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

• 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.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.56-77
• /
• 2021

Toponyms are located not only in the site between human cognition and the physical environment but also in the name of cultural heritage. Accordingly, certain identities and ideologies for which human groups and community have sought, their holistic way of life, and all cultural symbols and cosmos, such as sense of place and genius loci, are included in their toponymic heritage. Denoting, symbolizing, integrating and representing the culture and nature belong to the human community. Based on these perceptions of the toponymic heritage, the aims of this article are to examine the values of a toponym as an Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and to suggest the application methods using the toponymic functions for governing of tangible cultural heritage. This article discusses the multivocality, diversity, and non-representational theory of landscape phenomenology intrinsic to the terms of culture and cultural landscape and then the domestic and international issues on the toponymic heritage in the first chapter on the values of toponym as a part of the ICH. In particular, it analyzes the preceding research in the field of toponymy, as well as the Resolutions of UNCSGN and UNGEGN on "Geographical names as culture, heritage and identity" including indigenous, minority and regional language names since 1992, which is related to the UNESCO's Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003. Based on this, I suggest that the traits of toponymic cultural heritage and its five standards of selection, i.e., cultural traits of toponyms, historical traits, spatial traits, socio-economic traits and linguistic traits with some examples. In the second chapter discussing on the methods using the toponymic denoting functions for creating and governing of the tangible cultural heritage, it is underlined to maintain the systematic and unified principle regarding the ways of naming in the official cultural heritage and its governing. Lastly, I introduce the possible ways of establishing a conservative area of the historical and cultural environment while using the toponymic scale and multi-toponymic territory. Considering both the spatial and participatory turns in the field of heritage studies in addition to the multiple viewpoints and sense of cultural heritage, I suggest that the conservative area for the cultural heritage and the historical and cultural environment should be set up through choosing the certain toponymic scale and multi-toponymic territory.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.35-59
• /
• 2018

Professor Bin Cheng said that outer space was res extra commercium, while the moon and the other celestial bodies were res nullius before the 1967 Outer Space Treaty(OST). However, Article 2 of the OST made the moon and other celestial bodies have the legal status as res extra commmercium, not appropriated by any country or private enterprises or individual person, but the resources there can be freely available, as those on the high seas. The non-appropriation principle was introduced to corpus juris spatialis internationalis. Whether or not the non-appropriation principle is binding for the non-parties of the OST, many scholars see this principle as an international customary law, even developing into jus cogens. Article 11(2) of the Moon Agreement(MA) reconfirms the nonappropriation principle of Article 2 of the OST, but it has much less effect than the OST because the MA binds only the 18 parties involved. The MA applies only to the moon and celestial bodies other than the Earth in the Solar System, the OST's application scope extends to the Galaxy because the OST has no such substantive enactment. As referred to in the 2015 CSLCA of USA or Luxembourg's Law of Space Resources, allowing individuals and enterprises run by other countries to commercially explore and utilize the space resources, the question may arise whether this violates the non-appropriation principle under Article 2 of the OST and Article 11 of the MA. In the case of the CSLCA, the law explicitly specifies that sovereignty, possessory rights, and judiciary rights to a specific celestial body cannot be claimed, let alone ownership. This author believes that this law respects the legal status of outer space and the celestial bodies as res extra commmercium. As long as any countries or private enterprises or individuals respect the non-appropriation principle of outer space and the celestial bodies, they could use, exploit it. Another question might be raised in the difference between res extra commercium on the high seas and res extra commercium in outer space and the celestial bodies. Collecting resources on the high seas and exploiting space resources should be interpreted differently. On the high seas, resources can be collected without any obstacles like fishing, whereas, in the case of the deep sea-bed area, the Common Heritage of Mankind principles under the UNCLOS should be operated by the International Seabed Authority as an international regime. The nature or form of the sea resources found on the high seas are thus different from that of space resources, which are fixed on the moon and the celestial bodies without water. Thus, if individuals or private enterprises collect these resources from outer space and the celestial bodies, they might secure a certain section and continue collecting or mining works without any limitation. If an American enterprise receives an approval from the U.S. government, secures the best location and collects resources on the moon, can other countries' enterprises access to this area? How large the exploiting place can be allotted on the moon? How long should such a exploiting activity be lasted? Under the current international space law, these matters might be handled according to the principle of "first come, first served." As a consequence, the international community should provide a guideline or a proposal for the settlement of any foreseeable disputes during the space activity to solve plausible space legal questions in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.181-202
• /
• 2020

The Non-Appropriation Principle was stipulated in the OST and the MA. However the MA, creating CHM in international law for the first time, attempted to further limit the prohibitions to include ownership of resources extracted from celestial bodies, its rejection by the U.S. and most of the international spacefaring community prevented it from serving as a binding international treaty. Individuals or private enterprises intending to perform space exploitation must receive approval from the nation and may not appropriate outer space or celestial bodies. In the course of this space activity, each party will be liable. Articles 6 and 7 of the OST and the Liability Convention of 1972 deal with matters concerning those problems. The CSLCA of 2015 and Luxembourg Space Resources Law of 2017 allows States to provide commercial exploration and use of space resources to their own nationals and to companies operated by other countries within their territory. These laws do not violate Article 2 of the OST. In the case of the CSLCA of 2015, the law clearly states that it cannot claim ownership, sovereignty or jurisdiction over certain celestial bodies. Even if scholars claim that the U.S. CSLCA and Luxembourg Space Resources Law violate the non-appropriation principle of the OST, they cannot prevent these two countries from extracting the space resources on "the first come, first served" basis. The legal status of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies is res extra commercium, like the high seas, where the fishing vessels from each country catch and sell fish without occupying the sea. Major space-faring nations must push for the adoption of an international regulatory committee which will oversee applications and issue permits based on a set of robust, modern, and forward-thinking ideals that are best equipped to govern and protect outer space as individuals, businesses, and nations compete to commercialize space through mining and the extraction of space-based resources. The new Corpus Juris Spatialis on the development of space resources, whether it is a treaty or a soft law such as recommendation and declaration, in the case of the Moon and Mars, will cover a certain amount of area to develop, and the development period by the states should be specified.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.83-109
• /
• 2008

According to 1944 Chicago Convention aircraft are classified into public aircraft(or state aircraft) and private aircraft(or civil aircraft). However even if public aircraft owned by government are used as commercial flights, those are classified into private aircraft. But as far as space activities are concerned in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, those are related to all activities and all space objects, thus there being no differentiation between the public spacecraft and private spacecraft. As for the institutions of air law there are ICAO, IATA, ECAC, AFCAC, ACAC, LACAC in the world. However in the field of space law there is no International Civil Space Organization like ICAO. There is only COPUOS in the United Nations. The particular institutions such as INTELSAT, INMARSAT, ITU, WIPO, ESA, ARABSAT would be helpful to space law field. In the near future there is a need to establish International Civil Space Organization to cover problems rising from all space activities. According to article 1 of the 1944 Chicago Convention the contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. It means that absolute airspace sovereignty is recognized by not only the treaty law and but also customary law which regulates non-contracting States to the treaty. However as for the space law in the article n of the 1967 Space Treaty outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. It creates res extra commercium like the legal status of high seas in the law of the sea. However the 1979 Moon Agreement proclaimed Common Heritage of Mankind as far as the legal status of the outer space is concerned which is like the legal status of deep sea-bed in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea. As far as the liabilities of air transport system are concerned there are two kinds. One is the liabilities to passenger on board aircraft and the other is the liabilities to the third person or thing on the ground by the aircraft. The former is regulated by the Warsaw System, the latter by the Rome Convention. As for the liabilities of space law the 1972 Liability Convention applies. The Rome Convention and 1972 Liability Convention stipulate absolute liability. In the field of space transportation there would be new liability system to regulate the space passengers on board spacecraft like Warsaw System in the air transportation.