• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.313-328
• /
• 2013

Today FTA extends over the world and Korea as a main member of international trade is no exception. In the past Korea, as the developing countries, has made endlessly effort to induce foreign investment from foreign enterprise and/or government to be a truly OECD countries today and made it. Korea's trade economy was reached 1 trillion dollars in 2012. Now we have to find a new way to produce, process, procure goods from foreign investment and also need to protect our profit and/or rights within foreign judicial territory. There are two method to protect foreign enterprise or government. First they rely on general principles in WTO or Bilateral Investment Treaty that the principle of equality, national treatment, and most-favored-nation treatment, you can create a predictable environment to protect foreign enterprise and/or government. Second they need to incorporate contractual clauses in their agreement such as stabilization clause, force majeure, arbitration, governing law or sovereign immunity. Of course there are many things left behind to consider I hope it will be helpful to those who prepare foreign investment contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.145-168
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the limitation of liabilities of multimodal transport operators(MTO) in Korea. Also, this paper reviews the revised draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015. This paper analyzes Korean multimodal transport systemand the limitation of liabilities of MTO by analyzing articles, regulations and practices of Korean Commercial Code and it's the draft in 2015. The paper, also, studies multimodal transport rules by comparing specifically international treaty, rules, or practices. In Korea, Article 816 of Commercial Code treats multimodal transportation adopting the network liability regime. The Article describes only the case of the multimodal transportation where the maritime carriage is engaged. Korea proposed the draft of multimodal transport regulation of Commercial Code in 2015 because present law could not apply for the multimodal transportation involved in the air or land carriage. This paper support the draft of Korean Commercial Code in 2015 because it is necessary to make a predictable legal system of multimodal transport and the limitation of liability reflecting practices or customs.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.113-133
• /
• 2015

This article reviews some recent decisions of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the recognition and enforcement of several South Korean arbitral awards. It explains the implementation of the New York Convention in the PRC and in particular the so-called Report System under the current Mainland Chinese law and judicial practice. It identifies some deficiencies in the People's Courts' approaches to the application and interpretation of the New York Convention and argues that the Mainland Chinese courts should adopt the pro-enforcement principle in the determination of the relevant issues under the New York Convention. It proposes further enhancement of the Report System and that the current categorization of 'domestic, foreign-related and foreign' in the context of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards needs to be further reviewed and clarified by the SPC. Last but not the least, it recommends some steps that South Korean parties should take to enhance the enforceability of South Korean Arbitral Awards in Mainland China.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.110-123
• /
• 2004

Five Islands in the West Sea of Korea (Baekryeong-do, Daecheong-do, Socheong-do, Yeonpyeong-do, and Woo-do) are located very close to the North Korea's coast and all of them are under the jurisdiction of South Korea. The North and South Korean naval vessels clashed twice in the West Sea of Korea on June 15, 1999 and on June 29, 2002. These incidents were resulted from conflicts over the validity of the Northern Limit Line(NLL) and the appropriate maritime boundary between the two Koreas. From the viewpoint of South Korea, the North Limit Line is a lawful Maritime Military Demarcation Line under the Korean Military Armistice Agreement and it must be maintained as a maritime boundary between two Koreas until being substituted by a peace treaty. In conclusion, the maritime boundary between two Koreas cannot be settled easily by the principles of the International Law of the Sea at present.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.155-168
• /
• 2021

The EU and the UK apply a treaty to establish new relations from 2021. Brexit is making a big difference in relations among the EU, the UK, and third countries. A new paradigm of international law has begun to be applied to relations among Korea, the EU, and the UK. The UK was excluded from the application of the Korea-EU FTA, and the Korea-UK FTA was applied to trade relations between Korea and the UK. The signing of these new treaties and the changes in the subject to which they apply are impacting the existing international legal system. The countries are showing some response, but it cannot be evaluated as a complete level, and there are still tasks to be solved. Therefore, the legal basis for EU-UK relations, Korea-EU relations, and Korea-UK relations should continue to be laid down in the future. The Korea-UK FTA cannot govern all the problems arising from trade and economic cooperation. Many interests that the UK did not reflect in the course of previous Korea-EU FTA negotiations will be revealed, so a new legal framework for Korea-UK bilateral relations will be established according to the negotiations between the two sides. There should be more detailed research and suggestion of alternatives in the field of law.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.229-260
• /
• 2011

European Union (EU) law has been a complex but at the same time fascinating subject of study due to its dynamic evolution. In particular, the Lisbon Treaty which entered into force in December 2009 represents the culmination of a decade of attempts at Treaty reform and harmonisation in diverse sectors. Amongst the EU private law fields, company law harmonisation has been one of the hotly debated issues with regards to the freedom of establishment in the internal market. Due to the significant differences between national provisions on company law, it seemed somewhat difficult to harmonise company law. However, Council Regulation 2157/2001 was legislated in 2001 and now provides the basis for the Statute for a European Company (or Societas Europaea: SE). The Statute is also supplemented by the Council Directive 2001/86 on the involvement of employees. The SE Statute is a legal measure in order to contribute to the internal market, and provides a choice for companies that wish to merge, create a joint subsidiary or convert a subsidiary into an SE. Through this option, the SE became a corporate form which is only available to existing companies incorporated in different Member States in the EU. The important question on the meaning of the SE Statute is whether the distinctive characteristics of the SE make it an attractive option to ensure significant numbers of SE registration. In fact, the outcome that has been made through the SE Statute is an example of regulatory competition. The traditional regulatory competition in the freedom of establishment has been the one between national statutes between Member States. However, this time is not a competition between Member States, which means that the Union has joined the area in competition between legal orders and is now in competition with the systems of company law of the Member States.Key Words : European Union, EU Company Law, Societas Europaea, SE Statute, One-tier System, Two-tier System, Race to the Bottom A quite number of scholars expect that the number of SE will increase significantly. Of course, there is no evidence of regulatory competition that Korea faces currently. However, because of the increasing volume of international trade and expansion of regional economic bloc, it is necessary to consider the example of development of EU company law. Addition to the existing SE Statute, the EU Commission has also proposed a new corporate form, Societas Private Europaea (private limited liable company). All of this development in European company law will help firms make their best choice for company establishment. The Delaware-style development in the EU will foster the race to the bottom, thereby improving the contents of company law. To conclude, the study on the development of European company law becomes important to understand the evolution of company law and harmonisation efforts in the EU.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• pp.27-56
• /
• 2013

The United Nations Command (UNC) and the communist North failed to reach an agreement on where the maritime demarcation line should be drawn in the process of signing a truce after the Korean War because of the starkly different positions on the boundary of their territorial waters. As a result, the Armistice Treaty was signed on July 1953 without clarification about the maritime border. In the following month, Commander of the UNC unilaterally declared the Northern Limit Line (NLL) as a complementing measure to the Armistice. Referring to this, North Korea and its followers in South Korea wrongfully argue that the NLL is a "ghost line" that was established not based on the international law. However, one should note that the waters south of the NLL has always been under South Korea's jurisdiction since Korea's independence from Japan on August 15, 1945. There is no need to ask North Korea's approval for declaring the territorial waters that had already been under our sovereign jurisdiction. We do not need North Korea's approval just as we do not need Japan's approval with regard to our sovereign right over Dokdo. The legal status of the NLL may be explained with the following three characteristics. First, the NLL is a de facto maritime borderline that defines the territorial waters under the respective jurisdiction of the two divided countries. Second, the NLL in the West Sea also serves as a de facto military demarcation line at sea that can be likened to the border on the ground. Third, as a contacting line where the sea areas controlled by the two Koreas meet, the NLL is a maritime non-aggression line that was established on the legal basis of the 'acquiescence' element stipulated by the Inter-Korea Basic Agreement (article 11) and the Supplement on the Non-aggression principle (article 10). Particularly from the perspective of the domestic law, the NLL should be understood as a boundary defining areas controlled by temporarily divided states (not two different states) because the problem exists between a legitimate central government (South Korea) and an anti-government group (North Korea). In this sense, the NLL problem should be viewed not in terms of territorial preservation or expansion. Rather, it should be understood as a matter of national identity related to territorial sovereignty and national pride. North Korea's continuous efforts to problematize the NLL may be part of its strategy to nullify the Armistice Treaty. In other words, North Korea tries to take away the basis of the NLL by abrogating the Armistice Treaty and creating a condition in which the United Nations Command can be dissolved. By doing so, North Korea may be able to start the process for the peace treaty with the United States and reestablish a maritime line of its interest. So, North Korea's rationale behind making the NLL a disputed line is to deny the effectiveness of the NLL and ask for the establishment of a new legal boundary. Such an effort should be understood as part of a strategy to make the NLL question a political and military dispute (the similar motivation can be found in Japan's effort to make Dokdo a disputed Island). Therefore, the South Korean government should not accommodate such hidden intentions and strategy of North Korea. The NLL has been the de facto maritime border (that defines our territorial waters) and military demarcation line at sea that we have defended with a lot of sacrifice for the last sixty years. This is the line that our government and the military must defend in the future as we have done so far. Our commitment to the defense of the NLL is not only a matter of national policy protecting territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction; it is also our responsibility for those who were fallen while defending the North-Western Islands and the NLL.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.419-442
• /
• 2018

Space Treaty Article 2 stipuates non-appropriation by sovereignty, and in any other means. Interpretative controversies has continued as regards the meaning of any other means. It is not clear whether appropriation by private entity is also prohibited or not. Furthermore, the controverse around the binding force of Article 1 has made worse the controversy regarding such appropriation. U.S. Congress has enacted the law regarding the space resouce mining in 2015. Its main purpose is to alleviate legal unstability which U.S, private companies have faced, and it provides some provisions regarding private rights about space resources. Original bill, H.R. 1508 included the property right. Amendment to the bill is to ensure that an "asteroid resource utilization activity" is inter-preted as on a single asteroid and not on any asteroid. The use of the word "in situ" in defining space resources simply means resources in place in outer space; but any such resource within or on an asteroid would need to be "obtained" in order to confer a property right. The use of the word "in situ" in merely defining a space resource in the bill is not equivalent to claiming sovereignty or control over celestial bodies or portions of space. Further, there is clear Congressional direction in the bill that the President is only to encourage space resources exploration and utilization, including lowering barriers to such activity, "consistent with" and "in accordance with" US international obligations. Federal courts are granted original jurisdiction over entities defined in ${\S}$ 51301(4) and in-situ asteroid resources that have been removed from an asteroid by such entities. Federal courts are not granted jurisdiction over outer space, the Moon, other celestial bodies, or the asteroid from which the in-situ natural resource was removed. It is said that the Space Resource Utilization Exploration Act of 2015, talked about the rights of private players to own-kind of a "finders keepers" law.

• 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.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.