• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.15-24
• /
• 2006

The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has vi-olated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archi-pelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone recevies the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a vio-lation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the ex-clusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.137-161
• /
• 2023

This paper explores the limited role of alliances in preventing maritime territorial disputes among member states, using the ongoing conflict between Greece and Türkiye, two NATO allies, as a case study. Drawing on Institutionalist theory, we seek to explain the mechanisms that have contributed to the failure of the alliance to prevent this dispute, despite constant cooperation and transparency. Unlike land disputes, maritime territorial disputes are complex and multi-layered, with fluid boundaries that can change with climate or natural resource availability. Moreover, the lack of constant surveillance creates ambiguity about territorial encroachment thresholds. These factors have exacerbated the dispute between Greece and Türkiye, drawing other NATO members into the conflict and undermining the strength of the alliance. This paper concludes by providing policy implications for the Republic of Korea in its own potential maritime disputes, and contributes to the broader literature on the role of alliances in preventing territorial disputes.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.37
• /
• pp.193-241
• /
• 2015

China, Japan and Korea are the world's top 10 energy consumers, and so very interested in the development of seabed hydrocarbon resources in order to meet their energy demands. The East China Sea is the tri-junction area where three countries' entitlements on the maritime boundaries are overlapped. There are abundant oil reserves in the East China Sea, and therefore competitions among countries are growing to get control of them. Although these countries have concluded the bilateral agreements to jointly develop resources in the East China Sea, they do not function as well. Because joint development and management of seabed petroleum resources can lead to stable development system, and to lower possibility of legal and political disputes, the needs for joint development agreement among three countries are urgent. Meanwhile, Northeast Asian seas are semi-closed seas, which are geographically closed and vulnerable to marine pollution. Moreover there are a lot of nuclear power plants in coastal area, and seabed petroleum resources are being developed. So it is likely to occur nuclear and oil spill accidents. Fukushima nuclear disaster and Bohai Bay oil spill accident in 2011 are the cases to exhibit the potential of major marine pollution accidents in this area. It is anticipated that the risks become higher because power plants and offshore oil platforms are extending gradually. Therefore, the ways to seek the joint marine environmental protection agreement focused on regulation of nuclear power plant and offshore oil platform have to be considered. In this paper, we try to find the way to make joint development and joint environmental protection agreement in Northeast Asian seas. We concentrate on the measure to drive joint development of seabed petroleum deposits in East China Sea's overlap area, despite of maritime delimitation and territorial disputes, and we try to drive joint marine environmental protection system to respond to marine pollution and accidents due to offshore oil platform and nuclear power plants. Through these consideration, we seek solutions to deal with lack of energy, disputes of maritime territorial and boundary delimitation, and marine pollution in Northeast Asia.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.237-255
• /
• 2021

This article analyzed maritime territorial policies in Korea. Marine territory originally refers to the topography of the subsoil in a country's territorial sea. From a political perspective, it is a broad concept that includes islands and polar regions beyond the jurisdiction of Korean sovereignty or sovereign rights, such as territorial waters, EEZs, and continental shelves. Also, Korean researchers use "maritime territory" as a term for maritime zones that stretch from Ieodo (Korean EEZ) to Dokdo Island. The purpose of this study is to review the concepts of various domestic maritime territories and examine the formation and change of policies. The article is structured as follows. Chapter 2 reviews past discussions on maritime territories and analyzes the concept of maritime territory based on them. The term "maritime territory" is used indiscriminately with islands due to the lack of discussion on this matter between academic circles in the past. Therefore, this chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the concept of maritime territory. Chapter 3 tracks the formation and change of maritime territorial policies. Today, the concept of domestic maritime territory has been completed in the public domain. The activities of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, the control tower of domestic maritime territorial policies, are summarized to explain this concept. Chapter 4 analyzes the concept of maritime territory by comparing it with China's blue state territory (藍色國土). As China's concept of blue state territory has many similarities with maritime territory as a political base for China's maritime activities today, comparing these two concepts would be significant. Based on the above, Chapter 5 derives suggestions to promote maritime territorial policies.

• Spatial Information Research
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.331-342
• /
• 2008

The countries are trying to expand the sea limit such as the territorial sea, fishing zone or the exclusive economic zone as far as the Law of the Sea permit to do for the benefit of their national interest. Especially, they are eager to claim the base point where it locates far from the coastline even if it is uninhabited island or reef under the sea. The baseline has been claimed to maximize the territorial sea. Another way to expand the sea limit is to lower the vertical datum to change the land limit. China claimed Dongdo which is located about 79 miles far from the coast as the base point. Japan also claimed many uninhabited island or the reef which is located very far from the coast such as Okino Dorishima. As Korea is the party who negotiate the maritime limit with Japan and China, we should be keen and sensitive on the issues claimed by neighboring countries in terms of base point and the baseline. This paper is to review the characteristics of the base points or baselines of neighboring countries and to suggest the views how to maintain and to relocate our base points. As western coast of Korean peninsula is one of the largest tide fluctuation zone in the world, with long tidal record to prove the vertical datum adjustment, Korea can find the way to lower the vertical datum especially in Yellow Sea. So, major and critical tidal station has to be set up along the western coast to verify tide fluctuation record which can be met with international standard.

• 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.

• Journal of the Korean association of regional geographers
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.332-347
• /
• 2011

This study is to analyze on territorial education described in geography textbooks in Korea and Japan. The following is the result that shows similarities and differences of the geography textbooks when it comes to territorial education. Korea and Japan have a contrasting territorial background. However, both countries start their territorial education by learning the location and shape of their country. Japanese geography textbooks focus on what people in the world think of Japan, but in case of Korea, the geography textbooks focus on how Koreans look at the world. In short, the territorial education in Japan try to emphasize Japan from the view point of the world. The next common ground is that the two countries provide territorial models in their geography textbooks in order to increase understanding. However, the Japanese students are provided with these territory models much earlier than Korean students and these models help them visualize and solidify their concept of territory. And, the two countries both put great importance on teaching territorial sea. In Japan, they try to include EEZ(Exclusive Economic Zone) in their territory. Considering these facts, it can be concluded that Japan is enlarging their concept of national territory as maritime territory. Lastly, after learning of territory the two countries both treat on territorial problems. But Korea treats passively territorial problem as such Dokdo, but Japan treats actively their territorial problems. Like that, the contents of territorial education described in geography textbooks in Korea and Japan are similar in terms of selection, but differ in quality in terms of organization. Therefore, future territorial education in Korea will be actively and successively done through succession and sequence of geography curriculum.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.769-788
• /
• 2014

Today, all the countries of the world newly recognize importance of sea on 70% area of the earth, which are focused on efforts for security of marine territory and fishes resources. On the security concerns of the ocean & fishes resources, Sea are very important on the ground of the importance of the ocean, thus international community has been trying to combat a maritime security threat and illegal fisheries. Coastal states need to have proper state's jurisdiction and exercise it's jurisdiction to response effectively to a maritime security threat and illegal fisheries. Here, many of the coastal states strengthened the rights in Exclusive Economic Zone(;EEZ) naturally, there are made cooperation activities and keen competition in the sea because deepening of complex understanding of the relationship between the surrounding countries with marine surveys & continental shelf development, island territorial sovereignty & marine jurisdiction in overlap of sea area on EEZ. In these circumstances, foreign fishing boats invaded to our territorial waters and EEZ many times. in addition, Chinese fishing boats are going to illegal fisheries naturally. On this point, a powerful crackdown of maritime enforcement organization had no effect on them. Also more and more their resistance gathered strength and tendency of a illegal activities became systematization, group action and atrocity little by little. So this thesis includes a study on the regal regulation, the system and formalities on the control of illegal fishing. And the author analyzed the details of the activities of illegal fishing and boats controlled by Korea Coast Guard(KCG), fishing patrol vessels of Ministry of Maritime Affaires and Fisheries(MOMAF) and Navy etc. from in adjacent sea area of Korea. In relation to this, the policy and activity plan were devised to crackdown to illegal fisheries of foreign fishing boats and then it was enforced every year. According to this, analyze the present conditions of illegal fisheries of a foreign fishing boats on this study, also analyze the present conditions of maritime enforcement organization & found out problems to compared it. protect the territorial waters, at the same time protection of marine mineral resources & fishes resources of EEZ including continental shelf, which has want to study for the role & response of maritime enforcement organization for the protection of fisheries resources and a proper, a realistic confrontation plan of maritime enforcement organization against illegal fisheries of foreign fishing boats.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.33
• /
• pp.148-177
• /
• 2014

The regional security and stability in Northeast Asia has become more complicated because of a sudden establishment of China's Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) on 23 November 2013. One dimensional conflicts on the territorial sovereignty over the islands between the regional States has developed into the two dimensional conflicts like maritime delimitations among the States concerned since they have all ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which adopts the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone regime. Moreover, due to the notion of the outer limit of the continental shelf, the conflicts have developed into three dimensional ones in order to acquire more natural resources even in the seabed. To make matters worse, such three dimensional conflicts have expanded to the airspace as well. The paper will analyze what implications the sudden declaration of China's ADIZ have for the regional security in Northeast Asia from the perspectives of public international law. To this end, the paper 1) starts with the debates on the legal nature of the ADIZ, 2) identifies the Chinese government's political motives for the establishment of the ADIZ over the East China Sea, 3) assesses the responses of the regional States and the USA to the China's establishment of the ADIZ, and then 4) discuss what implications the overlapped ADIZ of the three key States in the region have for the regional security and stability.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.18 no.5
• /
• pp.446-454
• /
• 2012

This study discusses effective extraterritorial application of criminal Law outside the territorial sea. The paper focuses on the factual differences between vessels and cars which justify the varying standard. Thus, warrantless searches and safety inspection need to be validated because of the exigent circumstances of the sea. Warrantless searches at sea may also be justified based on border search exception. These theories in U. S. law will be helpful for legislation and law enforcement related to the Korean Coast Guard's mission. The paper also discusses Korean Coast Guard's Act's newly enacted provisions concerning search, arrest and hot pursuit.