RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STATE AND AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER ON LION AIR JT610 AND ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES ET302 ACCIDENTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract
Lion Air JT610 and Ethiopian Airlines ET302 crashes occurred on October 2018 and March 2019 respectively. The main cause of the accident on both flights, which used Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft, is the defect on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a new anti-stall system of this aircraft model. Boeing 737 MAX 8 is produced by Boeing Company which resides in the United States. However, passengers on both accidents could not claim compensation from Boeing Company because there is no international law that regulates aircraft manufacturer responsibilities. This research tries to analyze whether passengers can request for compensation to the United States and whether national court rulings or judgments can fill the gap in international law regarding aircraft
manufacturer. The research uses the normative juridical approach with analytical descriptive method. The research uses the library research method, focusing mainly on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal resources. This research found that the current international law could not accommodate the interests of plaintiffs to hold the United States accountable. The usage of forum non conveniens principle at the national courts made it difficult for the plaintiffs to obtain the compensation they are entitled to. Subsequently, the national law applied in each case is different which created a distinction on the compensation received by each plaintiff for the loss they suffered. Author comes into the conclusion that there is a need for the establishment of regulations in international law concerning the responsibilities of aircraft manufacturer.
Keywords: Aircraft Manufacturer, Forum Non Conveniens, State Responsibility
Abstrak
Kecelakaan pesawat terbang Lion Air JT610 dan Ethiopian Airlines ET302 terjadi pada bulan Oktober 2018 dan Maret 2019 secara berturut-turut. Penyebab utama kecelakaan kedua penerbangan yang menggunakan pesawat terbang Boeing 737 MAX 8 ialah kerusakan sistem Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), sebuah sistem anti-stall terbaru untuk model pesawat terbang ini. Boeing 737 MAX 8 diproduksi oleh Boeing Company yang berkedudukan di Amerika Serikat. Penumpang pada kedua kecelakaan tidak dapat meminta ganti rugi pada Boeing Company karena belum adanya hukum yang dapat mewadahi penggantian rugi serta tanggung jawab manufaktur pesawat terbang dalam hukum internasional. Penelitian ini akan menganalisis apakah penumpang dapat memintakan ganti rugi kepada Amerika Serikat sebagai negara dan apakah putusan pengadilan nasional dapat mengisi kekosongan hukum internasional terkait manufaktur pesawat terbang. Penelitian dilakukan menggunakan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi penulisan deskriptif analitis. Tahap penulisan dalam penelitian ini dilakukan menggunakan metode studi kepustakaan bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Hasil penelitian ini menemukan bahwa hukum internasional yang ada saat ini pun belum dapat mewadahi kepentingan penumpang sebagai penggugat untuk dapat meminta pertanggungjawaban kepada Amerika Serikat atas kesalahan manufaktur pesawat terbang. Selain itu, munculnya prinsip forum non conveniens pada level nasional mempersulit penggugat untuk mendapatkan ganti rugi pada pengadilan nasional. Hukum nasional yang diterapkan pada tiap kasus pun berbeda sehingga muncul kesenjangan mengenai ganti rugi yang diperoleh penggugat atas kerugian yang diderita. Melihat situasi ini, peneliti berkesimpulan perlunya pembentukan pengaturan dalam hukum internasional mengenai tanggung jawab manufaktur pesawat terbang.
Kata Kunci: Forum Non Conveniens, Manufaktur Pesawat Terbang, Tanggung Jawab Negara
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Crawford, James R., Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th Edition), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
Malanczuk, Peter, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, Taylor & Francis e-Library, New York, 2002.
Shaw, Malcolm, International Law, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008.
Other Documents
Alan H. Collier dan Stephanie N. Brie, “The Battle Over Air France: Does the Montreal Convention Apply to Manufacturer Claims for Carrier Indemnity?”, https://www.fitzhunt.com/sites/default/files/news/The%20Battle%20Over%20Air%20France%20Does%20the%20Montreal%20Convention%20Apply%20to%20Manufacturer%20Claims%20for%20Carrier%20Indemnity-Collier-Brie.pdf.
BBC News, “Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Pilots ‘could not stop nosedive’”, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47812225.
Rushing, Don G. dan Ellen Nudelman Alder, “Some Incovenient Truths about Forum Non Conveniens Law in International Aviation Disasters”, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 74, Issue 2, 2009.
Manolis, F. M., N. J. Vermette, dan R. F. Hungerfold, “The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens: Canada and the United States Compared”, FDCC quarterly, 2009.
JATR Team, Joint Authorities Technical Review on Boeing 737 MAX Flight Control System: Observations, Findings, and Recommendations, 2019.
Hennessee, Karl dan David J. Weiner, “International Litigation and forum non conveniens: Strategies and lessons from the aviation context”, International In-house Counsel Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 7, 2009.
Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi Republic of Indonesia, Aircraft Accident Investigation Report: Final KNKT. 18.10.35.04, 2019.
Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi Republic of Indonesia, Aircraft Accident Investigation Report: Preliminary KNKT. 18.10.35.04, 2018.
Kompas, “Kronologi dan Fakta Kecelakaan 737 MAX 8 Lion Air JT610”, 2018, https://nasional.kompas.com/jeo/kronologi-dan-fakta-kecelakaan-boeing-737-max-8-lion-air-jt-610.
Mazzola, Maria A., “Forum Non Conveniens and Foreign Plaintiffs: Addressing the Unanswered Questions of Reyno”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 3, 1982.
Feit, Michael, “Responsibility of the State Under International law for the Breach of Contract Committed by a State-Owned Entity”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, Issue 1, 2010.
Ministry of Transport of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Aircraft Accident Investigation Preliminary Report Issue AI-01/19, 2019.
Dempsey, Paul S., “All Along The Watchtower: Forum Non Conveniens in International Aviation”, 2015, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2692669.
Pounian, Steven R. dan Justin T. Green, “Using the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine With Foreign Victims”, New York Law Journal, 2011.
Legal Documents
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act (ARSIWA) 2001.
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1970.
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention) 1999.
Convention For The Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention) 1929.
Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) 1944.
Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., LLC, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division, 2005, https://casetext.com/case/ellis-v-aar-parts-trading-inc-1-02-3744-illapp-2-4-2005 and https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1266488.html.
In re Air Crash Disaster Over Makassar Strait, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, 2011, https://casetext.com/case/in-re-air-crash-disaster-over-makassar-strait.
In re Air Crash Near Athens, Greece, United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, 2007, https://casetext.com/case/in-re-air-crash-near-athens-2.
In re West Carribean Airways, S.A., et.al., United States District Court, S.D. Florida, 2013, https://www.leagle.com/decision/20071918619bxfsupp2d129911843.
International Law Commission, Commentaries to the draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10) chp.IV.E.1, 2001, https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb8f804.html.
McCafferty v. Raytheon, Inc., United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 2004, https://casetext.com/case/mccafferty-v-raytheon-inc.
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, United States Supreme Court, 1981, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/454/235.html.
Vivas v. Boeing Company, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division, 2009, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1403649.html.