• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.47-52
• /
• 2011

On the high seas, under international law, a ship is subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag she flies. Vessels of any flag are free to navigate the high seas without interference from other states. Thus, there are certain limits of coastal state's exercising law enforcement jurisdiction over a foreign flag vessel on the high seas. However, there are exceptions to exclusive flag state jurisdiction. One of them is the theory of constructive presence. The other is theory of partial execution. Korea Coast Guard's law enforcement authority should be exercised more actively based on those theories supported by the international cases.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.81-81
• /
• 2017

• Strategy21
• /
• s.45
• /
• pp.60-90
• /
• 2019

The use of the high seas are supported by the two pillars of customary principles --the freedom of navigation and the flag state control on its vessels, which are codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. There have been attempts to limit and retrain the two pillars as maritime regimes are newly created to address new maritime threats, while coastal stares' control over the seas expand. The pillars have been created over thousands years since human beings took to the sea and have served as a foundation to use the oceans peacefully and orderly. Therefore, any retreat or exception from these principles would undermine the fundamental framework for the use of the oceans and eventually these regimes would be subject to control of maritime powers. In conclusion, new maritime regimes such as the sanction measures on North Korea should be enforced within the framework of international law and comply with the fundamental principles such as innocent passage and the freedom of navigation at the high seas.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.215-236
• /
• 2006

This article focused on the meaning of the 1979 Moon Treaty and its future. Although the Moon Treaty is one of the major 5 space related treaties, it was accepted by only 11 member states which are non-space powers, thus having the least enfluences on the field of space law. And this article analysed the relationship between the 1979 Moon Treay and 1967 Space Treaty which was the first principle treaty, and searched the meaning of the "Common Heritage of Mankind(hereinafter CHM)" stipulated in the Moon treaty in terms of international law. This article also dealt with the present and future problems arising from the Moon Treaty. As far as the 1967 Space Treaty is concerned the main standpoint is that outer space including the moon and the other celestial bodies is res extra commercium, areas not subject to national appropriation like high seas. It proclaims the principle non-appropriation concerning the celestial bodies in outer space. But the concept of CHM stipulated in the Moon Treaty created an entirely new category of territory in international law. This concept basically conveys the idea that the management, exploitation and distribution of natural resources of the area in question are matters to be decided by the international community and are not to be left to the initiative and discretion of individual states or their nationals. Similar provision is found in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention that operates the International Sea-bed Authority created by the concept of CHM. According to the Moon Treaty international regime will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Before the establishment of an international regime we could imagine moratorium upon the expoitation of the natural resources on the celestial bodies. But the drafting history of the Moon Treaty indicates that no moratorium on the exploitation of natural resources was intended prior to the setting up of the international regime. So each State Party could exploit the natural resources bearing in mind that those resouces are CHM. In this respect it would be better for Korea, now not a party to the Moon Treaty, to be a member state in the near future. According to the Moon Treaty the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly the exploitation of the moon shall be given special consideration. The Moon Treaty, which although is criticised by some space law experts represents a solid basis upon which further space exploration can continue, shows the expression of the common collective wisdom of all member States of the United Nations and responds the needs and possibilities of those that have already their technologies into outer space.