• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2006.06a
• /
• pp.135-136
• /
• 2006

There are several Disputes relating to the delimitation of maritime boundary and the policy of maritime jurisdiction of the states around the Korea Peninsula. These disputes are connected with the place of 'Tokdo' dominated practically by Korea, 'Senkaku islands' dominated practically by Japan, and 'Kurile islands' that is under disputing between Russia and Japan. North Korea has also the problem. The delimitation of Maritime Boundary among these States would be concluded in very near future. Therefore, we need to understand the maritime jurisdiction policy of these states. South Korea also has to set the policy.

• Journal of Aerospace System Engineering
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.127-132
• /
• 2016

Recently, China & Japan have expanded their responding ADIZ(Air Defence Identification Zone) to implement each Government's maritime policy and to project their Air Power in preparation for maritime provocation & contingency, especially over the piled area where East Asia countries have claimed to have maritime jurisdiction one another. So this is to guide the Development Option for Korea Air Defence Identification Zone to cope with the maritime intentions of the neighboring countries, considering the international law for ADIZ, the maritime policy and the maritime sovereign & jurisdiction area of the Republic of Korea, etc.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.1-44
• /
• 2021

China's new Maritime Policy Law (MPL) purports to regulate the duties of China's maritime police agencies, including the China Coast Guard, and safeguard China's sovereignty, security, and rights and interest. The MPL has potentially far-reaching application, as China claims extensive maritime areas off its mainland and in the South China Sea. This expansive application of maritime law enforcement jurisdiction is problematic given that most of China's maritime claims are inconsistent with international law. To the extent that the MPL purports to assert jurisdiction over foreign flagged vessels in disputed areas or on the high seas, it contravenes international law. Numerous provisions of the MPL regarding the use of force are also inconsistent with international rules and standards governing the use of maritime law enforcement jurisdiction, as well as the UN Charter's prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. China could use the MPL as a subterfuge to advance its illegal territorial and maritime claims in the South and East China Seas and interfere with coastal State resource rights in their respective exclusive economic zone.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.40
• /
• pp.144-161
• /
• 2016

A unanimous Award has been issued on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China. The current security issues in the regional sea shall be carefully reflected to anticipate whether the Award could resolve the existing political conflict or rather will grow military tension in the region. The Award clearly directs the scope of delimiting maritime jurisdiction to coastal States in the Southern China sea, so it seems to help facilitating finding resolutions of regional disputes on maritime boundaries. On the other hand, there are several limitations in reality to implementation of the decisions included in the Award. USA could use the decisions to restrict military activities and exercise of unilateral maritime jurisdiction by China in the region, while China shall encounter guilt to illegitimacy of its activities as well as shaking the legal foundation of its policy in the region. Then the resolution of this dispute through application of international law would rather cause more political confusion. The intension of bringing the case to an international court were to resolve political difficulties. If, however, the political difficulties are not properly reflected in the legal decisions, such decision would possibly raise more political risks.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.769-788
• /
• 2014

Today, all the countries of the world newly recognize importance of sea on 70% area of the earth, which are focused on efforts for security of marine territory and fishes resources. On the security concerns of the ocean & fishes resources, Sea are very important on the ground of the importance of the ocean, thus international community has been trying to combat a maritime security threat and illegal fisheries. Coastal states need to have proper state's jurisdiction and exercise it's jurisdiction to response effectively to a maritime security threat and illegal fisheries. Here, many of the coastal states strengthened the rights in Exclusive Economic Zone(;EEZ) naturally, there are made cooperation activities and keen competition in the sea because deepening of complex understanding of the relationship between the surrounding countries with marine surveys & continental shelf development, island territorial sovereignty & marine jurisdiction in overlap of sea area on EEZ. In these circumstances, foreign fishing boats invaded to our territorial waters and EEZ many times. in addition, Chinese fishing boats are going to illegal fisheries naturally. On this point, a powerful crackdown of maritime enforcement organization had no effect on them. Also more and more their resistance gathered strength and tendency of a illegal activities became systematization, group action and atrocity little by little. So this thesis includes a study on the regal regulation, the system and formalities on the control of illegal fishing. And the author analyzed the details of the activities of illegal fishing and boats controlled by Korea Coast Guard(KCG), fishing patrol vessels of Ministry of Maritime Affaires and Fisheries(MOMAF) and Navy etc. from in adjacent sea area of Korea. In relation to this, the policy and activity plan were devised to crackdown to illegal fisheries of foreign fishing boats and then it was enforced every year. According to this, analyze the present conditions of illegal fisheries of a foreign fishing boats on this study, also analyze the present conditions of maritime enforcement organization & found out problems to compared it. protect the territorial waters, at the same time protection of marine mineral resources & fishes resources of EEZ including continental shelf, which has want to study for the role & response of maritime enforcement organization for the protection of fisheries resources and a proper, a realistic confrontation plan of maritime enforcement organization against illegal fisheries of foreign fishing boats.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.43
• /
• pp.175-199
• /
• 2018

Recent marine territorial disputes in the East China Sea and the South China Sea have come to us as a great threat. China, which has recently established the China Coast Guard and has rapidly developed maritime security forces, is trying to overcome the various conflict countries with its power. Japan is also strengthening intensively its maritime security forces. Since Korea, China, and Japan are geographically neighboring and sharing maritime space in Northeast Asia, there is no conflict between maritime jurisdiction and territorial rights among the countries. The struggle for initiative in the ocean is fierce among the three coastal nations in Northeast Asia. therefore, Korea needs more thorough preparation and response to protect the marine sovereignty. As the superpowers of China and Japan are confronted and the United States is involved in the balance of power in strategic purposes, the East Asian sea area is a place where tension and conflict environment exist. China's illegal fishing boats are constantly invading our waters, and they even threaten the lives of our police officers. The issue of delimiting maritime boundaries between Korea and China has yet to be solved, and is underway in both countries, and there is a possibility that the exploration activities of the continental shelf resources may collide as the agreement on the continental shelf will expire between Korea and Japan. On the other hand, conflicts in the maritime jurisdictions of the three countries in Korea, China and Japan are leading to the enhancement of maritime security forces to secure deterrence rather than military confrontation. In the situation where the unresolved sovereignty and jurisdiction conflicts of Korea, China and Japan continue, and the competition for the strengthening of the maritime powers of China and Japan becomes fierce, there is a urgent need for stabilization and enhancement of the maritime forces in our country. It is necessary to establish a new long-term strategy for enhancing the maritime security force and to carry out it. It is expected that the Korean Coast Guard, which once said that it was a model for the establishment of China's Coast Guard as a powerful force for the enforcement of the maritime law, firmly establishes itself as a key force to protect our oceans with the Navy and keeps our maritime sovereignty firmly.

• Journal of Aerospace System Engineering
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.35-42
• /
• 2017

This paper analyzes the intention of the PRC (People's Republic of China) to establish and operate CADIZ to implement the government's maritime policy and strategy and to project its air power in preparation for maritime provocation and contingency, especially over the area where East Asia countries have claimed to have maritime jurisdiction over one another. This paper is also intended to guide the Republic of Korea's response measures for coping with the maritime intention and threat of China by such measures as reinforcing military power, constructing the strategic air base in Jeju, and expanding the present KADIZ.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.669-678
• /
• 2004

Coastal states are adopting maritime boundary delimitation as their primary maritime policy because maritime jurisdiction directly relates to vast economic interest. This becomes specially important and sensitive when complex maritime boundary issues are involved between neighboring coastal states. China has not actively carried out nor declared maritime boundary delimitation until recently with any country except Agreement between China and Viet Nam on the demarcation of the territorial water, the exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf of China and Vet Nam in the Gulf of Tonkin on 25 December 2000 (hereinafter, the Gulf of Tonkin Agreement). The principles that governs maritime boundary delimitation are to consider primarily an agreement between States concerned, however, if no agreement can be reached, all relevant circumstances are considered to achieve an equity between concerned States. Relevant circumstances are length of coastline, form of coastline, existence and position of island or islands, speciality of geology/topography, and factor of economy and deffnce. Factors which sinologists are considering in regard to continental shelf delimitation of the Yellow Sea are as follows; i) geographical factor, ii) geological factor, iii) topographical factor, iv) environment and ecological (factor, v) historic interest, and vi) social and economic interest. The 'Gulf of Tonkin Agreement' is completed by basically applying the principle of delimitation according to median line which seems that China has adopted the maritime boundary delimitation principle of 'half and half' which was the intention of chinese government. At the same time, China recognized Viet Nam's dominion and sovereign right over the partial exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Dao Bach Long Vi in Gulf of Tonkin. This case can be considered as an example of mutual concession or compromise in delimiting maritime boundary for states of concerned.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.31-50
• /
• 2009

The demarcation of Maritime Boundary is directly related to the expansion of jurisdiction and the securing of resources. Resource diplomacies of the three countries Korea, China and Japan represent a major task for the national administrations : to secure resources as well as to stablize and sustain resources for future national economies. At the sea area around Korea as well, countries are fiercely competing to secure resources and to expand jurisdiction. This is evidenced by the fact that various principles and logics which are beneficial to each own country are presented through international precedents, agreement between countries and the theories of the international law scholars. They say that the conclusion of demarcation of maritime boundary for the Yellow Sea would be easy from the point that there is no dispute related to island dominion in the waters of the Korean Peninsula especially the Yellow Sea, but still we need to have a strategic approach to this issue from the point that the factors used for claiming maritime boundaries may expand the waters of a country over much. For example, the continental shelf boundary in consideration of the distribution of sedimentary deposits in the Yellow Sea which is being raised by China began from the hypothesis that the inflow of sedimentary deposits to the Yellow Sea through the rivers of China represents absolute majority, but the results of the latest studies raised questions on the hypothesis. Especially, the studies done by Martin and Yang revealed that the inflow of sedimentary deposits to the Yellow Sea from the Yellow River is approximately less than 1% of total sedimentary deposits in the Yellow Sea, and also the result of analysis on the causes and counter policy measures on the environment of Bohai, China supports the reliability of the results of such studies. From a legal aspect, the sedimentary deposits of rivers which are claimed by China represent extremely weak ground for the claim for the title of the continental shelf. The siltline claimed by China seems to be based on the Article 76-4-(a)(i) of UNCLOS. This is, however, not the definition on the title of the continental shelf but it is only a technical formula to utilize in a case where a country desires to expand the continental shelf to over 200 nautical miles. Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf also confirm this point through the Article 2.1.2 of the Guideline. The only case in which sedimentary deposits of rivers were referred to as concrete demarcation of maritime boundary was in the which was concluded in 1986 between India and Myanmar at the Andaman Sea. In the said case, India acknowledged the boundary up to the isobath of 200m which Myanmar claimed based on the sedimentary deposits of the Irrawaddy River. It has limits as a case for acknowledging the sedimentary deposits, however, because in fact India's acknowledgment was made in exchange for the condition that Myanmar gave up the dominion of two islands which they had been claiming from India up until that time.