• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2018.11a
• /
• pp.225-227
• /
• 2018

This research paper examines the history and present of 'temporary passengers' prescribed in Paragraph 9 of Article 5 of the Ships Safety Act Enforcement Regulations and suggests improvement plans referring to the examples of legislation of other countries. In 2015, Ministry of Ocean and Fisheries made authoritative interpretation that Paragraph 9 of Article 5 of the Ships Safety Act Enforcement Regulations, which prescribes special cargo drivers such as agricultural, marine or livestock vehicles as temporary passengers, is applied only to passenger ships and not to cargo ships such including Ro-Ro cargo ships. As the authoritative interpretation of the Ministry does not agree with not only the traditional interpretational methodology but also the interpretational methodology that are commonly used today, it lacks logical basis and looks unpersuasive. Paragraph 9 of Article 5 of the Ships Safety Act Enforcement Regulations can be applied not only on passenger ships but also on cargo ships. Also in case of Ro-Ro cargo ships, it is logically contradictory and against fairness not to acknowledge special cargo vehicle drivers as temporary passengers when there is no problem with safe navigation and safety of passengers on board even when the sailor, the sailor's family and the ship owner may be acknowledged as temporary passengers. To avoid unnecessary disputes and lawsuits, improvement plans using theory of legislation through statutory reform is more desirable. Therefore, the P aragraph should be amended to "Supercargo who deals with cargo that requires special care due to the characteristics of the cargo, such as transportation vehicles for agricultural products, marine products, livestock, explosives or flammable materials (drivers can serve as supercargos)" to reflect the distinct characteristics of cargo and ship navigation in Korea including the current distribution system, while setting an objective standard based on common sense of ordinary people and not on arbitrary interpretation.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Information and Commucation Sciences Conference
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.1117-1124
• /
• 2005

The radio field environment is very different according to frequency band, therefore communication condition is equation that VHF is passed by direct radiation and HF is via reflect radiation in ionosphere. Load a ship according to the enforcement regulations of the ships safety act have specificated the radio equipment that should be operating. This paper have analysed by the simulation program about radio field environment for research the communications condition, which is VHF & HF band in domestic coastal. We have Predicted to radio field environment and communications condition using the data of analysis and domestic radio regulation regard to coast navigational ship. Therefore have proposed the necessity for rationally plan on improvement the radio regulation and network cooperation of VHF radio station.

• 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.