect of this decision is that in Korea the United States and Korea will be considered by the courts to be in a treaty relationship, though neither State is a signatory to the same instrument as the other State. The first wrongful death claim in Korea related to international carriage by air under the Convention was made in Hyun-Mo Bang, et al v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. case. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed for damages based upon breach of contract as well as upon tort under the Korean Civil Code. The issue in the case was whether the time limitation provisions of the Convention should be applicable to a claim based in tort as well as to a claim based in contract. The Appellate Court ruled on 29 August 1983 that 'however founded' in Article 24(1) of the Convention should be construed to mean that the Convention should be applicable to the claim regardless of whether the cause of action was based in tort or breach of contract, and that the plaintiffs' rights to damages had therefore extinguished because of the time limitation as set forth in Article 29(1) of the Convention. The difficult and often debated question of what exactly is meant by the words 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' in Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, has also been litigated. The Supreme Court of Japan dealt with this issue in the Suzuki Shinjuten Co. v. Northwest Airlines Inc. case. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, and decided that 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' under Article 25(1) of the Convention was within the meaning of 'gross negligence' under the Japanese Commercial Code. The issue of the convention of the 'franc' into national currencies as provided in Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol has been raised in a court case in Korea, which is now before the District Court of Seoul. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the gold franc equivalent must be converted in Korean Won in accordance with the free market price of gold in Korea, as Korea has not enacted any law, order or regulation prescribing the proper method of calculating the equivalent in its national currency. while it is unclear if the court will accept this position, the last official price of gold of the United States as in the famous Franklin Mint case, Special Drawing Right(SDR) or the current French franc, Korean Air Lines has argued in favor of the last official price of gold of the United States by which the air lines converted such francs into us Dollars in their General Conditions of Carriage. It is my understanding that in India, an appellate court adopted the free market price valuation. There is a report as well saying that if a lawsuit concerning this issue were brought in Pakistan, the free market cost of gold would be applied there too. Speaking specifically about the future of the Warsaw System in Asia though I have been informed that Thailand is actively considering acceding to the Warsaw Convention, the attitudes of most Asian countries' governments towards the Warsaw System are still wnot ell known. There is little evidence that Asian countries are moving to deal concretely with the conversion of the franc into their own local currencies. So too it cannot be said that they are on the move to adhere to the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 3 & 4 which attempt to basically solve many of the current problems with the Warsaw System, by adopting the SDR as the unit of currency, by establishing the carrier's absolute liability and an unbreakable limit and by increasing the carrier's passenger limit of liability to SDR 100,000, as well as permiting the domestic introduction of supplemental compensation. To summarize my own sentiments regarding the future, I would say that given the fact that Asian air lines are now world leaders both in overall size and rate of growth, and the fact that both Asian individuals and governments are becoming more and more reliant on the global civil aviation networks as their economies become ever stronger, I am hopeful that Asian nations will henceforth play a bigger role in ensuring the orderly and hasty development of a workable unified system of rules governing international commercial air carriage.

• 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.

• 청정기술
• /
• 제12권4호
• /
• pp.250-258
• /
• 2006

CFC-113과 1,1,1-trichloroethane 등과 같은 CFC 화합물은 화학적 안정성 및 열역학적 특성 등이 우수하고, 불연성이며, 부식성이 없는 화합물로 오랜 시간 동안 전 산업에 걸쳐 널리 사용 되어 왔다. 하지만, 1989년 지구 환경의 보호를 위해 이들의 생산과 사용을 규제하는 국제협약인 '오존층 파괴물질에 관한 몬트리올 의정서'가 체결되어 대체 세정제가 요구되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 세정 시스템을 변화시키지 않고 세정력이 우수하면서 환경 친화적이며 인체 유해도가 낮으며 부식성 물질을 발생 시키지 않는 비수계 세정제를 개발하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 글리콜 에테르계의 용매와 파라핀계 탄화수소 물질을 일정 비율로 혼합, 배합하면서 실록산을 첨가하여 비수계 세정제를 배합 제조하였다. 그리고 이들 세정제의 물성과 세정성을 평가하여 대체 세정제로서의 가능성을 평가하였다. 배합세정제의 물성측정 결과 밀도와 표면장력이 낮아 오염물에 대한 침투력이 우수할 것으로 예상되었고 인화점과 증기압 측정값으로 세정제의 안전성을 평가할 수 있었다. 플럭스, 솔더 및 그리스에 대한 세정성능 측정결과 높은 세정성능을 보여주었고 피세정물의 표면에 잔류물이 생성되지 않았다. 결과적으로, 규제물질과 동등한 세정능력을 지니며 침투력이 우수하고 인체 유해도가 낮은 세정제를 개발할 수 있었다.