• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• pp.142-163
• /
• 2013

Ieodo is a submerged rock within a Korea's Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) in the East China Sea with its most shallow part about 4.6m below the sea level which has no specific rights for the EEZ delimitation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that any coastal state has the rights to claim an EEZ that stretches up to 200 nautical miles from its shore, except where there is an overlap with a neighboring country's claims. Korea claims that Ieodo is within its EEZ as it sits on the Korean side of the equidistant line and the reef is located on the Korea section of the continental shelf. China does not recognize Korea's application of the equidistance principle and insists that Ieodo lies on its continental shelf. According to UNCLOS, Ieodo is located in international waters, rather than one country's EEZ as the two countries have failed to reach a final agreement over the delimitation of the maritime border. This study seeks to understand the evolution of the People's Liberation Army Navy(PLAN) strategy as main obstacles for the EEZ delimitation between Korea and China. PLAN's Strategy evolves from "coastal defense" to "offshore defence", since the late 1980s from a "coastal defence" strategy to an "offshore defence" strategy which would extend the perimeter of defence to between 200 nm and 400 nm from the coast. China's economic power has increased It's dependence on open trade routes for energy supplies and for its own imports and exports. China want secure Sea Lane. PLAN's "offshore defence" strategy combines the concept of active defence with the deployment of its military forces beyond its borders. China's navy try to forward base its units and to achieve an ocean going capability. China's navy expects to have a 'Blue Water' capability by 2050. China insists that coastal states do have a right under UNCLOS to regulate the activities of foreign military forces in their EEZs. China protests several times against US military forces operating within It's EEZ. The U.S. position is that EEZs should be consistent with customary international law of the sea, as reflected in UNCLOS. U.S. has a national interest in the preservation of freedom of navigation as recognized in customary international law of the sea and reflected in UNCLOS. U.S. insists that coastal states under UNCLOS do not have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs. To be consistent with its demand that the U.S. cease performing military operations in china's EEZ, China would not be able to undertake any military operations in the waters of South Korea's EEZ. As such, to preserve its own security interests, China prefers a status quo policy and used strategic ambiguity on the Ieodo issue. PLAN's strategy of coastal defence has been transformed into offensive defence, Korea's EEZ can be a serious limitation to PLAN's operational plan of activities. Considering China'a view of EEZs, China do not want make EEZ delimitation agreement between Korea and China. China argues that the overlapping areas between EEZs should be handled through negotiations and neither side can take unilateral actions before an agreement is reached. China would prefer Ieodo sea zone as a international waters, rather than one country's EEZ.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.31-67
• /
• 1990

One of the first issues which arose in the evolution of air law was the determination of the vertical limits of airspace over private property. In 1959 the UN in its Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, started to give attention to the question of the meaning of the term "outer space". Discussions in the United Nations regarding the delimitation issue were often divided between those in favour of a functional approach ("functionalists"), and those seeking the delineation of a boundary ("spatialists"). The functionalists, backed initially by both major space powers, which viewed any boundary as possibly restricting their access to space(Whether for peaceful or military purposes), won the first rounds, starting with the 1959 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space which did not consider that the topic called for priority consideration. In 1966, however, the spatialists, were able to place the issue on the agenda of the Outer Sapce Committee pursuant to Resolution 2222 (xxx1). However, the spatialists were not able to present a common position since there existed a variety of propositions for delineation of a boundary. Over the years, the funtionalists have seemed to be losing ground. As the element of location is a decisive factor for the choice of the legal regime to be applied, a purely functional approach to the regulation of activities in the space above the Earth does not offer a solution. It is therefore to be welcomed that there is clear evidence of a growing recognition of the defect inherent to such an approach and that a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a growing number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution of the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above the Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated, and a number of countries, among them Argentina, Belgium, France, Italy and Mexico have already advocated the acceptance of the lower boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. The adoption of the principle of sovereignty at that height does not mean that States would not be allowed to take protective measures against space activities above that height which constitute a threat to their security. A parallel can be drawn with the defence of the State's security on the high seas. Measures taken by States in their own protection on the high seas outside the territorial waters-provided that they are proportionate to the danger-are not considered to infringe the principle of international law. The most important issue in this context relates to the problem of a right of passage for space craft through foreign air space in order to reach outer space. In the reports to former ILA Conferences an explanation was given of the reasons why no customary rule of freedom of passage for aircraft through foreign territorial air space could as yet be said to exist. It was suggested, however, that though the essential elements for the creation of a rule of customary international law allowing such passage were still lacking, developments apperaed to point to a steady growth of a feeling of necessity for such a rule. A definite treaty solution of the demarcation problem would require further study which should be carried out by the UN Outer Space Committee in close co-operation with other interested international organizations, including ICAO. If a limit between air space and outer space were established, air space would automatically come under the regime of the Chicago Convention alone. The use of the word "recognize" in Art. I of chicago convention is an acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as a general principle of law, the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. Further it is important to note that the Aricle recognizes this sovereignty, as existing for every state, holding it immaterial whether the state is or is not a contracting state. The functional criteria having been created by reference to either the nature of activity or the nature of the space object, the next hurdle would be to provide methods of verification. With regard to the question of international verification the establishment of an International Satelite Monitoring Agency is required. The path towards the successful delimitation of outer space from territorial space is doubtless narrow and stony but the establishment of a precise legal framework, consonant with the basic principles of international law, for the future activities of states in outer space will, it is still believed, remove a source of potentially dangerous conflicts between states, and furthermore afford some safeguard of the rights and interests of non-space powers which otherwise are likely to be eroded by incipient customs based on at present almost complete freedom of action of the space powers.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.38
• /
• pp.163-192
• /
• 2015

This study is intended for the Maritime Boundaries(Baseline) of the Unified Korea. According to the international law, North-Korea is recognized as a nation. Then with unification, the state succession will be a very important issue. Thus we should seek for the expected problems and counter-measures, by analyzing of the State-succession. There is a conflict of the positive or negative reaction about the state succession. However, in general, 'the principle of continuity' has been applied for at the national border treaty, regardless of the type of State succession. This can be found on Article 11 & 12 of the 「1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties」, Article 62, paragraph 2 of the 「1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties」, and a series of international case law. Currently it is being understood as customary international law. In summary, although South and North Korea, China, Russia and Japan are not the parties of 「1978 Vienna Convention」, the unified Korea will necessarily have a duty to succeed national boundaries(also, maritime baseline) of North Korea. Specifically, we have an objective and rigorous review of the treaty of maritime baseline that is signed between North Korea and neighboring countries, such as 「National Border Treaty Regime between North Korea and China」 and 「Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic people's Republic of Korea on the Demarcation of the Soviet-Korea National Border」. Also, we analyzed 'Historical Bays' and 'Straight Baseline' system. By this, we are able to occupy a favorable position when renegotiating with neighboring countries, at the point of unification.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.469-497
• /
• 2015

In 2009 Iridium 33, a satellite owned by the American Iridium Communications Inc. and Kosmos-2251, a satellite owned by the Russian Space Forces, collided at a speed of 42,120 km/h and an altitude of 789 kilometers above the Taymyr Peninsula in Siberia. NASA estimated that the satellite collision had created approximately 1,000 pieces of debris larger than 10 centimeters, in addition to many smaller ones. By July 2011, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network(SSN) had catalogued over 2,000 large debris fragments. On January 11, 2007 China conducted a test on its anti-satellite missile. A Chinese weather satellite, the FY-1C polar orbit satellite, was destroyed by the missile that was launched using a multistage solid-fuel. The test was unprecedented for having created a record amount of debris. At least 2,317 pieces of trackable size (i.e. of golf ball size or larger) and an estimated 150,000 particles were generated as a result. As far as the Space Treaties such as 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement are concerned, few provisions addressing the space environment and debris in space can be found. In the early years of space exploration dating back to the late 1950s, the focus of international law was on the establishment of a basic set of rules on the activities undertaken by various states in outer space.. Consequently environmental issues, including those of space debris, did not receive the priority they deserve when international space law was originally drafted. As shown in the case of the 1978 "Cosmos 954 Incident" between Canada and USSR, the two parties settled it by the memorandum between two nations not by the Space Treaties to which they are parties. In 1994 the 66th conference of International Law Association(ILA) adopted "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris". The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee(IADC) issued some guidelines for the space debris which were the basis of "the UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" which had been approved by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) in its 527th meeting. On December 21 2007 this guideline was approved by UNGA Resolution 62/217. The EU has proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities" as a transparency and confidence-building measure. It was only in 2010 that the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee began considering as an agenda item the long-term sustainability of outer space. A Working Group on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities was established, the objectives of which include identifying areas of concern for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities, proposing measures that could enhance sustainability, and producing voluntary guidelines to reduce risks to long-term sustainability. By this effort "Guidelines on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities" are being under consideration. In the case of "Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space" adopted by UNGA Resolution 1962(XVIII), December 13 1963, the 9 principles proclaimed in that Declaration, although all of them incorporated in the Space Treaties, could be regarded as customary international law binding all states considering the time and opinio juris by the responses of the world. Although the soft law such as resolutions, guidelines are not binding law, there are some provisions which have a fundamentally norm-creating character and customary international law. In November 12 1974 UN General Assembly recalled through a Resolution 3232(XXIX) "Review of the role of International Court of Justice" that the development of international law may be reflected, inter alia, by the declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly which may to that extend be taken into consideration by the judgements of the International Court of Justice. We are expecting COPUOS which gave birth 5 Space Treaties that it could give us binding space debris mitigation measures to be implemented based on space debris mitigation soft law in the near future.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.156-162
• /
• 2020

Since the early 20th century, there have been reviews and legislations regarding the legal status of the Government ships operated for non-commercial purposes. In particular, as criticized in the absolute theory of immunity in conventional international law, the sovereign immunity theory has become more vital as a restrictive theory for immunity. As per the customary international law and international law of the sea, non-commercial government vessels, including warships, are provided with sovereign immunity on the sea. National universities of Korea have built and operated training ships and survey ships for educational purposes, such as training high-grade mariners and fishing practices. These training ships sail not only on the national maritime jurisdictions but also on the maritime jurisdictions of other States and the high sea. Therefore, clarifying the legal status of national university training ships is one of the important factors in international navigation according to international law. However, it is not easy to answer the question of the legal status of the training ship. Hence, this article analyzes the parameters that define the Government ship operated for non-commercial purposes and examines whether national university training ships are in line with the relevant criterion. Furthermore, the article analyzes the scope of sovereign immunity in conventional international law and international conventions and identifies the scope of sovereign immunity enjoyed by the national university training ships according to international law.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.27-53
• /
• 2013

It is a generalized way for the chartering business to fix the laytime bars except rarely adapting the customary despatch of the cargo work in port. The way of customary despatch is usually accepted by the owners in case the port facilities and other relevant infrastructures are in the satisfactory level for the cargo work whereas the laytime bars to be widely incorporated in the chaterparty for almost all occasions for owners and charterers to bind each other in loading and discharging cargo in port. The main purpose of establishing laytime bars on the charterparty is to secure the right and duty for both parties of the owners and the charterers, and furthermore to make the vessel despatched quickly from the port, whereby the costs incidental to the loading and discharging in port to be saved as much as possible. and the minimized costs in port will contribute to the profits in all parties involved in loading and discharging cargo. The conditions and terms on the laytime bars are expressed variously in their kinds according to the types of the charterparty to be used. The owners and charterers or the ship operators, however, seems not to be so accustomed in lawful understanding on these terms and conditions, and therefrom lots of disputes are noticed practically in the business field. As a result, this study is focused to render the owners and charterers rather clear understanding on their meanings and effects in legal aspects, and the various English Law Cases are referred in order to achieve the purpose of this study.

• 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.

• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.375-397
• /
• 2011

Having ahead the Korea-US FfA come into effect by beginning of the 2012, the interest to U.S. trade law has been highly increased. The abuse of U.S. antidumping measures, especially, have been alleged by many developed countries, that's why it need to be studied. For initiating antidumping investigation, the scope of "subject merchandise" has to be determinated. But there is no regulation about the term "subject merchandise(or product under consideration)" on WTO Antidumping Agreement as well as U.S. Antidumping Law. U.S. antidumping law defines domestic like product as "a product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title". Thus, the reference point from which the like product analysis begins is "the article subject to an investigation". The Department of Commerce should interpret the subject merchandise in accordance with customary rules, beginning with its ordinary meaning. The note of caution is that the DOC generally exercises 'broad discretion to define and clarify the scope of an antidumping investigation in a manner which reflects the intent of the petition. This paper investigates the survey scope of product in U.S. antidumping law through related regulations and cases. In addition, it was carefully examined because the scope of subject merchandise has effect on antidumping duty order.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.7
• /
• pp.151-175
• /
• 1995

In recent years, questions have arisen under several forms with respect to the need for adapting present legal order established under the Chicago Convention and relevant customary rules into newly developed environment surrounding the international air transport industry. Major feature of such trends included in opinions for modification of the present legal order might be defined as more liberalistic approach to this industry. In this respect, many scholars and lawyers in this field agree with a view that a theoretical tie between an aircraft/air liners and a register - State lies in political and strategical concern of the State so that each aircraft/air liners has been attributed a single nationality. In the context of such concern, each aircraft/air liners has been related with each register-State in the form of "genuine connection". However, present and near future development of air transport industry and its world - wide market requires some modification of such single nationality regime. Taking into account such circumstances, States as creator of present legal order are in the process of establishing new legal order where air liners with multi - nationality are capable of satisfying to such needs. As adopting a series of liberalization package for air transport industry in european continent, European Union adopts a concept of "community air carrier", by which an air space of each member State is open to each other, especially through the grant of cabotage right. A serious concern may arise in such grant because the Article 7 of the Chicago Convention prohibits such grant on an exclusive basis. While many theoretical opinions have been put forward concerning the interpretation of that article, a case of European Union shall be a good test of the range of its application. It is anticipated that future development around this issue shaH furnish us a major feature of the liberalization of international air transportation and an adaptation process of present legal order.