• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.143-209
• /
• 2005

In 1994, the North Korea indicated their intention to open up airspace. The air route passing through from Daegue FIR to Pyungyang FIR has established in 1996. The air transport cooperation between South and North Korea seemed to be reinforced at the event of President Kim, Dae-Jung's visit to North Korea by passing through a temporarily established Yellow Sea Airway in the year of 2000. The nature characteristics of air transport burdening of many circumstantial situations, however, have kept cooperation between South and North Korea from being facilitated till now. Recently as the more exchange between North and South Korea, the more frequent opportunities to discuss economic cooperation, which in sequence increased political credibility has been increased. The rail, road, and port reconnecting has realized which have been regarded impossible. Furthermore, it is expected to transport personnel and goods through South-North direct connected routes in the near future This study shows several meanings of air transport cooperation between South and North Korea. It will be far beyond simply partial air route connecting in this region, it gives great significance to realize economic cooperation and Northeast hub through air transport industry sector. This will be an exit for air transport industry have suffered limits derived from North Korea troubles and difficulties in growing as Northeast air hub. Namely, South-North air connection denote its meaning in providing opportunities Korea to be Northeast Hub and advanced country having globally competitive air transport industry To develop strategy for air transport cooperation between South and North Korea. they were developed by SWOT analysis on the basis of circumstantial analysis. These strategy need to be commanded properly to the changes of surrounded circumstances. The study result show it is desirable to apply phasal strategies by using strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities factors underlying analysis of inner and outer circumstances to cooperate in air transport sector.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.97-136
• /
• 2004

The Northeast Asian air cargo market has expanded tremendously as a result of the opening up of the Chinese market. The importance of the Asia-Pacific region in the global air transport has also increased. The exchange of human and material resources, services, and information in Northeast Asia, which is expected to increase in the near future, requires that the airlines operating within this region adopt a more liberalized approach. This paper introduced alternatives which can be applied to the Northeast Asian airlines industry so as to bring about the integration of regional air transport: First, this paper found a need for individual Northeast Asian nations to alter their policies towards the airlines industry. Second, each country should further liberalize their respective domestic air transport. Third, there is a need for freer air service agreements to be signed between the nations of Northeast Asia. Fourth, the strategic alliances between the airlines operating in Northeast Asia should be further strengthened. Fifth, this liberalization process should be carried out in an incremental manner, beginning with more competitive airports and routes, or with less-in-demand routes. Sixth, there is a need for a shuttle system to be put into place between the main airports in China, Korea, and Japan. Seventh, these three nations jointly develop aviation safety and security systems that are in accordance with international standards. Eighth, the liberalization process of the aviation industry should be undertaken in conjunction with other related fields. Ninth, organizations linking together civil aviation organization in the Asia-Pacific area should be formed, as should each government linking together. By doing so, these countries will be able to establish regular venues through which to exchange opinions on the integration and liberalization of the air cargo market so as to induce the gradual liberalization of the actual market. The liberalization of the air transport in Northeast Asia will prove to be a daunting task in the short term. However, if the Chinese airlines continue to exhibit continuous growth and Japanese airlines are able to complete their move towards a low-cost structure, this process could be completed earlier than expected. Over the last twenty five years the air transport has undergone tremendous changes. The most important factor behind these changes has been the increased liberalization of the market. As a result, rates have decreased while demand has increased. This has resulted in turning the air transport industry, which was long perceived as an industry in decline, into a high-growth industry. The only method of increasing regional exchanges in the air transport is to pursue further liberalization. The country which implements this liberalization process at the earliest date may very well emerge as a leading force within the air transport industry.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.225-246
• /
• 2020

More than technical or academic matter, mitigation of height restriction around airports is about up-dating out-dated policies that have not kept up with rapidly developing aircraft and air traffic control technologies. Above all, instead of calling out 'flight safety' that the public do not comprehend, it is important to examine and carry out measures that can protect people's right of property. MOLIT(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport) after reviewing ICAO's Obstacle Limitation Surface TF, made an announcement to provide further plans that would apply to contracting states from 2026. However, residents of redevelopment areas near Kimpo international airport asserted that MOLIT's policy overlooks the reality of the redevelopment zone. ICAO, UN's specialized agency for civilian aviation, recommends in Annex 14, 4.2.4 that contracting states conduct an aeronautical study to determine the flight safety of horizontal surface(45m), excluding approach surface, and to mitigate height restrictions if no threat is found. Numerous countries including the United States have been following this recommendation and have been able to effectively protect people's right of property, whereas the South Korean government have not following it so far. The number of height restriction mitigation cases in the recent three months (2019. 7. 15~10. 14.) FAA of the United States have allowed after conducting an aeronautical study reaches 14,706. Japan and Taiwan also reconstruct airspace around airports in metropolitan areas in order to protect people's right of property. Just as the United States is following, MLIT should follow ICAO's recommendation in Annex 14. 4.2.4(Vol. 1. Airport Construction / Operation) and protect people's right of property by first applying aeronautical studies to the horizontal surface(45m) of flight safety zones until the specifics of ICAO's 2026 TF materialize.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.9
• /
• pp.327-349
• /
• 1997

Luftfrachtersatzverkehr ist der Transport von Luftfrachtgut von Flughafen zu Flughafen unter einem Luftfrachtbrief im $Oberfl{\ddot{a}}chentransport$ urn die erste und/oder letzte Teilstrecke einer als Gesamtstrecke vereinbarten $Luftfrachtbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$. These Strecken $f{\ddot{u}}hren$ von nationalen oder intemationalen $Flugh{\tilde{a}}fen$ zurn Zentralflughafen ($_"Hub"$) der Luftverkehrsgesellschaft bzw. in urngekehrter Richtung vom Zentralflughafen hin zu den einzelnen nationalen oder intemationalen $Flugh{\ddot{a}}fen$. Die Vorteile des Luftfrachtersatzverkehrs sind offenkundig, daher auch sein $st{\ddot{a}}ndiges$ Anwachsen. Allerdings bestand bei den Luftverkehrsgesellschaften jahrelang eine $gro{\ss}e$ Unsicherheit, wie dieser Luftverkehr, der eben nicht in der Luft $durchgef{\ddot{u}}hrt$ wird, rechtlich zu qualifizieren sei. Stellte die $Bef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ von $Luftfrachtg{\ddot{u}}tem$ auf der $Stra{\ss}e$ einen Bruch des $Luftbef{\ddot{o}}rderungsvertrages$ dar, so wie im Schadensfall die $Gesch{\ddot{a}digten$, Absender oder $Empf{\ddot{a}}nger$ des betreffenden Gutes, der Luftverkehrgesllschft auf Art. 18 Abs. 3 oder Art. 31 Warschauer Abkommen(WA) berufen? Folge dieser Unsicherheit war, $da{\ss}$ ${\ddot{u}}ber$ lange Jahre hinweg die Luftverkehrsgesellschaften sich scheuten, diese Frage einer gerichtlichen $Kl{\ddot{a}}rung$ $zuzuf{\ddot{u}}hren$, Eher war man geneigt, sich mit dem Anspruchsgegner $au{\ss}ergerichtlich$ zu vergleichen, selbst wenn dies bedeutete, $da{\ss}$ man sich nicht auf die $Haftungsbeschr{\ddot{a}}nkungen$ des Art. 22 WA berufen konnte, als ein Urteil zu erstreiten, welcher $m{\ddot{o}}glicherweise$ der Praxis der $Luftfrachtersatzbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ einen - rechtlichen - Riegel vorgeschoben $h{\ddot{a}}tte$. Diese Unsicherheit ist jedoch durch die Entscheidung die erste und wohl auch bislang einzige $h{\ddot{o}}chstrichterliche$ Entscheidung zur $Luftfrachtersatzbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ nicht nur in Deutschland, sondem soger in Europa. Die Luftverkehrsgesellschaften $k{\ddot{o}}nnen$ mit dieser Entscheidung gut leben. Bei emer $vertragsgem{\ddot{a}}{\ss}en$ $Luftfrachtersatzbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ haftet der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrer$ $f{\ddot{u}}r$ $Sch{\ddot{a}}den$ $anl{\ddot{a}}{\ss}lich$ der mit dem Luftfahrzeug $ausgef{\ddot{u}}hrten$ Teilstrecke nach den Vorsschriften des Warschauer Abkommens und $f{\ddot{u}}r$ $Sch{\ddot{a}}den$ $anl{\ddot{a}}{\ss}lich$ der mit einem $Oberfl{\ddot{a}}chenbef{\ddot{o}}rderungsmittel$ $ausgef{\ddot{u}}hrten$ Teilstrecke nach den Vorschriften, welche $f{\ddot{u}}r$ das $tats{\ddot{a}}chlich$ eingesetzte ransportmittel $einschl{\ddot{a}}gig$ sind. Bei unbekanntem Schadensort haftet der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrer$ nach dem jeweils $sch{\ddot{a}}rfsten$ der in Betracht kommenden Rechte. Bei emer vertragwidrigen $Luftfrachtersatzbef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ haftet der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrer$ nach dem Recht des vereinbarten $Bef{\ddot{o}}rderungsmittels$, da sich auf dieses Recht der Vertragspartner des $Luftfrrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrers$ eingerichtet hatte. Der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}frer$ haftet aber auch nach dem Recht des $tats{\ddot{a}}chlich$ eingesetzten $Bef{\ddot{o}}rderungsmittels$, da er sich in dessen Haftungsordnung durch die einseitige Wahl des $Bef{\ddot{o}}rderungsmittels$ selbst hineingestellt hat. Bei unbekanntem Schadensort haftet der $Luftfrachtf{\ddot{u}}hrer$ nach dem jeweils $sch{\ddot{a}}rfsten$ der in Betracht kommenden Rechte.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2016

Recently, the Supreme Court of Korea delivered a milestone judgment about air related multimodal transport. At there, the mattered cargo, some expensive jewellery, was transported from Qingdao, China to downtown office of consignee at Seoul via Incheon airport in Korea. As an air waybill was issued in this case, there was an air transport agreement between consignor and air courier operator. After arriving at Incheon airport, the shipment was transport by land arranged by the air courier operator, who was a defendant in this case. Upon arriving at the final destination, it was found that the jewellery was lost partly and based on circumstantial evidence, the damage presumed to be occurred during the land transport. As a subrogee, the insurance company who paid for consignee filed an action against the air courier operator for damage compensation. Defendant contended that Montreal convention should be applicable in this case mainly for limited liability. The lower court of this case confirmed that applying the limited liability clause under Montreal Convention is improper under the reason that the damage in this case was or presumed to be occurred during surface transport. It was focused on the Montreal Convention article 18 which says that the period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision. The delivered opinion is that the terms of condition on the air waybill including limited liability clause should be prevailed in this case. It seems that the final judgment was considered the fact that the only contract made in this case was about air transport. This article is for analysis the above decisions from the perspective that it is distinguishable between a pure multimodal transport and an expanded air transport. The main idea of this article is that under the expanded air transport, any carriage by land, sea or inland waterway only for the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or transhipment is still within the scop of air transport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.153-180
• /
• 2020

This study is meaningful in finding out what legal and policy issues need to be improved in order to foster the aircraft industry, which is relatively underdeveloped compared to the fact that some heavy industries, such as the automobile industry and shipbuilding industry, have achieved a high level of production and technology globally. Korea's aircraft industry has been growing at a slower pace than other industries, largely due to the country's economic growth and the lack of a market structure to properly use variables such as the level of development in related industries, aircraft technology and demand for aircraft manufacturing. While most industries are privately led by the market structure of the competition system, heavy industries such as the aircraft industry generally grow under the market structure of the incomplete competition system, because only by securing huge initial investment costs, high technology, and sufficient demand, they can maintain minimum economic feasibility. The Korean aircraft industry was focused on developing and mass-producing military aircraft focusing on military demand, but it sought to turn the tide by signing the BASA (Bileral Aviation Safety Agreement) with the U.S. A preliminary feasibility study was conducted in 2010 to develop next-generation medium-sized aircraft, but was cancelled due to differences in position with Canada's Bombardier, which is subject to the concourse, and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) is pushing for the production of Bombardier's Q400 license on its own. Compared to the mid-to-large sized civil aircraft that are facing difficulties in development, KAI and KARI are successfully developing technologies to unmanned aerial vehicles and civil helicopters. In addition, the unmanned aerial vehicle sector is not yet suitable for manufacturers that have an exclusive global influence, so we believe that it is necessary to pursue government-led research and development projects with a focus on the areas of commercial helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles in order to foster the aircraft industry in the future. In addition, since military aircraft such as KT-1 and T-50 are currently being exported smoothly, and it cannot be overlooked that the biggest demand for aircraft manufacturing in the Korea is the military, it is necessary to push forward national R&D projects and defense R&D program simultaneously to enable both civilian-military development. However, there are many differences between the two projects in the way they are implemented, the department in charge and the royalty system. Through this study, we learned about the technology ownership and implementation rights of national R&D projects and defense R&D programs, as well as the royalty system. In addition, problems with the system were identified and improvement measures were derived.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2020

The current air transportation industry is facing a lot of changes not only in the quantitative growth of the market, but also in the legal aspects. For many years, the Warsaw Convention has contributed to the uniform discipline of civil carriers' legal liabilities arising from international aviation accident and has fulfilled the duties of legal guardians for the development of the air transport industry. In the process, however, the consumer interests of the air transport industry did not have much protection compared to other industries. In response, the Montreal Convention has effected for protecting the interests of aviation consumers, and there are numerous legal changes around the world to protect aviation consumers like passengers. The mental damages of airline passengers arising from the accident can also be understood as part of the protection of air consumers. Considering that the US Federal Court has dealt with the recognition of mental damages for air passengers since the early 1990s. However, Korean judicial precedent still excludes mental anguishes from the scope of damage compensation. From this point of view, it is considered academically meaningful to analyze the latest case of the US federal court. Recently, the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit in Doe v Etihad Airways applied a different interpretation against the traditional opinion: passengers could not recover for mental distress unless that mental distress resulted from a bodily injury sustained in an airplane accident. The background of the court's conclusions can be explained in many ways, among other things, unlike the Warsaw Convention the new international rule, Montreal Convention is recognizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.337-371
• /
• 2015

In recent years, aviation safety has been facing new hazards due to the rapidly changing environment in which aircraft operation increasingly finds. Continuously increasing air traffic volume, integration of various cultures from many States, and many other changes are the causal factors of the new risks. To identify such new hazards and risks, the government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) established aviation safety reporting systems in accordance with the international standards of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. However, there are some misunderstandings by the government in operating and by the personnel who take part in these reporting systems. Everybody should understand that aviation safety reporting system is not a punitive measure but a tool for collecting data in order to improve safety. In addition, such a system can be utilized further to promote an improved awareness on the need for a proper safety culture on the part of both the government, the industry and the personnel. This paper includes studies on international standards, relevant regulations in the United States and the United Kingdom. Moreover, this paper proposes to the government of ROK several points to improve their own system, including integration of the existing reporting systems, improvement of reporting items, implementation of safety data taxonomy and the establishment of safety data protection.