• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.564-579
• /
• 2013

The purpose of Maritime Safety Tribunal is that experts about ship operation investigate and reveal causes of marine disasters and suggest plans to prevent recurrence in Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal which is a kind of administrative court. Despite the fact that 72% of marine disasters is fishing vessel accidents and 75% of collision accidents between vessels which most occur is related to fishing boats, it is the very serious problem that there is no any person with licenses of marine technicians for fishing vessels in judges and investigators of Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal. The operational characteristics of fishing vessels, their sizes, and shift patterns of duties in wheelhouses are completely and incommensurably different from those of merchant vessels. By the way, if the investigators and judges who just consist of merchant vessel experts investigate and judge marine accidents about fishing vessels, there could be errors in establishment of policies to investigate and reveal their causes and prevent recurrence of accidents. Especially, in case of collision accidents between fishing vessels and merchant vessels, it is thought that the marine accident interested provides causes which can be doubtful about fairness of judges. Therefore, it is thought that the ratio of judges and investigators is most desirable to compose it to be similar to the occurrence frequency of marine accidents. For this, the following solution plans are suggested. First, qualification for appointment requires first class marine technicians. But there is the only one vessel which needs the first class in fishing vessels. Therefore, it is thought that the provisory clause should be added so that the second class marine technicians can be used instead of the first class ones. Second, the marine accidents of fishing vessels reach 72% but the fact that there is no any judge and investigator with licenses of marine technicians for fishing vessels is thought to go against the purpose of establishment of Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal. Therefore, it is thought that there is, at least, one more judges and investigators in the central and local Korean Maritime Safety Tribunals. The same method should be applied to judge assistants and investigation assistants.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.11 no.1 s.22
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2005

The Judgement on a certain maritime accident accompany with punishment or recommendation to the examinee who was connected with that accident. It also gives quite a consequence to the Civil Trial relating with the maritime accident. In the Maritime Safety Tribunal System, the examinees can get assistance from Maritime Counselor. As it requires a lot of costs, it should be limited by economic condition of the examinees. In this Paper, with the consideration of the several kinds of Free Counsel System, Free Counsel System for Maritime Safety Tribunal was studied. The proposals are as follows; 1. To introduce the Mandatory Counselling and Court-designated Counselor System. The costs to be paid by government. 2. The same as above but the counselor to be designated among the staffs of the maritime organizations, then the costs to be paid by the organization which they belonged. 3. To establish Maritime Safety Tribunal Association which performs Monetary Assistance same as Korean Legal Aid Corporation.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.71-78
• /
• 2002

For the first Maritime Accident Inquiry System in Korea, Central Marine Accidents Inquiry Committee were founded in Seoul and District Marine Accidents Inquiry Committee in Busan city In 1963 to determine the circumstances of the accidents and causes. At the present day, it was settled as Maritime Safety Tribunal tough several revision of the Law and regulations regarding the Maritime Accident Inquiry System. In Korea, there occurred about m cases of marine accident, and as a result, about 200 people were lost human lives in average per year. In accordance with the change of circumstances such as traffic increasing and being bigger in size, being faster in speed, etc., the causes of the marine accidents become complicated year by year. Accordingly, in this moment, it is meaningful that the introduction of the Research Official who assists the Judges probing the cases fair and square. In this Paper, with the consideration of the several kinds of Research Official System, such as the Research Official of the Korean Supreme Court, the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office and the Constitutional Court, Japanese Supreme Court, Law Clerk in USA, etc., the selection, numbers, duty of the Research Official were studied. The results of the study are as follows; 1. The Research Official to be appointed among the person having long enough career as a Judge, Investigator engaged in the Maritime Safety Tribunal due to he sho띨d have capability to confirm perfectly logical judgement and to collect enough material for the conclusion of the causes of the case. The one who understands the foreign language is preferred for the study of the foreign cases; 2. It will be logical to post 3 joint Research Officials in Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal in Seoul after due consideration the cases treated a year; 3. It will be logical for the Research Official to perform the collection of material and inspection of the scene for the trial and inquiry of the cases, to attend the cases filed suit to the Supreme Court, to make commentarial papers regarding the judged cases, to collect statistics of marine accidents and to devise a reform measure through in-depth analysis of the accidents frequently occurred, to study for the improvement of the Maritime Accident Inquiry System;

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2018.06a
• /
• pp.55-55
• /
• 2018

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.28 no.6
• /
• pp.1761-1771
• /
• 2016

In respect of the existing relation between Sea-going Vessels and Vessels at anchor, Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal has applied 'Ordinary Practice of Seamen' that is regulated by the article No. 2 of COLREG. That is, general navigation rule is not applied between the two vessels, and the action to avoid collision of vessels by utilizing experience knowledge of the seamen. However, the content of the Ordinary Practice of Seamen included in the revised plan in the process of 2011 "Maritime affairs Safety Act" revision was deleted in the screening of the Office of Legislation due to the reason that it could not specified when the content of deed is not concertized. Furthermore, prior application regulation of international treaty included in the existing "Sea Traffic Safety Act"(Article 5) was deleted in the screening of the National Assembly. So, doubt about whether the Ordinary Practice of Seamen could be continuously applied according to the regulation of the international treaty, nevertheless not specified in domestic law, has been continuously raised. In this situation, recently Central Maritime Safety Tribunal changed precedent by applying of Article 96(3) of Maritime Safety Act without applying Ordinary Practice of Seamen in the Case No. 2015-001. Accordingly, this study intended to review propriety of precedent change and legal issue with the decision of Central Maritime Safety Tribunal excluding Ordinary Practice of Seamen for a collision between Sea-going Vessels and Vessels at anchor.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.118-118
• /
• 2017

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.122-122
• /
• 2017

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.54-63
• /
• 2022

The Marine Accident Investigation and Tribunal System is intended to provide a credible solution to prevent the recurrence of similar accidents. When a marine accident occurs, the Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal seeks to find its root causes through an analysis of what provoked the accident. It also contributes to the development of safety policies or practices by making a decision based on the findings. However, if the decision presented as the root cause of a marine accident is ambiguous or unclear, it may be difficult to achieve its intended goal. Hence, if we read some of the decisions of the Maritime Safety Tribunal, it is selective to directly apply the cause of an accident as a source of the measures that can prevent its recurrence. A typical example of this is the expression: "when a seafarer neglects ordinary practice of seaman." The term "ordinary practice of seaman" has been criticized for being used in some decisions like a master key where it is not easy to determine which specific rules or regulations were violated or blame the involved seafarers. Such term is present in Article 2 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972. For the proper use of the term, this paper seeks to compare and establish the concepts of "ordinary practice of seaman" and the duty of care by providing a systematic interpretation of the original text. In addition, the duty of care was reviewed from the perspective of administrative, civil, and criminal laws. Furthermore, relevant legal precedents were reviewed and presented in the study. Accordingly, it is expected that the term "ordinary practice of seaman" would be properly used in decisions that contribute to the prevention of the recurrence of similar marine accidents.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.57-63
• /
• 2010

The marine safety investigation inquires and concludes the facts and causes of the marine casualties and incidents with the objective of preventing similar roses in the future. Thus, IMO and most states adopt and revise marine safety related conventions and national laws based on the results of marine safety investigation. In particular, IMO recently adopts mandatory IMO Casualty Investigation Code to identify the precise cause of rose with states' cooperation, to report the result of investigation, and to establish new international safety standard helping prevention of similar cases based on the report. The Judgement of the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal system based on the 'Act on the investigation of and inquiry into marine accidents' is used for the purpose of marine safety investigation in Korea to prove cause of marine accident and to improve marine safety. Therefore, this study examines the Code and compares the Code with the Act to reflect the contents of provisions in the Code into the Act. The study would also be the basic references in relation to revising of marine safety investigation system in Korea Specially, the contents in relation to the independence of investigation authority and mandatory counselling system, and guarantee of seafarers human rights to ensure fairness of investigation would be included.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2010.04a
• /
• pp.422-427
• /
• 2010

The judgement of 'Koreon Maritime Safety Tribunal'(KMST) influences criminal/civil trials, and thus the judgement must be decided very carefully. The Judge must bear in mind the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence is restricted by the admissibility of evidence, in dubio proreo and others. Also, empirical role must be used very carefully with strict proof. Therefore the reasons of the proof shall be expressed on the adjudication.