• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.14-14
• /
• 1996

In general, a source of international law comes out of either treaties or customs. Process of forming treaty law is relatively clear as it is created by both negotiations of legal experts in issue and express of states concerned in the international conferences. However, this process does not apply to the creation of customary international law. Rather the process to customary law depends on legal inference from or reasoning on states' practices in fact so that there is no definite process or procedures for establishing customary international law and objective criteria to identify it. It is more difficult to prove when and what states' practices have been recognized customary law that turns to bind on all members of world community. This paper is to explore, through theories and findings of ICJ, how the customary international law is formed to be effective as a binding norm of law.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.107-120
• /
• 1996

In general, a source of international law comes out of either treaties or customs. Process of forming treaty law is relatively clear as it is created by both negotiations of legal experts in issue and express of sttes concerned in the international conferences. However, this process does not apply to the creation of customary international law. Rather the process to customary law depends on legal inference from or reasoning states' practices in fact so that there is no definite process or procedures for establishing customary international law and objective criteria to identify it. It is more difficult to prove when and what states' practices have been recognized customary law that turns to bind on all members of world community. This paper is to explore, through theories and findings of ICJ, how the customary international law is formed to be effective as a binding norm of law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.187-213
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this article is to examine Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements. Most BITs and other investment treaties provide for FET of foreign investments. Today, this concept is the most frequently invoked standard in investment disputes. It is also the standard with the highest practical relevance: a majority of successful claims pursued in international arbitration are based on a violation of the FET standard. The concept of FET is not new but has appeared in international documents for some time. Some of these documents were nonbinding others entered into force as multilateral or bilateral treaties. Considerable debate has surrounded the question of whether the FET standard merely reflects the internationalminimum standard, as contained in customary international law, or offers an autonomous standard that is additional to general international law. As a matter of textual interpretation, it seems implausible that a treaty would refer to a well-known concept like the "minimum standard of treatment in customary international law" by using the expression "fair and equitable treatment." Broad definitions or descriptions are not the only way to gauge the meaning of an elusive concept such as FET. Another method is to identify typical factual situations to which this principle has been applied. An examination of the practice of tribunals demonstrates that several principles can be identified that are embraced by the standard of fair and equitable treatment. Some of the cases discussed clearly speak to the central roles of transparency, stability, and the investor's legitimate expectations in the current understanding of the FET standard. Other contexts in which the standard has been applied concern compliance with contractual obligations, procedural propriety and due process, action in good faith, and freedom from coercion and harassment. In short, meeting the investor's central legitimate concern of legal consistency, stability, and predictability remains a major, but not the only, ingredient of an investment-friendly climate in which the host state in turn can reasonably expect to attract foreign investment.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.45-64
• /
• 1993

The law of territorial sea is a fundamental law by which the width of sovereign domain of a coastal state is determined. The P.R.China'a regime on the territorial sea was established through the Declaration on China's Ttrritorial Sea of 1958 and the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992. And the P.R.China's consistent policy on the territorial sea can be summarized as follows ; \circled1 The adoption of the straight baseline and 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width, \circled2 The foreign merchant vessels can enjoy the right of innocent passage, while requesting for prior permission for the foreign military vessels on the entry into territorial sea. \circled3 The Chiungchow Strait and the Bohai Bay are claimed as the internal waters. \circled4 Enlistment of the whole coastal islands including the Taiwan. 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width can be recognized as lawfull with respect to the 1982 UNLOS Convention. But the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992 contains some problems on the legality viewed in the light of customary international law. Firstly, it can be said that the adoption of simple straight baseline is not reasonable, and it must be investigated closely on the hidden intention of China. Secondly, there involved some possibility of international dispute on making Tung Tao which is 69 nautical miles apart from the mainland of a basepoint and on making the Bohai Bay of a historic bay. And also public notification of all basepoints for the straight baselines is necessary to meet the requirement of customary international law, Thirdly, two military zones established unilaterally in 1950 are illegal with respect to the customary international law, and they must be repealed deservedly. Fourthly, there have a lot of restrictions on the innocent passage even for foreign merchant vessels by the municipal law such as the Maritime Traffic Safety Law. As a conclusion, the P.R.China's territorial sea regime contains some illegal elements such as unilateral expansion of the maritime sovereignty or jurisdiction. In order to meet the general principle of the international law, the P.R.China's territorial sea policy must be modified on the basis of multilateral agreement with the states concerned. And Korea, as a state with opposite, has a definite right to take countermeasure agaist the P.R.China's contiguous zone.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.137-144
• /
• 2016

The followings are required to establish uniform principle of criminal jurisdiction for international cyber crime into customary international law; (1) clear guideline of UN for promoting national practice (2) formation of general practices based on these guidelines (3) these general practices should obtain legal confidence. International society is in close cooperation for investigating and controlling cyber threat. The US FBI has closed down the largest online crime space called 'Darkcode' and prosecuted related hackers based on joint investigation with 19 countries including England, Australia, Canada, Bosnia, Croatia, Israel, and Rumania. More and more people in Korea are raising their voices for joining cyber crime treaty, 'Budapest Treaty.' Budapest Treaty is the first international treaty prosecuting cyber crime by setting out detailed regulations on internet criminal act. Member countries have installed hotline for cyber crime and they act together. Except European countries, America, Canada, and Japan have joined the treaty. In case of Korea, from few years before, it is reviewing joining with Ministry of Foreign affairs, Ministry of Justice and the National Police but haven't made any conclusion. Different from offline crime, cyber crime is planned in advance and happens regardless of border. Therefore, international cooperation based on position of punishing criminals and international standards. Joining of Budapest international cyber crime treaty shall be done as soon as possible for enhancing national competence.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.189-217
• /
• 2017

Declaration of Air Defense and Identification Zones started with the United States in 1950, which was followed by declaration of KADIZ by the Republic of Korea in 1951. Initial ADIZ were solely linked with air defense missions, but their roles have changed as nations around the globe manifested a tendency to expand their influence over maritime resources and rights. In particular, China declared ADIZ over the East China Sea in October 2013 and forced all passing aircraft to submit flight plan to ATC or military authority, saying failure of submission will be followed by armed engagement. China announced it would declare another zone over the South China Sea despite the ongoing conflict in the area, clearly showing ADIZ's direct connection with territorial claim and EEZ and that it serves as a zone within which a nation can execute its rights. The expanded KADIZ, which was expanded in Dec 15, 2013 in response to Chinese actions, overlaps with the Chinese ADIZ over the East China Sea and the Japanese ADIZ. The overlapping zone is an airspace over waters where not only the Republic of Korea but also of China and Japan argue to be covering their continental shelf and EEZ. Military conventions were signed to prevent contingencies among the neighboring nations while conducting identifications in KADIZ, including the overlapping zone. If such military conventions and practice of air defense identification continue to be respected among states, it is under the process of turning into a regional customary law, although ADIZ is not yet recognized by international law or customary law. Moreover, identification within ADIZ is carried out by military authorities of states, and misguided customary procedures may cause serious negative consequences for national security since it may negatively impact neighboring countries in marking the maritime border, which calls for formulation of operation rules that account for other state activities and military talks among regional stake holders. Legal frameworks need to be in place to guarantee freedom of flights over international seas which UN Maritime Law protects, and laws regarding military aircraft operation need to be supplemented to not make it a requirement to submit flight plan if the aircraft does not invade sovereign airspace. Organizational instructions that require approval of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff for entrance and exit of ADIZ for military aircraft need to be amended to change the authority to Minister of National Defense or be promoted to a law to be applicable for commercial aircraft. Moreover, in regards to operation and management of ADIZ, transfer of authority should be prohibited to account for its evolution into a regional customary law in South East Asia. In particular, since ADIZ is set over EEZ, military conventions that yield authority related to national security should never be condoned. Among Korea, China, Japan and Russia, there are military conventions that discuss operation and management of ADIZ in place or under negotiation, meaning that ADIZ is becoming a regional customary law in North East Asia region.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• pp.1-20
• /
• 2015

International Commercial Terms, known as "Incoterms", are internationally accepted terms defining the responsibilities of exporters and importers in the arrangement of shipments and the transfer of liability involved at various stages of the transaction. The latest version of Incoterms rules were revised in 2010, so called Incoterms$^{(R)}$ 2010 which is the eighth set of pre-defined commercial terms published by the International Chamber of Commerce(ICC) in 1936. It has been already past 5 years since Incoterms$^{(R)}$ 2010 became effective January 1, 2011. At this point, we should examine the latest version of Incoterms whether the rules are not satisfied with the practical commerce because the customs and practices of commerce change constantly. The main purpose of this article is to seek a difference between the present commercial customs and practice and the rules of Incoterms$^{(R)}$ 2010. In addition, if there is any difference between them, an alternative resolution would be suggested. This article exercises the process of transition of the Incoterms rules, especially CIP, DDP, and CIF among 11 rules of Incoterms$^{(R)}$ 2010. Then this article provides some feasible alternatives to attempting to resolve some regulation problems of CIP, DDP, and CIF in the Incoterms$^{(R)}$ 2010. For examples, the practical meaning is different between "if customary or at the buyer's request" and "if agreed or customary" in CIF and CIP, especially a negotiable documentary being used. Furthermore, the interpretation of transfer of risks on the afloat goods in string sales in CIF term.

• 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 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.99-119
• /
• 2005

Recently, the export claims related to the compliance of the commercial invoice are increasing. This paper aims to review the basic requirements of the invoice, and two theories on the document compliance, i.e., the strict compliance and the substantial compliance, and to analyse the substantial compliance of the invoice through some recent cases under the UCP 500, ICC's opinions and the International Standard Banking Practice (ISBP). As regards the compliance of the invoice, a majority of the cases has held that it must comply strictly with the credit terms ("strict compliance rule"). However, a minority of courts and credit industry standards such as the UCP and ISBP published by ICC take a different approach, infusing the credit law notions such as equity, "substantial compliance rule", etc. The extent of the substantial compliance of the invoice is particularly explained in the above-mentioned invoice paragraphs of the ISBP and supported by a large number of ICC's official opinions. Especially, the parties and descriptions in the invoice must correspond with those in the credit, being not inconsistent with the other documents. Other issues related to invoices such as a tolerance of the quantity, the amount, and the number of originals or copies, etc. must comply with the credit terms substantially.