• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2008.05a
• /
• pp.197-204
• /
• 2008

The right of hot pursuit is an exception to the general rule that a ship on the high seas is subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag she flies. The right of hot pursuit is provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This paper discusses the requirements of the right of hot pursuit. The use of force should be avoided during hot pursuit. When force is unavoidable, that is not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.149-156
• /
• 2008

The right of hot pursuit is an exception to the general rule that a ship on the high seas is subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag she flies. The right of hot pursuit is provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This paper discusses the requirements for the right of hot pursuit. The use of force should be avoided during hot pursuit. When force is unavoidable, it should not be used beyond what is reasomable and necessary in the circumstances.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.15-24
• /
• 2006

The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has vi-olated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archi-pelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone recevies the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a vio-lation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the ex-clusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.201-224
• /
• 2017

The main subject of this article focused on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas. For this the legal status of the military aircraft, the freedom of overflight, the right of hot pursuit, the right of visit and Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) were dealt. The 1944 Chicago Convention neither explicitly nor implicitly negated the customary norms affecting the legal status of military aircraft as initially codified within the 1919 Paris Convention. So the status of military aircraft was not redefined with the Chicago Convention and remains, as stated in the 1919 Paris Convention, as a norm of customary international law. The analyses on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas are found as follows; According to the Article 95 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military aircraft in the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. According to the Article 111 (5) of the UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised by military aircraft. According to the Article 110 of the UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. As for Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) it is established and declared unilaterally by the air force of a state for the national security. However, there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention and there are no international standards to recognize or prohibit the establishment of ADIZs. ADIZ is not interpreted as the expansion of territorial airspace.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.18 no.5
• /
• pp.446-454
• /
• 2012

This study discusses effective extraterritorial application of criminal Law outside the territorial sea. The paper focuses on the factual differences between vessels and cars which justify the varying standard. Thus, warrantless searches and safety inspection need to be validated because of the exigent circumstances of the sea. Warrantless searches at sea may also be justified based on border search exception. These theories in U. S. law will be helpful for legislation and law enforcement related to the Korean Coast Guard's mission. The paper also discusses Korean Coast Guard's Act's newly enacted provisions concerning search, arrest and hot pursuit.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.49-58
• /
• 2014

The illegal fishery act committed Chinese fishing vessels have not been stopped and Korea Coast Guard(KCG) has been injured or killed by chinese fishing forces, even though the Korean Government has been trying to control the illegal fishery and repeated violent act committed by Chinese fishing vessels in our Exclusive Economic Zone. Moreover, some problems in relation to the control process of KCG to suppress the illegal foreign fishing vessels has been exposed in spite of extensive efforts of Korean Government. Improper law enforcement of KCG in relation to foreign fishing vessels would cause international dispute between related states, although the control process to the illegal fishing vessels at sea is in a way of due law enforcement process forming a State's power. To this end, this paper examines the problems raised during the control process which is including the visit and inspection of illegal Chinese fishing vessels and law enforcement process exercised by KCG and presents practical solutions through analyzing the related materials, professional's opinion and recent cases.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.69-85
• /
• 2003

The primary objective of this thesis is to study, case by case, the international disputes for fishing rights between fishing nations and costal states never imagined till the introduction of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted in 1982 and came into effect in November 16, 1994, which governs the high seas and EEZ in a new manner. Such a study is to provide help in the understanding on this new marine system and how to deal with. This is addressed by the perspectives of disputes (a) in the high seas between fishing nations having traditionally enjoyed the principle of the freedom of the high seas and costal states, (b) in the EEZ between fishing nations and costal states possessing the exclusive jurisdiction over living marine resources and sovereign rights for determining allowable catch and the surplus in its EEZ. The article can be divided into four main parts. First, both the general principles of the settlement of international disputes, and the nature and procedures described in the UNCLOS are introduced. Second, it gives cases of tuna long-liner, North Pacific trawler and squid jigger occurred in the coastal states EEZ, and analyses the problem in both terms of its background and final judgment. It further describes the possible issues in case it depends on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for its settlement. Third, closely tied to above, important points such as the right of hot pursuit, prompt release of vessel and crew, and the limits of cooperation with costal states inspector on board fishing vessels are considered mostly based on the UNCLOS, Bilateral Agreement and UNIA. Finally, the article concludes as follows ; The need for broad analyses on the nature of international suits and legal system for the settlement, to win the case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or coastal states court, is really acknowledged. However, considering the lack of previous studies about it, it is preferably recommended that governmental efforts for making legal standards to cover the judicial costs, for helping industry out of becoming bankrupt.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.47-52
• /
• 2011

On the high seas, under international law, a ship is subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag she flies. Vessels of any flag are free to navigate the high seas without interference from other states. Thus, there are certain limits of coastal state's exercising law enforcement jurisdiction over a foreign flag vessel on the high seas. However, there are exceptions to exclusive flag state jurisdiction. One of them is the theory of constructive presence. The other is theory of partial execution. Korea Coast Guard's law enforcement authority should be exercised more actively based on those theories supported by the international cases.