• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.

• MISULJARYO - National Museum of Korea Art Journal
• /
• v.96
• /
• pp.123-154
• /
• 2019

Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain is a ten-panel folding screen with images and postscripts. Commissioned by Bak Gyeong-bin (dates unknown), this screen was painted by Jo Jung-muk (1820-after 1894) in 1868. The postscripts were written by Hong Seon-ju (dates unknown). The National Museum of Korea restored this painting, which had been housed in the museum on separate sheets, to its original folding screen format. The museum also opened the screen to the public for the first time at the special exhibition Through the Eyes of Joseon Painters: Real Scenery Landscapes of Korea held from July 23 to September 22, 2019. Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain depicts real scenery on the western slopes of Inwangsan Mountain spanning present-day Hongje-dong and Hongeun-dong in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul. In the distance, the Bukhansan Mountain ridges are illustrated. The painting also bears place names, including Inwangsan Mountain, Chumohyeon Hill, Hongjewon Inn, Samgaksan Mountain, Daenammun Gate, and Mireukdang Hall. The names and depictions of these places show similarities to those found on late Joseon maps. Jo Jung-muk is thought to have studied the geographical information marked on maps so as to illustrate a broad landscape in this painting. Field trips to the real scenery depicted in the painting have revealed that Jo exaggerated or omitted natural features and blended and arranged them into a row for the purposes of the horizontal picture plane. Jo Jung-muk was a painter proficient at drawing conventional landscapes in the style of the Southern School of Chinese painting. Details in Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain reflect the painting style of the School of Four Wangs. Jo also applied a more decorative style to some areas. The nineteenth-century court painters of the Dohwaseo(Royal Bureau of Painting), including Jo, employed such decorative painting styles by drawing houses based on painting manuals, applying dots formed like sprinkled black pepper to depict mounds of earth and illustrating flowers by dotted thick pigment. Moreover, Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain shows the individualistic style of Jeong Seon(1676~1759) in the rocks drawn with sweeping brushstrokes in dark ink, the massiveness of the mountain terrain, and the pine trees simply depicted using horizontal brushstrokes. Jo Jung-muk is presumed to have borrowed the authority and styles of Jeong Seon, who was well-known for his real scenery landscapes of Inwangsan Mountain. Nonetheless, the painting lacks an spontaneous sense of space and fails in conveying an impression of actual sites. Additionally, the excessively grand screen does not allow Jo Jung-muk to fully express his own style. In Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain, the texts of the postscripts nicely correspond to the images depicted. Their contents can be divided into six parts: (1) the occupant of the tomb and the reason for its relocation; (2) the location and geomancy of the tomb; (3) memorial services held at the tomb and mysterious responses received during the memorial services; (4) cooperation among villagers to manage the tomb; (5) the filial piety of Bak Gyeong-bin, who commissioned the painting and guarded the tomb; and (6) significance of the postscripts. The second part in particular is faithfully depicted in the painting since it can easily be visualized. According to the fifth part revealing the motive for the production of the painting, the commissioner Bak Gyeongbin was satisfied with the painting, stating that "it appears impeccable and is just as if the tomb were newly built." The composition of the natural features in a row as if explaining each one lacks painterly beauty, but it does succeed in providing information on the geomantic topography of the gravesite. A fair number of the existing depictions of gravesites are woodblock prints of family gravesites produced after the eighteenth century. Most of these are included in genealogical records and anthologies. According to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century historical records, hanging scrolls of family gravesites served as objects of worship. Bowing in front of these paintings was considered a substitute ritual when descendants could not physically be present to maintain their parents' or other ancestors' tombs. Han Hyo-won (1468-1534) and Jo Sil-gul (1591-1658) commissioned the production of family burial ground paintings and asked distinguished figures of the time to write a preface for the paintings, thus showing off their filial piety. Such examples are considered precedents for Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain. Hermitage of the Recluse Seokjeong in a private collection and Old Villa in Hwagae County at the National Museum of Korea are not paintings of family gravesites. However, they serve as references for seventeenth-century paintings depicting family gravesites in that they are hanging scrolls in the style of the paintings of literary gatherings and they illustrate geomancy. As an object of worship, Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain recalls a portrait. As indicated in the postscripts, the painting made Bak Gyeong-bin "feel like hearing his father's cough and seeing his attitudes and behaviors with my eyes." The fable of Xu Xiaosu, who gazed at the portrait of his father day and night, is reflected in this gravesite painting evoking a deceased parent. It is still unclear why Bak Gyeong-bin commissioned Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain to be produced as a real scenery landscape in the folding screen format rather than a hanging scroll or woodblock print, the conventional formats for a family gravesite paintings. In the nineteenth century, commoners came to produce numerous folding screens for use during the four rites of coming of age, marriage, burial, and ancestral rituals. However, they did not always use the screens in accordance with the nature of these rites. In the Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain, the real scenery landscape appears to have been emphasized more than the image of the gravesite in order to allow the screen to be applied during different rituals or for use to decorate space. The burial mound, which should be the essence of Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain, might have been obscured in order to hide its violation of the prohibition on the construction of tombs on the four mountains around the capital. At the western foot of Inwangsan Mountain, which was illustrated in this painting, the construction of tombs was forbidden. In 1832, a tomb discovered illegally built on the forbidden area was immediately dug up and the related people were severely punished. This indicates that the prohibition was effective until the mid-nineteenth century. The postscripts on the Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain document in detail Bak Gyeong-bin's efforts to obtain the land as a burial site. The help and connivance of villagers were necessary to use the burial site, probably because constructing tombs within the prohibited area was a burden on the family and villagers. Seokpajeong Pavilion by Yi Han-cheol (1808~1880), currently housed at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, is another real scenery landscape in the format of a folding screen that is contemporaneous and comparable with Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain. In 1861 when Seokpajeong Pavilion was created, both Yi Han-cheol and Jo Jung-muk participated in the production of a portrait of King Cheoljong. Thus, it is highly probable that Jo Jung-muk may have observed the painting process of Yi's Seokpajeong Pavilion. A few years later, when Jo Jungmuk was commissioned to produce Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain, his experience with the impressive real scenery landscape of the Seokpajeong Pavilion screen could have been reflected in his work. The difference in the painting style between these two paintings is presumed to be a result of the tastes and purposes of the commissioners. Since Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain contains the multilayered structure of a real scenery landscape and family gravesite, it seems to have been perceived in myriad different ways depending on the viewer's level of knowledge, closeness to the commissioner, or viewing time. In the postscripts to the painting, the name and nickname of the tomb occupant as well as the place of his surname are not recorded. He is simply referred to as "Mister Bak." Biographical information about the commissioner Bak Gyeong-bin is also unavailable. However, given that his family did not enter government service, he is thought to have been a person of low standing who could not become a member of the ruling elite despite financial wherewithal. Moreover, it is hard to perceive Hong Seon-ju, who wrote the postscripts, as a member of the nobility. He might have been a low-level administrative official who belonged to the Gyeongajeon, as documented in the Seungjeongwon ilgi (Daily Records of Royal Secretariat of the Joseon Dynasty). Bak Gyeong-bin is presumed to have moved the tomb of his father to a propitious site and commissioned Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain to stress his filial piety, a conservative value, out of his desire to enter the upper class. However, Ancestral Burial Ground on the Inwangsan Mountain failed to live up to its original purpose and ended up as a contradictory image due to its multiple applications and the concern over the exposure of the violation of the prohibition on the construction of tombs on the prohibited area. Forty-seven years after its production, this screen became a part of the collection at the Royal Yi Household Museum with each panel being separated. This suggests that Bak Gyeong-bin's dream of bringing fortune and raising his family's social status by selecting a propitious gravesite did not come true.