• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2010

This article firstly reviewed Permanent Established(PE) concept of OECD and UN model tax treaty and compared it with that of Korean Corporate Income Tax Law(CITL). The various factors regarding profit like ways of deciding the local source profit, scope and calculation method which will be imputed to PE were also reviewed. Based on above, standard PE judgement basis and calculation method of local source profit were also studied by using actual cases in foreign corporation which performs plant construction & sales in Korea. Accordingly to properly solve the conflict regarding international tax and to protect the tax authority against the foreign corporation in Korea, by standing on equality, I now propose followings for the better concept of PE in Korea. Firstly, the article that a building site or construction or installation project constitutes a PE only if it lasts more than 6 months should be modified to reflect OECD model convention's criteria of 12 months. Second, the scope of 'subordinate attorney' which is regarded as PE under CITL is now including 'holding-delivery attorney', 'order attorney', and 'assurance attorney' as well as 'contract attorney'. This is overly limit the activities of foreign corporation. It had better be loosened only to include 'contract attorney' as OECD provisions. Third, the CITL limits the cases of preparatory and/or auxiliary place which is not regarded as PE, thus limit the foreign corporations' business by expanding the concept of PE. This had better be eased. Fourth, in deciding the amount of local source profits, the CITL stipulates to split the profits by the relevant contribution of transaction parties through 'profit split method'. To solve the conflict, the ways of profit split must be better clarified through providing object and detailed standard and basis.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.295-347
• /
• 2013

Korea launched the science satellite by the first launch vehicle Naro-ho(KSLV-1) at the Naro Space Center located at Oinarodo, Cohenggun Jellanamdo in August, 2009 and October, 2010. However, the first and second launch failed. At last, on January 30, 2013 the third launch of the launch vehicle Naro-ho has successfully launched and the Naro science satellite penetrated into the space orbit. Owing to the succeed of the launch of Naro-ho, Korea joined the space club by the eleventh turn following the United States, Russia, Japan and China. The United Nations adopted the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Regislation Convention of 1976, and Moon Agreement of 1979. Korea ratified the above space-related treaties except the Moon Agreement. Such space-related treaties regulate the international liability for the space activity by the launching state of the space object. Especially the Outer Space Treaty regulates the principle concerning the state's liability for the space activity. Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space is internationally liable for damage to another State Party or to its natural or judicial persons by such object or its component parts on the earth, in air space or in outer space. Under the Liability Convention, a launching state shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The major nations of the world made national legislations to observe the above space-related treaties, and to promote the space development, and to regulate the space activity. In Korea, the United States, Russia and Japan, the national space-related legislation regulates the government's liability of the launching state of the space object. The national space-related legislations of the major nations are as follows : the Outer Space Development Promotion Act and Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of Korea, the National Aeronautic and Space Act and Commercial Space Launch Act of the United States, the Law on Space Activity of Russia, and the Law concerning Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and Space Basic Act of Japan. In order to implement the government's liability of the launching state of space object under space-related treaties and national legislations, and to establish the standing as a strong space nation, Korea shall improve the space-related policy, laws and system as follows : Firstly, the legal system relating to the space development and the space activity shall be maintained. For this matter, the legal arrangement and maintenance shall be made to implement the government's policy and regulation relating to the space development and space activity. Also the legal system shall be maintained in accordance with the elements for consideration when enacting the national legislation relevant to the peaceful exploration and use of outer space adopted by UN COPUOS. Secondly, the liability system for the space damage shall be improved. For this matter, the articles relating to the liability for the damage and the right of claiming compensation for the expense already paid for the damage in case of the joint launch and consigned launch shall be regulated newly. Thirdly, the preservation policy for the space environment shall be established. For this matter, the consideration and preservation policy of the environment in the space development and use shall be established. Also the rule to mitigate the space debris shall be adopted. Fourthly, the international cooperation relating to the space activity shall be promoted. For this matter, the international cooperation obligation of the nation in the exploration and use of outer space shall be observed. Also through the international space-related cooperation, Korea shall secure the capacity of the space development and enter into the space advanced nation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.103-125
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews the EU Case, Claudia Wegener v. Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, Case C-537/17. It analyzes some issues as to Wegener case by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, entitled scope, provides: "this Regulation shall apply: (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier." ECJ held that must be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft. According to the Court, it is apparent from the regulation and case-law that when, as in the present case, two (or more) flights are booked as a single unit, those flights constitute a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers. Those flights must therefore be considered as one and the same connecting flight.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.203-237
• /
• 2011

Since USSR successfully launched its satellite "Sputnik"in 1957, many countries including US and USSR began military use of space, and engaged in arms race in space, which is against spirit and ideals of peaceful use of space as common heritage of mankind stipulated in many treaties such as Outer Space Treaty. With worsening Cold War between East and Western Bloc, this military use of space and arms race in space has been intensifying. Regarding the ideals of peaceful use of space, it is interpreted that military use of space is possible unless it does not have the purpose of aggression. The military use of space may have diverse forms such as attacking satellites in space, or attacking from satellites, making use of present and future technologies available which should include the use of nuclear and kinetic/hyper-speed weapons, laser, particle beams, near explosion, disturbance weapons in different directions (i.e., surface to space, space to space, and space to surface). Arms control is being implemented by the efforts of many countries in different formalities including legislature of international treaties under the auspices of UNCOPUOS and prohibition of weapons of mass destruction. Taking outstanding examples aiming at arms control by international community, there are confidence building measures (CBM), strengthening implementation of existing treaties, partial ban of nuclear tests, countryand regional approach, comprehensive approach and measures having legally binding force. While U.S. has surpassed other countries concerned in the area of military useof space, it withdrew from OST in early 2000s, thereby raising concern of international community. It requires concerted efforts of cooperationand implementation by international society to make sure peace of mankind and environmental conservation through arms control in space. Observing de facto possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea following series of nuclear tests and launching satellites, and efforts of launching rockets by South Korea, it is strongly needed for both countries to take part in arms control efforts by international community.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.31-67
• /
• 1990

One of the first issues which arose in the evolution of air law was the determination of the vertical limits of airspace over private property. In 1959 the UN in its Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, started to give attention to the question of the meaning of the term "outer space". Discussions in the United Nations regarding the delimitation issue were often divided between those in favour of a functional approach ("functionalists"), and those seeking the delineation of a boundary ("spatialists"). The functionalists, backed initially by both major space powers, which viewed any boundary as possibly restricting their access to space(Whether for peaceful or military purposes), won the first rounds, starting with the 1959 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space which did not consider that the topic called for priority consideration. In 1966, however, the spatialists, were able to place the issue on the agenda of the Outer Sapce Committee pursuant to Resolution 2222 (xxx1). However, the spatialists were not able to present a common position since there existed a variety of propositions for delineation of a boundary. Over the years, the funtionalists have seemed to be losing ground. As the element of location is a decisive factor for the choice of the legal regime to be applied, a purely functional approach to the regulation of activities in the space above the Earth does not offer a solution. It is therefore to be welcomed that there is clear evidence of a growing recognition of the defect inherent to such an approach and that a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a growing number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution of the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above the Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated, and a number of countries, among them Argentina, Belgium, France, Italy and Mexico have already advocated the acceptance of the lower boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. The adoption of the principle of sovereignty at that height does not mean that States would not be allowed to take protective measures against space activities above that height which constitute a threat to their security. A parallel can be drawn with the defence of the State's security on the high seas. Measures taken by States in their own protection on the high seas outside the territorial waters-provided that they are proportionate to the danger-are not considered to infringe the principle of international law. The most important issue in this context relates to the problem of a right of passage for space craft through foreign air space in order to reach outer space. In the reports to former ILA Conferences an explanation was given of the reasons why no customary rule of freedom of passage for aircraft through foreign territorial air space could as yet be said to exist. It was suggested, however, that though the essential elements for the creation of a rule of customary international law allowing such passage were still lacking, developments apperaed to point to a steady growth of a feeling of necessity for such a rule. A definite treaty solution of the demarcation problem would require further study which should be carried out by the UN Outer Space Committee in close co-operation with other interested international organizations, including ICAO. If a limit between air space and outer space were established, air space would automatically come under the regime of the Chicago Convention alone. The use of the word "recognize" in Art. I of chicago convention is an acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as a general principle of law, the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. Further it is important to note that the Aricle recognizes this sovereignty, as existing for every state, holding it immaterial whether the state is or is not a contracting state. The functional criteria having been created by reference to either the nature of activity or the nature of the space object, the next hurdle would be to provide methods of verification. With regard to the question of international verification the establishment of an International Satelite Monitoring Agency is required. The path towards the successful delimitation of outer space from territorial space is doubtless narrow and stony but the establishment of a precise legal framework, consonant with the basic principles of international law, for the future activities of states in outer space will, it is still believed, remove a source of potentially dangerous conflicts between states, and furthermore afford some safeguard of the rights and interests of non-space powers which otherwise are likely to be eroded by incipient customs based on at present almost complete freedom of action of the space powers.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.159-203
• /
• 2010

Together with the development of space science outer space law has become one of the most rapidly developing branches of international law. This reflects a general realization that these new activities must be subject to reasonable legal regulation if they are to serve the peaceful purposes of mankind without undue confusion and disorder. The exploration and use of outer space introduces many novel opportunities and dilemmas, and inspired insights are needed in the development of this new resource. In particular, the settlement of space law disputes is a relatively new discussion in international law. However, the significance of the settlement of space law disputes was acknowledged in various colloquia organized by legal academicians and practitioners around the world. Analysis of the dispute settlement provisions in space agreements plainly reveals the degree to which States persist to be mistrustful of any impingement to their sovereignty. They are reluctant to submit disputes to adjudication and binding arbitration, particularly when these provisions are negotiated between States which have dissimilar political, economic and social interests and demography. However, there is a slow but clear shift in this attitude as States realize the contemporary political, economic and technical pressures necessitating the lifting of the veil of State sovereignty. The development of an effective mechanism for the settlement of disputes arising in relation to the development of the exploration and exploitation of outer space has been the subject of global study by highly qualified publicists and international institutions. The 1972 Liability Convention is the space treaty with the most elaborate provisions for dispute settlement. However, it fails to ensure binding decisions. In this point, the 1998 Taipei Final Draft Convention may be a useful instrument for further consideration on whether an independent sectorialized dispute settlement mechanism should be established. Considering these circumstances it seemed essential to take legislative action to implement a system as comprehensive as the relevant legal framework are in the Law of the Sea and International Criminal Law mechanisms for dispute settlement and conflict avoidance from outer space activities.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.469-497
• /
• 2015

In 2009 Iridium 33, a satellite owned by the American Iridium Communications Inc. and Kosmos-2251, a satellite owned by the Russian Space Forces, collided at a speed of 42,120 km/h and an altitude of 789 kilometers above the Taymyr Peninsula in Siberia. NASA estimated that the satellite collision had created approximately 1,000 pieces of debris larger than 10 centimeters, in addition to many smaller ones. By July 2011, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network(SSN) had catalogued over 2,000 large debris fragments. On January 11, 2007 China conducted a test on its anti-satellite missile. A Chinese weather satellite, the FY-1C polar orbit satellite, was destroyed by the missile that was launched using a multistage solid-fuel. The test was unprecedented for having created a record amount of debris. At least 2,317 pieces of trackable size (i.e. of golf ball size or larger) and an estimated 150,000 particles were generated as a result. As far as the Space Treaties such as 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement are concerned, few provisions addressing the space environment and debris in space can be found. In the early years of space exploration dating back to the late 1950s, the focus of international law was on the establishment of a basic set of rules on the activities undertaken by various states in outer space.. Consequently environmental issues, including those of space debris, did not receive the priority they deserve when international space law was originally drafted. As shown in the case of the 1978 "Cosmos 954 Incident" between Canada and USSR, the two parties settled it by the memorandum between two nations not by the Space Treaties to which they are parties. In 1994 the 66th conference of International Law Association(ILA) adopted "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris". The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee(IADC) issued some guidelines for the space debris which were the basis of "the UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" which had been approved by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) in its 527th meeting. On December 21 2007 this guideline was approved by UNGA Resolution 62/217. The EU has proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities" as a transparency and confidence-building measure. It was only in 2010 that the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee began considering as an agenda item the long-term sustainability of outer space. A Working Group on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities was established, the objectives of which include identifying areas of concern for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities, proposing measures that could enhance sustainability, and producing voluntary guidelines to reduce risks to long-term sustainability. By this effort "Guidelines on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities" are being under consideration. In the case of "Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space" adopted by UNGA Resolution 1962(XVIII), December 13 1963, the 9 principles proclaimed in that Declaration, although all of them incorporated in the Space Treaties, could be regarded as customary international law binding all states considering the time and opinio juris by the responses of the world. Although the soft law such as resolutions, guidelines are not binding law, there are some provisions which have a fundamentally norm-creating character and customary international law. In November 12 1974 UN General Assembly recalled through a Resolution 3232(XXIX) "Review of the role of International Court of Justice" that the development of international law may be reflected, inter alia, by the declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly which may to that extend be taken into consideration by the judgements of the International Court of Justice. We are expecting COPUOS which gave birth 5 Space Treaties that it could give us binding space debris mitigation measures to be implemented based on space debris mitigation soft law in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.9-28
• /
• 2003

The Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the amendments thereto including the Hague Protocol, Montreal Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4, the Guadalajara Convention and the IATA Intercarrier Agreements, which are the rules (as called "War saw System") have played as a major rule in the international air transportation for more than 70 years, will be replaced by the Montreal Convention of 1999 for its effectiveness on November 4, 2003. While a major portion of the Montreal Convention follows the language of the Warsaw System, the Montreal Convention makes significant changes to the scope and extent of the carrier's liability, expands the jurisdictions where the carrier can be sued, and recognizes the effect of code sharing on air carrier liability. The Montreal Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation since the diplomatic efforts in the mid-1920's which resulted in the enactment of the Warsaw Convention. Until now, the legal liability of almost all the international air carriers has been governed by the Warsaw System. The Montreal Convention incorporates provisions of these instruments to create a single document and to set a uniform regime for carrier liability in international transportation. At the same time the issue of the low liability limits of the Warsaw has been resolved to a more satisfactory level in the Montreal Convention. The Convention has been hailed as consumer friendly and progressive in nature. If this Convention is ratified by Korea, the virtual elimination of the liability limits between the passengers and the airlines will become law by treaty. The airlines in Korea as well as Korean consumers of international air carriage will immensely benefit from the ratification. As opposed to the Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention has been described to be the one that is no longer a Convention for airlines, but it would serve the interests of both the consumers and the air carriers.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2007

This Comment explores the ICSID case of CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, awarded on May 12, 2005. The Part II of this Comment first describes the relevant facts of the case including the some background for readers' understanding and the Part III summaries the claimant's requests and the decisions rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award. At Part IV, the Comment addresses the issue of determinating laws applicable to the merits of dispute in case that the parties of the case have not chosen a governing law, and at Part V, takes a close look into three main issues of (i) the indirect expropriation of the investment, (ii) the breach of fair and equitable treatment and (iii) the protections under umbrella clauses. In this CMS case, we see first that while the Tribunal affirmed that any indirect expropriation can occur from incidental interference depriving the foreign investor of the use or reasonable-to-be-expected economic benefit even if not necessarily to the obvious benefit of the host State, the Tribunal denied the occurrence of indirect expropriation in this case by holding that the Government of Argentina has not breached the standard of protection laid down in the Treaty. Secondly, however, regarding the issue of fair and equitable treatment, we see that the Tribunal, finding Argentina's breach of obligations, affirmed that the foreign investor can expect the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor, which can give the foreign investor certain degree of foreseeability. Thirdly and finally, we see that, on base of the effect of the umbrella clause, the Tribunal recognized the obligation of the host State undertaken not to freeze the tariff regime or subject it to price controls and not to alter the basic rules governing contracts between the foreign investor and the host State without the first's written consent. However, the protection under the umbrella clause is available only when there is a specific breach of rights and obligations under BIT or a violation of contract rights protected under BIT.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.105-123
• /
• 2007

The launching of the Taepo-dong 1 on 31 August 1998 by the North Korea was the first case where the diplomatic protests was made against the flight, the purpose of which, the launching State claimed, consisted in space exploration and use. It is the principle regarding the freedom of space exploration and use, as included in the international treaty, that is relevant in applying the various rules and in defining the legal status of the flight. Its legal status, however, was not actually taken into account, as political negotiations leading to the test moratorium has been successful until present day in freezing the political crisis. This implies that the rules of the law lack the validity and logic sufficient in dictating the conduct of the States. This case shows that, in effect, it is not the rule but the politics that is to govern the status of the flight.