• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.5-38
• /
• 2020

This paper investigates how public opinion has affected the United States Senate's votes on arms control treaties. Applying multilevel modeling with post-stratification to national polls, this paper produces estimates of state-level opinion on both the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010 and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1999. Using these estimate, this paper examines the relationship between public opinion and the Senate's votes on the treaties. This paper finds that the influence of public opinion was mostly significant but indirect. These findings indicate that some version of the delegate model of representation is more applicable to foreign policy making in Congress.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.160-196
• /
• 2002

In this thesis. I have first introduced and studied Chubb & Son. Inc. v. Asiana Airlines. 214 F.3d 301 (2nd Cir. 2000). which held that at the time that the dispute in this case arose. there was no treaty relationship between the United States and South Korea under the Original Warsaw convention. the Hague Protocol. or a treaty consisting of those provisions of the Original Convention that were not amended by the Protocol. And I have analyzed U.S. government s position that was expressed in Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae on petition for a writ certiorari to the 2nd Circuit on Chubb & Son case and 2nd Circuit s Fujitsu Limited v. Federal Express Corporation. 247 F.3d 423 (2001) which was held in a related question afterwards but was somewhat inconsistent with Chubb & Son s holding. Furthermore. I also examined U.S. government s measures which have been considered and taken to cope with consequences of Chubb & Son case's ruling. Lastly. I have examined several effects which Chubb & Son s ruling would give our nation s airlines and suggested our government's countermeasures.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.215-236
• /
• 2006

This article focused on the meaning of the 1979 Moon Treaty and its future. Although the Moon Treaty is one of the major 5 space related treaties, it was accepted by only 11 member states which are non-space powers, thus having the least enfluences on the field of space law. And this article analysed the relationship between the 1979 Moon Treay and 1967 Space Treaty which was the first principle treaty, and searched the meaning of the "Common Heritage of Mankind(hereinafter CHM)" stipulated in the Moon treaty in terms of international law. This article also dealt with the present and future problems arising from the Moon Treaty. As far as the 1967 Space Treaty is concerned the main standpoint is that outer space including the moon and the other celestial bodies is res extra commercium, areas not subject to national appropriation like high seas. It proclaims the principle non-appropriation concerning the celestial bodies in outer space. But the concept of CHM stipulated in the Moon Treaty created an entirely new category of territory in international law. This concept basically conveys the idea that the management, exploitation and distribution of natural resources of the area in question are matters to be decided by the international community and are not to be left to the initiative and discretion of individual states or their nationals. Similar provision is found in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention that operates the International Sea-bed Authority created by the concept of CHM. According to the Moon Treaty international regime will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Before the establishment of an international regime we could imagine moratorium upon the expoitation of the natural resources on the celestial bodies. But the drafting history of the Moon Treaty indicates that no moratorium on the exploitation of natural resources was intended prior to the setting up of the international regime. So each State Party could exploit the natural resources bearing in mind that those resouces are CHM. In this respect it would be better for Korea, now not a party to the Moon Treaty, to be a member state in the near future. According to the Moon Treaty the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly the exploitation of the moon shall be given special consideration. The Moon Treaty, which although is criticised by some space law experts represents a solid basis upon which further space exploration can continue, shows the expression of the common collective wisdom of all member States of the United Nations and responds the needs and possibilities of those that have already their technologies into outer space.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this paper is to take a countermeasure of the investment treaty arbitration that Lone Star claimed to the Korean government. In particular, this study suggests procedural measures to be prepared by the Korean government after the arbitration award. The actual remedy in ICSID arbitration is the annulment procedure of arbitration award. Therefore, this study analyzed the measures that the Korean government can prepare based on the annulment grounds: the inadequacy of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the excessive power of the arbitrator, the corruption of the arbitrator, and the serious violation of the rules. First, the Korean government should decide whether to proceed with the annulment procedure after the arbitration award. Second, if they decide to do it, they should review the grounds of annulment. For example, it is possible to analyze whether the relationship between the arbitrator and Lone Star can be properly in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, whether Lone Star is eligible to apply for ICSID arbitration, or whether arbitration tribunal ignores the crucial evidence that can affect the arbitration award. Independently, the Korean government needs to discuss the investment arbitration appeal system in a long-term perspective.

• 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.

• Journal of the military operations research society of Korea
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.43-58
• /
• 2007

With every Yasukuni Shrine visit by a Japanese Prime Minister, one can expect that the Korean government will jump up and down to condemn Japan. The blatant antagonism between the two powerhouses in Asia, lingering around more than sixty years after the end of the colonial period, is unmistakably more than interplay of their colonial history. It is an illumination of a largely unsettled post-colonial diplomacy that was executed in the name of economic advancement. The purpose of this paper is to shed lights on a largely ignored subject matter that unambiguously shaped the peculiar relationship between Korea and Japan.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.195-217
• /
• 2016

The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) endeavors to increase international trade through the creation of a uniform law of international sales. The CISG applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. If a party has more than one place of business, the place of business if that which has the closest relationship to the contract and its performance. Despite the importance of a definition for 'place of business,' the CISG does not provide one. Lack of a definition of 'place of business' may cause problems for parties trying to determine whether the CISG applies to their contract. Also Contracting parties can opt out of the CISG. But the CISG does not state whether the parties must expressly exclude the CISG's application to a transaction or whether they might do so by implication. we need to consider how effectively opt out of the CISG. Under U.S. law, the CISG is considered to be a self-executing treaty. So the CISG's provisions apply directly as substantive sales law to contracts for the international sale of goods. Despite the CISG's political and economic significance to U.S., U.S. Courts have overlooked the terms of the CISG. This article considered how to the CISG was recognized, interpreted and applied by the U.S. Courts in related cases.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.13 no.5
• /
• pp.67-75
• /
• 2013

South Korea suggest that the United States government should delay the date to hand over wartime operational control (OPCON). It is fixed on December 1, 2015. Typically the president's position as head of the executive authority is coming from the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Now we should know the commander-in-chief of the nation's forces and the meaning of OPCON. The relationship between sovereignty and the commander-in-chief of the nation's forces is a little different. This is one of the efforts to enlarge the efficiency of Armed Forces. Of course, operational control is little control of the sovereign personnel, logistics, administration, discipline, organizing, training, etc. It does not control all matters. The current ROK Combined Forces Command itself is made with reference to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO). If we insist our own sovereignty is infringed because of OPCON, that claim is coated in irreparable damage to the national interest.

• 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.

• 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.