• Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.65-78
• /
• 2006

This paper investigates the cost structure ot the Korea and Japan railroad industry with respect to density, scale and scope economies as well as productivity growth rate using a generalized trans)og multiproduct cost function model. The paper then assumes that the Korea and Japan railway companies pi·educe three outputs (incumbent railway passenger-kilometers. Shinkansen passenger-kilometers, ton-kilometers of freight) using four input factors (labor, fuel, maintenance, rolling stock and capital). The specified cost function includes foul other independent variables: track lengths to reflect network effects, two dummies to reflect nation and ownership effects, and time trend as a proxy for technical change. The simultaneous equation system consisting of a cost function and three input share equations is estimated with the Zellner's iterative seemingly unrelated regression. The unbalanced panel data used in the paper, a total of 154 observations. are collected from the annual records of the Korea National Railroad (KNR) for the yews $1977{\sim}2003$, Japan National Railways (JNR) for the years $1977{\sim}1984$. seven Japan Railways (JR's) for the years $1987{\sim}2003$. The findings show that the Korean and Japanese railways exhibit product-specific and overall economies of density but product-specific diseconomies of scale with respect to incumbent railway passenger-kilometers, Shinkansen-kilometers and ton-kilometers. However, the railways experience mild overall economies of scale which result from economies of scope associated with the joint production of incumbent railway/Shinkansen and feight, freight/incumbent railway and Shinkansen except Shinkansen/incumbent railway and freight. In addition, the economies of density and scale in the KNR, JR east, JR central, and JR west companies at the point of the years $1990{\sim}2003$ average is generally analogous to the above results at the point of sample average. There also appear to be economies of ssope associated with the joint Production of the incumbent railway and Shinkansen in JR central but diseconomies of scope in JR East and JR West. The findings also indicate that the productivity growth rate of the privately-owned JR's is larger than that of the government-owned KNR.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• 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.