국제법의 본질과 항공운송 국제조약의 해석에 관하여: 영국 Royal Courts of Justice의 Emirates 사건을 중심으로

Treaties are a core source of international law, and this centrality is equally evident in the field ofair transport. However, the complex and multilateral contractual relationships characteristic of airtransport require a distinct interpretive approach. Traditional jurisprudential theories—legal positivismand natural law—provide important foundations but reveal limitations when applied to theinterpretation of air transport treaties. Legal positivism, especially Kelsen’s pure theory, emphasizesstrict adherence to legal texts and facts, yet often fails to address evolving consumer protection needs. Natural law theory, grounded in immutable moral principles, struggles to accommodate thecommercial realities and stakeholder conflicts inherent in international air carriage. This paper proposes interpretivism as a more effective framework for treaty interpretation inair transport law. Through analysis of the Emirates case before the UK Royal Courts of Justice, thestudy demonstrates how interpretivism, by integrating textual analysis with normative coherenceand practical considerations, resolves conflicts between instruments such as the Montreal Conventionand Regulation 261. This approach not only aligns with the object and purpose principleof the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties but also supports a dynamic and consumer-oriented development of air law. The findings suggest that interpretivist reasoning can guidefuture legal reforms and judicial practice in the protection of air passengers.