Taiwan’s regulations concerning air carriers’ liability for damages, as laid down in the Civil Aviation Act (民用航空法), are seriously out of line with the two major international aviation conventions — the 1929 Warsaw Convention, with its associated protocols and amendments, and the 1999 Montreal Convention. This disharmony is a serious impediment to improving the nation’s air-transport safety.
The act does not outline standards for air passenger carriers’ liability for damages or destruction or loss of passengers’ carry-on and consigned baggage, nor does it include regulations about cargo carriers’ liability. Instead, one must turn to the regulations of the Civil Code concerning passenger and freight transport.
The Regulations of Compensation For Damage Caused to Air Passengers and Freight (航空客貨損害賠償辦法), which were drawn up in accordance with the Civil Aviation Act, are based on the principle of full compensation for actual damages in relation to the extent of carriers’ liability for injury and death. The regulations set the minimum compensation for the death of each passenger at NT$3 million (US$99,967) and the minimum compensation for severe injury at NT$1.5 million. However, if damage does not cause death or severe injury, limited compensation applies and the maximum compensation payable is set at NT$1.5 million.
This sum is much lower than the maximum of 100,000 special drawing rights (about US$153,500) that is specified in the regulations of the two global conventions.
More importantly, under the two conventions, when a carrier’s negligence leads to the death or injury of one or more passengers, the carrier cannot claim for limited liability, while under the Civil Aviation Act, a carrier only loses the right to claim limited liability if its culpability reaches the level of gross negligence.
Passenger transport is different from cargo transport in that it involves human lives. The legal system must therefore set a high standard for passenger transport, and this is a common standpoint of all international aviation conventions.
Hopefully, the Ministry of Transport will consider bringing Taiwan’s aviation laws in line with international norms. As well as bringing about improvements in aviation safety
This would also be in line with key economic development policies.
Jao Juei-cheng is an associate professor at National Taiwan Ocean University’s Institute of the Law of the Sea and is secretary-general of the Taiwan Maritime Law Association.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS