• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.207-223
• /
• 2008

The launching of the Taepo-dong 1 on 31 August 1998 by the North Korea was the first case where the diplomatic protests was made against the flight, the purpose of which, the launching State claimed, consisted in space exploration and use. It is the principle regarding the freedom of space exploration and use, as included in the international treaty, that is relevant in applying the various rules and in defining the legal status of the flight. Its legal status, however, was not actually taken into account, as political negotiations leading to the test moratorium has been successful until present day in freezing the political crisis. This implies that the rules of the law lack the validity and logic sufficient in dictating the conduct of the States. This case shows that, in effect, it is not the rule but the politics that is to govern the status of the flight.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.29-54
• /
• 2007

Nuclear Power Sources(NPS) have been used since 1961 for the purpose of generating energy for space objects and have since then been recognized as particularly suited essential to some space operations. In January 1978 a malfuctioning Soviet nuclear powered satellite, Cosmos 954, re-entered the earth's atmosphere and disintegrated, scattering radioactive debris over a wide area of the Canadian Northwest Territory. This incident provided some reasons to international legal scholars to make some principles to regulate using NPS in outer space. In 1992 General Assembly adopted "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space". These NPS Principles set out certain legal and regulatory requirements on the use of nuclear and radioactive power sources for non-propulsive purposes. Although these principles, called 'soft laws', are not legal norms, they have much enfluences on state practices such as 1983 DBS Principles(Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting), 1986 RS Principles(Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space) and 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interests of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries. As far as 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space is concerned the main points such as free use of outer space, non-appropriation of celestial bodies, application of international law to outer space etc. have become customary international law binding all states. NPS Principles might have similar characters according to states' willingness to respect them.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2007

Nuclear Power Sources(NPS) have been used since 1961 for the purpose of generating energy for space objects and have since then been recognized as particularly suited essential to some space operations. In January 1978 a malfuctioning Soviet nuclear powered satellite, Cosmos 954, re-entered the earth's atmosphere and disintegrated, scattering radioactive debris over a wide area of the Canadian Northwest Territory. This incident provided some reasons to international legal scholars to make some principles to regulate using NPS in outer space. In 1992 General Assembly adopted "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space". These NPS Principles set out certain legal and regulatory requirements on the use of nuclear and radioactive power sources for non-propulsive purposes. Although these principles, called 'soft laws', are not legal norms, they have much enfluences on state practices such as 1983 DBS Principles(Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting), 1986 RS Principles(Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space) and 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interests of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries. As far as 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space is concerned the main points such as free use of outer space, non-appropriation of celestial bodies, application of international law to outer space etc. have become customary international law binding all states. NPS Principles might have similar characters according to states' willingness to respect them.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.261-284
• /
• 2018

The current international legal system does not provide a safeguard against the militarization and the weaponization of outer space. Although the term "peaceful use of outer space" in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty(OST) appears in official government statements or in multilateral space treaties, it is still without an authoritative definition in reviewing national practices. The ambiguous ban on weapons in Article IV of the OST allows countries to loophole on the deployment of other weapons other than nuclear weapons. Meanwhile "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)" to Conference on Disarmament (CD) commissioned by the UN General Assembly's Special Session jointly submitted by China and Russia in 2008 and later revised in 2014, attempting to define and prohibit the proliferation of weapons in outer space and provided definitions of prohibited weapons, are opposed by the US on the grounds that currently there is no arms race in outer space. Some experts support a hard law approach in which binding laws aimed at ultimately creating integrated and binding legal instruments in all aspects of the use of outer space should be adopted to regulate the military use of space. However as a temporary measure the soft law guidelines should be developed for the non liquiet, a situation where there is no applicable law. The soft law could be used to create support for the declaration of the treaties and to create international customary law. For example, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space that regulates the activities of the state in the exploration and use of the universe, and the 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space will illustrated. While substantial portions of the former was codified later in the 1967 OST, the latter which, although written in somewhat mandatory terms, have been consistently complied with by states, have arguably become part of customary international law. On November 12, 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed that the development of international law may be reflected inter alia, by declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly which may to that extent be taken into consideration by the International Court of Justice.

• 복합운송
• /
• s.142
• /
• pp.30-31
• /
• 2004

• 발명특허
• /
• v.18 no.8 s.210
• /
• pp.43-48
• /
• 1993

• 발명특허
• /
• v.18 no.7 s.209
• /
• pp.52-55
• /
• 1993

• 발명특허
• /
• v.7 no.10 s.80
• /
• pp.19-23
• /
• 1982

• 발명특허
• /
• v.18 no.6 s.208
• /
• pp.35-39
• /
• 1993