• Strategy21
• /
• s.45
• /
• pp.60-90
• /
• 2019

The use of the high seas are supported by the two pillars of customary principles --the freedom of navigation and the flag state control on its vessels, which are codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. There have been attempts to limit and retrain the two pillars as maritime regimes are newly created to address new maritime threats, while coastal stares' control over the seas expand. The pillars have been created over thousands years since human beings took to the sea and have served as a foundation to use the oceans peacefully and orderly. Therefore, any retreat or exception from these principles would undermine the fundamental framework for the use of the oceans and eventually these regimes would be subject to control of maritime powers. In conclusion, new maritime regimes such as the sanction measures on North Korea should be enforced within the framework of international law and comply with the fundamental principles such as innocent passage and the freedom of navigation at the high seas.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• 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
• /
• 2008.05a
• /
• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.213-233
• /
• 2016

In an FTA, rules of origin are decided by an agreement between countries directly involved and provided through a written agreement, considering the characteristics of each industry and the situations of the countries, for the characteristics of each item. The PSR on fishery products by item are broadly divided into an agreement that applies the wholly-obtained criterion and an agreement that applies the Change of Chapter (CC). Fishery products belong to HS Code Chapter 3, which are generally produced through obtaining by raising or fishing. This study compared each agreement from this point of view. For the fishery products caught, an error in the job-related judgment may occur in a situation in which the persons in charge do not have any background knowledge involved with high sea fisheries. Since ships may sail, hoisting the flag of the country of registration according to an international agreement, involved with requirements for the recognition of ships for the judgment of the country of origin, the principle of the exclusivity of the flag state should be taken into consideration.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2005.05a
• /
• 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 the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• 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 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.