• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2010

In 2006, the UNCITRAL Working Group II started a new project on the revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules of 1976. Ever since that time, 9 sessions of the Working Group II were devoted to the discussions on such topic. The Arbitration Rules has been acknowledged to be used for settling international disputes involving various disputing parties. In recent years, many treaty-based arbitrations have been subject to the Arbitration Rules. This article focuses on the discussions made in the 52nd session of the Working Group II where the third reading of the revised draft of the Arbitration Rules was completed except for a few provisions. Among the draft rules, the delegations were hardly able to reach an agreement with regard to Articles 2(2), 34(2), 41(3), (4), and (6). It is expected that those provisions would be agreed in the coming 43rd plenary session of the UNCITRAL. The use of the Arbitration Rules is dependent on the agreement by the disputing parties. It is not like the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration which was adopted in Korean legal system in 1999. However, the proper functioning of arbitration rules is essential for the efficient and successful operation of the arbitration system in a particular country. That is the reason why we should keep close attention on the discussions of the UNCITRAL with regard to the revision of the Arbitration Rules.

• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.129-135
• /
• 2014

Tobacco use is the most important preventable risk factor for premature death. The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the first international public health treaty, came into force in 2005. This paper reviews the present status of tobacco control policies in Korea according to the WHO FCTC recommendations. In Korea, cigarette use is high among adult males (48.2% in 2010), and cigarette prices are the lowest among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with no tax increases since 2004. Smoke-free policies have shown incremental progress since 1995, but smoking is still permitted in many indoor public places. More than 30% of non-smoking adults and adolescents are exposed to second-hand smoke. Public education on the harmful effects of tobacco is currently insufficient and the current policies have not been adequately evaluated. There is no comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion, or sponsorship in Korea. Cigarette packages have text health warnings on only 30% of the main packaging area, and misleading terms such as "mild" and "light" are permitted. There are nationwide smoking cessation clinics and a Quitline service, but cessation services are not covered by public insurance schemes and there are no national treatment guidelines. The sale of tobacco to minors is prohibited by law, but is poorly enforced. The socioeconomic inequality of smoking prevalence has widened, although the government considers inequality reduction to be a national goal. The tobacco control policies in Korea have faltered recently and priority should be given to the development of comprehensive tobacco control policies.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.43-53
• /
• 2007

Recently, controversy over intellectual property rights for protecting genetic resources and traditional knowledge has been emerging. Very active debates and global discussions are being carried out in various international organizations for possible approaches to be taken for these properties, and for the fair and equal sharing of the benefits from these intellectual properties. There is a need to evaluate adopting a sui generis system which is being pushed by developing nations, or adopting a policy which will guaranteee benefit sharing such as sharing royalties from marketing final products, technical transfers, capacity building, and participating in research activities. Also, it is very important to examine the legal issues concerning genetic resources based on Convention on Biological Diversity for the fair and equal sharing of the benefits with developing nations, at the same time assuring developed nations of access to genetic resources.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Information and Commucation Sciences Conference
• /
• 2001.10a
• /
• pp.295-299
• /
• 2001

1912 April 14th tietanik is in favor disaster at marine accident to do and the world-wide various nations, to be to a marine, after providing the treaty for an immediacy with international agreement there are by all vessels and the radio communication equipment for immediacy navigation they establish. Also by a vessel immediacy law 4th favor regulation even from our country in order to establish a radio communication equipment. But it is a GMDSS and it follows in introduction of new communication system and the region change is brought about in vessel communication system and the many problem point occurs. Against the problem point of the our country marine communication which it follows hereupon it researches and it does to sleep.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.211-234
• /
• 2009

North Korea conducted the launcher test, which, as North Korea claimed, belonged to the sovereign rights for the purpose of peaceful utilization and exploration of the outer space. The launching was allegedly done for the sole purpose of putting the satellite into earth orbit, while international community stressed the fact that the orbiting of satellite was not confirmed and that the technology used was not distinct from the purpose of building intercontinental ballistic missile. UN Security Council adopted the resolutions which took the effect that the launching was deemed as the missile launching, not the mere launcher test. North Korea declared the moratorium of suspending its test activity. Controversial issues have been raised regarding whether the launcher itself has the legal status of enjoying the freedom of space flight based upon the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The resolutions, however, has put forward a binding instrument forbidding the launching. UN Security Council resolutions, however, should be read not as defining the missile test illegal, in that the language of resolutions, such as 'demand', should be considered as not formulating a sort of obligatory act or inact. On the other hand, the resolutions should be read as having binding force with respect to any activity relating to the weapons of mass destruction. The resolution 1718 is written in more specific language such as 'decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching'. Therefore, the lauching activity of the North Korea is banned by the UN Security Council resolution. It should be noted that the resolution does not include any specific provisions defining the space of activity of the North Korea as illegal. But, the legal effect of the moratorium is not denied as to its launching itself, which is corresponding to the missile test clearisibanned in accordance with the resolutions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.183-221
• /
• 2013

While in the early stages of space activities only a few states engaged in the use of outer space, as is well known, commercial space activities have grown dramatically in recent years. Both states, state institutions, and international governmental organizations as well as many private enterprises are engaged in such commercial use of outer space by now. This development is not reflected in the present state of space law. The existing international instruments of space law were developed and finalized before this development and thus only provide very few and sometimes unfitting provisions for the commercial use of outer space and particularly the use by private enterprises. Law formulated in an era when the word "privatization" had not even been coined cannot contain potential problems caused by the increasing commercialization of outer space. For the promotion and further development of such commercial use of outer space it is necessary to clarify and establish the legal framework for such use, because participants will need this information for their future investments in this field. The purpose of this paper is to research and make an analysis of the contents and international regulation of international space commerce, which is rapidly proliferating and to review the process of improvement on national legislations relating to the commercialization of outer space in a few main space advanced countries to make the sustainable progress of commercial space activities project in international society. The legal implications of matters such as international commercial launch services, the liability aspects of such services, intellectual property rights, insurance, product liability insurance and materials processing could one day will be subject to regulated by international space law as well as domestic law. In fact, the question of commercialization is linked to the question of sharing benefits of space activities, and this currently is an agenda item in the Legal Subcommittee of UN COPUOS. Most of developed countries have enacted the national legislation for commercial space activities relating to the development of our space as follows : The National Aeronautic and Space Act of 1958 and the Commercial Space Act of 1998 in the United States, Outer Space Act of 1986 in England, Establishment Act of National Space Center of 1961 in France, Canadian Space Agency Act of 1990 in Canada, Space Basic Act of 2008 in Japan, and Law on Space Activity of 1993 in Russia. Becides there are currently three national legislations relating to space development and commercial space activities in Korea as follows : Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. Commercial space great promise for the utilization and expansion of human outer space activities but aspring commercial actors must recognize that foreign policy, as well as obligations to the international community as a whole, ensure that commercial space activities will not operate in a legal and regulatory vacuum. As commercial space matures the law and accompanying regulation will most certainly evolve and choose to become participants in the inevitable evolution of law and regulation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.55-95
• /
• 2010

The meaning and application of 'lesion corporelle' in the context of a variety of mental or psychic injuries is less clear, while there is very little disagreement about its literal translation. U.S. Court decisions since Floyd allow recovery for a range of claims involving emotional injury under Article 17; in some cases there is no recovery, while in others there is full recovery, depending on the allegations and the nexus between the alleged injury and any related or accompanying physical injury. Courts are in agreement that pure emotional injury is not compensable under the Convention. Most courts agree that emotional injury is not compensable in those cases where it has resulted only in physical manifestations such as weight loss or sleeplessness. At the same time, most courts generally agree that emotional injury is compensable if it proximately flows from a physical injury. The issue as to whether the courts would associate PTSD with bodily injury as envisioned in the present Warsaw structure or even the new regime reflected in the Convention proposed by ICAO would largely depend on the extent to which courts would be ready to embrace the compelling scientific findings with regard to mental distress and its application within the term 'bodily injury'. Taken together, these points when the current under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, 'physical injury' notion of 'mental injury' is to be extended. Of course, the current terms of the Warsaw Convention have been maintaining a precedent for many countries appear to have a statue of the original purpose of the treaty does not contribute to the diffusion. Therefore, in future treaties 'bodily injury', the term 'injury', the term 'personal injury' or 'health undermined' the term should be replaced or revised.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.109-133
• /
• 2007

The legal labyrinth through which we have just walked is one in which even a highly proficient lawyer could easily become lost. Warsaw Convention's original objective of uniformity of private international aviation liability law has been eroded as the world community ha attempted again to address perceived problems. Efforts to create simplicity and certainty of recovery actually may have created less of both. In any particular case, the issue of which international convention, intercarrier agreement or national law to apply will likely be inconsistent with other decisions. The law has evolved faster for some nations, and slower for others. Under the Warsaw Convention of 1929, strict liability is imposed on the air carrier for damage, loss, or destruction of cargo, luggage, or goods sustained either: (1) during carriage in air, which is comprised of the period during which cargo is 'in charge of the carrier (a) within an aerodrome, (b) on board the aircraft, or (c) in any place if the aircraft lands outside an aerodrome; or (2) as a result of delay. By 2007, 151 nations had ratified the original Warsaw Convention, 136 nations had ratified the Hague Protocol, 84 had ratified the Guadalajara Protocol, and 53 nations had ratified Montreal Protocol No.4, all of which have entered into force. In November 2003, the Montreal Convention of 1999 entered into force. Several airlines have embraced the Montreal Agreement or the IATA Intercarrier Agreements. Only seven nations had ratified the moribund Guatemala City Protocol. Meanwhile, the highly influential U.S. Second Circuit has rendered an opinion that no treaty on the subject was in force at all unless both affected nations had ratified the identical convention, leaving some cases to fall between the cracks into the arena of common law. Moreover, in the United States, a surface transportation movement prior or subsequent to the air movement may, depending upon the facts, be subject to Warsaw, or to common law. At present, International private air law regime can be described as a "situation of utter chaos" in which "even legal advisers and judges are confused." The net result of this barnacle-like layering of international and domestic rules, standards, agreements, and criteria in the elimination of legal simplicity and the substitution in its stead of complexity and commercial uncertainty, which manifestly can not inure to the efficient and economical flow of world trade. All this makes a strong case for universal ratification of the Montreal Convention, which will supersede the Warsaw Convention and its various reformulations. Now that the Montreal Convention has entered into force, the insurance community may press the airlines to embrace it, which in turn may encourage the world's governments to ratify it. Under the Montreal Convention, the common law defence is available to the carrier even when it was not the sole cause of the loss or damage, again making way for the application of comparative fault principle. Hopefully, the recent entry into force of the Montreal Convention of 1999 will re-establish the international legal uniformity the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought to achieve, though far a transitional period at least, the courts of different nations will be applying different legal regimes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.109-131
• /
• 2010

Investment Agreement is to be a part of FTA, as negotiating together both trade and investment. For example, it has a separate chapter about investment in KORUS FTA contract and is more detailed and inclusive than BIT contents which are traditional investment provisions. It is called to the investment norm of FT A. The investment agreement lures a foreign investment by providing the environment which is stable to the foreign investors. Hence, it plans in goal for the economic development of the home country. In international investment, the arbitration award cases are coming out to be divided into two parts applying MFN provisions in investor protective principles and dispute resolution process; the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. In the case of RosInvest Co UK Ltd v. the Russian Federation awarded in 2007, the arbitration tribunal interprets that the application scope of MFN provisions contain the more lucrative dispute provision than other BITs without limitations in entity right of the investor. This judgment is the same view as arbitration tribunal position of Maffezini case. The arbitration tribunal of Plama case has kept out an assertion magnifying the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction. That is, for applying more inclusive investor-nation resolution method from different treaty, tribunal mentioned that MFN provision had to see clearly a point of applying the investor-nation dispute resolution method. Dispute resolution process providing inclusive MFN provision has both the tendency of broad interpretation and the tendency of limited interpretation. It needs ceaselessly to do the monitoring about cases of arbitration award. In conclusion, the point where MFN provisions are applied conclusively is recognized, but it is still controversial whether or not to magnify the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal applying MFN provisions. Therefore, it does not exist clear principle in the theory or in the award eases about the application scope for entity protection provision of MFN. Hence, The Korean government of Korea and local autonomous entities needs to keep their eyes on the trend of the international arbitration award cases in relation to the investment dispute for the future. Also, Korean government or local self-governing group must consider MFN provisions when they make a contract of international investment treaty such as writing concretely the application of MFN provisions from KORUS FTA.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• pp.57-84
• /
• 2013

North Korea's continuous threats and provocative behaviors have aggravated tension on the Korean peninsula particularly with the recent nuclear weapons test. South Korea's best way to cope with this situation is to maintain the balance among three policy directions: dialogue, sanctions, and deterrence. Among the three, I argue that deterrence should be prioritized. There are different sources of deterrence such as military power, economic power, and diplomatic clouts. States can build deterrence capability independently. Alternatively, they may do so through relations with other states including alliances, bilateral relations, or multilateral relations in the international community. What South Korea needs most urgently is to maintain deterrence against North Korea's local provocations through the enhancement of independent military capability particularly by addressing the asymmetric vulnerability between militaries of the South and the North. Most of all, the South Korean government should recognize the seriousness of the negative consequences that North Korea's 'Nuclear shadow strategy' would bring about for the inter-Korea relations and security situations in Northeast Asia. Based on this understanding, it should develop an 'assertive deterrence strategy' that emphasizes 'multi-purpose, multi-stage, and tailored deterrence whose main idea lies in punitive retaliation.' This deterrence strategy requires a flexible targeting policy and a variety of retaliatory measures capable of taking out all targets in North Korea. At the same time, the force structures of the army, the air force, and the navy should be improved in a way that maximizes their deterrence capability. For example, the army should work on expanding the guided missile command and the special forces command and reforming the reserve forces. The navy and the air force should increase striking capabilities including air-to-ground, ship-to-ground, and submarine-to-ground strikes to a great extent. The marine corps can enhance its deterrence capability by changing the force structure from the stationary defense-oriented one that would have to suffer some degree of troop attrition at the early stage of hostilities to the one that focuses on 'counteroffensive landing operations.' The government should continue efforts for defense reform in order to obtain these capabilities while building the 'Korean-style triad system' that consists of advanced air, ground, and surface/ subsurface weapon systems. Besides these measures, South Korea should start to acquire a minimum level of nuclear potential within the legal boundary that the international law defines. For this, South Korea should withdraw from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Moreover, it should obtain the right to process and enrich uranium through changing the U.S.-South Korea nuclear cooperation treaty. Whether or not we should be armed with nuclear weapons should not be understood in terms of "all or nothing." We should consider an 'in-between' option as the Japanese case proves. With regard to the wartime OPCON transition, we need to re-consider the timing of the transition as an effort to demonstrate the costliness of North Korea's provocative behaviors. If impossible, South Korea should take measures to make the Strategic Alliance 2015 serve as a persisting deterrence system against North Korea. As the last point, all the following governments of South Korea should keep in mind that continuing reconciliatory efforts should always be pursued along with other security policies toward North Korea.