• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2013.10a
• /
• pp.196-198
• /
• 2013

Navigation of ships is mainly being performed through high sea, but inbound/outbound vessels to a port are characteristic of going via territorial sea of coastal countries. At territorial sea, all ships are under the influence of korea' sovereignty and enjoy innocent passage on the basis of UN Convention on the Law at the Sea(UNCLOS). But in the practical points of view, we want to examine legally on these issues, because we have no clear criteria for reasons about anchor except anchorage and innocent passage at territorial sea prescribed at national laws, moreover it can be used maliciouly.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.280-289
• /
• 2022

Internal Waters refer to the waters located at the landward side of a baseline and is completely under the sovereignty of a coastal state. However, the right of innocent passage of foreign-flag vessels is recognized in internal waters that are newly incorporated by establishing a straight baseline. Korea has a massive Internal Waters on its south-western coast where the straight baseline is adopted and has a wide Internal Waters that allows innocent passage. A foreign-flag vessel navigating the internal waters must be properly managed according to the interest of the coastal states such as the fishing·safety·security·environment around the Korean coast. Additionally, Territorial Sea comes under the sovereignty of a coastal state and it is a very important sea area for managing the interests of the coastal states. However, several collision accidents involving illegally anchored or drifted foreign-flag vessels have been occurring recently in the Korean Internal Waters and Territorial Sea, and such accidents are a threat to its interests. Thus, this paper analyzes the cases of collision of foreign-flag vessels that anchored or drifted without authorization, and examines domestic·international laws on the passage of foreign-flag vessel through Internal Waters and Territorial Waters. Finally, this paper suggests that unauthorized anchoring of foreign-flag vessels in Korean Internal Waters and Territorial Water violates the requirements for innocent passage and this violation is punishable according to related Acts; a desirable improvement plan for the legal system of passage through Internal Waters and Territorial Waters.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.75-111
• /
• 2020

The civilian drone world has evolved in recent years from one dominated by hobbyists to growing involvement by companies seeking to profit from unmanned flight in everything from infrastructure inspections to drone deliveries that are already subject to regulations. Drone flight under the property right relation with the land owner would be deemed legal on the condition that expeditious and innocent passage of drone flight over the land be assured. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) enshrines the concept of innocent passage through a coastal state's territorial sea. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. A vessel in innocent passage may traverse the coastal state's territorial sea continuously and expeditiously, not stopping or anchoring except in force majeure situations. However, the disturbances caused by drone flight may be removed, which is defined as infringement against the constitutional interest of personal rights. For example, aggressive infringement against privacy and personal freedom may be committed by drone more easily than ever before, and than other means. The cost-benefit analysis, however, has been recognjzed as effective criteria regarding the removal of disturbances or injunction decision. Applying that analysis, the civil action against such infringement may not find suitable basis for making a good case. Because the removal of such infringement through civil actions may result in only the deletion of journal article. The injunction of drone flight before taking the information would not be obtainable through civil action, Therefore, more detailed and meticulous regulation and criteria in public law domain may be preferable than civil action, at present time. It may be suitable for legal stability and drone industry to set up the detailed public regulations restricting the free flight of drone capable of acquiring visual information amounting to the infrigement against the right of personal information security.

• 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.