• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.167-191
• /
• 2018

Despite international cooperation, piracy has not yet been eradicated in major waters around the world. From the perspective of South Korea, which is absolutely dependent on exporting and importing, it's a lifeline for us to secure safe maritime traffic so it is a situation we have to be vigilant about maritime safety and security. However, criminal law on punishment of piracy is still insufficient and legislative consideration is needed. Since pirates are regarded as enemies of humankind, all nations can punish pirates regardless of their damage. The international community has done its best in cooperation from hundreds of years ago to secure maritime trade through this universal jurisdiction and marine transportation in international waters which is an essential space for military activities, particularly in the Gulf of Aden, the advanced nations have dispatched fleets to combat maritime security threats through joint operations to crack down on Somali pirates. Even if universal jurisdiction is allowed for piracy in accordance with the International Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is difficult to effectively deal with piracy if it not fully complied with a domestic legal system for this purpose or is stipulated as different from international regulations. In other words, universal jurisdiction corresponding to international norms and constitution of piracy should be defined in criminal law in accordance with criminal statutory law. If the punishment of pirates by unreasonably applying our criminal law without prejudice to such work can lead to diplomatic disputes in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other international norms. In South Korea, there is no provision to explicitly prescribe piracy as a crime, but punish similar acts like piracy in criminal law and maritime safety law. However, there is a limit to effective piracy punishment because we are not fully involved in internationally accepted piracy. In this study, we critically examine the proposals of the constitutional elements of piracy, propose the legislative direction, and insist on the introduction of globalism to pirate sins.

• Journal of Korean Society for Geospatial Information Science
• /
• v.10 no.3 s.21
• /
• pp.53-59
• /
• 2002

Territorial sea baseline is a borderline, with the effectuation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, for the related sea zone negotiations with neighboring countries. Its position must be determined to international standard like WGS84 coordinate system. In this study, GPS survey for territorial sea points was performed to determine territorial baseline around five islands in the yellow sea, and the results of them were compared with previous coordinates. Territorial sea point, outermost spot of a nation's realm, tend to be placed in end up low-tide elevations or precipice. Therefore traditional surveying methods are hard to take accurate observations, so that GPS survey is most effective. Through the study, the scientific and reasonable methods for GPS surveying procedure is presented. The results of coordinate comparison show that there are wide difference between the old and new coordinates, and it is necessary for the whole area of islands to calculate displacements by GPS surveying.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Marine Environment & Energy
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.138-149
• /
• 2008

Rapid accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the past century leads to acidify the surface ocean and contributes to the global warming as it forms acid in the ocean and it is a green house gas. In order to curb the green house gas emissions, in particular carbon dioxide, various multilateral agreements and programs have been established including UN Convention of Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol for the last decades. Also a number of geo-engineering projects to manipulate the radiation balance of the earth have been proposed both from the science and industrial community worldwide. One of them is ocean fertilization to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the photosynthesis of phytoplankton in the sea. Deliberate fertilization of the ocean with iron or nitrogen to large areas of the ocean has been proposed by commercial sector recently. Unfortunately the environmental consequences of the large scale ocean iron fertilization are not known and the current scientific information is still not sufcient to predict. In 2007, the joint meeting of parties of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 and 1996 Protocol (London Convention/Protocol) has started considering the purposes and circumstances of proposed large-scale ocean iron fertilization operations and examined whether these activities are compatible with the aims of the Convention and Protocol and explore the need, and the potential mechanisms for regulation of such operations. The aim of this paper is to review the current development on the commercial ocean fertilization activities and management regimes in the potential ocean fertilization activities in the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and high seas, respectively, and further to have a view on the emerging international management regime to be London Convention/Protocol in conjunction with a support from the United Nations General Assembly through The United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• pp.142-163
• /
• 2013

Ieodo is a submerged rock within a Korea's Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) in the East China Sea with its most shallow part about 4.6m below the sea level which has no specific rights for the EEZ delimitation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that any coastal state has the rights to claim an EEZ that stretches up to 200 nautical miles from its shore, except where there is an overlap with a neighboring country's claims. Korea claims that Ieodo is within its EEZ as it sits on the Korean side of the equidistant line and the reef is located on the Korea section of the continental shelf. China does not recognize Korea's application of the equidistance principle and insists that Ieodo lies on its continental shelf. According to UNCLOS, Ieodo is located in international waters, rather than one country's EEZ as the two countries have failed to reach a final agreement over the delimitation of the maritime border. This study seeks to understand the evolution of the People's Liberation Army Navy(PLAN) strategy as main obstacles for the EEZ delimitation between Korea and China. PLAN's Strategy evolves from "coastal defense" to "offshore defence", since the late 1980s from a "coastal defence" strategy to an "offshore defence" strategy which would extend the perimeter of defence to between 200 nm and 400 nm from the coast. China's economic power has increased It's dependence on open trade routes for energy supplies and for its own imports and exports. China want secure Sea Lane. PLAN's "offshore defence" strategy combines the concept of active defence with the deployment of its military forces beyond its borders. China's navy try to forward base its units and to achieve an ocean going capability. China's navy expects to have a 'Blue Water' capability by 2050. China insists that coastal states do have a right under UNCLOS to regulate the activities of foreign military forces in their EEZs. China protests several times against US military forces operating within It's EEZ. The U.S. position is that EEZs should be consistent with customary international law of the sea, as reflected in UNCLOS. U.S. has a national interest in the preservation of freedom of navigation as recognized in customary international law of the sea and reflected in UNCLOS. U.S. insists that coastal states under UNCLOS do not have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs. To be consistent with its demand that the U.S. cease performing military operations in china's EEZ, China would not be able to undertake any military operations in the waters of South Korea's EEZ. As such, to preserve its own security interests, China prefers a status quo policy and used strategic ambiguity on the Ieodo issue. PLAN's strategy of coastal defence has been transformed into offensive defence, Korea's EEZ can be a serious limitation to PLAN's operational plan of activities. Considering China'a view of EEZs, China do not want make EEZ delimitation agreement between Korea and China. China argues that the overlapping areas between EEZs should be handled through negotiations and neither side can take unilateral actions before an agreement is reached. China would prefer Ieodo sea zone as a international waters, rather than one country's EEZ.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.87-107
• /
• 2002

The sea of north-east Asia is biologically interrelated and one country's mishap in the management of fisheries could have a critical effect upon the other. Accordingly under the TAC system adopted by all the countries of Korea, Japan and China, the mismanagement o( trans-boundary fish stocks under the provisional fisheries agreement prior to the delimitation of EEZ could lead to the irrevocable depletion of fisheries resources in case of absence of close cooperation among the countries concerned. To tackle the problems above, it is necessary, from a short term perspective, to promote the combined efforts to do researches on fisheries resources, find ways to improve the transparency of fisheries management, adjust the fisheries management regulations of each country, standardize fishing gears and methods, and exchange fisheries-related statistics and data for socio-economic analysis and strengthen joint research activities for the mutual benefits. From a longer term prospective, regional fisheries organization need to be set up to oversee the whole area of north-east Asian sea. The organization as such could play a role in adjusting the conflicting interests of Korea, Japan and China, and efficiently manage the fisheries resources, which is complex and challenging in nature. In addition, unlike China, the historical fisheries relationship between Korea and Japan, spirit of reciprocity and the Article 62 of the United Nations Convention On the Law Of Sea need to be taken into account when seeking for fisheries cooperation between the two countries through the international specialization. In other words, the data obtained through the joint researches on the fisheries resources for the specific ocean along with such factors as capital, labor, fisheries technology and consumption of fish products could be used to assign the specific sector of fisheries to the country who has a comparative advantage, thus achieving the mutually benefiting results Up to the present, concerted efforts by Korea, Japan and China on the fisheries cooperation have been consistently made, but the results have yet to be materialized, It is also beyond doubt that governmental consultations among the countries should be made on a consistent basis, but non-governmental organizations' exchanges and related joint researches will more likely help bring about the desired fruition in a shorter time.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.41
• /
• pp.153-173
• /
• 2017

On 15 December 2015, China seized an underwater drone belonging to the U.S. in the South China Sea. The underwater drone was then about to be retrieved by the Bowditch, a U.S. naval ship.Although China returned the underwater drone to the U.S. on 20 December 2016, the incident resulted in the considerable controversy involving the use of underwater drones. The reason for this is that the seizure of the underwater drone happened in the exclusive economic zone (hereafter referred to as "EEZ") of the Philippines. Part XIII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereafter referred to as "UNCLOS") governs the matters of marine scientific research (hereafter referred to as "MSR"). If a State intends to use an underwater drone in the EEZ of another coastal State for the purpose of MSR, the former has to obtain the consent of the latter in accordance with relevant provisions included in Part XIII of the UNCLOS. However, it is not obvious whether the consent of a coastal State should be required to launch an underwater drone in the EEZ of the State for the purpose of hydrographic surveying or military surveying. Maritime powers such as the U.S. regard hydrographic surveying or military surveying as part of "other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines" found in Article 58(1) of the UNCLOS, or part of the freedom of the high seas. This interpretation is not incompatible with the implications that the UNCLOS has. Nevertheless, Korea cannot accept this kind of interpretation that is supported by maritime powers. The freedom of hydrographic surveying or military surveying could imply that the EEZ of Korea would be full of underwater drones launched by China, Japan or even Russia. Hence, Korea should claim that the data collected for the purpose of MSR cannot be distinguished from that collected for the purpose of hydrographic surveying or military surveying. This means that hydrographic surveying or military surveying without the consent of a coastal State in the EEZ of the State should not be permitted.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2009

Space law(or outer space law) and the law of the sea are branches of international law dealing with activities in geographical ares which do not or do only in part come under national sovereignty. Legal rules pertaining to the outer space and sea began to develop once activities emerged in those areas: amongst others, activities dealing with transportation, research, exploration, defense and exploitation. Naturally the law of the sea developed first, followed, early in the twentieth century, by air law, and later in the century by space law. Obviously the law of the sea, of the air and of outer space influence each other. Ideas have been borrowed from one field and applied to another. This article examines some analogies and differences between the outer space law and the law of the sea, especially from the perspective of the legal status, the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources and environment. As far as the comparisons of the legal status between the outer space and high seas are concerned the two areas are res extra commercium. The latter is res extra commercium based on both the customary international law and treaty, however, the former is different respectively according to the customary law and treaty. Under international customary law, whilst outer space constitutes res extra commercium, celestial bodies are res nullius. However as among contracting States of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, both outer space and celestial bodies are declared res extra commercium. As for the comparisons of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources between the Moon including other celestial bodies in 1979 Moon Agreement and the deep sea bed in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the both areas are the common heritage of mankind. The latter gives us very systematic models such as International Sea-bed Authority, however, the international regime for the former will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Thus Moon Agreement could not impose a moratorium, but would merely permit orderly attempts to establish that such exploitation was in fact feasible and practicable, by allowing experimental beginnings and thereafter pilot operations. As Professor Carl Christol said until the parties of the Moon Agreement were able to put into operation the legal regime for the equitable sharing of benefits, they would remain free to disregard the Common Heritage of Mankind principle. Parties to one or both of the agreements would retain jurisdiction over national space activities. In so far as the comparisons of the protection of the environment between the outer space and sea is concerned the legal instruments for the latter are more systematically developed than the former. In the case of the former there are growing tendencies of concerning the environmental threats arising from space activities these days. There is no separate legal instrument to deal with those problems.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.147-160
• /
• 2022

SRFC (Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission) requested to the ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) an advisory opinion relating to the IUU (Illegl, Unreported, and Unregulated) fishing (Case No-21 of the ITLOS). Since, in the UNCLOS, there is no article authorizing the jurisdiction of the ITLOS full court's Advisory opinion, so various scholarly opinion wad divided. But ITLOS delivered its Advisory opinion confirming its jurisdictional competence over the Advisory proceedings with its legal opinion about the IUU issues. It opens new possibility of the alternative dispute settlement mechanism of the ITLOS through the advisory procedures. In reality, there has been a view that ICJ (International Court of Justice) could take the part of a kind of dispute settlement through its Advisory procedures. But the advisory procedures of the ITLOS, with no definite clause in UNCLOS about the advisory procedures, which provides more allowances for the function of advisory opinion as the alternative dispute settlement mechanism. ITLOS accepted the requests of the advisory opinion by the State parties through international organization or themselves directly. And the advisory opinion of the ITLOS aims the interpretation and application into the special issues-specially IUU fishing in Case No. 21 of the ITLOS-. Those factors could enable more enhanced role of the ITLOS as an alternative dispute settlement mechanism. But those possibility has contain risk of excessive and unlimited advisory role of the ITLOS. So it is important to focus on the restriction on the role of the State parties in the request of the advisory opinion to the ITLOS. In this regard it is meaningful that the ITLOS has suggested a kind of legal standing in the advisory procedures in that only coastal States could request the Advisory opinion about the IUU in their EEZ. Furthermore the discretionary power of the ITLOS in the Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal could curtail the abuse of the Advisory opinion initiated by the States parties of the UNCLOS. Under this framework, Advisory opinion could broaden more alternative option to the disputes between State parties of the UNCLOS in that after being delivered detailed interpretation of the UNCLOS about the specific issues, States parties could devote themselves to searching for flexible solution for the disputes between State parties. It could obtain legal explanation about the dispute under the Article 297 and Article 298 by detouring the jurisdiction limits through advisory procedures.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.201-224
• /
• 2017

The main subject of this article focused on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas. For this the legal status of the military aircraft, the freedom of overflight, the right of hot pursuit, the right of visit and Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) were dealt. The 1944 Chicago Convention neither explicitly nor implicitly negated the customary norms affecting the legal status of military aircraft as initially codified within the 1919 Paris Convention. So the status of military aircraft was not redefined with the Chicago Convention and remains, as stated in the 1919 Paris Convention, as a norm of customary international law. The analyses on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas are found as follows; According to the Article 95 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military aircraft in the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. According to the Article 111 (5) of the UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised by military aircraft. According to the Article 110 of the UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. As for Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) it is established and declared unilaterally by the air force of a state for the national security. However, there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention and there are no international standards to recognize or prohibit the establishment of ADIZs. ADIZ is not interpreted as the expansion of territorial airspace.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.20 no.5
• /
• pp.571-578
• /
• 2014

The boundaries of ROK maritime jurisdictional area remains unclear as two Koreas failed to draw clear maritime boundaries at the armistice agreement and there are no clear maritime boundaries with China and Japan. After the Korean War, the United Nations Command established the northern limit line(NLL) as well as the area of operations(AO) to enforce the DPRK's compliance with the armistice agreement and has been controlling all of the maritime and air activities in the region. ROK also has been controlling the passage of DPRK vessels in the area. Within the AO, third nation vessels have freedom of navigation, Yet, due to the division followed by the Korean War, ROK classifies DPRK as a hostile state and unique controling system is applied to DPRK vessels. Since the establishment of the AO, many changes have been occurring such as adoption of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) and two Koreas' joining the UN. Also, there are continuous inter-Korean conflicts. Therefore, the geographical span of the AO needs to be reconsidered. Furthermore, a legal measure which ensures ROKN vessel's functional capability of controling DPRK vessels must be introduced. This thesis examines post-Korean War DPRK vessel control system in the Korean peninsula as well as how it should be improved.