• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.57-68
• /
• 2014

The Korean Legation in Washington, D.C., is a proof that Emperor Kojong of Chosun Dynasty tried to establish relationship with the U.S. in 1891, that was before the declaration to establish Korean Empire. In that sense, the building is a historic place. The legation building is a symbolic place attesting to the turbulent history at the time of 1890 to 1910, when Korea had to suffer the forced treaty with Japan in 1905 and the annexation into Japan, and then to the 20th century up to the present time, 2014. The legation building can be turned into a space to host well-planned exhibits to show Korea's history and culture to local residents, foreign visitors to Washington, D.C., and overseas Koreans. The followings are the basic principles for the future use of the legation in line with the basic direction. The building's use should not be limited to museum, but should be flexible to accommodate various different practical usage. It is necessary to make the Korean Legation building that can incorporate the characters and the history through modern interpretation of the historicity of the place, the Korean culture, and historical events. The future usage of the Korean Legation building should enhance the value as a cultural heritage by linking the interpretation of the historical events and real life shown through exhibits, performance and people.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.33-51
• /
• 2022

According to the CISG, there are no special regulations for a reasonable period of time among the obligations to notify the contractual suitability of the goods. As a result, many disputes arise in 'notification within a reasonable period' despite being the most important treaty in practice in defining the obligation to notify nonconformities according to the suitability of goods for each case. Regarding the interpretation of Article 39 of the CISG, various judgments and arbitration decisions are being made in each country for a reasonable period to notify that the goods are not suitable for the contract.There are criticisms that these various views are too harsh on the buyer in the buyer's obligation to notify.It is important to create a unified principle because courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of this Convention interpret in various ways the reasonable period of violation of the contract of goods stipulated in the Convention. Since most of the international commodity trading transactions around the world are regulated by the CISG, it is necessary to analyze and interpret cases in which this Convention is applied in court or arbitral tribunal of each country to derive a unified principle.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.107-125
• /
• 2018

This paper aims to elucidate the historical significance and issues about DPRK-Japan relations in terms of the Korean Peninsula-Japan relations. The first issue is the 'Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea', and DPRK-Japan relations during the Cold War. The Relations Order between the Korean Peninsula and Japan, of 1965 ("65 Order), was closely linked with inter-Korean relations. The second issue is a critical re-interpretation of previous studies on the Stockholm agreement. Previous studies have focused on analyzing the question "Why did North Korea and Japan agree to Stockholm?", In other words, what was the intention of North Korea and Japan in Stockholm? This paper adds to raise the question of "How Did the Stockholm can be agreed?", to critically review the analysis performed by the previous studies. Through the analysis of this question, this paper reveals that the relationship between North Korea and Japan is on the qualitative change. And, based on this analysis, this paper argue that the South Korean government should attempt more active engagement and deploy more comprehensive approach to improve the relationship between North Korea and Japan.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2020

The term "accident" in the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, which govern carrier liability in international air transport, is an important criterion for determining carrier liability. However, because there is no explicit definition of the term in the treaty provisions, the term is largely subjected to the judgment and interpretation of the courts. Although there have been numerous changes in purpose and circumstance in the transition from the Warsaw regime to the conclusion of the Montreal Convention, there was no discussion on the concept of "accident" therefore, even after the adoption of the Montreal Convention, there is no doubt that the term is to be interpreted in the same manner as before. On this point, the United States Supreme Court's Air France v. Saks clarified the concept of "accident" and is still cited as an important precedent. Recently, the CJEU, in GN v. ZU, presented a new concept of "accident" introduced in the Montreal Convention: that "reference must be made to the ordinary meaning" in interpreting "accident" and that the term "covers all situations occurring on aboard an aircraft." Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the term does not include the applicability of "hazards typically associated with aviation," which was controversial in previous cases. Such an interpretation can be reasonably seen as the court's expansion of the concept of "accident," with a focus on "protecting consumer interests," a core tenet of both the Montreal convention and the European Union Regulations(EC: No 889/2002). The CJEU's independent interpretation of "accident" is a departure from the Warsaw Convention and the Saks case, with their focus on "carrier protection," and instead focuses on the "passenger protection" standard of the Montreal Convention. Consequently, this expands both the court's discretion and the carrier's risk management liability. Such an interpretation by the CJEU can be said to be in line with the purpose of the Montreal Convention in terms of "passenger protection." However, there are problems to be considered in tandem with an expanded interpretation of "accident." First, there may be controversy concerning "balance" in that it focused on "passenger protection" in relation to the "equitable balance of interests" between air carriers and passengers, which is the basic purpose of the agreement. Second, huge losses are expected as many airlines fly to countries within the European Union. Third, there is now a gap in the interpretation of "accident" in Europe and the United States, which raises a question on the "unity of rules," another basic tenet of the Convention. Fourth, this interpretation of "accident" by the CJEU raises questions regarding its scope of application, as it only refers to the "hazards typically associated with aviation" and "situations occurring aboard an aircraft." In this case, the CJEU newly proposed a novel criterion for the interpretation of "accident" under the Montreal Convention. As this presents food for thought on the interpretation of "accident," it is necessary to pay close attention to any changes in court rulings in the future. In addition, it suggests that active measures be taken for passenger safety by recognizing air carriers' unlimited liability and conducting systematic reforms.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.15-39
• /
• 2016

Over the past couple of decades, we can see the emergence of a new lex mercatoria. It consists of international conventions or treaty, model laws and international principles. And such new lex mercatoria is driven by the international institutions such as UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and ICC. The international convention and international principles in the field of international commercial transaction are considered : UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) and The UNIDROIT Principles(PICC Principles). The former is the statue law for the latter, and the latter sometimes supports the former as an interpretation and supplementation of CISG. So, the purpose of this article is to evaluate and investigate the current status of CISG and PICC Principles in terms of application and interpretation principles. The results are as follows. First, PICC are used for the interpretation and supplementation of international law such as CISG, but CISG is a law, not a rule. Second, CISG and PICC Principles are not often chosen when parties chose the law governing their contract. The parties very often chose a national law ; the number of the parties choosing CISG and PICC Principles as a governing law was very low.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.183-215
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to study of WTO regulations related FTA such as Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT) 1994 and General Agreement on Trade in Service(GATS). In this study, the First introduced FTA rules of WTO in the chapter 2. The WTO agreement includes the "General Agreement on Tariffs an Trade(GATT) 1994". This instrument, known as "GATT 1994", is based on upon the original General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade referred to as "GATT 1947". The Second analyzed the relations between FTA and Article XXIV of GATT 1994 in the chapter 3. The Article XXIV of GATT 1994 is an agreement between the distinctive members for liberalizing trade. The Article XXIV of GATT 1994 is consist of three parts such as customs unions, free-trade area, and interim agreements that WTO is referred to as "Regional Trade Agreement(RTA)". There is a difference between the customs unions and the free-trade area. In the customs unions rules, the members should have the same tarifficatio and the same trade provision against non-members, but in the free-trade are a rules, the member is not necessary to have the same tarifficatio and the same trade provision against non-members. But, the both rules have a liberalization of trade in a common as a revoking tariffs and the government regulations for interfering with trade. In this case, however, the both rules include an inconsistency ele ment under WTO rules such as Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment(MFN) and National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation(NTITR). This study reviewed neither inconsistency nor consistency on the both rules with the RTA of WTO under Article XXIV of GATT 1994. The Third analyzed the relations between FTA and Article V of GATS under WTO in the chapter 4. The GATS is a rule of WTO for the growing importance of trade in services for the growth and development of the world conomy. The GATS is a new rule rather than GATT's rule for concerning goods trade. The Article V of GATS under WTO is a rule that makes based on upon the Article XXIV of GATT. Therefore, If it is to be examined the Article V of GATS, it should be referred to a and an interpretation of the text of the Article XXIV of GATT. However, the Article V of GATS is on the undeveloped stage compare to the Article XXIV of GATT. Because, the statistics of WTO showed that the RTAs under the Article XXIV of GATT have 150 cases completed between nations, but the RTAs under the Article IV of GATS have 10 cases completed between nations. The Forth examined the interpretation of FTA rules under WTO in the chapter 5. Concerning the consistency issue of customs unions and free-trade area under the Article XXIV of GATT, the working parties in customs unions and in free-trade area have been reviewed the consistency is sue which had been not if to GATT. However, the parties finished to get up with one accord the both that are a consistency of argument and an inconsistency of argument with the interpretation of the Article XXIV of GATT. The interpretation of the Article XXIV of GATT has been raised as the issues when EEC by Rome Treaty established in 1957. However, the consistency is sue only agreed 6 working parties out of 69 working parties finished the reviewing of the interpretation up to the end of 1994. Also the consistency issue concerned with the special privilege measure of the customs unions and tree-trade area under the Article XXIV of GATT discussed only 3 cases between working parties up to now and did not accepted as an issue for working parties' report. In conclusion in the chapter 6, this study raised the issues of WTO that are a conference of a new round under WTO and the issues of clarity between FTA rule and WTO regulation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.187-213
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this article is to examine Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements. Most BITs and other investment treaties provide for FET of foreign investments. Today, this concept is the most frequently invoked standard in investment disputes. It is also the standard with the highest practical relevance: a majority of successful claims pursued in international arbitration are based on a violation of the FET standard. The concept of FET is not new but has appeared in international documents for some time. Some of these documents were nonbinding others entered into force as multilateral or bilateral treaties. Considerable debate has surrounded the question of whether the FET standard merely reflects the internationalminimum standard, as contained in customary international law, or offers an autonomous standard that is additional to general international law. As a matter of textual interpretation, it seems implausible that a treaty would refer to a well-known concept like the "minimum standard of treatment in customary international law" by using the expression "fair and equitable treatment." Broad definitions or descriptions are not the only way to gauge the meaning of an elusive concept such as FET. Another method is to identify typical factual situations to which this principle has been applied. An examination of the practice of tribunals demonstrates that several principles can be identified that are embraced by the standard of fair and equitable treatment. Some of the cases discussed clearly speak to the central roles of transparency, stability, and the investor's legitimate expectations in the current understanding of the FET standard. Other contexts in which the standard has been applied concern compliance with contractual obligations, procedural propriety and due process, action in good faith, and freedom from coercion and harassment. In short, meeting the investor's central legitimate concern of legal consistency, stability, and predictability remains a major, but not the only, ingredient of an investment-friendly climate in which the host state in turn can reasonably expect to attract foreign investment.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.150-183
• /
• 1999

Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement concluded in 1965 made a contribution to the stable development of fisheries relationship for both countries until the year of 1980. From the time on thereafter a series of respectable fishery disputes occurred throughout the period of fisheries self-regulation in accordance with alteration of home and abroad conditions. And both countries marched into a cooperation era by enforcement of the new fisheries agreement from the 23 January 1999, because the Fisheries Agreement system of 1965 had many limitations to settle the fundamental fisheries problems. In this paper, the author carried out the legal interpretation, arrangement of historical facts and evaluation of actual results of the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement of 1965. The key contents of the Fisheries Agreement were the establishment of 12-nautical mile exclusive fishery zone and the joint-control fishery zone under the principles of maintenance of MSY for fishery resources, freedom of high seas and mutual cooperation. The legal foundation of the conclusion of the Fisheries Agreement were the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 and the four International Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 1958. During the 33 years, the fisheries power of Korea made a rapid stride, on the other hand that of Japan was almost stagnated. And in the meantime, there were very important development on the international law of the sea, for instant, the settlement of 12-nautical mile territorial sea regime and the establishment of 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone regime. Annual meetings of the Joint Fisheries Committee were not successful to fill the role for conservation of fishery resources. The Fisheries Self-Regulation Agreement concluded in 1980 was also insufficient to accept the new international regime on the law of the sea, for that reason it was terminated on 23 January 1999. But it is true that the Fisheries Agreement of 1965 made a contribution to normalization of fisheries relationship between both countries and fisheries development of Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.41-68
• /
• 2011

This article deals with the current rules of law of air warfare and its surrounding issues on precautionary action by a military aircraft at air-to-air operation in international armed conflict. However there is no separate and independent legal system to regulate warfare in aerospace in the current system of law of war (or law of armed conflict). In other words, law of air warfare does not exist in a form of a separate treaty. Air warfare has been regulated by international customary law and the relevant provisions in different Conventions, including 1949 four Geneva Conventions and two Additional Protocols, which mainly regulate land and naval warfare. And this makes difficult to make clear a legal term or legal tests on an issue concerned with law of air warfare, which concludes from time to time a dispute on interpretation and implementation of law of air warfare between states. Therefore, this article refers various materials (including 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, San Remo Manual, Harvard Manual, and ICAO Manual on Interception of Civilian Aircraft) for the purpose of defining the current and desirable legal test on precautionary action by military aircraft. In addition to the main purpose of this article, this article tried to show a characteristic of developing mechanism of law of air Warfare taking into account interactions between international air law and law of air warfare.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2013

Air transport today is a means of transport that is optimized for exchanges between nations. Around the world, has experienced an increase in operating and the number of airline route expansion that has entered into the international aviation agreements in order to take advantage of the air transport efficient, but the possibility of the occurrence of air transport accidents increased. When compared to the accident of other means of transport, development of air transport accidents, not high, but it leads to catastrophe aviation accident occurs. Air Transport accident many international transportation accident than domestic transportation accident, in the event of an accident, the analysis of the legal responsibility of the shipper or the like is necessary or passenger air carrier. Judgment of the legal order of discipline of air transport accident is a classification of the type of air transport agreement. Depending on the object, air transport agreements are classified into the contract of carriage of aviation of the air passenger transportation contract. For casualties occurs, air passenger transportation accident is a need more discussion of legal discipline for this particular. Korean Commercial Code, it is possible to reflect in accordance with the actual situation of South Korea the contents of the treaty, which is utilized worldwide in international air transport, even on the system, to control land, sea, air transport and welcoming to international standards. However, Korean Commercial Code, the problem of the Montreal Convention has occurred as it is primarily reflecting the Montreal Convention. As a cause of liability for damages, under the Commercial Code of Korea and the contents of the treaty precedent is reflected, the concept of accident is necessary definition of the exact concept for damages of passengers in particular. Cause of personal injury or death of passengers, in the event of an accident to the "working for the elevation" or "aircraft" on, the Montreal Convention is the mother method of Korea Commercial Code, liability for damages of air carrier defines. The Montreal Convention such, continue to be a matter of debate so far in connection with the scope of "working for the lifting of" the concepts defined in the same way from Warsaw Convention "accident". In addition, it is discussed and put to see if you can be included mental damage passenger suffered in air transport in the "personal injury" in the damage of the passenger is in the range of damages. If the operation of aircraft, injury accident, in certain circumstances, compensation for mental damage is possible, in the same way as serious injury, mental damage caused by aviation accidents not be able to live a normal life for the victim it is damage to make. So it is necessary to interpret and what is included in the injury to the body in Korea Commercial Code and related conventions, non-economic damage of passengers, clearly demonstrated from the point of view of prevention of abuse of litigation and reasonable protection of air carrier it must compensate only psychological damage that can be. Since the compensation of delay damages, Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention, Korea Commercial Code, there are provisions of the liability of the air carrier due to the delayed arrival of passenger and baggage, but you do not have a reference to delayed arrival, the concept of delay arrangement is necessary. The strict interpretation of the concept of delayed arrival, because it may interfere with safe operation of the air carrier, within the time agreed to the airport of arrival that is described in the aviation contract of carriage of passenger baggage, or, these agreements I think the absence is to be defined as when it is possible to consider this situation, requests the carrier in good faith is not Indian or arrive within a reasonable time is correct. The loss of passenger, according to the international passenger Conditions of Carriage of Korean Air, in addition to the cases prescribed by law and other treaties, loss of airline contracts, resulting in passengers from a service that Korean Air and air transport in question do damage was is, that the fact that Korean Air does not bear the responsibility as a general rule, that was caused by the negligence or intentional negligence of Korean Air is proof, negligence of passengers of the damage has not been interposed bear responsibility only when it is found. It is a clause in the case of damage that is not mandated by law or treaty, and responsible only if the negligence of the airline side has been demonstrated, but of the term negligence "for" intentional or negligent "Korean Air's Terms" I considered judgment of compatibility is required, and that gross negligence is appropriate. The "Korean Air international passenger Conditions of Carriage", airlines about the damage such as electronic equipment that is included in the checked baggage of passengers does not bear the responsibility, but the loss of baggage, international to arrive or depart the U.S. it is not the case of transportation. Therefore, it is intended to discriminate unfairly passengers of international flights arriving or departure to another country passengers of international flights arriving or departure, the United States, airlines will bear the responsibility for the goods in the same way as the contents of the treaty it should be revised in the direction.