• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.273-302
• /
• 2015

The term "peaceful uses of outer space" in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty appears in official government statements and multilateral outer space related treaties. However, the examination of the state practice leads to the conclusion that this term is still without an authoritative definition. As far as the meaning of 'peaceful use' in international law is concerned the same phrases in the UN Charter, the 1963 Treaty of Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere in Outer Space and Under Water, the 1956 Statute of IAEA, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1972 United Nations Conference of the Human Environment were analysed As far as the meaning of 'peaceful uses of outer space' is concerned the same phrases the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1979 Moon Treaty and the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques(ENMOD) were studied. According to Article IV of the 1967 Outer Space treaty, states shall not place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies repeats in Article III much of the Outer Space Treaty. This article prohibits the threat or use of force or any other hostile act on the moon and the use of the moon to commit such an act in relation to the earth or to space objects. This adds IN principle nothing to the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty relating to military space activities. The 1977 ENMOD refers to peaceful purposes in the preamble and in Article III. As far as the UN Resolutions are concerned, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space, the 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space(NPS) were studied. And as far the Soft Laws are concerned the 2008 Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT), the 2002 Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Prolifiration(HCoC) and 2012 Draft International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities(ICoC) were studied.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.211-234
• /
• 2009

North Korea conducted the launcher test, which, as North Korea claimed, belonged to the sovereign rights for the purpose of peaceful utilization and exploration of the outer space. The launching was allegedly done for the sole purpose of putting the satellite into earth orbit, while international community stressed the fact that the orbiting of satellite was not confirmed and that the technology used was not distinct from the purpose of building intercontinental ballistic missile. UN Security Council adopted the resolutions which took the effect that the launching was deemed as the missile launching, not the mere launcher test. North Korea declared the moratorium of suspending its test activity. Controversial issues have been raised regarding whether the launcher itself has the legal status of enjoying the freedom of space flight based upon the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The resolutions, however, has put forward a binding instrument forbidding the launching. UN Security Council resolutions, however, should be read not as defining the missile test illegal, in that the language of resolutions, such as 'demand', should be considered as not formulating a sort of obligatory act or inact. On the other hand, the resolutions should be read as having binding force with respect to any activity relating to the weapons of mass destruction. The resolution 1718 is written in more specific language such as 'decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching'. Therefore, the lauching activity of the North Korea is banned by the UN Security Council resolution. It should be noted that the resolution does not include any specific provisions defining the space of activity of the North Korea as illegal. But, the legal effect of the moratorium is not denied as to its launching itself, which is corresponding to the missile test clearisibanned in accordance with the resolutions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.313-374
• /
• 2020

The idea of creating a new International Space Agency (ISA) is only my academic and practical opinion. It is necessary for us to establish ISA as an international organization for the efficient and rapid exploitation of natural resources in the moon, Mars and other celestial bodies. The establishment of ISA as a new international regime is based on the Article 11, 5 and Article 18 of the 1979 Moon Agreement. In order to establish as a preliminary procedure, it needs to make a "Draft for the Convention on the Establishment of an International Space Agency" among the space-faring countries. In this paper, I was examined the domestic space legislation in the United States, Luxembourg, European Space Agency, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea as well as space exploration and planning of the moons, Mars, Asteroids, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan and Other Celestial Bodies. The creation of an ISA would lead to a strengthening of the cooperation needed essentially by the developed countries towards joint and cooperative undertakings in space and would act as a catalyst for the space exploration and exploitation of the moon, Mars and other celestial bodies. It will be managed effectively and centrally the exploitation and exploitation of space the natural resources, technology, manpower and finances as an independent organization in order to get the benefit of the space developed countries by ISA. It is desirable and necessary for us to establish ISA in order to promote cooperation in space policy, law, science technology and industry among the space developed countries in the near future. The establishment of the ISA will be promoted the international cooperation among the space-faring countries in exploration and exploitations of the natural resources in the moon and other celestial bodies. I would propose the "Draft for the Convention for the Establishment of an International Space Agency." in refering the "Convention for the Establishment of a European Space Agency." This "Draft for the Convention Convention for the Establishment of an ISA" must pass the abovementioned "Draft for the Convention" by two-third majority of Diplomatic Conference in the UNCOPUOS. Finally, a very important point is need that a political drive at the highest level and a solemn statement by heads of state of the space devloped countries including the United Nations for the space exploitation of the medium and long term. It should be noted that this political drive will be necessary not only to set up the organization, but also during a subsequent period. It is desirable and necessary for us to establish the ISA in order to develop the space industry, to strengthen friendly relations and to promote research cooperation among the space-faring countries based on the new ideology and creative ideas. If the heads of the superpowers including the United Nations will be agreed to establish ISA at a summit conference, 1 am sure that it is possible to establish an ISA in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.9-58
• /
• 2005

The Warsaw Convention-officially denominated the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air"- is a major multilateral agreement governing the rights and responsibilities of passengers, consignor/consignee and air carriers in international transportation. Article 29(1) of the Warsaw Convention provides that the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within 2 years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the transportation stopped. There has been disagreement as to the nature of this provision. It has been viewed on one hand as a statute of limitations, which may be tolled in appropriate circumstances. Some US Courts which have taken this approach read Article 29(2)-which states that the method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is submitted-as leaving to local law the determination of when the 2-year limitation period provided for in Article 29(1) runs. Therefore, they conclude, under Article 29(2), whenever state law would toll a state statute of limitations, the statute of limitations contained in Article 29(1) would be tolled as well. On the other hand, some other US courts have viewed the 2-year provision contained in Article 29(1) as a condition precedent to the right to bring suit, which will absolutely bar any action not brought within 2 years of the events giving rise to the action. These courts view Article 29(2) as providing only that the forum court should look to the law of the forum on the question whether the plaintiff has taken the necessary measures within the 2-year period to invoke that particular court's jurisdiction over the action. These courts have placed great weight on the "legislative" history of the Convention in reaching this position, noting in particular that the delegates to the Convention expressly considered and rejected a provision, which would have incorporated local tolling provisions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.161-198
• /
• 2014

The idea of creating an International Space Exploitation Agency (tentative title: hereinafter referred to ISEA) is only my academic and theoretical opinion. It is necessary for us to establish ISEA as an international organization for the efficient and rapid exploitation of natural resources in the moon and other celestial bodies. The creation of ISEA as a new international organization is based on the Article 11, 5 and Article 18 of the 1979 Moon Agreement. In order to create it as a preliminary procedure, it needs to make the Draft for the Convention on the Establishment an ISEA among the space-faring countries. The main contents of this paper is composed of (1) introduction, (2) joint exploitation of the natural resources (Heliumn-3, etc.) in the moon and ISEA, (3) activities for the exploitation of moon and other celestial bodies by the space-faring powers, (4) legal problems and Solution for the exploitation and mining rights of the natural resources in the moon, mars and celestial bodies, (5) procedure of creating an ISEA, (6) the principal points that need to be included in the draft for the ISEA convention, (7) conclusion. The creation of an ISEA would lead to a strengthening of the cooperation among the States deemed essential by the global community towards joint undertakings in space and would act as a catalyst for the efforts on the exploitation of the natural resources moon, mars, Venus, Mercury and other celestial bodies and allow resources, technology, manpower and finances to be centrally managed in an independent fashion to the benefit of the space-faring countries. It is desirable and necessary for us to create ISEA in order to promote cooperation in the field of space policy, law, science technology and industry etc. among the space-faring countries. The creation of the ISEA will be promoted the international cooperation among the space-faring countries in exploration and exploitations of the natural resources in the moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury and other celestial bodies. Finally, it should be noted that the political drive will be necessary not only to set up the organization ISEA, but also study a subsequent measures. It is also necessary for us to create the ISEA in order to develop the space industry, to strengthen friendly relations and to promote research cooperation among the space-faring countries based on the new ideology and creative ideas. If the heads (president or prime minister) of the space super-powers including the UNCOPUOS will be agreed to establish ISEA at a summit conference, 1 believe that it is possible to establish an ISEA in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.55-95
• /
• 2010

The meaning and application of 'lesion corporelle' in the context of a variety of mental or psychic injuries is less clear, while there is very little disagreement about its literal translation. U.S. Court decisions since Floyd allow recovery for a range of claims involving emotional injury under Article 17; in some cases there is no recovery, while in others there is full recovery, depending on the allegations and the nexus between the alleged injury and any related or accompanying physical injury. Courts are in agreement that pure emotional injury is not compensable under the Convention. Most courts agree that emotional injury is not compensable in those cases where it has resulted only in physical manifestations such as weight loss or sleeplessness. At the same time, most courts generally agree that emotional injury is compensable if it proximately flows from a physical injury. The issue as to whether the courts would associate PTSD with bodily injury as envisioned in the present Warsaw structure or even the new regime reflected in the Convention proposed by ICAO would largely depend on the extent to which courts would be ready to embrace the compelling scientific findings with regard to mental distress and its application within the term 'bodily injury'. Taken together, these points when the current under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, 'physical injury' notion of 'mental injury' is to be extended. Of course, the current terms of the Warsaw Convention have been maintaining a precedent for many countries appear to have a statue of the original purpose of the treaty does not contribute to the diffusion. Therefore, in future treaties 'bodily injury', the term 'injury', the term 'personal injury' or 'health undermined' the term should be replaced or revised.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.145-167
• /
• 2016

UN Security Council is entitled to power for determining the existence of the threat to the peace. Specifying the provisions adopted in accordance with the chapter 7 of the UN Charter, its resolution is deemed as document confirming its decision about the threat to the peace. In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter. Regarding to the terms of the Resolutions to be interpreted, the word "decide" is used as to the suspension of the ballistic missile program, the word "demand" is used as to the stopping of the the launch of ballistic missile, and the word "demand" is used as to return to the missile test moratorium. These provisions may be deemed to determining specific obligations to be imposed upon the States in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. On the other hand, the Resolutions may be limited to the decision, not leading to a sort of international legislation, the main purpose of which is to provide a legal basis for international sanctions against Northe Korea. North Korea missile test case has reminded us of continuing discussion about whether the decision of the Security Council lacks the legislative authority due to its decision process. Furthermore, having regard to the outer space and space activities, the outer space law regime would be not compatible with the Security Council decision process in that the former presupposes the agreement among all States parties, while the latter based upon the agreement between Council member States. Therefore, it is premature to consider the Security Council decision as becoming the lex specialis of the space law regime.