• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.127-160
• /
• 2014

The UN COPUOS was established in 1959 as a permanent committee of the UN General Assembly with the aims to promote international cooperation in peaceful uses of outer space, to formulate space-related programmes within the UN, to encourage research and dissemination of information on space, and to study legal problems arising from the outer space activities. Its members have been enlarged from 24 members in 1959 to 76 in 2014. The Legal Subcommittee, which has been established under COPUOS in 1962 to deal with legal problems associated with space activities, through its first three decades of work has set up a framework of international space law: the five treaties and agreements - namely the Outer Space Treaty, Rescue Agreement, Liability Convention, Registration Convention, Moon Agreement - and the five declarations and legal principles. However, some sceptical views on this legal framework has been expressed, concerning the applicability of existing international space law to practical issues and new kinds of emerging space activities. UNISPACE III, which took place in 1999, served as a momentum to revitalize the discussions of the legal issues faced by the international community in outer space activities. The agenda of the Legal Subcommittee is currently structured into three categories: regular items, single issue/items, and items considered under a multi-year workplan. The regular items, which deal with basic legal issues, include definition and delimitation of outer space, status and application of the five UN treaties on outer space, and national legislation relevant to the peaceful exploration and use of outer space. The single issues/items, which are decided upon the preceding year, are discussed only for one year in the plenary unless renewed. They include items related to the use of nuclear power sources in outer space and to the space debris mitigation. The agenda items considered under a multi-year work plan are discussed in working group. Items under this category deal with non-legally binding UN instruments on outer space and international mechanism for cooperation. In recent years, the Subcommittee has made some progress on agenda items related to nuclear power sources, space debris, and international cooperation by means of establishing non-legally binding instruments, or soft law. The Republic of Korea became the member state of COPUOS in 2001, after rotating seats every two years with Cuba and Peru since 1994. Korea's joining of COPUOS seems to be late, in considering that some countries with hardly any space activity, such Chad, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Lebanon, Cameroon, joined COPUOS as early as 1960s and 1970s and contributed to the drafting of the aforementioned treaties, declarations, and legal principles. Given the difficulties to conclude a treaty and un urgency to regulate newly emerging space activities, Legal Subcommittee now focuses its effort on developing soft law such as resolutions and guideline to be adopted by UN General Assembly. In order to have its own practices reflected in the international practices, one of the constituent elements of international customary law, Korea should analyse its technical capability, policy, and law related to outer space activities and participate actively in the formation process of the soft law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.153-194
• /
• 2009

The resources of outer space are for the common exploitation of mankind, and it is a common responsibility of mankind to protect the outer space environment. With the rapid development of space science and technology, and especially with the busy space activities of some major space powers, environmental contamination or space debris is steadily increasing in quantity and has brought grave potential threats and actual damage to the outer space environment and human activities in space. Especially We must mitigate and seek out a solution to remove space debris which poses a threat directly to man's exploitation and use of outer space activities in the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in the Geostationary Orbit (GEO), through international cooperation and agreement in the fields of space science, economics, politics and law, in order to safeguard the life and property of mankind and protect the earth's environment. While the issue of space debris has been the subject of scientific study and discussion for some time now, it has yet to be fully addressed within the context of an international legal framework. During the earlier stages of the space age, which began in the late 1950s, the focus of international lawmakers and diplomats was the establishment of basic rules which sought to define the legal nature of outer space and set out the parameters for space activities and the nature and scope of activities carried out in outer space were quite limited. Consequently, environmental issues and the risks that might arise from the generation of space debris did not receive priority attention within the context of the development international space law. In recent years, however, the world has seen dramatic advances in technology and increases in the type and number of space-related activities which are being carried out. In addition, the number of actors in this field has exploded from two highly developed States to a vast array of different States, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, including private industry. Therefore, the number of artificial objects in the near-Earth space is continually increasing. As has been previously mentioned, COPUOS was the entity that created the existing five treaties, and five sets of legal Principles, which form the core of space law, and COPUOS is clearly the most appropriate entity to oversee the creation of this regulatory body for the outer space environmental problem. This idea has been proposed by various States and also at the ILA Conference in Buenos Aires. The ILA Conference in Buenos Aires produced an extensive proposal for such a regulatory regime, dealing with space debris issues in legal terms This article seeks to discuss the status of international law as it relates to outer space environmental problem and space debris and indicate a course of action which might be taken by the international community to develop a legal framework which can adequately cope with the complexity of issues that have recently been recognized. In Section Ⅱ,Ⅲ and IV of this article discuss the current status of international space law, and the extent to which some of the issues raised by earth and space environment are accounted for within the existing United Nations multilateral treaties. Section V and VI discuss the scope and nature of space debris issues as they emerged from the recent multi-year study carried out by the ILA, Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space ("COPUOS") as a prelude to the matters that will require the attention of international lawmakers in the future. Finally, analyzes the difficulties inherent in the future regulation and control of space debris and the activities to protect the earth's environment. and indicates a possible course of action which could well provide, at the least, a partial solution to this complex challenge.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.181-202
• /
• 2020

The Non-Appropriation Principle was stipulated in the OST and the MA. However the MA, creating CHM in international law for the first time, attempted to further limit the prohibitions to include ownership of resources extracted from celestial bodies, its rejection by the U.S. and most of the international spacefaring community prevented it from serving as a binding international treaty. Individuals or private enterprises intending to perform space exploitation must receive approval from the nation and may not appropriate outer space or celestial bodies. In the course of this space activity, each party will be liable. Articles 6 and 7 of the OST and the Liability Convention of 1972 deal with matters concerning those problems. The CSLCA of 2015 and Luxembourg Space Resources Law of 2017 allows States to provide commercial exploration and use of space resources to their own nationals and to companies operated by other countries within their territory. These laws do not violate Article 2 of the OST. In the case of the CSLCA of 2015, the law clearly states that it cannot claim ownership, sovereignty or jurisdiction over certain celestial bodies. Even if scholars claim that the U.S. CSLCA and Luxembourg Space Resources Law violate the non-appropriation principle of the OST, they cannot prevent these two countries from extracting the space resources on "the first come, first served" basis. The legal status of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies is res extra commercium, like the high seas, where the fishing vessels from each country catch and sell fish without occupying the sea. Major space-faring nations must push for the adoption of an international regulatory committee which will oversee applications and issue permits based on a set of robust, modern, and forward-thinking ideals that are best equipped to govern and protect outer space as individuals, businesses, and nations compete to commercialize space through mining and the extraction of space-based resources. The new Corpus Juris Spatialis on the development of space resources, whether it is a treaty or a soft law such as recommendation and declaration, in the case of the Moon and Mars, will cover a certain amount of area to develop, and the development period by the states should be specified.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.97-121
• /
• 2006

Inter-Korean exchanges using civil aviation has been continuing since the temporary direct air route from Pyongyang to Seoul was opened on June 15th, 2000 for the summit meeting with North Korea. In this paper, I analyze the North Korea Aviation law by focusing on the differences with South Korean Aviation law. While South Korean Aviation law is modeled on the Pandect system, North Korean Aviation law can only be understood by looking at North Korea's socialist ideology. Therefore, North Korean Aviation law has some expressions which can hardly be understood. With respect to the source of aviation law, both South and North Korea are in compliance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Signed at Chicago, on 7 December, 1944). Thus, they established the aviation law based on the standards and recommendations provided by ICAO. For this reason, they have similar legal systems and composition. From this analysis, a few differences are also derived regarding aircraft ownership, airports, airline liability, aircraft accident investigation organization and aviation insurance. It is important to note that this paper has a particular limitation. Not only is the information about North Korean law very limited, but North Korea also does not provide easy access to its national legal codes. This paper describes the legal comparison of South and North Korea by focusing on the formation and framework of North Korean aviation law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.169-197
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to present a reasonable and concrete standard for the Korean aviation insurance compulsory subscription system. Through this, we aim to improve the current revision of laws and regulations, and ultimately create an environment in which the safety and property of the Korean people who use aircraft with appropriate aviation insurance can be secured. In particular, by reviewing the aviation business law and its new laws and regulations enacted in 2017, the legislative improvement direction of aviation insurance will be proposed. In order to maintain the continuous growth of the air transportation industry and to make amicable compensation for the victims, considering the characteristics of the total accident, instantness, and giganticness of air accidents in which a lot of people and property are lost in the event of an accident, adequate insurance coverage is essential. In this respect, the compulsory insurance to amend the principle of freedom of contract, which is the great principle of the modern judicial system, will be persuasive. However, in comparison with foreign legislation, the legal provisions on Korea's obligation to comply with aviation insurance need to be revised around the following issues: First, it is reasonable to enforce the regulation of the mandatory aviation insurance by legislation from the Congress not by administrative regulations. Because it will force the monetary obligations of the individual such as common air carriers. Second, our law regulations respond to various kinds of air damages by using the phrase "limit of liability stipulated in international conventions". However, as we have seen in the text, the range of compensation are various according to the use of legal instruments in international conventions such as the Montreal Convention, which governs the compensation of passengers for damages to passengers today. Third, in countries with narrow territories, such as Korea, there are big differences in flying time and insurable risk between domestic and international transportation. Therefore, it is necessary to divide domestic transportation and international transportation even in the obligation to join the insurance. This dual discipline has the advantage for rookies in air carrier market who mainly start their business from domestic service. Fourth, according to Korean law, the regulations of automobile loss insurance is applicable to the aviation mandatory insurance of unmanned aerial vehicle accident which is lack of persuasion. In the future, it will be appropriate to discipline insurance for unmanned aerial vehicles with unlimited potential for development from a long-term perspective.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.53-75
• /
• 1993

This article is concerned with the comment on "Some New Problems of International Aviation Security-Considerations Forcused on its Legal Aspects". Ever since 1970, in addition to the problem of failure to accept the Tokyo, Hague and Montreal Conventions, there has been also the problem of parties to them, failing to comply with their obligations under the respective treaties, in the form especially of nominal penalties or the lack of any effort to prosecute after blank refusals to extradite. There have also been cases of prolonged detention of aircraft, passengers and hostages. In this regard, all three conventions contain identical clauses which submit disputes between two or more contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of the respective conventions to arbitration or failing agreement on the organization of the arbitration, to the International Court of Justice. To the extent to which contracting States have not contracted out of this undertaking, as I fear they are expressly allowed to do, this promision can be used by contracting States to ensure compliance. But to date, this avenue does not appear to have been used. From this point of view, it may be worth mentioning that there appears to be an alarming trend towards the view that the defeat of terrorism is such an overriding imperative that all means of doing so become, in international law, automatically lawful. In addition, in as far as aviation security is concerned, as in fact it has long been suggested, what is required is the "application of the strictest security measures by all concerned."In this regard, mention should be made of Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention on Security-Safeguarding International Civil Aviation against Acts of Unlawful Intereference. ICAO has, moreover, compiled, for restricted distribution, a Security Manual for Safeguarding Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference, which is highly useful. In this regard, it may well be argued that, unless States members of ICAO notify the ICAO Council of their inability to comply with opecific standards in Annex 17 or any of the related Annexes in accordance with Article 38 of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, their failure to do so can involve State responsibility and, if damage were to insure, their liability. The same applies to breaches of any other treaty obligation. I hope to demonstrate that although modes of international violence may change, their underlying characteristics remain broadly similar, necessitating not simply the adoption of an adequate body of domestic legislation, firm in its content and fairly administered, but also an international network of communication, of cooperation and of coordination of policies. Afurther legal instrument is now being developed by the Legal Committee of ICAO with respect to unlawful acts at International airports. These instruments, however, are not very effective, because of the absence of universal acceptance and the deficiency I have already pointed out. Therefore, States, airports and international airlines have to concentrate on prevention. If the development of policies is important at the international level, it is equally important in the domestic setting. For example, the recent experiences of France have prompted many changes in the State's legislation and in its policies towards terrorism, with higher penalties for terrorist offences and incentives which encourage accused terrorists to pass informations to the authorities. And our government has to tighten furthermore security measures. Particularly, in the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescence to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. The general opinion is that the legal oystem could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the sovereign rights of states, and the human rights of the individuals. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co - ordinated measures.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.225-266
• /
• 2018

In 2017, 1,252 cases of damages relief related to air passenger transport service were received by the Korea Consumer Agency, a 0.8% drop from 1,262 cases in 2016, the first decline since 2013. In 2017, 444 cases (35.4%) out of received cases of damages relief in the field of air passenger service received by the Korea Consumer Agency were agreed on, and out of cases that were not agreed on, the most number of 588 cases (47.0%) were concluded due to information provision and counseling, and 186 cases (14.9%) were applied to the mediation of the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee. Major legislations that contain regulations for the damages relief and disputes resolution of air service consumers include the Aviation Business Act and the Consumer Fundamental Act, etc. The Aviation Business Act provides the establishment and implementation of damage relief procedure and handling plan, and the receiving and handling of request of damage relief by air transport businessman, and the notice of protection standard for air traffic users. The Consumer Fundamental Act provides the establishment and management of the consumer counseling organization, the damage relief by the Korea Consumer Agency, the consumer dispute mediation, and the enactment of the criteria for resolving consumer disputes. The procedures for damages relief of air service consumers include the receiving and handling of damages relief by air transport businessman, the counseling, and receiving and handling of damages relief by the Consumer Counseling Center, the advice of mutual agreement by the Korea Consumer Agency, and the dispute mediation system by the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee. The current system of damage relief and dispute mediation for air service consumer have the problem in the exemption from obligation of establishment and implementation of damage relief plan by air transport businessman under the Aviation Business Act, the problem in the exemption from liability in case of nonfulfillment and delay of transport by aviation businessman under the criteria for resolving consumer disputes in the aviation sector, and the uppermost limit in procedure progress and completion of consumer dispute mediation under the Consumer Fundamental Act. Therefore, the improvement measurements of the relevant system for proper damage relief and smooth dispute mediation for air service consumer are to be suggested as follows: First is the maintenance of the relevant laws for damage relief of air service consumer. The exemption regulation from obligation of establishment and implementation of damage relief plan by air transport businessman under the Aviation Business Act shall be revised. To enhance the structualization and expertise of the relevant regulation for protection and damage relief of air service consumer, it will be necessary to prepare the separate legislation similar to the US Federal Regulation 14 CFR and EU Regulation EC Regulation 261/2004. Second is the improvement of criteria for resolving air service consumer disputes. For this, it will be necessary to investigate whether the cause of occurrence of exemption reason was force majeure, and distinguish the exemption from liability in case of nonfulfillment and delay of transport by aviation businessman under the criteria for resolving consumer disputes in the aviation sector, and revise the same as exemption reasons regulated under the air transport chapter of the Commercial Act and Montreal Convention 1999, and unify the compensation criteria for the nonfulfillment of transport that the substitute flight was provided and the delay of transport. Third is the reinforcement of information provision for damage relief of air service consumer. Aviation-related government agencies and concerned agencies should cooperate with airlines and airports to provide rapidly and clearly diverse information to the air traffic users, including laws and policies for damages relief of air service consumers. Fourth is the supplement to the effectiveness, etc. of consumer dispute mediation. If there is no sign of acceptance for dispute mediation, it is not fair to regard it as acceptance, therefore it will be necessary to add objection system. And if a dispute resolution is requested to another dispute settlement agency in addition to the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee, it is excluded from the damage relief package, but it should be allowed for the party to choose a mediation agency. It will be necessary to devise the institutional measures to increase the completion rate of mediation so that the consumer dispute can be resolved efficiently through the mediation. Fifth is the introduction of the air service consumer arbitration system. A measure to supplement the limitations of the consumer dispute mediation system is to introduce the consumer arbitration system, but there are two measurements which are the introduction of the consumer arbitration under the Consumer Fundamental Act and the introduction of the consumer arbitration under the Arbitration Act. The latter measurement is considered to be appropriate. In conclusion, as a policy task, the government should prepare laws and system to enhance the prevention and relief of damages and protection of the rights and interests of air service consumers, and establish and implement the consumer-centric policy for the advancement of air service.