• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.179-185
• /
• 2013

UNCLOS recognizes the right of innocent passage in the ocean but grants jurisdiction and governance to the state of the flag the vessel flies. However, by granting the right to determine vessel's nationality to each country in UNCLOS and by practically consenting inconsistency with the ownership and the state of flag has made the keeping of maritime order quite difficult. Especially, acknowledging the exclusive rights of the flag state on criminal jurisdiction hinders the owner state from exercising its rights and exposes the problem of not taking into account the opinion of the affected state party. This study addresses these issues and examines international regulations on vessels and flag states, mainly UNCLOS, and provides case studies on how criminal jurisdiction is determined when accidents occur at sea. Furthermore, it takes a deeper look into the mutual assistance system in criminal matters and proposes some alternatives on how to overcome these issues.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.47-52
• /
• 2011

On the high seas, under international law, a ship is subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag she flies. Vessels of any flag are free to navigate the high seas without interference from other states. Thus, there are certain limits of coastal state's exercising law enforcement jurisdiction over a foreign flag vessel on the high seas. However, there are exceptions to exclusive flag state jurisdiction. One of them is the theory of constructive presence. The other is theory of partial execution. Korea Coast Guard's law enforcement authority should be exercised more actively based on those theories supported by the international cases.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• 제39권4호
• /
• pp.313-318
• /
• 2015

A question has recently been raised as to whether a foreign officer needs to obtain a Korean endorsement in order to be able to serve on board a Korean flag ship. This is attributable to the fact that differences of viewpoint may arise as to the interpretation on the relation between the mutatis mutandis article 24(1) and the endorsement issuance article 10 bis. This study intends to propose an interpretative solution through conducting in-depth analysis on the article 25(1). The conclusions of this study can be given as follows. First, the jurisdiction over the bareboat charter ships with hire purchase shall be rested with the third country of which the flag the ship is flying, the endorsement to be issued to foreign officers have to be issued by the flag State under the STCW Convention as ameded. Second, the provisons of the ship officers' act shall not be made applicable, commensurate with the intention of legislating the mutatis mutandis article 25, to the BHC/HP in such a way that is in infringement with the jurisdiction of flag State of those foreign ships. Third, the mutatis mutandis article shall be made applicable to only such areas of manning standards not covered under the STCW Convention as amended and shall exclude those provisions pertaining to the issuance of various certificates of which the jurisdiction is rested with flag State under the international instrument. Fourth, the article 10 bis(1) is not a provision requiring foreign officers wishing to serve on a BBC/HP to obtain a Korean endorsement. In summation, the article 10 bis shall be used only in the cases where foreign officers wishing to serve on a Korean flag ship are required to obtain korean endorsement.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.149-156
• /
• 2008

The right of hot pursuit is an exception to the general rule that a ship on the high seas is subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag she flies. The right of hot pursuit is provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This paper discusses the requirements for the right of hot pursuit. The use of force should be avoided during hot pursuit. When force is unavoidable, it should not be used beyond what is reasomable and necessary in the circumstances.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 해양환경안전학회 2008년도 춘계학술발표회
• /
• pp.197-204
• /
• 2008

The right of hot pursuit is an exception to the general rule that a ship on the high seas is subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag she flies. The right of hot pursuit is provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This paper discusses the requirements of the right of hot pursuit. The use of force should be avoided during hot pursuit. When force is unavoidable, that is not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• 제18권5호
• /
• 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.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 해양환경안전학회 2005년도 춘계학술발표회
• /
• pp.195-208
• /
• 2005

The flag State is primarily responsible for implementing international maritime conventions(IMO conventions) and national laws and other standards as far as its own vessels are concerned, on the other hand the port State exercise its rights for the safety and marine environment under international law especially UNCLOS within port and territorial sea. In particular, the port State may take appropriate measures including detention of ships identified as sub-standard vessels which are considered as port State's supplementary role aiming for implementing international and national and regulations. But in the course of implementing port state control, international disputes may happen between port state, coastal state and flag state in spite of making all possible efforts to avoid these disputes. This paper aims to consider legal grounds on port state control(PSC) in international conventions and national laws concerned and deals with contradictions between international and national law arising from exercising PSC by port state control officers(PSCOs).

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• 제5권2호
• /
• pp.138-146
• /
• 1993

In accordance with the establishment of 200 nautical miles EEZ regime as a customary international law since the mid - 1980s, the area of global high seas became reduced relatively. On the other hand, the importance of high seas fishing ground became serious for the distant-water fishing states like Korea. But it can be expected that international dispute on the jurisdictional problem of the fishing vessels engaging high sea fishery will occur frequently owing to institutional inertia of the UNLOS Convention on this matter. "The Draft Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas" as an international code of conduct for responsible fishing which was adopted by FAO in 1993 is providing the more consolidating and definiting rules for jurisdictional responsibility of flag states to make completion the loophole of the UNLOS Convention. As a precondition for the effective control and enforcement of activities of the fishing vessels engaging high sea fishery, the Draft Agreement is providing some articles allowing the flag states to hold the rights of granting nationality, fishery permission, fishery supervision and control with punishment for the fishing vessels entitled to fly their own flag. Accordingly it can be evaluated that this Draft Agreement does not deviate on the whole from the traditional practice and the basic legal principle of the UNLOS Convention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of 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(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of 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 only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of 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 authorized 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. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.