• Defense and Technology
• /
• no.1 s.131
• /
• pp.84-86
• /
• 1990

• KLA journal
• /
• v.46 no.2 s.357
• /
• pp.38-39
• /
• 2005

최근 몇 년간 '병영도서관'에 대한 이야기가 우리 도서관계에서 자주 등장한다. 확실히 관련 법령 개정(도서관및독서진흥법 제37조의2 ④국방부장관은 병영도서관의 설치 및 운영에 필요한 예산의 확보 등을 통하여 장병등의 문화활동 등이 장려될 수 있도록 노력하여야 한다.) 이후 정부나 시민단체들의 병영도서관 건립 움직임이 탄력을 받고있는 듯하다. 아직은 초기 단계이지만 관심을 놓아서는 안되는 분야일 것이다. 이번에 찾아간 곳은 수방사헌병단도서관으로 (사)사랑의책나누기운동본부의 병영도서관 만들기 운동의 31번째 결실이 맺어진 곳이다. 엄밀히 말하면 이번 탐방은 도서관 '개관식' 탐방이다. 군의 특성상 아무래도 병영도서관 방문이 생각만큼 자유스럽지는 않다. 이번 호에서는 개관식 탐방으로 만족하고 앞으로 꾸준히 기회를 만들어 다양한 사례를 소개하고자 한다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.11 no.6
• /
• pp.419-427
• /
• 2011

As for the anti-terrorism bills, which were submitted to the National Assembly, the mobilization of anti-terrorism commando, which was designated or established by the National Defense Minister, is mobilized the military troops without being based on marital law in light of the constitutional law, thereby possibly violating the constitution, first of all, with regards to mobilization of anti-terrorism commando, which was formed with military troops. The anti-terrorism commando is the military force, which was trained professionally for the anti-terrorism activity. Thus, the violation of human rights may be greatly reduced rather than what general soldiers are putted in the public-order activity such as anti-terrorism. However, it is thought to be desirable to make it possible for the input of special forces, which were trained professionally in relation to anti-terrorism activity, through constitutionally revising the constitutional law. As for the provision of 'support for military troops' in the anti-terrorism bill, what is a case that the nation's important facilities and multi-use facilities are difficult to be protected from terror with the anti-terrorism commando and police force needs to be constitutionally regarded as resulting in reaching the level enough to correspond to 'a state of national emergency equivalent to wartime incident.' Thus, enacting the future anti-terrorism law, it is thought to be unnecessary for having the provision of 'support for military troops' with receiving criticism obstinately for possibly violating the constitution.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.385-444
• /
• 2003

Current Military Airbase Law, in an effort to promote safety of military aircraft and security of military airbase, requires an administrative agency or its empowered branch to consult with the Secretary of Defense or the commander of the airbase before they issue a certain administrative approval or decision related to the installation. Although this consultation process purports itself in simplifying what can be an protracted administrative procedure, and in unifying objectives of the military and the administrative services, such procedural requirement is vulnerable inevitability of various legal problems whenever there is a conflict of interests among civil, military, government services. Nor is there sufficient studies done by academian in the area of bureaucratic issues of administrative resolution, and certainly not in the area of the military consultation procedure. This article, with such reality in mind attempts to constructively examine 1) when a consultation application is submitted, whether the discretionary power of the commander of the affected airbase is acknowledged at the outset; 2) if the content of the consultation is deemed unlawful, whether a civilian can institute an administrative lawsuit against it; 3) problems about the subject matters of the consultation requirement within the framework of military airbase law; 4) whether the issuing administrative agency must abide by and issue approval or decision in accordance with the opinion proposed by the said commander; 5) the legal problems of the remedial measure such as an order of removal, appellate review, notion to challenge authority, and etc. in cases such as administrative agency ignoring the commanders proposal or issuing final approval or decision that is inconsistent with what was consulted and agreed upon between both parties.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.61-114
• /
• 2018

Recently airspace became a hot issue considering today's international relations. However, there was no data that could be fully explained about a legal system of korean airspace, so I looked at law and practice about korean airspace together. The nation's aviation law sector is comletely separate from those related to civil and military aircraft, at least in legal terms. The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall carry out his/her duties with various authority granted by the "Aviation Safety Act". The nation's aviation-related content is being regulated too much by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's notice or regulation, and there are many things that are not well known about which clauses of the upper law are associated with. The notice should be clearly described only in detail on delegated matters. As for the airspace system, the airspace system is too complex for the public to understand, and there seems to be a gap between law and practice. Therefore, I think it would be good to reestablish a simple and practical airspace system. Airspace and aviation related tasks in the military need to be clearly understood by distinguishing between those entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and those inherent in the military. Regarding matters entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transpor, it is necessary to work closely with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport when preparing related work guidelines, and to clarify who should prepare the guidelines. Regarding airspace control as a military operation, policies or guidelines that are faithful to military doctrine on airspace control are needed.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.63-101
• /
• 2020

'Flight safety zone' means a zone that the Minister of National Defense designates under Articles 4 and 6 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter 'PMBIA') for the safety of flight during takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. The purpose of flight safety zone is to contribute to the national security by providing necessary measures for the protection of military bases and installations and smooth conduct of military operations. In this case, when the state set and used the flight safety zone, the landowner claimed restitution of unjust enrichment against the country. This article is an analysis based on the existing legal theory regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff's claim, and the summary of the discussion is as follows. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes loss to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit (Article 741 of the Civil Act). Since the subject matter is an infringing profit, the defendant must prove that he has a legitimate right to retain the profit. The State reserves the right to use over the land designated as a flight safety zone in accordance with legitimate procedures established by the PMBIA for the safe takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State gained an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent over the land without legal cause. Expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: provided, that in such a case, just compensation shall be paid (Article 23 (1) of the Constitution of The Republic of KOREA). Since there is not any provision in the PMBIA for loss compensation for the case where a flight safety zone is set over land as in this case, next question would be whether or not it is unconstitutional. Even if it is designated as a flight safety zone and the use and profits of the land are limited, the justification of the purpose of the flight safety zone system, the appropriateness of the means, the minimization of infringement, and the balance of legal interests are still recognized; thus just not having any loss compensation clause does not make the act unconstitutional. In conclusion, plaintiff's claim for loss compensation based on the 'Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for land, etc. for Public Works Projects', which has no provision for loss compensation due to public limits, is unjust.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.189-217
• /
• 2017

Declaration of Air Defense and Identification Zones started with the United States in 1950, which was followed by declaration of KADIZ by the Republic of Korea in 1951. Initial ADIZ were solely linked with air defense missions, but their roles have changed as nations around the globe manifested a tendency to expand their influence over maritime resources and rights. In particular, China declared ADIZ over the East China Sea in October 2013 and forced all passing aircraft to submit flight plan to ATC or military authority, saying failure of submission will be followed by armed engagement. China announced it would declare another zone over the South China Sea despite the ongoing conflict in the area, clearly showing ADIZ's direct connection with territorial claim and EEZ and that it serves as a zone within which a nation can execute its rights. The expanded KADIZ, which was expanded in Dec 15, 2013 in response to Chinese actions, overlaps with the Chinese ADIZ over the East China Sea and the Japanese ADIZ. The overlapping zone is an airspace over waters where not only the Republic of Korea but also of China and Japan argue to be covering their continental shelf and EEZ. Military conventions were signed to prevent contingencies among the neighboring nations while conducting identifications in KADIZ, including the overlapping zone. If such military conventions and practice of air defense identification continue to be respected among states, it is under the process of turning into a regional customary law, although ADIZ is not yet recognized by international law or customary law. Moreover, identification within ADIZ is carried out by military authorities of states, and misguided customary procedures may cause serious negative consequences for national security since it may negatively impact neighboring countries in marking the maritime border, which calls for formulation of operation rules that account for other state activities and military talks among regional stake holders. Legal frameworks need to be in place to guarantee freedom of flights over international seas which UN Maritime Law protects, and laws regarding military aircraft operation need to be supplemented to not make it a requirement to submit flight plan if the aircraft does not invade sovereign airspace. Organizational instructions that require approval of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff for entrance and exit of ADIZ for military aircraft need to be amended to change the authority to Minister of National Defense or be promoted to a law to be applicable for commercial aircraft. Moreover, in regards to operation and management of ADIZ, transfer of authority should be prohibited to account for its evolution into a regional customary law in South East Asia. In particular, since ADIZ is set over EEZ, military conventions that yield authority related to national security should never be condoned. Among Korea, China, Japan and Russia, there are military conventions that discuss operation and management of ADIZ in place or under negotiation, meaning that ADIZ is becoming a regional customary law in North East Asia region.