• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2009

A treaty that governs the compensation on damage caused by aircraft to the third parties on surface was first adopted in Rome in 1933, but without support from the international aviation community it was replaced by another convention adopted again in Rome in 1952. Despite the increase of the compensation amount and some improvements to the old version, the Rome Convention 1952 with 49 State parties as of today is not considered universally accepted. Neither is the Montreal Protocol 1978 amending the Rome Convention 1952, with only 12 State parties excluding major aviation powers like USA, Japan, UK, and Germany. Consequently, it is mostly the local laws that apply to the compensation case of surface damage caused by the aircraft, contrary to the intention of those countries and people who involved themselves in the drafting of the early conventions on surface damage. The terrorist attacks 9/11 proved that even the strongest power in the world like the USA cannot with ease bear all the damages done to the third parties by the terrorist acts involving aircraft. Accordingly as a matter of urgency, the International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) picked up the matter and have it considered among member States for a few years through its Legal Committee before proposing for adoption as a new treaty in the Diplomatic Conference held in Montreal, Canada 20 April to 2 May 2009. Accordingly, two treaties based on the drafts of the Legal Committee were adopted in Montreal by consensus, one on the compensation for general risk damage caused by aircraft, the other one on compensation for damage from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft. Both Conventions improved the old Convention/Protocol in many aspects. Deleting 'surface' in defining the damage to the third parties in the title and contents of the Conventions is the first improvement because the third party damage is not necessarily limited to surface on the soil and sea of the Earth. Thus Mid-air collision is now the new scope of application. Increasing compensation limit in big gallop is another improvement, so is the inclusion of the mental injury accompanied by bodily injury as the damage to be compensated. In fact, jurisprudence in recent years for cases of passengers in aircraft accident holds aircraft operators to be liable to such mental injuries. However, "Terror Convention" involving unlawful interference of aircraft has some unique provisions of innovation and others. While establishing the International Civil Aviation Compensation Fund to supplement, when necessary, the damages that exceed the limit to be covered by aircraft operators through insurance taking is an innovation, leaving the fate of the Convention to a State Party, implying in fact the USA, is harming its universality. Furthermore, taking into account the fact that the damage incurred by the terrorist acts, where ever it takes place targeting whichever sector or industry, are the domain of the State responsibility, imposing the burden of compensation resulting from terrorist acts in the air industry on the aircraft operators and passengers/shippers is a source of serious concern for the prospect of the Convention. This is more so when the risks of terrorist acts normally aimed at a few countries because of current international political situation are spread out to many innocent countries without quid pro quo.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.312-323
• /
• 2003

This writer absolutely agrees with the government that regional disequilibrium is severe enough to consider moving the administrative capital. Pursuing this course solely to establish a balanced development, however, is not a convincing enough reason. The capital city is directly related to not only the social and economic situation but, much more importantly, to the domestic political situation as well. In the mid-1970s, the proposal by the Third Republic to move the capital city temporarily was based completely on security reasons. At e time, the then opposition leader Kim, Dae-jung said that establishing a safe distance from the demilitarized zone(DMZ) reflected a typically military decision. His view was that retaining the capital city close to the DMZ would show more consideration for the will of the people to defend their own country. In fact, independent Pakistan moved its capital city from Karachi to Islamabad, situated dose to Kashmir the subject of hot territorial dispute with India. It is regrettable that no consideration has been given to the urgent political situation in the Korean peninsula, which is presently enveloped in a dense nuclear fog. As a person requires health to pursue his/her dream, a country must have security to implement a balanced territorial development. According to current urban theories, the fate of a country depends on its major cities. A negligently guarded capital city runs the risk of becoming hostage and bringing ruin to the whole country. In this vein, North Koreas undoubted main target of attack in the armed communist reunification of Korea is Seoul. For the preservation of our state, therefore, it is only right that Seoul must be shielded to prevent becoming hostage to North Korea. The location of the US Armed Forces to the north of the capital city is based on the judgment that defense of Seoul is of absolute importance. At the same time, regardless of their different standpoints, South and North Korea agree that division of the Korean people into two separate countries is abnormal. Reunification, which so far has defied all predictions, may be realized earlier than anyone expects. The day of reunification seems to be the best day for the relocation of the capital city. Building a proper capital city would take at least twenty years, and a capital city cannot be dragged from one place to another. On the day of a free and democratic reunification, a national agreement will be reached naturally to find a nationally symbolic city as in Brazil or Australia. Even if security does not pose a problem, the governments way of thinking would not greatly contribute to the balanced development of the country. The Chungcheon region, which is earmarked as the new location of the capital city, has been the greatest beneficiary of its proximity to the capital region. Not being a disadvantaged region, locating the capital city there would not help alleviate regional disparity. If it is absolutely necessary to find a candidate region at present, considering security, balanced regional development and post-reunification scenario of the future, Cheolwon area located in the middle of the Korean peninsula may be a plausible choice. Even if the transfer of capital is delayed in consideration of the present political conflict between the South and the North Koreas, there is a definite shortcut to realizing a balanced regional development. It can be found not in the geographical dispersal of the central government, but in the decentralization of power to the provinces. If the government has surplus money to build a new symbolic capital city, it is only right that it should improve, for instance, the quality of drinking water which now everyone eschews, and to help the regional subway authority whose chronic deficit state resoled in a recent disastrous accident. And it is proper to time the transfer of capital city to coincide with that of the reunification of Korea whenever Providence intends.