• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.45-64
• /
• 1993

The law of territorial sea is a fundamental law by which the width of sovereign domain of a coastal state is determined. The P.R.China'a regime on the territorial sea was established through the Declaration on China's Ttrritorial Sea of 1958 and the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992. And the P.R.China's consistent policy on the territorial sea can be summarized as follows ; \circled1 The adoption of the straight baseline and 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width, \circled2 The foreign merchant vessels can enjoy the right of innocent passage, while requesting for prior permission for the foreign military vessels on the entry into territorial sea. \circled3 The Chiungchow Strait and the Bohai Bay are claimed as the internal waters. \circled4 Enlistment of the whole coastal islands including the Taiwan. 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width can be recognized as lawfull with respect to the 1982 UNLOS Convention. But the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992 contains some problems on the legality viewed in the light of customary international law. Firstly, it can be said that the adoption of simple straight baseline is not reasonable, and it must be investigated closely on the hidden intention of China. Secondly, there involved some possibility of international dispute on making Tung Tao which is 69 nautical miles apart from the mainland of a basepoint and on making the Bohai Bay of a historic bay. And also public notification of all basepoints for the straight baselines is necessary to meet the requirement of customary international law, Thirdly, two military zones established unilaterally in 1950 are illegal with respect to the customary international law, and they must be repealed deservedly. Fourthly, there have a lot of restrictions on the innocent passage even for foreign merchant vessels by the municipal law such as the Maritime Traffic Safety Law. As a conclusion, the P.R.China's territorial sea regime contains some illegal elements such as unilateral expansion of the maritime sovereignty or jurisdiction. In order to meet the general principle of the international law, the P.R.China's territorial sea policy must be modified on the basis of multilateral agreement with the states concerned. And Korea, as a state with opposite, has a definite right to take countermeasure agaist the P.R.China's contiguous zone.

• 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.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2018.06a
• /
• pp.181-181
• /
• 2018

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.147-159
• /
• 2023

Sea level rise due to climate change is an increasing concern for the international community, and especially for coastal States. In case of regression of the coastal line or inundations of maritime features, including islands, the questions of whether coastal States are under an obligation to redraw their baseline and the outer limits of their maritime jurisdiction and of whether the existing maritime boundary treaties should be terminated are raised. This article reviews the arguments raised by the Small Island Developing States, International Law Association, and International Law Commission and suggests a solution within the current legal framework of the Law of the Sea through an interpretation of the existing provisions of the UNCLOS focusing on the legal issues relating to the Law of the Sea.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.141-141
• /
• 2017

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.37-48
• /
• 1981

There are more damages from collision at sea because of the multiple reasons of sea conditions. For the purpose of avoiding collision at sea, Internaitonal Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea, 1972 as an international convention is in force having the nature of international navigating law. According to the nature of the convention and the principle of legislation of the convention, not only it has the preventing nature on collision but it is a basic rules to make clear the faults of collision between vessels by the admiralty court in the developed maritime countries. Since there is no so much case law on it in this country and not to fixed the legal theory to define the faults of collision in civil law as per the above convention, the further study of the civil liability on collision based upon the above convention shall be recognized in the principle of fair of the civil law.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.110-123
• /
• 2004

Five Islands in the West Sea of Korea (Baekryeong-do, Daecheong-do, Socheong-do, Yeonpyeong-do, and Woo-do) are located very close to the North Korea's coast and all of them are under the jurisdiction of South Korea. The North and South Korean naval vessels clashed twice in the West Sea of Korea on June 15, 1999 and on June 29, 2002. These incidents were resulted from conflicts over the validity of the Northern Limit Line(NLL) and the appropriate maritime boundary between the two Koreas. From the viewpoint of South Korea, the North Limit Line is a lawful Maritime Military Demarcation Line under the Korean Military Armistice Agreement and it must be maintained as a maritime boundary between two Koreas until being substituted by a peace treaty. In conclusion, the maritime boundary between two Koreas cannot be settled easily by the principles of the International Law of the Sea at present.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.6
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2019

In the case of a sea transport contract, the decision of the governing law, together with the choice of lex fori, shall be a legal issue in all legal disputes involving damage to the goods. In sea transport contracts, a paramount clause is often established in conjunction with the governing law clause, which can lead to conflict between these two clauses. Most B/L's back clauses contain a paramount clause that provides that the Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, or foreign laws that prevail over other provisions of the terms. The Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules, however, set different standards regarding the extent of the sea carrier's liability. Therefore, in the interpretation of ground conditions, it is an important question whether the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules are applied or whether each rule is applied as a law. For example, the paramount clause in the Superior Pescadores case was problematic in the interpretation of the term 'Hague Rules.' In this case, the English Court held that the expression 'Hague Rules' could be used to mean the Hague-Visby Rules, and not exclusively the Hague Rules. Therefore, the Hague-Visby Rules were applied in the judgment of this case, which suggests that this case can be a valuable precedent in future legal matters.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• pp.153-176
• /
• 2000

The U.K. Bills of Lading Act 1855 had sought to circumvent the problems arising from the doctrine of privity of contracts. Among the principal factors in the introduction of the Act was the exceptional decision of the court in the case of Grant Norway. The Act 1855 was intended to reverse Grant Norway, but has no effect whatever. As it was not properly drafted, there had been a lot of situations where the Act 1855 was not applicable. In those cases, the courts have implied a contract between cosignee and carrier. This is the effect of the common law Brandt v. Liverpool doctrine. With the enactment of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, all of the problems shall be resolved. It repeals the Act 1855 and replaces it with provisions covering not only B/L but also sea waybills and ship's delivery orders. According to the new law, title to sue is now vested in the lawful holder of a bill of lading, the consignee identified in a sea waybill or the person entitled to delivery under a ship's delivery order, irrespective of whether or not they are owners of the goods covered by the document.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.29 no.3 s.99
• /
• pp.235-244
• /
• 2005

A new type qf demonstrations in the temporal and spacial aspects, such as accidental and unprepared demonstration, urgent assembly, demonstration-on-sea, demonstration-on-highway, and etc., which are not intended in the Law of Assembly and Demonstration, are becoming a social problem Especially, the law on demonstration-on-sea needs to be discussed further because it is not clear if the Law of Assembly and Demonstration is applicable here. If so, how can it be explained logically? Or, if not so, which law should be applied to this context? So far, various theories on demonstration-on-sea have been opposed aggressively vs. submissively. However, it should be guaranteed that the demonstration on sea is one of the constitutional rights based on the self-decision right of demonstration's place. Accordingly, these contents have to be interpreted with a concept of demonstration in Demonstration's law in coordination with the Constitution. Therefore, it is not persuasive that Demonstration's law is analogized, or general police law is applied, to such untypical demonstrations. In addition, taking into consideration a demonstrative function for minority under modem situation of demonstration, it is right to apply the Law of Assembly and Demonstration to the demonstration-upon-sea directly.