• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.173-198
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability for the space damage and the settlement of the dispute with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of Korea. The United Nations has adopted five treaties relating to the space activity as follows: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Registration Convention of 1974, and the Moon Treaty of 1979. All five treaties have come into force. Korea has ratified above four treaties except the Moon Treaty. Korea has enacted three national legislations relating to space development as follows: Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, the national tort liability for damage by space launching object, the national measures for dispute prevention and international consultation in the exploration and use of outer space, the joint resolution of practical questions by international inter-governmental organizations in the exploration and use of outer space. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the problem in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the problem in respect of the efficiency of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. The 1998 Final Draft Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Related to Space Activities of 1998 by ILA regulates the binding procedure and non-binding settlement procedure for the disputes in respect of space activity. The non-binding procedure regulates the negotiation or the peaceful means and compromise for dispute settlement. The binding procedure regulates the choice of a means among the following means: International Space Law Court if it will be established, International Court of Justice, and Arbitration Court. The above final Draft Convention by ILA will be a model for the innovative development in respect of the peaceful settlement of disputes with reference to space activity and will be useful for establishing the frame of practicable dispute settlement. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and dispute settlement, and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제spc호
• /
• pp.225-246
• /
• 2007

This article is dedicated to my colleague and friend Professor Soon-Kil Hong, Ph.D, who is the famous President of the Korean Association of Air and Space Law and distinguished teacher at the prestigious Hankuk Aviation University. I had the honour and pleasure to teach there a few years ago - upon his gracious invitation. Professor Soon-Kil Hong has made a long, outstanding and impressive career in aviation and space activities, both from a practitioners and academic perspective. That is why I have tried to find a subject which addresses these facets of his personality although this humble article cannot do justice to the great merits of Professor Soon-Kil Hong. This article discusses the liability aspects for damages and injuries to passengers on suborbital flights, by examining: 1. Recent developments regarding space tourism 2. Suborbital flights in relation to the Chicago Convention 3. The application of space law treaties to space tourism 4. Potential candidates for liability regimes applying to space tourism 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Liability under international space law 4.2.1 The Outer Space Treaty (1969) 4.2.2 The Liability Convention (1972) 4.2.3 Conclusions 4.3 Liability under international private air law 4.3.1 Introduction 4.3.2 The Warsaw Convention (1929), as variously amended 4.3.3 The Montreal Agreement (1999) 4.3.4 Conclusions 5. Final observations

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.36-65
• /
• 2000

The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing the international carriage by air of passenger, baggage and cargo. The introduction of a considerable number of modernized major elements including electric ticketing system, the unlimited passenger liability regime and a supplementary (fifth) jurisdiction should help to remove aged scheme that now exists in the Warsaw Convention and other related instruments. The key issue of the electric ticketing system recognized by the Convention IS how to describe reasonably and adequately the terms of written notices, in the light of the principle of consumer protection. Regarding liability regime for passengers, an unlimited passenger liability regime is realized. The carrier, in the first tier, is subject to a strict liability regime of up to 100,000 SDRs, and in the second tire, a regime of presumed fault liability without numerical liability limits. To add to the present four fora, the fifth forum is permitted. Regarding damage resulting the death or injury of a passenger, an action for damages may also be brought in its home territory with the considerably qualified narrow requirements. A strange deviation from the well-established "Procedure for Approval of Draft Convention" carried out by the Legal Committee left a considerable number of unrefined and incomplete passages. In the near future, their modification should be required.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.27-51
• /
• 2007

The cumulative result of the work by the ICAO Secretariat, the Secretariat Study Group and the Council Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 are two draft Conventions, namely: "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, in case of Unlawful Interference", and "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" The core provisions of the former draft Convention are as follows: The liability of the operator is strict, that is, without the necessity of proof of fault. It would be liable for damage sustained by third parties on condition only that the damage was caused by an aircraft in flight(Article 3). However, such liability is caped based on the weight of the aircraft(Article 4). It is envisaged to create an independent organization called the Supplementary Compensation Mechanism, with the principle purpose to pay compensation to persons suffering damage in the territory of a State Party, and to provide financial support(Article 8). Compensation shall be paid by the SCM to the extent that the total amount of damages exceeds the Article 4 limits(Article 19). The main issues on the farmer draft Convention are relating to breaking away from Montreal Convention 1999, no limits on individual claims but a global limitation on air carrier liability, insurance coverage, cap of operators' strict liability, and Supplementary Compensation Mechanism. The core provisions of the latter draft Convention are as follows: the liability of the operator is strict, up to a certain threshold tentatively set at 250,000 to 500,000 SDRs. Beyond that, the operator is liable for all damages unless it proves that such damage were not due to its negligence or that the damages were solely due to the negligence of another person(Article 3). The provisions relating to the SCM and compensation thereunder do not operate under this Convention, as the operator is potentially for the full amount of damages caused. The main issues on the latter draft Convention are relating to liability limit of operator, and definition of general risks. In conclusion, we urge ICAO to move forward expeditiously on the draft Convention to establish a third party liability and compensation system that can stand ready to protect both third party victims and the aviation industry before another 9/11-scale event occurs.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

국제항공운송에 관한 규칙의 통일을 위한 바르샤바 협약이 1929년에 채택되었다. 1999년에 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)는 항공사법의 통일을 광범위하게 현대화하는 국제항공운송을 위한 규칙의 통일을 위한 몬트리올 협약을 채택하였다. 몬트리올 협약은 바르샤바 체제 조약 문서를 대체하였으며, 2003년 11월 4일 발효되었다. 몬트리올 협약은 다만 국제협약일 뿐만 아니라, 또한 국내입법에 상당한 영향을 주었다. 한국은 2011년 4월 29일 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법을 하였으며, 2011년 11월 24일 발효되었다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 여객에게 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 수하물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 화물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임에 관한 규정들을 두고 있다. 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 책임제도의 주요특징은 100,000 특별인출권(SDR)까지 절대책임을 지는 여객의 사망 또는 상해에 대한 2단계 책임제도이며, 그 절대책임액 이상은 아무런 제한없이 반대의 입증부담을 지는 추정적 책임이다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 주요책임원칙을 수용하고 있다. 결론적으로, 한국 정부에 의한 항공운송인의 책임에 관한 국내입법은 여객, 수하물 및 화물의 항공운송에 대한 운송인의 책임에 관한 분쟁을 효과적으로 해결하고, 동법이 규정하는 방어와 책임제한에 따라 손해를 입은 여객 또는 송하인에게 적절한 보상을 제공하는데 기여할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.177-213
• /
• 2011

현재 우주활동에 의하여 발생된 손해에 대한 배상책임과 관련된 국제조약으로 1967년 우주조약과 1972년 우주손해배상책임조약이 있으며, 또한 우리나라 국내법으로 2008년 우주손해배상법이 있다. 우주조약은 우주활동에 대한 국가의 국제적 책임과 우주물체에 의한 손해에 대한 국가의 불법행위 책임에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주손해책임조약은 발사국의 절대적 책임, 과실책임, 연대책임, 배상청구권자, 배상청구방법, 배상청구기한, 배상청구와 국내적 구제, 손해배상액, 청구위원회 설치 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우리나라 우주손해배상법은 우주손해의 정의, 우주손해책임조약과의 관계, 발사자의 무과실책임 및 책임의 집중, 발사자의 손해배상책임한도액, 발사자의 책임보험 가입, 정부의 피해자 구조 및 발사자 지원 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주사고로 인한 손해배상책임 관련 사례들로 Iridium33과 Cosmos 2251 위성충돌 사건, Cosmos 954 위성추락 사건, Martin Marietta의 위성발사 실패 사건, Westar VI 위성 작동불량 사고 등이 있으며, 이러한 우주사건에 관한 분쟁 또는 소송에 있어서 위성의 발사국, 발사자 및 제조자의 손해배상책임 부담문제에 관련하여 절대책임(엄격책임)원칙 또는 과실책임원칙이 적용되어 해결되고 있다. 우주손해책임조약의 개선방안으로 손해배상청구권자의 명확한 규정, 청구위원회의 결정의 구속력 확보 등을 들 수 있고, 우리나라 우주손해배상법의 개선방안으로 손해배상범위에 간접손해 포함, 손해배상책임 한도액의 통화단위 변경, 공동발사자의 연대책임 및 구상권 신설, 우주손해배상심의위원회의 설치 등을 들 수 있다. 우리나라는 2009년 6월 전남 고흥군 외나로도에 우주센터가 준공되어 동년 8월 및 2010년 6월 우리나라 최초 소형 우주발사체 나로호(KSLV-1)를 두차례 발사하였다. 향후 우리나라는 우주활동 과정에서 우주관련 국제조약 및 국내법상의 국제적 책임 및 우주손해에 대한 배상책임 등 문제들이 발생할 가능성이 있으므로 우리정부 및 우주물체 발사기관은 이러한 문제들에 대한 법적 제도적 대응책을 마련해야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제18권
• /
• pp.41-64
• /
• 2003

본고는 새로 발효된 1999년의 몬트리올 조약상 국제항공화물에 관한 항공운송인의 책임제도를 종전의 바르샤바 조약과 비교하여 고찰하고 있으며, 또한 항공화물은송인의 책임에 관련된 몬트리올 조약 규정의 주요 문제점들을 다루고 있다. 바르샤바 조약은 1929년에 채택되어 1955년, 1961년, 1971년, 1975년, 1999년에 계속적으로 개정되어 왔으며, 1999년의 몬트리올 조약은 바르샤바 조약 및 관련조약들을 통합하고 현대화한 것이다. 항공운송인은 몬트리올 조약에 규정된 바와 같이 엄격책임주의에 따라 책임을 지며, 항공운송중의 화물의 파괴, 멸실, 손상 및 지연에 대하여 책임을 지되, 운송인의 책임은 1킬로그램당 17특별인출권(SDR)으로 제한된다. 결론적으로 몬트라올 조약은 화물에 관한 항공운송인의 책임과 관련하여 몇가지 현존하는 문제점들이 있는데, 몬트리올 조약과 바르샤바 조약간의 충돌 가능성, 낮은 운송인의 책임한도액, 운송인의 책임기간의 불명확, 과도한 소송제기, 항공보험의 가입 등의 문제들이 그것이다. 따라서 몬트리올 조약상 운송인의 책임조건 및 한도는 재조정되고 보다 구체적으로 규정되어야 한다.

• 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
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 2004

Delay in the air transport occurs when passengers, baggage or cargo do not arrive at their destination at the time indicated in the contract of carriage. The causes of delay in the carriage of cargo are no reservation, lack of space, failure to load the cargo on board, loading the cargo on the wrong plane, failure to off-load the cargo at the right place, or to deliver the covering documents at the right place. The Montreal Convention of 1999 Article 19 provides that "The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures." The Montreal Convention Article 22 provides liability limits of the carrier in case of delay for cargo. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to 17 SDR per kilogram unless a special declaration as to the value of the cargo has been made. The Montreal Convention Article 19 has shortcomings: it is silent on the duration of the liability for carriage. It does not give any indication concerning the circumstances to be taken into account in cases of delay, and about the length of delay. In conclusion, it is desirable to define the period of carriage with accuracy, and to insert the word 'unreasonable' in Article 19.