• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.1-28
• /
• 2007

Because the result of environmental pollution of one state is not limited to the national border but spills over into neighboring countries or global environment either directly or indirectly, international discussions on environment are crucial in domestic environmental law and policy. International environmental law demands differential obligation between developed and developing countries in the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibility'. The common but differentiated responsibility is the principle that draws distinction between developed and developing countries about global environmental issues, while recognizing the common responsibility of environmental protection for all nations. Environmental technology transfer or financial support from developed countries to developing countries, for example, has been discussed. The problem is the status of Korea. Korea's international environmental policy will be different by the distinction of responsibility for international environmental protection according to the status of developed and developing countries. International communities have never established a clear standard distinguishing developed from developing countries in any international laws. The WTO entrusts each country to decide whether it is a developing country or not. In the international environmental law, the status of a country is determined by the ability to negotiate. The status of Korea, thus, cannot be fixed in general international law. Rather, the Korean government is able to choose its own status strategically, It can be a policy choice to insist that Korea's developing country so as to reduce the burden of international responsibility. But, considering an economic indicator and environmental pollution indicator at which Korea ranks about 10th, the reality of Korea is much closer to a developed country. Positive policies such as development of environment-friendly technologies and products should be preferred to defensive assertion of developing country.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2018.06a
• /
• pp.181-181
• /
• 2018

• The Magazine of the Society of Air-Conditioning and Refrigerating Engineers of Korea
• /
• v.37 no.5
• /
• pp.35-44
• /
• 2008

세계 해양환경의 보전을 위하여 설립된 UN 기구인 국제해사기구(IMO)에서는 해양환경 오염물질 등에 대한 규제강화를 위하여 최근 새로운 해양환경협약의 채택 및 발효를 강력히 추진해 오고 있다. IMO의 국제협약은 선박이라는 효과적인 제어수단을 통하여 가장 강력한 통제력을 갖는 협약으로 세계 모든 해양국의 해양환경에 관한 국제법의 성격을 띄고 있다. 구속력이 강력한 만큼 변화되는 국제협약에 의해 새롭게 창출되는 해양환경시장의 규모가 엄청나므로 당사국들이 서로 자국의 이익을 위해 올인하는 전형적인 그린라운드의 양상을 띄고 있는 현실이다. 우리나라는 국제해사기구의 A그룹 이사국이며 아울러 세계 제일의 조선대국, 또한 세계 6위의 해양대국으로서의 국제적인 위상을 감안할 때 해양환경 보호를 위하여 현재 발효되고 추진 중에 있는 협약에 대한 연구와 효과적 대처를 하여야 함은 물론 우리나라 조선, 해양산업이 보호되고 나아가 이익이 창출될 수 있는 방향으로 모든 국제협약이 이루어지게 노력해야할 것이다. 이 논문은 해양관련 환경규제 협약인 Marpol 73/78 협약, 선박의 유해방오도료 사용규제협약, 평형수 배출규제협약, 선박으로부터 오수에 의한 오염방지를 위한 협약, 대기오염방지협약 등의 주요 현안을 파악하고 분석하여 이에 따른 현실적인 대응책을 제시하고자 한다.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.201-225
• /
• 2013

The link between transnational environmental harm and national security has attracted new attention due to the environmental crisis such as climate change, nuclear accidents and, pollution. However, both domestic and international environmental regimes are still tied to the unsuccessful and unclear notion-sustainable development. The present author argues that environment should be considered as a security matter for the effective environmental protection. If, for example, a nation committed a serious environmental harm and the effects spans borderlines, and the source nation refuses to cooperate or compensate, would sustainable development still be an appropriate measure? Then, what would be the victim state's tool to protect its own security? The present author first looks into the possibility utilizing UN Security Council. But due to its limited legality and effectiveness in this environmental matter the present author would like to propose a non-traditional but a not-brand new method. This new method reflects two new trends both from international law and security areas. First, this approach clearly moves from the military focused security concept to broader security concept. Second, this is also a shift from traditional international law to transnational law. With these two new approaches, we will find a more suitable answer both for securing national environmental security and for protecting environment.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.137-137
• /
• 2017

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.279-279
• /
• 2017

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2009

Space law(or outer space law) and the law of the sea are branches of international law dealing with activities in geographical ares which do not or do only in part come under national sovereignty. Legal rules pertaining to the outer space and sea began to develop once activities emerged in those areas: amongst others, activities dealing with transportation, research, exploration, defense and exploitation. Naturally the law of the sea developed first, followed, early in the twentieth century, by air law, and later in the century by space law. Obviously the law of the sea, of the air and of outer space influence each other. Ideas have been borrowed from one field and applied to another. This article examines some analogies and differences between the outer space law and the law of the sea, especially from the perspective of the legal status, the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources and environment. As far as the comparisons of the legal status between the outer space and high seas are concerned the two areas are res extra commercium. The latter is res extra commercium based on both the customary international law and treaty, however, the former is different respectively according to the customary law and treaty. Under international customary law, whilst outer space constitutes res extra commercium, celestial bodies are res nullius. However as among contracting States of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, both outer space and celestial bodies are declared res extra commercium. As for the comparisons of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources between the Moon including other celestial bodies in 1979 Moon Agreement and the deep sea bed in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the both areas are the common heritage of mankind. The latter gives us very systematic models such as International Sea-bed Authority, however, the international regime for the former will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Thus Moon Agreement could not impose a moratorium, but would merely permit orderly attempts to establish that such exploitation was in fact feasible and practicable, by allowing experimental beginnings and thereafter pilot operations. As Professor Carl Christol said until the parties of the Moon Agreement were able to put into operation the legal regime for the equitable sharing of benefits, they would remain free to disregard the Common Heritage of Mankind principle. Parties to one or both of the agreements would retain jurisdiction over national space activities. In so far as the comparisons of the protection of the environment between the outer space and sea is concerned the legal instruments for the latter are more systematically developed than the former. In the case of the former there are growing tendencies of concerning the environmental threats arising from space activities these days. There is no separate legal instrument to deal with those problems.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2013.10a
• /
• pp.5-7
• /
• 2013

지속적으로 발생하는 대형 해양사고에 대한 대처방안의 일환으로 진행된 국제해사기구에서의 조사 및 연구는 선박의 물리적 감항성 이외에 선박을 운영하는 인적자원의 과실에 주목하게 되었다. 이러한 인적과실에 대한 대처방안으로 1994년에 '1974년 SOLAS 협약'의 부속서로 '국제안전관리규약'이라고 하는 이른바 'ISM Code'를 채택하게 되었다. 우리나라는 1999년에 'ISM Code'를 구 해상교통안전법(현 해사안전법)에 관련 조항을 신설하여 시행하고 있다. 최근 개정된 해사안전법에서는 해운선사가 선박의 안전운항 및 해양환경보호를 위한 안전관리체제를 수립하고, 이를 이행하기 위한 사업장의 인적 구성원들이 갖추어야 할 요건에 대해서 규정하고 있다. 하지만 법률 이행당사자인 선박소유자 또는 안전관리대행업자 등은 조문내용을 해석함에 있어 명확하고 통일된 의견을 내지 못하고 있어 혼란을 야기하고 있다. 이 논문에서는 해사안전법상 안전관리책임자와 안전관리자의 자격기준 등에 관한 법률상의 문제점을 살펴보고, 이에 대한 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.283-283
• /
• 2017

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.185-209
• /
• 2003

이 논문은 21세기 우주개발로 인하여 제기되는 국제우주법의 장래 과제를 분석한 것이며 따라서 1967년 우주조약을 비롯한 기존의 5개 국제우주조약들과 '연성법'(soft law)으로서의 우주법인 5개의 UN결의들은 간략하게 소개하고 lex ferenda로서 제기되는 문제들을 중심으로 연구하였다. 21세기 국제우주법의 lex ferenda로 제기되는 문제는 다음과 같다. 첫째. 우주의 정의 및 경계획정문제와 지구정지궤도(GSO)의 성격과 활용의 문제가' 외기권 우주의 평화적 이용에 관한 위원회'(COPUOS)의 법률소위원회를 중심으로 어떻게 진행되고 있는가 하는 문제를 검토하였고, 둘째. 대기권 상공과 외기권 우주를 비행할 수 있는 새로운 우주운송수단으로 등장하고 있는 우주항공기(Aerospace Vehicle)가 기존의 항공법과 우주법의 관계에서 어떠한 법의 적용을 받아야 하는가의 문제를 검토하였다. 셋째. 그리고 통신위성을 이용하면서 발생하는 저작권법(copy right law) 및 지적재산권(intellectual property) 등의 문제 그리고 우주보험을 포함한 우주의 상업적 이용에서 발생하는 법규범의 문제를 검토하였고, 넷째. 우주활동으로 인해 발생하는 우주잔해(space debris)와 우주환경문제를 다루었다. 마지막으로 그리고 기타 국제우주법관련문제 특히 우주활동을 원활하게 수행하기 위한 '우주물체'(space objects)와 그와 관련된 용어들의 정확한 개념 정의를 명확하게 할 필요성과 우주의 상업적 이용과 우주의 오로지 평화적인 목적을 위하여 중요한 역할을 할 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)나 국제해사기구(IMO)와 같은 장래의 국제민간우주기구(International Civil Space Organization) 등의 설립문제를 검토하였다.