• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.9-27
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to study about the legal system of the Inter-governmental Agreement on the International Space Station('IGA') which was signed on Jan 29,1998. This paper is divided into three main parts ; 1) a review of ISS, 2) the principal rules of IGA, 3) the legal system of IGA. First, the paper draws an outline of ISS by dealing with (1) the definition, characteristics, and functions of ISS, (2) the composition of ISS. Second, the paper explains the principal rules of IGA which include (1) the rule of 'Partnership' and (2) the rule of 'Peaceful Purpose'. Third, the legal system of IGA is studied by looking at five different aspects: (1) the registration system, (2) a general jurisdiction, criminal jurisdiction and a control of jurisdiction, (3) intellectual property rights and other rights beside intellectual property, (4) cross-waiver of liability and several elements in compensation of damages, (5) the dispute resolution. IGA contains new contents and applications of legal system which was not included in the former space law. Therefore IGA will work as a model law for international cooperation of space development. It is important for us to study the matter of ISS, because disputes on the ISS are left solely to contracting parties although IGA will regulate overall situations. The renewed IGA is even more important because all the space development is expected to take place on an international cooperation basis. On the basis of this paper, all the important parts of IGA is expected to be further studied so that the research can contribute to the establishment of the legal system of space development in Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.17-34
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to study about the legal system of the Inter-governmental Agreement on the International Space Station('IGA') which was signed on Jan 29,1998. This paper is divided into three main parts ; 1) a review of ISS, 2) the principal rules of IGA, 3) the legal system of IGA. First, the paper draws an outline of ISS by dealing with (1) the definition, characteristics, and functions of ISS, (2) the composition of ISS. Second, the paper explains the principal rules of IGA which include (1) the rule of 'Partnership' and (2) the rule of 'Peaceful Purpose'. Third, the legal system of IGA is studied by looking at five different aspects: (1) the registration system, (2) a general jurisdiction, criminal jurisdiction and a control of jurisdiction, (3) intellectual property rights and other rights beside intellectual property, (4) cross-waiver of liability and several elements in compensation of damages, (5) the dispute resolution. IGA contains new contents and applications of legal system which was not included in the former space law. Therefore IGA will work as a model law for international cooperation of space development. It is important for us to study the matter of ISS, because disputes on the ISS are left solely to contracting parties although IGA will regulate overall situations. The renewed IGA is even more important because all the space development is expected to take place on an international cooperation basis. On the basis of this paper, all the important parts of IGA is expected to be further studied so that the research can contribute to the establishment of the legal system of space development in Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.201-224
• /
• 2017

The main subject of this article focused on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas. For this the legal status of the military aircraft, the freedom of overflight, the right of hot pursuit, the right of visit and Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) were dealt. The 1944 Chicago Convention neither explicitly nor implicitly negated the customary norms affecting the legal status of military aircraft as initially codified within the 1919 Paris Convention. So the status of military aircraft was not redefined with the Chicago Convention and remains, as stated in the 1919 Paris Convention, as a norm of customary international law. The analyses on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas are found as follows; According to the Article 95 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military aircraft in the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. According to the Article 111 (5) of the UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised by military aircraft. According to the Article 110 of the UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. As for Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) it is established and declared unilaterally by the air force of a state for the national security. However, there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention and there are no international standards to recognize or prohibit the establishment of ADIZs. ADIZ is not interpreted as the expansion of territorial airspace.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.343-373
• /
• 2006

지적재산권의 속지주의 원칙에 따라 전통적으로 지적재산권의 침해에 있어서 결과의 발생이 없는 행위지를 침해지로 인정하지 않았다. 어문과 예술작품을 보호하기 위해 1886년 체결된 베른협약(Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) 제5조 제1항은 저작자가 베른협약에 따라 보호되는 저작물에 관하여 본국 이외의 동맹국에서 각 법률이 현재 또는 장래에 자국민에게 부여하는 권리 및 이 협약이 특별히 부여하는 권리를 향유한다고 규정하여 내국민대우원칙을 천명하고 있다. 또한 베른협약 제5조 제2항은 저작권의 보호와 향유는 저작물의 본국에서 보호가 존재하는 여부와 관계가 없이, 보호의 범위와 저작자의 권리를 보호하기 위하여 주어지는 구제의 방법은 오로지 보호가 주장되는 국가의 법률의 지배를 받는다라고 규정하여 저작권 침해가 발행한 국가의 법률의 적용을 명시하고 있다. 인터넷과 무선통신 기술의 발달은 저작물을 디지탈 형식으로 실시간에 전세계에 배포하는 것을 가능하게 하였다. 특히 저작물의 인터넷상에서의 배포는 다국적 저작권 침해행위를 야기하여, 저작권자가 다수의 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 제기하여 판결을 집행하는 것이 필요하게 되었다. 헤이그국제사법회의(Hague Conference on Private International Law)에서 1992년부터 논의되어 온 민사 및 상사사건의 국제재판관할과 외국판결에 관한 협약(Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters)에서 채택된1999년의 예비초안(preliminary draft) 및 2001년 외교회의에서 수정된 잠정초안(Interim text) (이하 헤이그 협약 )은 저작권자가 저작권침해행위가 발생한 각 국가에서 저작권 침해행위를 금지하는 소송을 제기할 필요없이, 동 협약의 한 가맹국가의 법원의 저작권침해금지판결을 다른 가맹국가에서도 집행할 수 있는 가능성을 제시해 주는데 의미가 있다. 헤이그 협약 제10조는 불법행위(torts)에 관한 일반적인 재판관할에 관한 규정을 두고 있으며, 저작권침해에 관한 분쟁은 동 조항의 적용을 받는다. 제10조에 의해 당사자는 가해행위지 국가의 법원 또는 결과발생지 국가의 법원에서 소송을 제기할 수 있다. 결과발생지의 경우 제10조 1항 (b)는 피고가 자신의 행위가 본국의 법규에 비추어 동일한 성격의 손해를 초래할 수 있다라고 합리적으로 예견할 수 없었던 경우에 본 조항의 적용을 배제하고 있다. 인터넷을 통한 저작권침해의 경우, 피고가 자신의 국가의 법규하에서 합법적으로 저작물을 웹사이트에 게시하였으나, 그 행위가 다운로딩이 행해진 국가에서 불법인 경우, 피고는 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었으므로 이에 문제가 제기된다. iCrave TV사건에서, 피고인 캐나다회사가 미국 및 캐나다에서 방송되는 텔레비젼 방송 프로그램을 자신의 웹사이트에 게시하여 이용자들로 하여금 컴퓨터를 통하여 방송을 재시청 할 수 있도록 하였는데 이는 캐나다에서 합법인 반면에 미국에서는 저작권 침해에 해당한다. 피고는 방송 프로그램을 인터넷상에서 재방송하는 것은 캐나다법상 합법이므로 저작권침해를 예견할 수 없었다고 주장하면서, 해당 사이트에 오직 캐나다 거주자만의 접속을 허용하고 미국 거주자의 접속을 제한하는 일련의 Click-Wrap 계약과 스크린 장치를 제공하였다고 주장하였다. 본 사건 피고의 주장을 받아들인다고 가정할 때, 제10조 1항(b)에 의해 원고는 결과발생지인 미국법원의 재판관할을 강제할 수 없을 것이다. 지적재산권을 둘러싼 분쟁에 관한 재판관할과 국제법상의 판결의 승인 및 집행의 통일성을 기하기 위하여 2001년 1월 세계지적재산권기구(World Intellectual Property Organization)가 제안한 WIPO 협약초안(Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments in Intellectual Property Matters)은 헤이그 협약이 재판관할과 판결의 승인 및 집행에 대한 일반적인 접근을 하고 있는 점에 반하여 지적재산권자의 보호라는 측면을 고려하여 지적재산권침해소송에 국제재판관할권을 규정하고 있다. WIPO 협약초안 제6조는 저작권자가 저작권 침해를 막기 위한 합리적인 조치를 취한 국가에서 저작권 침해소송을 피할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 본 조항에 의할 경우, iCrave TV사건의 피고는 미국에서의 저작권 침해소송을 회피할 수 있을 것이다. 이상과 같이 헤이그 협약이 외국판결의 승인 및 집행을 가능하게 하고 있음에도 불구하고, 외국법원의 판결이 다수의 가맹국가에서 집행되지 못하는 가장 큰 장애는 대다수의 국가들이 외국법원의 판결이 공서양속(Public Policy)에 반하는 경우 판결을 승인하지 않는 예외규정을 두고 있기 때문이다. 미국의 경우, Uniform Recognition Act와 Restatement(Third) of Foreign Relations에 따른 공서양속의 예외규정(Public Policy exception)은 외국법원의 판결의 승인을 부인하는 근거가 된다. Yahoo! 사건에서 Yahoo! Inc.의 옥션 사이트를 통해 독일 나치 소장물의 판매가 이루어졌는데, 프랑스 형법상 이는 범죄행위에 해당하므로, 프랑스 법원은Yahoo! Inc.에게 프랑스 이용자가 당해 옥션 사이트에 접속할 수 없도록 모든 가능한 조치를 취할 것을 명하였다. 이에 미국 법원은 프랑스 법원의 판결은 Yahoo! Inc.의 미국헌법 제1 수정(First Amendment)의 언론의 자유(freedom of speech)에 반하므로 판결의 집행을 거부하였는데 이는 공서양속의 예외규정을 보여주는 예이다. 헤이그 협약 제28조와 WIPO 협약초안 제25조 또한 공서양속의 예외규정을 두고 있다. 본 논문은 인터넷과 통신기술의 발달로 야기되는 다국적 저작권 침해사건에서 한 국가의 법원의 저작권 침해금지판결이 다수의 국가에서 승인 및 집행될 수 있는 능성을 헤이그 협약과 WIPO 협약초안 및 미국판결을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 국제적으로 통일된 저작권법이 존재하지 않고 외국 판결의 승인을 부인하는 예외조항과 외국판결의 집행에 관한 각국의 이해관계와 준거법의 해석이 다른 현시점에서 지적재산권의 속지주의를 뛰어넘어 외국법원의 판결을 국제적으로 집행하는 것은 다소 어려움이 있어 보이나 국제적인 집행가능성의 열쇠를 제시하는 헤이그 협약과 장래의 국제조약에 그 기대를 걸어볼 수 있겠다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2008

Until Montreal Convention was established in 1999, the Warsaw System is undoubtedly accepted private international air law treaty and has played major role on the carrier's liability in international aviation transport industry. But the whole Warsaw System, though it was revised many times to meet the rapid developments of the aviation transport industry, is so complicated, tangled and outdated. This thesis, therefore, aim to introduce the Montreal Convention by interpreting it as a new legal instrument on the air carrier's liability, specially on the passenger's, and analyzing all the issues relating to it. The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing international carriage by air. The Montreal Convention has modernized and consolidated the old Warsaw System of international instruments of private international air law into one legal instrument. One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is that it sifted its priority to the protection of the interest of the consumers from the protection of the carrier which originally the Warsaw Convention intended to protect the fledgling international air transport business. Two major features of the Montreal Convention adopts are the Two-tier Liability System and the Fifth Jurisdiction. In case of death or bodily injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier liability system. The first tier includes strict liability up to 100,000SDR, irrespective of carriers' fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of carrier and has no limit of liability. Regarding Jurisdiction, the Montreal Convention expands upon the four jurisdiction in which the carrier could be sued by adding a fifth jurisdiction, i.e., a passenger can bring suit in a country in which he or she has their permanent and principal residence and in which the carrier provides a services for the carriage of passengers by either its own aircraft or through a commercial agreement. Other features are introducing the advance payment, electronic ticketing, compulsory insurance and regulation on the contracting and actual carrier etc. As we see some major features of the Montreal Convention, the Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation liability and there can be no doubt it will prevail the international aviation transport world in the future. Our government signed this Convention on 20th Sep. 2007 and it came into effect on 29th Dec. 2007 domestically. Thus, it was recognized that domestic carriers can adequately and independently manage the change of risks of liability. I, therefore, would like to suggest our country's aviation industry including newly-born low cost carrier prepare some countermeasures domestically that are necessary to the enforcement of the Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

On 9 March 2017, a Tribunal constituted under the ICSID Convention issued its ruling in the case of Ansung Housing v. People's Republic of China, dismissing with prejudice all claims made by the Claimant, Ansung Housing Co., Ltd., in its Request for Arbitration, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5). Ansung Housing v. PRC has drawn attention since it is the first case where an investor with Korean nationality initiated an ICSID arbitration on the basis of the Korea-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) as amended in 2007 between the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China. The Tribunal finds that its ruling is about a lack of jurisdiction of the ICSID and of its own competence as well as regarding manifest lack of legal merit due to a lack of temporal jurisdiction, since a Respondent's Rule 41(5) objection is concerned with the three-year limitation period in Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT. The Tribunal held that, under Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT, the limitation period begins with an investor's first knowledge of the fact that it has incurred loss or damage, not with the date on which it gains knowledge of the quantum of that loss or damage. Finally, the Tribunal held that Ansung submitted its dispute to ICSID and made its claim for purposes of Article 9(3) and (7) of the BIT after more than three years had elapsed from the date on which Ansung first acquired knowledge of loss or damage and that the claim is time-barred and, as such, is manifestly without legal merit. It remains to be seen whether the aggrieved Claimant initiates annulment proceedings before an ad hoc committee under the ICSID Convention. It is quite interesting to see whether the decisions by the Tribunal should be reversed on the basis of the Claimant's arguments as to the start date as well as the end date of the limitation period under the Korea-China BIT.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.201-248
• /
• 2015

In Korea the number of unlawful interference act on board aircrafts has been increased continuously according to the growth of aviation demand, and there were 55 incidents in 2000, followed by 354 incidents in 2014, and an average of 211 incidents a year over the past five years. In 1963, a number of states adopted the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (the Tokyo Convention 1963) as the first worldwide international legal instrument on aviation security. The Tokyo Convention took effect in 1969 and, shortly afterward, in 1970 the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Hague Convention 1970) was adopted, and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(the Montreal Convention 1971) was adopted in 1971. After 9/11 incidents in 2001, to amend and supplement the Montreal Convention 1971, the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation(the Beijing Convention 2010) was adopted in 2010, and to supplement the Hague Convention 1970, the Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Beijing Protocol 2010) was adopted in 2010. Since then, in response to increased cases of unruly behavior on board aircrafts which escalated in both severity and frequency,, the Montreal Protocol which is seen as an amendment to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(the Tokyo Convention 1963) was adopted in 2014. Korea ratified the Tokyo Convention 1963, the Hague Convention 1970, the Montreal Convention 1971, the Montreal Supplementary Protocol 1988, and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosive 1991 which have proven to be effective. Under the Tokyo Convention ratified in 1970, Korea further enacted the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in 1974, as well as the Aviation Safety and Security Act that replaced the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in August 2002. Meanwhile, the title of the Aviation Safety and Security Act was changed to the Aviation Security Act in April 2014. The Aviation Security Act is essentially an implementing legislation of the Tokyo Convention and Hague Convention. Also the language of the Aviation Security Act is generally broader than the unruly and disruptive behavior in Sections 1-3 of the model legislation in ICAO Circular 288. The Aviation Security Act has reflected the considerable parts of the implementation of national legislation under the Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol 2010, and the Montreal Protocol 2014 that are the modernized international conventions relating to aviation security. However, in future, when these international conventions would come into effect and Korea would ratify them, the national legislation that should be amended or provided newly in the Aviation Security Act are as followings : The jurisdiction, the definition of 'in flight', the immunity from the actions against the aircraft commander, etc., the compulsory delivery of the offender by the aircraft commander, etc., the strengthening of penalty on the person breaking the law, the enlargement of application to the accomplice, and the observance of international convention. Among them, particularly the Korean legislation is silent on the scope of the jurisdiction. Therefore, in order for jurisdiction to be extended to the extra-territorial cases of unruly and disruptive offences, it is desirable that either the Aviation Security Act or the general Crime Codes should be revised. In conclusion, in order to meet the intelligent and diverse aviation threats, the Korean government should review closely the contents of international conventions relating to aviation security and the current ratification status of international conventions by each state, and make effort to improve the legislation relating to aviation security and the aviation security system for the ratification of international conventions and the implementation of national legislation under international conventions.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.13 no.5
• /
• pp.19-26
• /
• 2013

The Military Demarcation Line(MDL) divided the two Koreas when armistice agreement was signed in 1953, July 27 but there was no regulation for the sea border. Since then, The North has constantly denied the legitimacy of the sea border, which has remained the inter-Korean maritime border. But the armistice agreement has been virtual maritime demarcation line for the avoidance of hostilities on the Korean Peninsula and maintain and manage the armistice system peacefully. Therefore we should strengthen the Korea's sovereignty over the NLL by tightening the effective control.