• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.181-199
• /
• 2007

When the People's Republic of China destroyed one of its own defunct meteorological satellites, the Fengyun-1C, at an altitude of some 865 km above the earth's surface, the PRC was accused of initiating, or at the very least risking an(other) arms race in outer space also. The test also gave rise to a few legal questions as to the permissibility of this test, and the broader permissibility of using space for military and other weapon-touting activities, Whilst the test cannot be considered to constitute a direct threat to international peace and security so as to invoke relevant legal principles and consequences in terms of the UN Charter for example, it highlights the importance of such clauses in international space law as requiring international cooperation and consultation, due regard for the interests of all other countries both on earth and in outer space, and the further development of general regimes of registration and space debris-prevention. From that perspective, the PRC violated international outer space law not so much by the test itself but by the accompanying lack of information, consultation and due regard for other states', and indeed mankind's, interests.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.225-246
• /
• 2007

This article is dedicated to my colleague and friend Professor Soon-Kil Hong, Ph.D, who is the famous President of the Korean Association of Air and Space Law and distinguished teacher at the prestigious Hankuk Aviation University. I had the honour and pleasure to teach there a few years ago - upon his gracious invitation. Professor Soon-Kil Hong has made a long, outstanding and impressive career in aviation and space activities, both from a practitioners and academic perspective. That is why I have tried to find a subject which addresses these facets of his personality although this humble article cannot do justice to the great merits of Professor Soon-Kil Hong. This article discusses the liability aspects for damages and injuries to passengers on suborbital flights, by examining: 1. Recent developments regarding space tourism 2. Suborbital flights in relation to the Chicago Convention 3. The application of space law treaties to space tourism 4. Potential candidates for liability regimes applying to space tourism 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Liability under international space law 4.2.1 The Outer Space Treaty (1969) 4.2.2 The Liability Convention (1972) 4.2.3 Conclusions 4.3 Liability under international private air law 4.3.1 Introduction 4.3.2 The Warsaw Convention (1929), as variously amended 4.3.3 The Montreal Agreement (1999) 4.3.4 Conclusions 5. Final observations

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.293-306
• /
• 2005

In order to bridge the digital divide issues in the Asia Pacific region, Japan initiated the Asia Broadband Program, during implementing E-Japan and U-Japan Plans with collaboration among Asia Pacific Counties. This paper describes first joint experiments that were undertaken in Japan, Singapore and China. Then this paper also describes Japanese efforts to build space infrastructure for development of ICT Society in the Asia Pacific region for further international cooperation to bridge the digital divide Article 1, para. 1, of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, calls for exploration and use of outer space to be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. The augmentation of common benefit from space communication could contribute to bridge the digital divide issues in developing countries in Asia Pacific region. Accordingly, space- infrastructure building would be very important to implement common benefit among countries concerned through international cooperation and collaboration

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.419-477
• /
• 2017

In Space contains valuable natural resources. These provide a compelling reason for entrepreneurs, investors, and governments to pursue space exploration and settlement. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet. Article II of the Outer Space Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 (CSLCA), however, makes significant advances in furthering U.S. commercial space industry, which explicitly allows U.S. citizens to engage in the commercial exploration and exploitation of 'space resources' including water and minerals. Thus, some scholars argue that the United States recognizing ownership of space resources is an act of sovereignty, and that the act violates the Outer Space Treaty. This paper suggests that it is necessary to guarantee the right to resources harvested in outer space. More specifically, a private ownership of extracted space resources needs to promote new space business and industry. As resources on Earth become increasingly difficult and expensive to mine, it is clear that our laws and policies must encourage private appropriation of space resources. CSLCA which addresses all aspects of space resource extraction will be one way to encourage space commercial activity.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.255-276
• /
• 2014

The dispute between China and Japan regarding $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$ is believed to be quite similar to the controversy surrounding Dokdo in terms of historical and post-war processes except for the point that the phenomena of occupation is different with regard to Dokdo. China's claim to $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$ is based on historical title and continuous use while the basis of Japan's claim is summarized as preoccupancy of ownerless land. Even though Japan acknowledges that China discovered $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$, Japan claims that the act to establish sovereignty over the island from the standpoint of International Law was not taken by China. However, at that time, effective occupation was not an essential prerequisite for the acquisition of a territory. That is to say, from a legal perspective, the legal right for an area could be established based on the discovery of the land, and so it is thought that Japan is applying the current criteria of International Law in a manner that is inappropriate. When we review the post-war process, the San Francisco Peace Treaty does not directly mention $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$. But based on the said treaty, we can note that Japan gave up all rights for the southern area that is north of the boundary line that equates to latitude $29^{\circ}$ and that includes the Ryuku Islands and $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$. Of course, the provisions for the territory in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and its disposal are not the final factor for the judgment regarding dominium of $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$. However, it seems clear that Japan's attitude and interpretation regarding the issues of $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$, the Kuril Islands and Dokdo is problematic.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.349-370
• /
• 2016

This thesis examines the problems faced in the electronic bill of lading for which improvements are necessary, and suggests various ways of overcoming those problems. First, to build a negotiation system for electronic B/Ls, active participation from related parties in addition to the government support is essential. Second, electronic B/Ls cannot be utilized within a short period of time in current commercial practices. Third, there should be infrastructure which connects all parties of international commerce through an electronic system. Fourth, instead of promoting mutual recognition through international treaty, there should be a plan which legally specifying mutual recognition between certification authorities. Fifth, it is needed to ease the strictness of electronic signature to promote the global negotiation of electronic B/Ls. Lastly, in prima facie weight of evidence, there was a significant difference with the Rotterdam Rules even in comparison with the Commercial Act which was amended with the significantly advanced rules on electronic B/L. He believed there should be a discreet consideration on these matters at the revision of the Commercial Act. For this, the government has to provide support more aggressively with more interest and commitments.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.181-202
• /
• 2020

The Non-Appropriation Principle was stipulated in the OST and the MA. However the MA, creating CHM in international law for the first time, attempted to further limit the prohibitions to include ownership of resources extracted from celestial bodies, its rejection by the U.S. and most of the international spacefaring community prevented it from serving as a binding international treaty. Individuals or private enterprises intending to perform space exploitation must receive approval from the nation and may not appropriate outer space or celestial bodies. In the course of this space activity, each party will be liable. Articles 6 and 7 of the OST and the Liability Convention of 1972 deal with matters concerning those problems. The CSLCA of 2015 and Luxembourg Space Resources Law of 2017 allows States to provide commercial exploration and use of space resources to their own nationals and to companies operated by other countries within their territory. These laws do not violate Article 2 of the OST. In the case of the CSLCA of 2015, the law clearly states that it cannot claim ownership, sovereignty or jurisdiction over certain celestial bodies. Even if scholars claim that the U.S. CSLCA and Luxembourg Space Resources Law violate the non-appropriation principle of the OST, they cannot prevent these two countries from extracting the space resources on "the first come, first served" basis. The legal status of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies is res extra commercium, like the high seas, where the fishing vessels from each country catch and sell fish without occupying the sea. Major space-faring nations must push for the adoption of an international regulatory committee which will oversee applications and issue permits based on a set of robust, modern, and forward-thinking ideals that are best equipped to govern and protect outer space as individuals, businesses, and nations compete to commercialize space through mining and the extraction of space-based resources. The new Corpus Juris Spatialis on the development of space resources, whether it is a treaty or a soft law such as recommendation and declaration, in the case of the Moon and Mars, will cover a certain amount of area to develop, and the development period by the states should be specified.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.241-269
• /
• 2011

Solar flare and storm may give an adverse effect upon electromagnetic environment around the Earth, so that various kinds of satellite cease to normally function. This kind of space storm disaster is characterized by the uncertainty about when and what size. Recently the UN has been paying attention to this plausible disaster. Particularly the COPUOS has taken the view that this disaster would threaten the sustainable space environment. The precautionary principle, rooted and excercised in the environment protection filed, has been adopted in the case of disaster with uncertainty. The reports and opinions given by the expert and representatives of the member States have stated that the precautionary principle should be adopted for the purpose of dealing with this disaster. On the other hand, it is advanced that the principle has been already included in the space law principle enshrined in the 1967 Space Treaty. The Treaty has adopted the freedom of navigation and use of the outer space for the interest of all States as the basic principles. Sustainable environment is necessary for implementing the principle. Therefore, the rules for the protection of sustainable space environment should be based upon the space law principle.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.311-336
• /
• 2003

This paper purports to explain the conflicts and compromises between supra-national authority and national welfare state in an era of globalization. For this purpose this paper, first of all, examines if Community law(EU) is directly applicable to member states(direct applicability), and subsequently, if Community law is superior to national law(supremacy). It duly claims that Community law is de facto applicable to member states and thus is superior to national law, but de jure the direct applicability and supremacy of Community law are still ambiguous in practice. Secondly, it briefly describes the development of EU social policy from 'The Rome Treaty(1957)' to 'The Amsterdam Treaty(1997)', and ascertains clear limitations of social dimension of EU. Thirdly, it explains why CEU(Commission of European Union) sequently fails to achieve uniform harmonization policy in the making of social Europe. This paper concludes that 'downward harmonization thesis' or 'convergence thesis' which commonly stresses that globalization seriously impinges on nation-state's policy autonomy and policy capacity is not evidenced at least in the case of EU social policy.