• 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.

• 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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.30
• /
• pp.177-199
• /
• 2012

As is generally known, the sovereignty dispute over the Senkaku Islands between China/Taiwan and Japan was triggered by a report commissioned by the UN in 1968, which reported the possibility of a substantial amount of petroleum and natural gas buried in the South China Sea. When the administrative authority over the Ryukyu Islands was transferred from the US to Japan in 1972, jurisdiction over the Senkaku Islands was also transferred. A dispute ensued between China (Taiwan) and Japan over the Senkaku Islands except during the period in which formal relations were established between the two states. This paper will take a look particularly at the events that occurred in the 2000's and discuss their recent trends and aspects of the dispute. Though China and Japan agreed to joint resource development in 2008, the agreed zone was a very small area adjacent to the Korea-Japan Joint Continental Shelf Development Zone, and the points of agreement have not been implemented. China has been developing four oil fields including Chunxiao in its waters adjacent to the median line asserted by Japan. However, China also has been excluding the participation of Japan, while Japan has been strongly objecting to the unilateral development of oil fields by China. If indeed the oil fields on China's side are connected past the median line asserted by Japan, then China's unilateral development will infringe upon the potential sovereign rights of Japan, thereby violating international law.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.30
• /
• pp.263-285
• /
• 2012

History, demonstrating convincingly that pirates have arisen continuously for a lengthy period of time throughout the world, is able to become a cooperative study of international law in terms of pirates matters ; Viking pirates. There are beneficial topics for the study of true nature of viking activities and the settlement of present pirates matters ; How were the pirates activities of Vikings, What sort of relations do they have between Vikings and other pirates which have arisen in world history, What are the differences compared to present concept of pirates. There were active pirates activities in the coast and waters of Scandinavia even before the period of the Migration Age because of geographical condition. With those experiences, Vikings began to ambush Britain Islands sailing across the North Sea since the late 8C, ages of migration in earnest. They ambushed all coasts of the European Continent expending boundary until the late of 11C. Pirate activities in a sort of guerrilla operations were operated when they encountered Islams in the Iberian Peninsula and the coast of North Africa. They showed twofold attitudes ; if the defence of the region and sea was weak, they plundered, or if strong, traded. In plundered europeans' position, Vikings were pirates with cruelty and barbarians. In vikings position, they were normal human beings who did a pirate activity to lead a better life. Viking pirates showed different characteristics in terms of three aspects ; area and aspect of action, activity after piracy. Meanwhile, Viking pirates showed several differences with pirates defined in terms of modern international law. Among the satisfying conditions of pirates, required by the international law of the sea, Vikings fulfilled animus furandi, desire for gain, activities for hatred and revenge, and private ends. Other conditions including attacking authority of the vessels, activities toward private ships, activities in the coast and the land, and illegal terroristic activities toward ships are found in viking pirates. However, Viking pirates do not show the activities in high seas and in the outside of a State's jurisdiction. In addition, it cannot be excluded that they pirated with vessels of regional leaders and the Sovereign, not private ships. Contrary to the definition of concept in terms of modern international law toward pirates, Viking invaded foreign waters, came on shore to foreign land and island, went up-stream the rivers to the back of interior, and attacked churches and abbeys. Strangely, they sometimes settled down in the places where they had pirated. Today, pirates appearing in history and defined in international law exist simultaneously and separately. It means, the historical nature and the nature under the international law are turning up differently. Historical cases of pirates should be reflected to modern international law. If so, it seems that the clue to solve pirate problems can be arranged. History is the immortal living thing, which not just existed as a past but reflects present.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 1993

The purpose of this paper is to search for reasonable and fair principles applicable to the delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone(which is called the EEZ, hereinafter) around the Korean Peninsula th-rought the comprehensive study of maritime boundary, which is one of the most important issues in the law of the Sea. So far, the sea has been exploited for activities such as fishery, transport and military stratedy, and en-vironmental policy and so on. From this time on, however, it becomes important to us as the major trea-sure-house of various resources which will be developed and used for diversified purposes. For these rea-sons, nowadays, more and more countries of the world are competing to secure waters as much as possible within their jurisdiction. And the regime of the EEZ was created as a result of this international trend. At last, it has been institutionalized as the 200-mile EEZ of a legal notion in the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was adopted at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, in Jamaica on December 10, 1982. In adapting to this EEZ institution, Korea is faced with several complicated problems as it is bounded on three sides by the sea and all of its neighboring countries such as the PRC, the DPRK, Japan, Russia etc are less than 400 miles away between opposite countries. Therefore, when trying to delimit the boun-dary for the EEZ, it appears necessary to analyze applicable principles and rules of international law for delimitation mainly through the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and studies the trends of actual State practices and recent international precedents. It is hoped that such knowledge will enable Korea to secure sufficient resources and other sovereign rights without conflicting with the neighboring countries concer-ned. For the achievement of the above mentioned object. I analyzed the necessities of the establishment of the EEZ in Korea, the difficulties and practices of Korea's neighbors, and the changes and forthcoming trends in Korea's relations with its neighbors concerned on the basis of the general explanation of the EEZ regime. In conclusion, it is my opinion that for the establishment of the EEZ delimitation which neighbors around the Korean Peninsula should be applied reasonable and equitable principles considering the rele-vant circumstances which characterize the area definitely as well as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.189-217
• /
• 2017

Declaration of Air Defense and Identification Zones started with the United States in 1950, which was followed by declaration of KADIZ by the Republic of Korea in 1951. Initial ADIZ were solely linked with air defense missions, but their roles have changed as nations around the globe manifested a tendency to expand their influence over maritime resources and rights. In particular, China declared ADIZ over the East China Sea in October 2013 and forced all passing aircraft to submit flight plan to ATC or military authority, saying failure of submission will be followed by armed engagement. China announced it would declare another zone over the South China Sea despite the ongoing conflict in the area, clearly showing ADIZ's direct connection with territorial claim and EEZ and that it serves as a zone within which a nation can execute its rights. The expanded KADIZ, which was expanded in Dec 15, 2013 in response to Chinese actions, overlaps with the Chinese ADIZ over the East China Sea and the Japanese ADIZ. The overlapping zone is an airspace over waters where not only the Republic of Korea but also of China and Japan argue to be covering their continental shelf and EEZ. Military conventions were signed to prevent contingencies among the neighboring nations while conducting identifications in KADIZ, including the overlapping zone. If such military conventions and practice of air defense identification continue to be respected among states, it is under the process of turning into a regional customary law, although ADIZ is not yet recognized by international law or customary law. Moreover, identification within ADIZ is carried out by military authorities of states, and misguided customary procedures may cause serious negative consequences for national security since it may negatively impact neighboring countries in marking the maritime border, which calls for formulation of operation rules that account for other state activities and military talks among regional stake holders. Legal frameworks need to be in place to guarantee freedom of flights over international seas which UN Maritime Law protects, and laws regarding military aircraft operation need to be supplemented to not make it a requirement to submit flight plan if the aircraft does not invade sovereign airspace. Organizational instructions that require approval of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff for entrance and exit of ADIZ for military aircraft need to be amended to change the authority to Minister of National Defense or be promoted to a law to be applicable for commercial aircraft. Moreover, in regards to operation and management of ADIZ, transfer of authority should be prohibited to account for its evolution into a regional customary law in South East Asia. In particular, since ADIZ is set over EEZ, military conventions that yield authority related to national security should never be condoned. Among Korea, China, Japan and Russia, there are military conventions that discuss operation and management of ADIZ in place or under negotiation, meaning that ADIZ is becoming a regional customary law in North East Asia region.