• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.280-289
• /
• 2022

Internal Waters refer to the waters located at the landward side of a baseline and is completely under the sovereignty of a coastal state. However, the right of innocent passage of foreign-flag vessels is recognized in internal waters that are newly incorporated by establishing a straight baseline. Korea has a massive Internal Waters on its south-western coast where the straight baseline is adopted and has a wide Internal Waters that allows innocent passage. A foreign-flag vessel navigating the internal waters must be properly managed according to the interest of the coastal states such as the fishing·safety·security·environment around the Korean coast. Additionally, Territorial Sea comes under the sovereignty of a coastal state and it is a very important sea area for managing the interests of the coastal states. However, several collision accidents involving illegally anchored or drifted foreign-flag vessels have been occurring recently in the Korean Internal Waters and Territorial Sea, and such accidents are a threat to its interests. Thus, this paper analyzes the cases of collision of foreign-flag vessels that anchored or drifted without authorization, and examines domestic·international laws on the passage of foreign-flag vessel through Internal Waters and Territorial Waters. Finally, this paper suggests that unauthorized anchoring of foreign-flag vessels in Korean Internal Waters and Territorial Water violates the requirements for innocent passage and this violation is punishable according to related Acts; a desirable improvement plan for the legal system of passage through Internal Waters and Territorial Waters.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.91-96
• /
• 2006

International law provides for fundamental navigational rights called the right of transit passage in international straits as defined by UNCLOS. However, the Australian government published Marine Notice 8/2006 and the associated Part 54 of Australian Marine Orders which requires ships transiting the Torres Strait to engage the services of a pilot and imposes significant penalties for non-compliance on the basis of the IMO MEPC 133(53) which is just a resolution as a recommendation. This paper aims to study legal aspects in UNCLOS on the pilotage in the Torres Strait following the extension of the Great Barrier Reef PSSA neighbouring Australia.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.43
• /
• pp.29-55
• /
• 2018

Arctic sea ice has been retreating as a result of the global warming. Arctic sea ice extent for April 2018 averaged 13.71 million square kilometers. This figure shows far less sea ice compared to the average extent from 1981 to 2010. Meanwhile, 287 times of maritime transits through the Northwest Passage have been made during the 2017 and the first ship traversed the Northern Sea Route without the assistant of ice-breaker in August 2017. Commercialization of the Arctic Passage means significant economic and strategic advantages by shortening the distance. In this article, 'Arctic Passage' means Northern Sea Route along the Arctic coast of Russia and Northwest Passage crossing Canadian Arctic Ocean. As climate changes, the potential feasibility of the Arctic Passage has been drawing international attention. Since navigation in this area remains hazardous in some aspects, IMO adopted Polar Code to promote safe, secure and sustainable shipping through the Arctic Passage. Futhermore, Russia and Canada regulate foreign vessels over the maritime zones with the authority to unilaterally exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Article 234 of UNCLOS. The dispute over the navigation regime of the arctic passage materialized with Russia proclaimed Dmitrii Laptev and Sannikov Straits as historically belong to U.S.S.R. in the mid 1960s and Canada declared that the waters of the passage are historic internal waters in 1973 for the first time. So as to support their claims, In 1985, Russia and Canada established straight baseline including Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage. The United States has consistently protested that the Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage are straits used for international navigation which are subject to the regime of transit passage. Firstly, it seems that Russia and Canada do not meet the basic requirements for acquiring a historic title. Secondly, since the Law of the Sea had adopted before the establishment of straight baseline over the Russian Arctic Archipelago and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Ships can exercise at least the right of innocent passage. Lastly, Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage have fulfilled the both geographical and functional criteria pertaining to the strait used for international navigation under the international law. Especially, should the arctic passage become commercially viable, it can be expected to accumulate the functional criterion. Russia and Canada regulate the ships navigate in their maritime zones by adopting the higher degree of an environmental standard than generally accepted international rules and standard mainly under the Article 234 of UNCLOS. However, the Article 234 must be interpreted restrictively as this contains constraint on the freedom of navigation. Thus, it is reasonable to consider that the Article 234 is limited only to the EEZ of coastal states. Therefore, ships navigating in the Arctic Passage with the legal status of the territorial sea and the international straits under the law of the sea have the right of innocent passage and transit passage as usual.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.75-111
• /
• 2020

The civilian drone world has evolved in recent years from one dominated by hobbyists to growing involvement by companies seeking to profit from unmanned flight in everything from infrastructure inspections to drone deliveries that are already subject to regulations. Drone flight under the property right relation with the land owner would be deemed legal on the condition that expeditious and innocent passage of drone flight over the land be assured. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) enshrines the concept of innocent passage through a coastal state's territorial sea. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. A vessel in innocent passage may traverse the coastal state's territorial sea continuously and expeditiously, not stopping or anchoring except in force majeure situations. However, the disturbances caused by drone flight may be removed, which is defined as infringement against the constitutional interest of personal rights. For example, aggressive infringement against privacy and personal freedom may be committed by drone more easily than ever before, and than other means. The cost-benefit analysis, however, has been recognjzed as effective criteria regarding the removal of disturbances or injunction decision. Applying that analysis, the civil action against such infringement may not find suitable basis for making a good case. Because the removal of such infringement through civil actions may result in only the deletion of journal article. The injunction of drone flight before taking the information would not be obtainable through civil action, Therefore, more detailed and meticulous regulation and criteria in public law domain may be preferable than civil action, at present time. It may be suitable for legal stability and drone industry to set up the detailed public regulations restricting the free flight of drone capable of acquiring visual information amounting to the infrigement against the right of personal information security.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.45-64
• /
• 1993

The law of territorial sea is a fundamental law by which the width of sovereign domain of a coastal state is determined. The P.R.China'a regime on the territorial sea was established through the Declaration on China's Ttrritorial Sea of 1958 and the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992. And the P.R.China's consistent policy on the territorial sea can be summarized as follows ; \circled1 The adoption of the straight baseline and 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width, \circled2 The foreign merchant vessels can enjoy the right of innocent passage, while requesting for prior permission for the foreign military vessels on the entry into territorial sea. \circled3 The Chiungchow Strait and the Bohai Bay are claimed as the internal waters. \circled4 Enlistment of the whole coastal islands including the Taiwan. 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width can be recognized as lawfull with respect to the 1982 UNLOS Convention. But the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992 contains some problems on the legality viewed in the light of customary international law. Firstly, it can be said that the adoption of simple straight baseline is not reasonable, and it must be investigated closely on the hidden intention of China. Secondly, there involved some possibility of international dispute on making Tung Tao which is 69 nautical miles apart from the mainland of a basepoint and on making the Bohai Bay of a historic bay. And also public notification of all basepoints for the straight baselines is necessary to meet the requirement of customary international law, Thirdly, two military zones established unilaterally in 1950 are illegal with respect to the customary international law, and they must be repealed deservedly. Fourthly, there have a lot of restrictions on the innocent passage even for foreign merchant vessels by the municipal law such as the Maritime Traffic Safety Law. As a conclusion, the P.R.China's territorial sea regime contains some illegal elements such as unilateral expansion of the maritime sovereignty or jurisdiction. In order to meet the general principle of the international law, the P.R.China's territorial sea policy must be modified on the basis of multilateral agreement with the states concerned. And Korea, as a state with opposite, has a definite right to take countermeasure agaist the P.R.China's contiguous zone.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.40
• /
• pp.115-130
• /
• 2016

The security environment surrounding the East Asian seas is rapidly changing due to the naval arms race among coastal states. The arms race is likely to worsen the security dilemma of the countries involved, thus increasing the chances for armed conflicts. It is too early to tell how the contemporary naval arms race in the region will evolve. But, for sure, the level of uncertainty is increasingly becoming high and intense. At the same time, there is emerging a legal warfare or lawfare among the rival countries. In particular, the United States and China have been involved in a serious debate about the nature and scope of the right of innocent passage and freedom of navigation in other countries' maritime zones. In collaboration with its regional allies, the United States has also put normative pressures on China with its excessive claims in the South China Sea. The latest arbitral tribunal case between the Philippines and China illustrates the point. With both arms race and normative competition in play, the future of East Asian maritime security will remain very complex and uncertain.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.179-185
• /
• 2013

UNCLOS recognizes the right of innocent passage in the ocean but grants jurisdiction and governance to the state of the flag the vessel flies. However, by granting the right to determine vessel's nationality to each country in UNCLOS and by practically consenting inconsistency with the ownership and the state of flag has made the keeping of maritime order quite difficult. Especially, acknowledging the exclusive rights of the flag state on criminal jurisdiction hinders the owner state from exercising its rights and exposes the problem of not taking into account the opinion of the affected state party. This study addresses these issues and examines international regulations on vessels and flag states, mainly UNCLOS, and provides case studies on how criminal jurisdiction is determined when accidents occur at sea. Furthermore, it takes a deeper look into the mutual assistance system in criminal matters and proposes some alternatives on how to overcome these issues.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.35-43
• /
• 1991

The fishing vessels operation is a kind of maritime profit-making activities, which are complicatedly integrated by the basic and supplemental fishing activities with navigation. The Fishing Vessels Act of Korea defines the character of fishing vessels and gives a legal status to them, and this Act itself is linked with the allied public laws including the Ships Act of Korea. For this reason, the legal status of fishing vessels as Korean flagged ships by the public law is analogous to the general commercial vessels. And the specific character of ownership of the fishing vessels by the Korean Maritime-Commercial Act as a privated law is analogous to the general commercial vessels, nevertheless the Chapter 4(Carriage of goods) and the Chapter 5(General average) of this Act do not apply to the fishing vessels except the fish carriers. A fishing vessel possesses the legal status as a Korean flagged ship by having it registered and putting it on record under the provision of national law, however the principle of genuine link is an important factor for acquisition of nationality. Especially, the basic rules by the Law of the Sea those are attended with the distant-water fishing vessels operation at the overseas fishing ground are summarized as follows ; Firstly, the rights of navigation and fishing activities on the high seas are fundamentally recognized to all states, but the freedom is restricted according to the international legal order aiming at protection of reasonable interests of other states and conservation of the living resources and marine environment. Secondly, in the EEZ or EFZ the freedom of navigation is recognized, but fishing activities are exclusively ruled by the national law of the coastal state. Thirdly, foreign fishing activities are prohibited but the right of innocent passage is recognized in the territorial sea, while both activities are prohibited in the internal waters of the coastal state.