• 산학경영연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.137-170
• /
• 2008

본 연구는 국제물류시장에서 동북아 각국의 협력과 경쟁을 유발하는 유라시아철도의 경로구축에 대한 물류전략을 제시하고 있다. 21세기 세계경제의 화두(話頭)는 자유무역협정, 에너지자원개발, 지구온난화 등이다. 이미 유럽은 경제통합의 최고수준인 초국가적 기구를 설치하여 완전경제통합을 이루어 역내 생산 및 물류 방면에 경쟁우위를 확보하였으며, 캐나다, 미국, 멕시코 등도 1994년 1월에 북미자유무역협정(NAFTA)을 체결하여 역내 관세철폐를 통한 역외국가에 대해 비교우위를 점하고 있다. 한편, 유라시아 대륙의 동쪽지역에 해당하는 중국, 일본, 러시아, 한국 등 동북아시아 지역은 정치 경제적인 세계적 위상에 비추어 볼 때, 대립과 갈등이 거듭되는 낙후된 모습으로 교류와 소통에 비효율과 고비용 구조를 면하지 못하고 있다. 아프리카, 남아메리카, 중앙아시아, 몽골, 코카서스 지역 등에는 미국, 영국, 중국, 일본 등이 미래 에너지자원 확보를 위해 자원개발패키지프로그램을 실행하고 있으며, 지역에 따라서는 석유, 가스, 광물자원의 수송 대책에 상당한 어려움을 겪고있다. 2005년 2월 16일 일본 교토에서 기후변화에 관한 국제연합규약의 교토의정서를 채택한 이후 해당 국가들은 온실가스를 줄이기 위한 대체에너지개발 및 운송수단의 기술 개발에 박차를 가하고 있다. 현재, 유럽과 아시아간의 이동화물의 대부분은 해상경로를 통하여 운송되고 화물의 특성상 미량의 항공운송이 있으며, 기원전부터 동서양의 이동통로였던 실크로드는 흔적만 남아 있을 뿐이다. 유라시아 북부지역을 관통하는 시베리아횡단철도는 서비스상의 애로(隘路)가 많아 아직까지는 러시아만의 유통경로로 대부분 사용되고 있다. 1992년 완성된 중국횡단철도는 국제적 유통경로로서의 제 역할을 수행하지 못하고 있다. 이중육지폐쇄국가 (double landlocked country)인 우즈베키스탄을 비롯한 중앙아시아, 몽골, 아제르바이잔 등 해상과 인접하지 못한 국가들은 보유하고 있는 자원개발을 통하여 경제적 도약을 계획하고 있지만, 자원개발의 특성과 빈약한 물류인프라로 인하여 상당한 기간이 소요될 것으로 고려된다. 다만, 인접국가인 중국의 경우는 투르크메니스탄에서 우즈베키스탄과 카자흐스탄을 통한 가스파이프라인을 연결하여 중국서부지역의 수요를 충당할 계획으로 건설 중에 있다. 특히, 2001년에 정식으로 출범한 상하이협력기구(Shanghai Cooperation Organization:이하 SCO)는 중국과 러시아를 필두로 타지키스탄, 키르기스스탄, 카자흐스탄, 우즈베키스탄 등 정회원국 6개국과 옵서버 국가인 몽골, 인도, 파키스탄, 아프가니스탄, 이란 등 5개국으로 구성되어 있다. 처음에는 테러방지를 위한 군사적 동맹으로 시작했지만, 지금은 교통, 운송, 교역, 에너지협력까지 확대해 나가고 있다. 미국과 NATO의 옵서버 신청까지 거절하였으니 그 숨겨진 뜻을 이해할 필요가 있을 것이다. 러시아는 동서가 유라시아 대륙의 북부지역 전역을 차지하는 광활한 지역을 균형 발전시켜야한다는 국정과제를 수행하기 위하여 시베리아횡단철도(Trans Siberia Railway:이하 TSR)의 활성화와 극동 시베리아 지역의 경제발전에 전력을 다하고 있다. 또한 일본과 한국에 상당한 기대를 가지고, TSR과 TKR(한반도종단열차)을 연결시키기 위하여 적극적인 노력을 한 결과, 나진-하산 간 철도 개보수에 러시아, 북한, 남한 3개국이 참여하기로 잠정 합의되었다. 이 지역은 국제연합개발계획(UNDP)에서 추진하고 있는 두만강개발계획(Greater Tumen Initiative:이하 GTI)과 중첩되는 곳으로, 이 계획은 한국, 몽골, 중국, 러시아, 북한 등 5개국의 공동 프로젝트이며, 그 내용은 에너지, 관광, 환경, 몽골과 중국 간 철도연결 타당성 검토, 동북아 페리루트 개설 등이 추진되고 있다. 중국의 동북3성 재개발 계획을 성공적으로 실행하기 위해서는 국내외 자본의 많은 투자 유치가 필수적인데, 그 전제 조건이 중국동부 연안의 개발에서 이미 보았듯이 막힘 없는 물류인프라의 존재 여부이다. 일본은 몽골지역에 대규모 무상 인프라건설 지원을 해주면서, 몽골과 러시아 자루비노를 연결하는 '동방대통로'를 구상하고 있지만, 러시아, 중국의 태도를 주시해야하는 입장이다. 만약에, 북한의 비핵화 방지 프로그램이 파행을 거듭하지 않는다면, 미국도 어떠한 방식으로든 참여하게 되어, 한반도종단철도와 시베리아횡단철도, 한반도종단철도와 중국횡단철도의 연결은 아시아태평양경제사회위원회(UN ESCAP)의 추진 프로그램과 더불어 가속도를 붙게 할 것이다. 이것이 실행되면, 지금까지 미온적인 일본과 한국 간 해저터널 문제도 적극적으로 검토될 것이다. 결국 한반도는 주변국이 원하든 원하지 아니하든, 지경학적으로 그리고 지정학적으로 동북아시아의 중심적 위치를 차지할 수밖에 없을 것이며, 과거, 현재, 미래에 동북아시아 각 국가의 경쟁과 협력의 중심적 역할을 할 수 있는 한반도의 기회는 계속될 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제9권
• /
• pp.85-143
• /
• 1997

The main purpose of the investigation of an accident caused by aircraft is to be prevented the sudden and casual accidents caused by wilful misconduct and fault from pilots, air traffic controllers, hijack, trouble of engine and machinery of aircraft, turbulence during the bad weather, collision between birds and aircraft, near miss flight by aircrafts etc. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability for offender of aircraft accidents. Accidents to aircraft, especially those involving the general public and their property, are a matter of great concern to the aviation community. The system of international regulation exists to improve safety and minimize, as far as possible, the risk of accidents but when they do occur there is a web of systems and procedures to investigate and respond to them. I would like to trace the general line of regulation from an international source in the Chicago Convention of 1944. Article 26 of the Convention lays down the basic principle for the investigation of the aircraft accident. Where there has been an accident to an aircraft of a contracting state which occurs in the territory of another contracting state and which involves death or serious injury or indicates serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. That inquiry will be in accordance, in so far as its law permits, with the procedure which may be recommended from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO). There are very general provisions but they state two essential principles: first, in certain circumstances there must be an investigation, and second, who is to be responsible for undertaking that investigation. The latter is an important point to establish otherwise there could be at least two states claiming jurisdiction on the inquiry. The Chicago Convention also provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the state holding the inquiry must communicate the report and findings in the matter to that other state. It is worth noting that the Chicago Convention (Article 25) also makes provision for assisting aircraft in distress. Each contracting state undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable and to permit (subject to control by its own authorities) the owner of the aircraft or authorities of the state in which the aircraft is registered, to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by circumstances. Significantly, the undertaking can only be given by contracting state but the duty to provide assistance is not limited to aircraft registered in another contracting state, but presumably any aircraft in distress in the territory of the contracting state. Finally, the Convention envisages further regulations (normally to be produced under the auspices of ICAO). In this case the Convention provides that each contracting state, when undertaking a search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to the Convention. Since 1944 further international regulations relating to safety and investigation of accidents have been made, both pursuant to Chicago Convention and, in particular, through the vehicle of the ICAO which has, for example, set up an accident and reporting system. By requiring the reporting of certain accidents and incidents it is building up an information service for the benefit of member states. However, Chicago Convention provides that each contracting state undertakes collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation. To this end, ICAO is to adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with, among other things, aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents. Standards and Recommended Practices for Aircraft Accident Injuries were first adopted by the ICAO Council on 11 April 1951 pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and were designated as Annex 13 to the Convention. The Standards Recommended Practices were based on Recommendations of the Accident Investigation Division at its first Session in February 1946 which were further developed at the Second Session of the Division in February 1947. The 2nd Edition (1966), 3rd Edition, (1973), 4th Edition (1976), 5th Edition (1979), 6th Edition (1981), 7th Edition (1988), 8th Edition (1992) of the Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) of the Chicago Convention was amended eight times by the ICAO Council since 1966. Annex 13 sets out in detail the international standards and recommended practices to be adopted by contracting states in dealing with a serious accident to an aircraft of a contracting state occurring in the territory of another contracting state, known as the state of occurrence. It provides, principally, that the state in which the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint an accredited representative to be present at the inquiry conducted by the state in which the serious aircraft accident occurs. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention does not indicate what the accredited representative is to do but Annex 13 amplifies his rights and duties. In particular, the accredited representative participates in the inquiry by visiting the scene of the accident, examining the wreckage, questioning witnesses, having full access to all relevant evidence, receiving copies of all pertinent documents and making submissions in respect of the various elements of the inquiry. The main shortcomings of the present system for aircraft accident investigation are that some contracting sates are not applying Annex 13 within its express terms, although they are contracting states. Further, and much more important in practice, there are many countries which apply the letter of Annex 13 in such a way as to sterilise its spirit. This appears to be due to a number of causes often found in combination. Firstly, the requirements of the local law and of the local procedures are interpreted and applied so as preclude a more efficient investigation under Annex 13 in favour of a legalistic and sterile interpretation of its terms. Sometimes this results from a distrust of the motives of persons and bodies wishing to participate or from commercial or related to matters of liability and bodies. These may be political, commercial or related to matters of liability and insurance. Secondly, there is said to be a conscious desire to conduct the investigation in some contracting states in such a way as to absolve from any possibility of blame the authorities or nationals, whether manufacturers, operators or air traffic controllers, of the country in which the inquiry is held. The EEC has also had an input into accidents and investigations. In particular, a directive was issued in December 1980 encouraging the uniformity of standards within the EEC by means of joint co-operation of accident investigation. The sharing of and assisting with technical facilities and information was considered an important means of achieving these goals. It has since been proposed that a European accident investigation committee should be set up by the EEC (Council Directive 80/1266 of 1 December 1980). After I would like to introduce the summary of the legislation examples and system for aircraft accidents investigation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Swiss, New Zealand and Japan, and I am going to mention the present system, regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation in Korea. Furthermore I would like to point out the shortcomings of the present system and regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation and then I will suggest my personal opinion on the new and dramatic innovation on the system for aircraft accident investigation in Korea. I propose that it is necessary and desirable for us to make a new legislation or to revise the existing aviation act in order to establish the standing and independent Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation under the Korean Government.