It is our common understanding that the carrier is bound to deliver the goods to the consignee named in a non-negotiable straight bill of lading without its presentation. But recently Court of Appeal, Singapore, held that "where a straight bill of lading is issued it is necessary for the bill of lading to be presented by the consignee to the carrier by sea in order to obtain delivery of the goods. A straight bill of lading, just like a bill of lading to order, confers title including the right to receive the goods mentioned on the bill of lading. Only the possibility of negotiation is excluded. The carrier by sea is liable where he delivers the goods to the consignee named in the straight bill of lading without delivering the bill of lading itself."

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the duty of disclosure in insurance law. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the scope or extent of the duty of disclosure and the remedy for breach of the duty in English marine insurance law. The main purpose of this article is also to seek the alternative remedy for the breach. The results of analysis are as following : First, the scope of the duty of disclosure is closely related to the test of materiality and the concept of a hypothetical prudent insurer. The assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, an actual insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure of the assured. But this subjective test of actual inducement is somewhat meaningless in sense that English court takes the test of materiality as a starting point and assumes the presumption of inducement even in case of no clear proof on the inducement. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 18 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty of disclosure. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. The remedy of rescission is too draconian from the point of view of the assured, because he can be deprived of all cover despite he is innocent perfectly. An inadvertent breach from an innocent mistake is as fatal as wilful concealment. What is, therefore, needed in English marine insurance law with respect to remedy for the breach is to introduce a more sophisticated or proportionate remedy ascertaining degrees of fault.

Over the past fifty years, the share of the World's shipping fleet operating under open registry has grown from 4 % to almost half of the total tonnage. While there has been strong opposition based on the costs of maritime disasters and opposition both from the traditional maritime nations, which have suffered erosion of their fleets, and from labour unions, which point to worker exploitation, the shipping companies have found the greater operational and financial flexibility which accompanies open registry to be a considerable attraction The paper consists of seven sections. Section 1 explains the background and of the study. Section 2 reviews the characteristics and definition of FOC. Section 3 is to identify ship register categories and their competitive conditions. Section 4 tackles the emerging forces of globalisation-the advent of FOC. Section 5 deals with legal maritime framework. Section 6 tackles the current structure and characteristics of FOC vessels. Some concluding comments follow in the last section.

This paper intends to prevent dangerous goods shipments from compromising safety, and to minimize the risks to life and property inherent in air transport of dangerous goods. For this purpose, this paper reviews the changes of international standards for the international air transport of dangerous goods, and recommends the methods for improving the management system for the air transport of dangerous goods. As for the research methodology, this paper reviews the current regulations of the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods, IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, and national regulations governing the air transport of dangerous goods in Korea. As the results of this paper, it is anticipated that the national regulations for shipping dangerous goods by air will be detailed, and compliance with the regulations will be enforced. In conclusion, ensuring the safe transport of dangerous goods by air is a shared responsibility of the government authorities, carriers and shippers.

This study is based on the survey data of 74 Korean multinational corporations, which undertook foreign direct investments from 1980 to 1996. The study examined the firm-specific as well as the host country-specific factors affecting the decision between shared and full ownership. According to the results of this study, as for the firm-specific factors, Korean firms entering foreign markets in order to penetrate local markets prefer shared ownership while those pursuing core business diversification prefer full ownership. As for the host country factors, the more advanced the host country(such as OECD countries) is, the more preference is given to full ownership.