• Journal of the Korean Society for Marine Environment & Energy
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.143-150
• /
• 2013

The Honolulu Strategy is a framework document to address marine debris issue globally. The Fifth International Marine Debris Conference held in March 2011 and organized by NOAA and UNEP catalyzed the development of the Holonulu Strategy. Goals of the Strategy are to reduce the amount and impact of land-based, sea-based, and accumulated marine debris. A set of strategies for each goal were provided for education and awareness, legislation, and alternative technologies. The Strategy also lists indicators that could be used to evaluate outcomes of strategies. The adoption of the Honolulu Strategy by the international community has led the international organizations such as GPA, IMO, and CBD to strengthen their responses to the marine debris issue. UN has also set up specific actions that will be implemented until 2025 through its resolutions on marine debris. Recent global developments related to the marine debris issue might lead to a change in the character of the international marine debris management from the current soft law regime to a mandatory one. The Honolulu Strategy could provide a guideline when the Korean government formulates the Second Basic Plan for Marine Debris Management, especially with its prevention-oriented approaches, utilization of scientific policy development tools, and adoption of evaluation system using performance indicators.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.125-146
• /
• 1989

This paper is examine the problems of U.S.-Korea Air Service Agreement and recommend some directions for its improvement under the rapidly changing circumstance and growing importance of Korean penisula. Since the provisional agreement of 1949, U.S. -Korea Air Service Agreement has consistently been favorable to U.S. side. Fair and equal opportunity is the principle and basis of the bilateral air agreement. Notwithstanding such principle, it is only the U.S. carriers who can freely enter into any market, under the discretion of business strategy, while Korean carrier can serve only three points including Honolulu. In an effort to recitify such serious imbalance, Korea continuousely requested additional rights and has given utmost efforts to accommodate requests made by U.S. carries without much success. When we review aviation market between Korea and U.S. under the present agreement, Korea is fully open to U.S. carries as they can connect from any or all points in the U.S. via any or all points in Korea and all points beyond Korea. Increased number of U.S. carriers are enjoying greater utilization of the opportunity accorded them. Four(4) U.S. carries now operate to Korea using thirteen(13) gateway points and about one hundred fifty(150) on-line points in the U.S. such imbalance can be well understood when we review the exchange of traffic rights between the U.S. and the Pacific rim countries. During the yeras following the 1978 agreement with Korea, the U.S. proceeded to sign liberal agreements with Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore and the Phillipines. In exchange, the U.S. granted the four Pacific rim countries substantially greater rights than were granted to Korea, although Korea was the first Asian nation to sign a pro-competitive aviation agreement which granted U.S. carriers unrestricted market access and pricing flexibility. Moreover, Korea ranks the 2nd trading and tourist partner to the U.S. among the Pacific rim countries (Japan is the largest partner to the U.S. in terms of both trade and tourist market). In this paper such problems in the Korea-U.S. Air Services Agreement are analyzed in terms of historical perspective, U.S. Aviation policy, imbalance status in detail cases, discrimination to Korea comparing to other Asian countries, and theoretical application. And further it discusses current aviation issues between Korea and U.S. such as the ratification of 1980 MOU and various doing business issues of U.S. carriers in Korea. Finally, this paper concludes the analysis and suggests some directions to improve and rectify the problems and imbalance of U.S.-Korea Air Services Agreement in question.