• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.9-39
• /
• 2003

The rule of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 are well known and still being all over the world. The Warsaw Convention is undoubtedly the most widely accepted private international air law treaty with some 140 countries. In the international legal system for air transportation, the Warsaw Convention has played a major role for more than half century, and has been revised many times in consideration of the rapid developments of air high technology, changes of social and economic circumstances, need for the protection of passengers. Some amendments became effective, but others are still not effective. As a result, the whole international legal system for air transportation is at past so complicated and tangled. However, the 'Warsaw system' consists of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, a supplementary convention, and the following six protocols: (1) the Hague Protocol of 1955, (2) the Guatemala Protocol of 1971, (3) the Montreal Additional Protocols, No.1, (4) the Montreal Additional Protocol No.2, (5) the Montreal Additional Protocol No.3, and (6) the Montreal Additional Protocol No.4. of 1975. As a fundamental principle of the air carrier's liability in the international convention and protocols, for instance in the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol, the principle of limited liability and a presumed fault system has been adopted. Subsequently, the Montreal Inter-carrier Agreement of 1966, the Guatemala City Protocol, the Montreal Additional Protocol No.3, and the Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 of 1975 maintained the limited liability, but substituted the presumed liability system by an absolute liability, that is, strict liability system. The Warsaw System, which sets relatively low compensation limits for victims of aircraft accidents and regulates the limited liability for death and injury of air passengers, had become increasingly outdated. Japanese Airlines and Inter-carrier Agreement of International Air Transport Association in 1995 has been adopted the unlimited liability of air carrier in international flight. The IATA Inter-Carrier Agreement, in which airlines in international air transportation agree to waive the limit of damages, was long and hard in coming, but it was remarkable achievement given the political and economic realities of the world. IATA deserves enormous credit for bringing it about. The Warsaw System is controversial and questionable. In order to find rational solution to disputes between nations which adopted differing liability systems in international air transportation, we need to reform the liability of air carriers the 'Warsaw system' and fundamentally, to unify the liability system among the nations. The International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) will therefore reinforce its efforts to further promote a legal environment that adequately reflects the public interest and the needs of the parties involved. The ICAO Study Group met in April, 1998, together with the Drafting Committee. The time between the "Special Group on the Modernization and Consolidation of the 'Warsaw system'(SGMW)" and the Diplomatic Conference must be actively utilized to arrange for profound studies of the outstanding issues and for wide international consultations with a view to narrowing the scope of differences and preparing for a global international consensus. From 11 to 28 May 1999 the ICAO Headquarters at Montreal hosted a Diplomatic Conference convened to consider, with a view to adoption, a draft Convention intended to modernize and to integrate replace the instruments of the Warsaw system. The Council of ICAO convened this Conference under the Procedure for the Adoption of International Conventions. Some 525 participants from 121 Contracting States of ICAO attended, one non-contracting State, 11 observer delegations from international organizations, a total of 544 registered participants took part in the historic three-week conference which began on 10 May. The Conference was a success since it adopted a new Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air. The 1999 Montreal Convention, created and signed by representatives of 52 countries at an international conference convened by ICAO at Montreal on May 28, 1999, came into effect on November 4, 2003. Representatives of 30 countries have now formally ratified the Convention under their respective national procedures and ratification of the United States, which was the 30th country to ratify, took place on September 5, 2003. Under Article 53.6 of the Montreal Convention, it enters into force on the 60th day following the deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification or acceptation. The United States' ratification was deposited with ICAO on September 5, 2003. The ICAO have succeeded in modernizing and consolidating a 70-year old system of international instruments of private international law into one legal instrument that will provide, for years to come, an adequate level of compensation for those involved in international aircraft accidents. An international diplomatic conference on air law by ICAO of 1999 succeeded in adopting a new regime for air carrier liability, replacing the Warsaw Convention and five other related legal instruments with a single convention that provided for unlimited liability in relation to passengers. Victims of international air accidents and their families will be better protected and compensated under the new Montreal Convention, which modernizes and consolidates a seventy-five year old system of international instruments of private international law into one legal instrument. A major feature of the new legal instrument is the concept of unlimited liability. Whereas the Warsaw Convention set a limit of 125,000 Gold Francs (approximately US$ 8,300) in case of death or injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier system. The first tier includes strict liability up to l00,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR: approximately US$ 135,000), irrespective of a carrier's fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of a carrier and has no limit of liability. The 1999 Montreal Convention also includes the following main elements; 1. In cases of aircraft accidents, air carriers are called upon to provide advance payments, without delay, to assist entitled persons in meeting immediate economic needs; the amount of this initial payment will be subject to national law and will be deductable from the final settlement; 2. Air carriers must submit proof of insurance, thereby ensuring the availability of financial resources in cases of automatic payments or litigation; 3. The legal action for damages resulting from the death or injury of a passenger may be filed in the country where, at the time of the accident, the passenger had his or her principal and permanent residence, subject to certain conditions. The new Montreal Convention of 1999 included the 5th jurisdiction - the place of residence of the claimant. The acceptance of the 5th jurisdiction is a diplomatic victory for the US and it can be realistically expected that claimants' lawyers will use every opportunity to file the claim in the US jurisdiction - it brings advantages in the liberal system of discovery, much wider scope of compensable non-economic damages than anywhere else in the world and the jury system prone to very generous awards. 4. The facilitation in the recovery of damages without the need for lengthy litigation, and simplification and modernization of documentation related to passengers. In developing this new Montreal Convention, we were able to reach a delicate balance between the needs and interests of all partners in international civil aviation, States, the travelling public, air carriers and the transport industry. Unlike the Warsaw Convention, the threshold of l00,000 SDR specified by the Montreal Convention, as well as remaining liability limits in relation to air passengers and delay, are subject to periodic review and may be revised once every five years. The primary aim of unification of private law as well as the new Montreal Convention is not only to remove or to minimize the conflict of laws but also to avoid conflict of jurisdictions. In order to find a rational solution to disputes between nations which have adopted differing liability systems in international air transport, we need fundamentally to reform their countries's domestic air law based on the new Montreal Convention. It is a desirable and necessary for us to ratify rapidly the new Montreal Convention by the contracting states of lCAO including the Republic of Korea. According to the Korean and Japanese ideas, airlines should not only pay compensation to passengers immediately after the accident, but also the so-called 'condolence' money to the next of kin. Condolence money is a gift to help a dead person's spirit in the hereafter : it is given on account of the grief and sorrow suffered by the next of kin, and it has risen considerably over the years. The total amount of the Korean and Japanese claims in the case of death is calculated on the basis of the loss of earned income, funeral expenses and material demage (baggage etc.), plus condolence money. The economic and social change will be occurred continuously after conclusion of the new Montreal Convention. In addition, the real value of life and human right will be enhanced substantially. The amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accident has increased in dollar amount as well as in volume. All air carrier's liability should extend to loss of expectation of leisure activities, as well as to damage to property, and mental and physical injuries. When victims are not satisfied with the amount of the compensation for damage caused by aircraft accident for which an airline corporation is liable under the current liability system. I also would like to propose my opinion that it is reasonable and necessary for us to interpret broadly the meaning of the bodily injury on Article 17 of the new Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence. Furthermore, Korea and Japan has not existed the Air Transport Act regulated the civil liability of air carrier such as Air Transport Act (Luftverkehrsgestz) in Germany. It is necessary for us to enact "the Korean Air Transport Contract Act (provisional title)" in order to regulate the civil liability of air carrier including the protection of the victims and injured persons caused by aircraft accident.

• Horticultural Science & Technology
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.499-506
• /
• 2014

This research was conducted to develop root media containing ground and aged pine bark (GAPB) and ground and raw pine bark (GRPB). After analysis of physico chemical properties, the pine barks were blended with peat moss (PM) or coir dust (CD) in various ratios to formulate 12 root media. Then, two out of 12 root media were chosen based on the physical properties for further experiments. The pre-planting nutrient charge fertilizers (PNCF) were incorporated into two root media and chemical properties were analysed again. The total porosity (TP), container capacity (CC), and air-filled porosity (AFP) of GAPB were 78.7%. 39.4%, and 38.3%, respectively, while those of GRPB were 74.7%, 41.2%, and 33.4%, respectively. The percentage of easily available water (EAW, from CC to 4.90 kPa tension) and buffering water (BW, 4.91-9.81 kPa tension) in GAPB were 12.7% and 8.5%, respectively, which were a little lower than the 13.5% and 8.8% in GRPB. The pH and EC were not different significantly, but cation exchange capacity was different between the two pine barks (GAPB: pH 5.26, EC $0.61dS{\cdot}m^{-1}$, CEC $15.7meq{\cdot}100g^{-1}$; GRPB: pH 5.19, EC $0.32dS{\cdot}m^{-1}$, CEC $9.32meq{\cdot}100g^{-1}$). The concentrations of exchangeable cations in GAPB were Ca 0.32, K 0.05, Mg 0.27 and $0.12cmol+{\cdot}kg^{-1}$, whereas those in GRPB were Ca 0.28, K 0.08, Mg 0.25 and $0.09cmol+{\cdot}kg^{-1}$. The concentrations of $PO_4$-P, $NH_4$-N and $NO_3$-N were 485.8, 0.62 and $0.91mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$ in GAPB and 578, 1.00 and $0.82mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$ in GRPB, respectively, when those were analyzed in the solution of the saturated paste. The TP, CC and AFP in the two selected media were 89.3 and 76.3, and 13.0% in PM+GAPB (8:2, v/v) and 88.2, 68.2 and 20.0% in CD+GRPB (8:2), respectively. The pHs and ECs were 3.8 and $0.24dS{\cdot}m^{-1}$ in PM+GAPB which were a little lower than 5.8 and $0.65dS{\cdot}m^{-1}$ in CD+GRPB. However, the pHs analysed before and after incorporation of PNCF in the two root media did not show large differences. This is because the solubility of dolomitic lime is very low, and the pH it is expected to rise gradually when crops are cultivated int he root media. The information obtained in this study should facilitate effective formulation of root media containing pine bark.

• Journal of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• v.43 no.4
• /
• pp.384-385
• /
• 1999

Two anhydrous crystal structures of fully dehydrated, $Ca^{2+}$- and $Tl^+$-exchanged zeolite X, TEX>$Ca_{18}Tl_{56}Si_{100}Al_{92}O_{384}($Ca_{18}Tl_{56}$-X;\alpha=24.883(4)\AA)$ and TEX>$Ca_{32}Tl_{28}Si_{100}Al_{92}O_{384}($Ca_{32}Tl_{28}$-X;\alpha=24.973(4)\AA)$ per unit cell, have been determined by single-crystal X-ray diffraction techniques in the cubic space group Fd3 at $21(1)^{\circ}C.$ $Ca_{18}Tl_{56}-X$ was prepared by ion exchange in a flowing stream of 0.045 M aqueous $Ca(NO_3)_2$ and 0.005 M $TlNO_3$. $Ca_{32}Tl_{28}-X$ was prepared similarly using a mixed solution of 0.0495 M $Ca(NO_3)_2$ and 0.0005M $TlNO_3$. Each crystal was then dehydrated at 360 $^{\circ}C$ and $2{\times}10^{-6}$ Torr for 2 days. Their structures were refined to the final error indices, $R_1=0.039\;and\;R_2=0.036$ with 382 reflections for $Ca_{18}Tl_{56}-X$ , and $R_1=0.046\;and\;R_2=0.045$ with 472 reflections for $Ca_{32}Tl_{28}$-X for which $/>3\sigma(I).$ In the structures of dehydrated $Ca_{18}Tl_{56^-}X\;and\;Ca_{32}Tl_{28}$-X, $Ca^{2+}\;and\;Tl^+$ ions are located at six crystallographic sites. Sixteen $Ca^{2+}$ ions fill the octahedral sites I at the centers of double six rings ($Ca_{18}Tl_{56}$-X:Ca-O=2.42(1) and O-Ca-O=93.06(4)$^{\circ}$; $Ca_{32}Tl_{28}$-X Ca-O=2.40(1) $\AA$ and O-Ca-O=93.08(3)$^{\circ}$). In the structure of $Ca_{18}Tl_{56}$-X, another two $Ca^{2+}$ ions occupy site II (Ca-O=2.35(2) $\AA$ and O-Ca-O=111.69(2)$^{\circ}$) and twenty six $Tl^+$ ions occupy site II opposite single six-rings in the supercage; each is 1.493 $\AA$ from the plane of three oxygens $(Tl-O=2.70(8)\AA$ and O-Tl-O=92.33(4)$^{\circ}$). About four $Tl^+$ ions are found at site II',1.695 $\AA$ into sodalite cavity from their three oxygen plane (Tl-O=2.81 (1) and O-Tl-O=87.48(3)). The remaining twenty six $Tl^+$ ions are distributed over site III'(Tl-O=2.82 (1) $\AA$ and Tl-O=2.88(3)$^{\circ}$). In the structure of $Ca_{32}Tl_{28}$-X, sixteen $Ca^{2+}$ ions and fifteen $Tl^+$ ions occupy site III' (Ca-O=2.26(1) $\AA$ and O-Ca-O=119.14(4)$^{\circ}$; Tl-O=2.70(1) $\AA$ and O-Tl-O=92.38$^{\circ}$) and one $Tl^+$ ion occupies site II'. The remaining twelve $Tl^+$ ions are distributed over site III'. It appears that $Ca^{2+}$ ions prefer sites I and II in that order and $Tl^+$ ions occupy the remaining sites.