• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2013

Air transport today is a means of transport that is optimized for exchanges between nations. Around the world, has experienced an increase in operating and the number of airline route expansion that has entered into the international aviation agreements in order to take advantage of the air transport efficient, but the possibility of the occurrence of air transport accidents increased. When compared to the accident of other means of transport, development of air transport accidents, not high, but it leads to catastrophe aviation accident occurs. Air Transport accident many international transportation accident than domestic transportation accident, in the event of an accident, the analysis of the legal responsibility of the shipper or the like is necessary or passenger air carrier. Judgment of the legal order of discipline of air transport accident is a classification of the type of air transport agreement. Depending on the object, air transport agreements are classified into the contract of carriage of aviation of the air passenger transportation contract. For casualties occurs, air passenger transportation accident is a need more discussion of legal discipline for this particular. Korean Commercial Code, it is possible to reflect in accordance with the actual situation of South Korea the contents of the treaty, which is utilized worldwide in international air transport, even on the system, to control land, sea, air transport and welcoming to international standards. However, Korean Commercial Code, the problem of the Montreal Convention has occurred as it is primarily reflecting the Montreal Convention. As a cause of liability for damages, under the Commercial Code of Korea and the contents of the treaty precedent is reflected, the concept of accident is necessary definition of the exact concept for damages of passengers in particular. Cause of personal injury or death of passengers, in the event of an accident to the "working for the elevation" or "aircraft" on, the Montreal Convention is the mother method of Korea Commercial Code, liability for damages of air carrier defines. The Montreal Convention such, continue to be a matter of debate so far in connection with the scope of "working for the lifting of" the concepts defined in the same way from Warsaw Convention "accident". In addition, it is discussed and put to see if you can be included mental damage passenger suffered in air transport in the "personal injury" in the damage of the passenger is in the range of damages. If the operation of aircraft, injury accident, in certain circumstances, compensation for mental damage is possible, in the same way as serious injury, mental damage caused by aviation accidents not be able to live a normal life for the victim it is damage to make. So it is necessary to interpret and what is included in the injury to the body in Korea Commercial Code and related conventions, non-economic damage of passengers, clearly demonstrated from the point of view of prevention of abuse of litigation and reasonable protection of air carrier it must compensate only psychological damage that can be. Since the compensation of delay damages, Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention, Korea Commercial Code, there are provisions of the liability of the air carrier due to the delayed arrival of passenger and baggage, but you do not have a reference to delayed arrival, the concept of delay arrangement is necessary. The strict interpretation of the concept of delayed arrival, because it may interfere with safe operation of the air carrier, within the time agreed to the airport of arrival that is described in the aviation contract of carriage of passenger baggage, or, these agreements I think the absence is to be defined as when it is possible to consider this situation, requests the carrier in good faith is not Indian or arrive within a reasonable time is correct. The loss of passenger, according to the international passenger Conditions of Carriage of Korean Air, in addition to the cases prescribed by law and other treaties, loss of airline contracts, resulting in passengers from a service that Korean Air and air transport in question do damage was is, that the fact that Korean Air does not bear the responsibility as a general rule, that was caused by the negligence or intentional negligence of Korean Air is proof, negligence of passengers of the damage has not been interposed bear responsibility only when it is found. It is a clause in the case of damage that is not mandated by law or treaty, and responsible only if the negligence of the airline side has been demonstrated, but of the term negligence "for" intentional or negligent "Korean Air's Terms" I considered judgment of compatibility is required, and that gross negligence is appropriate. The "Korean Air international passenger Conditions of Carriage", airlines about the damage such as electronic equipment that is included in the checked baggage of passengers does not bear the responsibility, but the loss of baggage, international to arrive or depart the U.S. it is not the case of transportation. Therefore, it is intended to discriminate unfairly passengers of international flights arriving or departure to another country passengers of international flights arriving or departure, the United States, airlines will bear the responsibility for the goods in the same way as the contents of the treaty it should be revised in the direction.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.