• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.173-198
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability for the space damage and the settlement of the dispute with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of Korea. The United Nations has adopted five treaties relating to the space activity as follows: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Registration Convention of 1974, and the Moon Treaty of 1979. All five treaties have come into force. Korea has ratified above four treaties except the Moon Treaty. Korea has enacted three national legislations relating to space development as follows: Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, the national tort liability for damage by space launching object, the national measures for dispute prevention and international consultation in the exploration and use of outer space, the joint resolution of practical questions by international inter-governmental organizations in the exploration and use of outer space. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the problem in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the problem in respect of the efficiency of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. The 1998 Final Draft Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Related to Space Activities of 1998 by ILA regulates the binding procedure and non-binding settlement procedure for the disputes in respect of space activity. The non-binding procedure regulates the negotiation or the peaceful means and compromise for dispute settlement. The binding procedure regulates the choice of a means among the following means: International Space Law Court if it will be established, International Court of Justice, and Arbitration Court. The above final Draft Convention by ILA will be a model for the innovative development in respect of the peaceful settlement of disputes with reference to space activity and will be useful for establishing the frame of practicable dispute settlement. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and dispute settlement, and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.519-547
• /
• 2004

This paper analyze problems about scope of specific trade obligations(STOs), principle of dispute settlement procedure, and non-parties in context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety(POB), which based on sub-paragraph 31(i) of DDA WTO Ministrial Declaration. The implications based on result of this study are as follows. First, to accept the wider scope of STOs under POB in Korea, importing country, won't be harmful to LMOs and Bioindustry. Instead, it will ensure a high level of biosafety concerning the import of LMOs. Exporters can take different kinds of trade measures to countervail adverse effect on the export of LMOs in this case. Therefore importer will endure the aftereffect. However, if korea were in exporter's place, to accept the wider scope STOs under POB will not have a good influence on the export of LMOs. Korea, therefore, should devise scheme for responding to debate about the STOs in MEAs, which have to be based on cost-benefit analysis and scenarios taking into account of speed and level in biotechology progress, status and trend of LMOs R&D and production, and condition of other industries. Second, it is not easy to agree with applying to what's rule between the POB and WTO for settlement dispute. Because there is the incompatibility between the POB characterized according to social rationality and WTO's rules for safety and environmental protection characterized according to scientific rationality. This issue have to be discussed for long period due to gap like that. Accordingly Korea, one of major LMOs importing countries, should suggest continuously that the effort is needed to ensure an adequate level of protection in transboundary movements of LMOs and scientific, environmental and socio-economic study. Third, in case of dispute between party and non-party of the POB, the duties under the WTO of non-party of the POB(if WTO member country) is valid. The country, therefore, will try to settle dispute based on WTO's rules. However, international society have to ensure for sound and safe use of LMOs in the field of transboundary movements. Accordingly Korea should devise scheme for preventing the possibility of dispute between party and non-party of the POB(if WTO member country), which is supported by policy options under the POB.

• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.493-518
• /
• 2005

It has been taken for 10 years since Climate Change Convention could it be made. And Kyoto Protocol will come into force as an international law as from 16. Feb 2005. As based on it, Annex I countries will implement their mitigation projects on GHG reductions and press developing countries on GHG reduction target. Korea has not duty target on it yet. But it will be held a COP(Conference of Party) on negotiation for reduction target of second commitment period. If Korea has a real duty, Industry sector should reduce GHG emissions. Then Market mechanism will be need to introduce for this. This study started having a question "Is it possible to introduce emissions trading in Korea?". To solve the problem, this study analysed GHG emissions, marginal abatement cost, market price with 11 companies of industry (about 36% of Korea emissions). minus target is impossible to implement reduction target ver base year (2002). And emissions trading scheme also can't make the market without additional policy and measures. This study suggest that it is need to import credits and give a subsidy of government to encourage it. The imported credit can reduce the demand curve within the marginal abatement cost curves. But the effectiveness of credit is not the same as continually growth. As a result, Allowing 40% credit into emissions trading market is the best to reduce costs. However, a subsidy is the little bit difference. A subsidy make marginal abatement cost curves down for itself. Giving 30% for subsidy, it is the best. Considering both of importing credits and subsidy, it is the best effects in the reducing cost for company. especially 30% is the best effects respectively. This Study show that government wants to consider designing emissions trading, encourage participants competitiveness, and encourage the early action, government has to allow credit trading and give a subsidy to participants.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.15 no.6_1
• /
• pp.79-92
• /
• 2015

It is required to expand area of inter-Korean economic cooperation, being limited to non-military field, to military field and then, to positively promote arms control in order to establish foundation for peaceful reunification in Korean peninsula. Reasons why arms control has not been promoted between South and North Korea in the meantime were such original factors as follows; (1) limit of confidence building between the South and the North, (2) functional limit of arms control itself, (3) institutional structural limit between the South and the North, (4) environmental limit at home and abroad. It is necessary to get out from existing frame and to seek a new paradigm in order to overcome above factors and to realize arms control between the South and the North. First, it is required to have prior political dialog at the South-North high-level talks in order to promote arms control and to exercise 'strategic flexibility' during negotiation and promotion process. For this, 'flexible reciprocity' has to be adopted in compliance with situation and conditions. Second, it is necessary to get out from existing principle of 'confidence building in advance and arms reduction later' but to seek the 'simultaneous driving principle of confidence building and arms reduction' as an eclectic approach. Namely, based on reasonable sufficiency, it is required to promote military confidence building and limited arms reduction in parallel, which is a lower level of arms control. Third, as an advisory body of Prime Minister's Office, it is necessary to install an organization exclusively responsible for arms control and to positively handle arms control issue from the standpoint of national policy strategy. If the South-North high-level talks take place, it is necessary to organize and operate 'South-North Joint Arms Control Promotion Board (tentative name)'. Fourth, it is required to exercise more active diplomatic competence in order to create national consensus on necessity of arms control for peaceful reunification and to form more favorable international environment. Especially, it is necessary to think about how to solve nuclear issue of North Korea together in collaboration with international society and how to maintain balance between ROK-US alliance and Sino-Korean cooperation relations.

• Korea and Global Affairs
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.69-92
• /
• 2018

North Korea conducted a total of six nuclear tests from the 1st test of 2006 to September, 2017. North Korea developed an armed forces security strategy at the level of regime protection and defense to respond to U.S. hostile policy. However, it is certain that strategic goals of North Korea's nuclear test were to overcome a crisis in North Korea's regime through US-North Korea negotiation and complete nuclear armed forces for socialist unification on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea's continuous nuclear test is a direct factor in threatening peace on the Korean Peninsula and an indirect factor in security dynamics of Northeast Asia. The U.N. Security Council has enforced sanctions against North Korea through six resolutions against North Korea's reckless nuclear test for the past 10 years. However, Kim Jong-Un's regime is in a position to stick to simultaneous pursuit of nuclear and economic development in spite of anti-North sanction of international society including U.N. and U.S.A. It is understood that North Korea was stimulated to conduct intense nuclear test as U.N. and U.S.A's anti-North sanction was not effective on North Korea. Full-scale and local wars are expected as military options, one of anti-North sanctions of the Trump administration. The Trump administration has attempted diplomatic pressure strategy as a secondary boycott unlike previous administrations. Nevertheless, North Korea has stood against U.N. and U.S.A's anti-North sanction with brinkmanship tactics, announcing full-scale military confrontation against U.S. It is judged that North Korea will pursue simultaneous nuclear weapons and economic development in terms of regime survival. North Korea will have less strategic choices in that its regime may collapse because of realistic national strategy between U.S.A. and China.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.24 no.6
• /
• pp.12-23
• /
• 2023

The goal of international development projects is to assist sustainable development in recipient countries through foreign aid from donor countries. However, despite the need for both countries to negotiate and work together from the initial stages to maintain sustainability after the project, clear guidelines or standards have not been established. Additionally, despite the need for donor countries, which are relatively advanced, to understand the situation of recipient countries, many projects are donor-centric and fail to prioritize the value of sustainability. Therefore, this study extracted economic, social, and environmental risks that threaten sustainability through literature review and proposed a sustainability framework based on these criteria. To validate framework, actual international development cases conducted by advanced donor countries such as Australia, the United States, and Japan, in collaboration with South Korea, were analyzed by applying content analysis with the reports, which covers the overall contents from the planning stage to the operation stage. Analysis of sustainability perspectives focused on economy, society and the environment, advanced donor countries emphasized (1) the importance of pre-assessment, (2) the need for coordination with the local population and communities despite the existence of donor-specific values, and (3) addressing economic considerations such as pre-operational and maintenance costs, social communication with the local population, and environmental considerations starting from the initial stages of construction regarding the treatment of pollutants as values to be improved. Compared to other advanced donor countries, the Republic of Korea should also focus on consultation with local residents to achieve social integration, and improve sustainability by deployment the managers in local sites for better negotiation.The proposed framework in this study will serve as a tool to enhance communication among the countries and the locals, with the expectation of increasing project efficiency and sustainability.