• Journal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences
• /
• v.46 no.12
• /
• pp.1056-1069
• /
• 2018

In order to promote the commercial space activities of the private sector, the Trump Administration announced the commercial space regulatory reforms by issuing the Space Policy Directive-2 (SPD-2) on May 24, 2018, followed by the SPD-3 dealing with a separate issue of the space traffic management on June 18. Both executive orders, based on the recommendations prepared by the National Space Council (NSC) reconstituted in June 2017 and signed by the President, involve regulatory reform policy related to launch services, commercial remote sensing, establishment of one-stop shop office in Commerce Department, radio frequency spectrum, export control, and space traffic management, providing a strong guidance to the Federal Government. The commercial space regulatory reform policy can be seen in broader terms of the National Security Strategy earlier announced on Dec. 18, 2017, and as such, it pursues the economic growth of the U.S. and the national security as well. The U.S. law and policy prioritizing its national interests by promoting commercial space activities may lead to concerns and debate on the potential breach of the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. Hence, it is worth noting the legal implications as derived from the U.S. space policy and domestic legislation, thereby accelerating international discussion to build on international norms as appropriate to the pr ogress of space technology and space commercialization.

• 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.