• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.7
• /
• pp.151-175
• /
• 1995

In recent years, questions have arisen under several forms with respect to the need for adapting present legal order established under the Chicago Convention and relevant customary rules into newly developed environment surrounding the international air transport industry. Major feature of such trends included in opinions for modification of the present legal order might be defined as more liberalistic approach to this industry. In this respect, many scholars and lawyers in this field agree with a view that a theoretical tie between an aircraft/air liners and a register - State lies in political and strategical concern of the State so that each aircraft/air liners has been attributed a single nationality. In the context of such concern, each aircraft/air liners has been related with each register-State in the form of "genuine connection". However, present and near future development of air transport industry and its world - wide market requires some modification of such single nationality regime. Taking into account such circumstances, States as creator of present legal order are in the process of establishing new legal order where air liners with multi - nationality are capable of satisfying to such needs. As adopting a series of liberalization package for air transport industry in european continent, European Union adopts a concept of "community air carrier", by which an air space of each member State is open to each other, especially through the grant of cabotage right. A serious concern may arise in such grant because the Article 7 of the Chicago Convention prohibits such grant on an exclusive basis. While many theoretical opinions have been put forward concerning the interpretation of that article, a case of European Union shall be a good test of the range of its application. It is anticipated that future development around this issue shaH furnish us a major feature of the liberalization of international air transportation and an adaptation process of present legal order.

• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.375-397
• /
• 2011

Having ahead the Korea-US FfA come into effect by beginning of the 2012, the interest to U.S. trade law has been highly increased. The abuse of U.S. antidumping measures, especially, have been alleged by many developed countries, that's why it need to be studied. For initiating antidumping investigation, the scope of "subject merchandise" has to be determinated. But there is no regulation about the term "subject merchandise(or product under consideration)" on WTO Antidumping Agreement as well as U.S. Antidumping Law. U.S. antidumping law defines domestic like product as "a product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title". Thus, the reference point from which the like product analysis begins is "the article subject to an investigation". The Department of Commerce should interpret the subject merchandise in accordance with customary rules, beginning with its ordinary meaning. The note of caution is that the DOC generally exercises 'broad discretion to define and clarify the scope of an antidumping investigation in a manner which reflects the intent of the petition. This paper investigates the survey scope of product in U.S. antidumping law through related regulations and cases. In addition, it was carefully examined because the scope of subject merchandise has effect on antidumping duty order.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.29-54
• /
• 2007

Nuclear Power Sources(NPS) have been used since 1961 for the purpose of generating energy for space objects and have since then been recognized as particularly suited essential to some space operations. In January 1978 a malfuctioning Soviet nuclear powered satellite, Cosmos 954, re-entered the earth's atmosphere and disintegrated, scattering radioactive debris over a wide area of the Canadian Northwest Territory. This incident provided some reasons to international legal scholars to make some principles to regulate using NPS in outer space. In 1992 General Assembly adopted "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space". These NPS Principles set out certain legal and regulatory requirements on the use of nuclear and radioactive power sources for non-propulsive purposes. Although these principles, called 'soft laws', are not legal norms, they have much enfluences on state practices such as 1983 DBS Principles(Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting), 1986 RS Principles(Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space) and 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interests of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries. As far as 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space is concerned the main points such as free use of outer space, non-appropriation of celestial bodies, application of international law to outer space etc. have become customary international law binding all states. NPS Principles might have similar characters according to states' willingness to respect them.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2007

Nuclear Power Sources(NPS) have been used since 1961 for the purpose of generating energy for space objects and have since then been recognized as particularly suited essential to some space operations. In January 1978 a malfuctioning Soviet nuclear powered satellite, Cosmos 954, re-entered the earth's atmosphere and disintegrated, scattering radioactive debris over a wide area of the Canadian Northwest Territory. This incident provided some reasons to international legal scholars to make some principles to regulate using NPS in outer space. In 1992 General Assembly adopted "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space". These NPS Principles set out certain legal and regulatory requirements on the use of nuclear and radioactive power sources for non-propulsive purposes. Although these principles, called 'soft laws', are not legal norms, they have much enfluences on state practices such as 1983 DBS Principles(Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting), 1986 RS Principles(Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space) and 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interests of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries. As far as 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space is concerned the main points such as free use of outer space, non-appropriation of celestial bodies, application of international law to outer space etc. have become customary international law binding all states. NPS Principles might have similar characters according to states' willingness to respect them.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.223-258
• /
• 2013

1967 Outer Space Treaty(Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies; OST) is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law. OST is based on the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space announced by UNGA resolution. As of May 2013, 102 countries are states parties to OST, while another 27 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification. OST explicitly claimed that the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies are the province of all mankind. Art. II of OST 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", thereby establishing res extra commercium in outer space like high seas. However 1979 Moon Agreement stipulates that "the moon and its natural resources are the Common Heritage of Mankind(CHM)." Because of the number of the parties to the Moon Agreement(13 parties) it does not affect OST. OST also established its specific treaties as a complementary means such as 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention. OST bars states party to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications. However OST does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit. China and Russia submitted Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT) on the Conference on Disarmament in 2008. USA disregarded PPWT on the ground that there are no arms race in outer space. OST does not have some articles in relation to current problems such as space debris, mechanisms of the settlement of dispute arising from state activities in outer space in specific way. COPUOS established "UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" based on "IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" and ILA proposed "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris" for space debris problems and Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA) established "Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities" and ILA proposed "1998 Taipei Draft Convention on the Settlement of Space Law Dispute" for the settlement of dispute problems. Although OST has shortcomings in some articles, it is very meaningful in international law in considering the establishment of basic principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. OST established the principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space as customary law and jus cogens in international law as follows; the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States; outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. The principles of global public interest in outer space imposes international obligations erga omnes applicable to all States. This principles find significant support in legal norms dealing with following points: space activities as the "province of all mankind"; obligation to cooperate; astronauts as envoys of mankind; avoidance of harmful contamination; space activities by States, private entities and intergovernmental organisations; absolute liability for damage cauesd by certain space objects; prohibition of weapons in space and militarization of the celestial bodies; duty of openness and transparency; universal application of the international space regime.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.127-160
• /
• 2014

The UN COPUOS was established in 1959 as a permanent committee of the UN General Assembly with the aims to promote international cooperation in peaceful uses of outer space, to formulate space-related programmes within the UN, to encourage research and dissemination of information on space, and to study legal problems arising from the outer space activities. Its members have been enlarged from 24 members in 1959 to 76 in 2014. The Legal Subcommittee, which has been established under COPUOS in 1962 to deal with legal problems associated with space activities, through its first three decades of work has set up a framework of international space law: the five treaties and agreements - namely the Outer Space Treaty, Rescue Agreement, Liability Convention, Registration Convention, Moon Agreement - and the five declarations and legal principles. However, some sceptical views on this legal framework has been expressed, concerning the applicability of existing international space law to practical issues and new kinds of emerging space activities. UNISPACE III, which took place in 1999, served as a momentum to revitalize the discussions of the legal issues faced by the international community in outer space activities. The agenda of the Legal Subcommittee is currently structured into three categories: regular items, single issue/items, and items considered under a multi-year workplan. The regular items, which deal with basic legal issues, include definition and delimitation of outer space, status and application of the five UN treaties on outer space, and national legislation relevant to the peaceful exploration and use of outer space. The single issues/items, which are decided upon the preceding year, are discussed only for one year in the plenary unless renewed. They include items related to the use of nuclear power sources in outer space and to the space debris mitigation. The agenda items considered under a multi-year work plan are discussed in working group. Items under this category deal with non-legally binding UN instruments on outer space and international mechanism for cooperation. In recent years, the Subcommittee has made some progress on agenda items related to nuclear power sources, space debris, and international cooperation by means of establishing non-legally binding instruments, or soft law. The Republic of Korea became the member state of COPUOS in 2001, after rotating seats every two years with Cuba and Peru since 1994. Korea's joining of COPUOS seems to be late, in considering that some countries with hardly any space activity, such Chad, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Lebanon, Cameroon, joined COPUOS as early as 1960s and 1970s and contributed to the drafting of the aforementioned treaties, declarations, and legal principles. Given the difficulties to conclude a treaty and un urgency to regulate newly emerging space activities, Legal Subcommittee now focuses its effort on developing soft law such as resolutions and guideline to be adopted by UN General Assembly. In order to have its own practices reflected in the international practices, one of the constituent elements of international customary law, Korea should analyse its technical capability, policy, and law related to outer space activities and participate actively in the formation process of the soft law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.35-59
• /
• 2018

Professor Bin Cheng said that outer space was res extra commercium, while the moon and the other celestial bodies were res nullius before the 1967 Outer Space Treaty(OST). However, Article 2 of the OST made the moon and other celestial bodies have the legal status as res extra commmercium, not appropriated by any country or private enterprises or individual person, but the resources there can be freely available, as those on the high seas. The non-appropriation principle was introduced to corpus juris spatialis internationalis. Whether or not the non-appropriation principle is binding for the non-parties of the OST, many scholars see this principle as an international customary law, even developing into jus cogens. Article 11(2) of the Moon Agreement(MA) reconfirms the nonappropriation principle of Article 2 of the OST, but it has much less effect than the OST because the MA binds only the 18 parties involved. The MA applies only to the moon and celestial bodies other than the Earth in the Solar System, the OST's application scope extends to the Galaxy because the OST has no such substantive enactment. As referred to in the 2015 CSLCA of USA or Luxembourg's Law of Space Resources, allowing individuals and enterprises run by other countries to commercially explore and utilize the space resources, the question may arise whether this violates the non-appropriation principle under Article 2 of the OST and Article 11 of the MA. In the case of the CSLCA, the law explicitly specifies that sovereignty, possessory rights, and judiciary rights to a specific celestial body cannot be claimed, let alone ownership. This author believes that this law respects the legal status of outer space and the celestial bodies as res extra commmercium. As long as any countries or private enterprises or individuals respect the non-appropriation principle of outer space and the celestial bodies, they could use, exploit it. Another question might be raised in the difference between res extra commercium on the high seas and res extra commercium in outer space and the celestial bodies. Collecting resources on the high seas and exploiting space resources should be interpreted differently. On the high seas, resources can be collected without any obstacles like fishing, whereas, in the case of the deep sea-bed area, the Common Heritage of Mankind principles under the UNCLOS should be operated by the International Seabed Authority as an international regime. The nature or form of the sea resources found on the high seas are thus different from that of space resources, which are fixed on the moon and the celestial bodies without water. Thus, if individuals or private enterprises collect these resources from outer space and the celestial bodies, they might secure a certain section and continue collecting or mining works without any limitation. If an American enterprise receives an approval from the U.S. government, secures the best location and collects resources on the moon, can other countries' enterprises access to this area? How large the exploiting place can be allotted on the moon? How long should such a exploiting activity be lasted? Under the current international space law, these matters might be handled according to the principle of "first come, first served." As a consequence, the international community should provide a guideline or a proposal for the settlement of any foreseeable disputes during the space activity to solve plausible space legal questions in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.375-402
• /
• 2020

The adoption and entering into force of the Registration Convention was another achievement in expanding and strengthening the corpus iuris spatialis. It was the fourth treaty negotiated by the member states of the UNCOPUOS and it elaborates further Articles 5 and 8 of the Outer Space Treaty(OST). The Registration Convention also complements and strengthens the Article 11 of the OST, which stipulates an obligation of state parties to inform the UN Secretary-General of the nature, conduct, locations, and results of their space activities in order to promote international cooperation. The prevailing purposes of the Registration Convention is the clarification of "jurisdiction and control" as a comprehensive concept mentioned in Article 5 8 of the OST. In addition to its overriding objective, the Registration Convention also contributes to the promotion and the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. Establishing and maintaining a public register reduces the possibility of the existence of unidentified space objects and thereby lowers the risk such as, for example, putting the weapons of mass destruction secretly into orbit. And furthermore it could serve for a better space traffic management. The Registration Convention is a treaty established to implement Article 5 of OST for the rescue and return of astronaut in more detail. In this respect, if OST is a general law, the Registration Convention would be said to be in a special law. If two laws conflict the principle of lex specialis will be applied. Countries that have not joined the Registration Convention will have to follow the rules concerning the registration of paragraph 7 of the Declaration by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 1721 (X V I) in 1961. UN Resolution 1721 (XVI) is essentially non-binding, but appears to have evolved into the norm of customary international law requiring all States launching space objects into orbit or beyond to promptly provide information about their launchings for registration to the United Nations. However, the nature and scope of the information to be supplied is left to the discretion of the notifying State. The Registration Convention is a treaty created for compulsory registration of space objects by nations, but in reality it is a treaty that does not deviate from existing practice because it is based on voluntary registration. With the situation of dealing with new problems due to the commercialization and privatization of the space market, issues related to the definition of a 'space object', including matter of the registry state of new state that purchased space objects and space debris matter caused by the suspension of space objects launched by the registry state should be considered as matters when amendments, additional protocols or new Registration Convention are established. Also the question of registration of a flight vehicle in the commercial space market using a space vehicle traveling in a sub-orbital in a short time should be considered.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.427-468
• /
• 2015

To date, we have considered the theoretical views, the standpoint of states and the discourse within the international community such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) regarding the Air/Outer Space Boundary Question which is one of the first issues of UN COPUOS established in line with marking the starting point of Outer Space Area. As above mentioned, discussions in the United Nations and among scholars of within each state regarding the delimitation issue often saw a division between those in favor of a functional approach (the functionalists) and those seeking the delineation of a boundary (the spatialists). The spatialists emphasize that the boundary between air and outer space should be delimited because the status of outer space is a type of public domain from which sovereign jurisdiction is excluded, as stated in Article 2 of Outer Space Treaty. On the contrary art. I of Chicago Convention is evidence of the acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as an international customary law, has the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. The functionalists, backed initially by the major space powers, which viewed any boundary demarcation as possibly restricting their access to space, whether for peaceful or non-military purposes, considered it insufficient or inadequate to delimit a boundary of outer space without obvious scientific and technological evidences. Last more than 50 years there were large development in the exploration and use of outer space. But a large number states including those taking the view of a functionalist have taken on a negative attitude. 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 seems therefore to welcome the arrival of clear evidence of a growing recognition of and national practices concerning a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a large number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution to the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated and a number of countries including Russia have already advocated the acceptance of the lowest perigee boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. As a matter of fact the lowest perigee where space objects are still able to continue in their orbiting around the earth has already been imposed as a natural criterion for the delimitation of outer space. This delimitation of outer space has also been evidenced by the constant practice of a large number of States and their tacit consent to space activities accomplished so far at this distance and beyond it. Of course there are still numerous opposing views on the delineation of a outer space boundary by space powers like U.S.A., England, France and so on. Therefore, first of all to solve the legal issues faced by the international community in outer space activities like delimitation problem, there needs a positive and peaceful will of international cooperation. From this viewpoint, President John F. Kennedy once described the rationale behind the outer space activities in his famous "Moon speech" given at Rice University in 1962. He called upon Americans and all mankind to strive for peaceful cooperation and coexistence in our future outer space activities. And Kennedy explained, "There is no strife, ${\ldots}$ nor any international conflict in outer space as yet. But its hazards are hostile to us all: Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again." This speech seems to even present us in the contemporary era with ample suggestions for further peaceful cooperation in outer space activities including the delimitation of outer space.