• 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.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.121-134
• /
• 2019

The areas be affected maritime police authority of the Republic of Korea, are largely classified as inland waters, territorial waters, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf(hereinafter referred to as "domestic sea area") and high seas. Of these, the maritime police authority in domestic sea area follows a municipal law that accommodates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS). In addition, this Convention shall apply on the high seas. Meanwhile, on the high seas, foreign vessels other than domestic vessels are allowed to be subject to limited jurisdiction only for the anti-mankind criminal acts, such as piracy etc. this is in accordance with the principle of "Freedom of the high seas" and "maritime flag state," under this Convention. However, the illegal acts of foreign vessels that threaten the security of coastal states and the safety of ships on the high seas can cause many types of crimes other than anti-mankind criminal acts, and the jurisdiction of the coastal states exercised may lead to conflicts between countries. Therefore, this article would like to suggest a plan for institutional improvement to maintain international maritime order on the high seas and secure maritime police authority in coastal states.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.15-24
• /
• 2006

The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has vi-olated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archi-pelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone recevies the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a vio-lation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the ex-clusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2007.12a
• /
• pp.46-48
• /
• 2007

VTS가 국제적으로 성공하기 위해서는 유엔해양법협약의 기본정신에 따라 IMO차원의 국제협약이 마련되어야 하며, 국내 이행입법이 도입되어 법적 실효성을 확보해야 한다. 또한 주변국가간 협력체제를 통한 광역 VTS의 도입으로 연안국의 관할권을 벗어나는 수역에서의 해양사고발생을 방지하고(사전 예방), 사고선박에 대한 해난구조체계(사후구제)를 효과적으로 운영하기 위한 국제법적 제도가 도입되어야 하므로, 이에 대한 기초검토로써의 의미를 가진다.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.1-44
• /
• 2021

China's new Maritime Policy Law (MPL) purports to regulate the duties of China's maritime police agencies, including the China Coast Guard, and safeguard China's sovereignty, security, and rights and interest. The MPL has potentially far-reaching application, as China claims extensive maritime areas off its mainland and in the South China Sea. This expansive application of maritime law enforcement jurisdiction is problematic given that most of China's maritime claims are inconsistent with international law. To the extent that the MPL purports to assert jurisdiction over foreign flagged vessels in disputed areas or on the high seas, it contravenes international law. Numerous provisions of the MPL regarding the use of force are also inconsistent with international rules and standards governing the use of maritime law enforcement jurisdiction, as well as the UN Charter's prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. China could use the MPL as a subterfuge to advance its illegal territorial and maritime claims in the South and East China Seas and interfere with coastal State resource rights in their respective exclusive economic zone.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.227-233
• /
• 2012

The oceans are the largest body of water geographical unit in the earth. In accordance with the general said of the international law, countries on the international law must have four elements: 1) settled residents; 2) determined territory; 3) a certain degree of government organizations; 4) the sovereignty. The country's basic rights are: 1) the right to independence; 2) the right to equal; 3) the right to jurisdiction; 4) the right to self-protection. UNCLOS as the only one of the "Constitution of the Earth" on the earth, the implementation of its entry into force make about 1/3 of the world's oceans should be assigned to the coastal states, in the use and management of ocean gave the coastal states the center jurisdiction, the coastal states' jurisdiction sphere had been expanded, the power comparison among all countries in the world had new changes. The ocean territory, like the land territory, is the most major material condition of a country. The ocean's strategic status is extremely important, is the important stage of the international political, economic and military struggle, there are many disputes about the rights and interests, resources and the development and utilization on the oceans. To resolve these disputes is bound to depend on a strong comprehensive national strength, including politics, economy, science and technology, as well as the powerful marine force, in which maritime police plays an important role.

• 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).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.201-224
• /
• 2017

The main subject of this article focused on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas. For this the legal status of the military aircraft, the freedom of overflight, the right of hot pursuit, the right of visit and Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) were dealt. The 1944 Chicago Convention neither explicitly nor implicitly negated the customary norms affecting the legal status of military aircraft as initially codified within the 1919 Paris Convention. So the status of military aircraft was not redefined with the Chicago Convention and remains, as stated in the 1919 Paris Convention, as a norm of customary international law. The analyses on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas are found as follows; According to the Article 95 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (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 aircraft in the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. According to the Article 111 (5) of the 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 by military aircraft. According to the Article 110 of the 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 unauthorized 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. As for Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) it is established and declared unilaterally by the air force of a state for the national security. However, there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention and there are no international standards to recognize or prohibit the establishment of ADIZs. ADIZ is not interpreted as the expansion of territorial airspace.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• pp.251-293
• /
• 2013

해적은 공해상 해상안전을 위협 한다는 점에서 '인류공동의 적'으로 규정되어 모든 국가가 이를 규제할 수 있는 보편적 관할권이 행사되는 범죄이다. 한국을 포함한 아시아 지역 국가들은 말라카해협 통항에 관해 깊은 이해관계를 갖고 있어 해적 소탕에 대한 의지가 강한 편이다. 이러한 의지는 2006년 '아시아해적퇴치정보공유센터(ReCAAP ISO)'의 창설에 밑거름이 되었으며, 아시아 지역에서 해적이 출현하면 동 센터를 통해 17개국 회원국으로 즉시 통보되고, 주변국의 해경과 해군이 유기적인 작전을 통해 해적을 효율적으로 퇴치하고 있는 모범사례다. 그러나 2009년 소말리아 내란에 따른 무정부 상태가 지속되면서 소말리아 및 아덴만에서의 해적활동이 극성을 부리기 시작했으며, 선박납치 행위가 급증하자 세계 각국에서 함정과 항공기를 파견하여 해적퇴치 활동을 전개하고 있으나 근절되지 않을 뿐만 아니라 해적의 활동해역이 확대되고 있다. 이러한 배경 하에 시작된 본 연구는 연구결과를 중심으로 다음과 같은 대응 방안을 제시한다. 첫째, 소말리아 해적의 근본원인은 국가의 붕괴에서 비롯된 치안부재와 열악한 경제사정 등 내부적인 요인이 크기 때문에 다국적 해군 활동으로 인한 근본적인 해적퇴치에는 한계가 있다. 따라서 국제적인 차원에서 '지역협력협정'체결은 물론, 소말리아 국가재건을 위한 노력이 함께 이루어지는 종합적인 대책이 필요하다. 그러나 보다 더 근본적인 해결책은 유엔차원에서 빠른 시간 내에 소말리아가 정치적 안정을 유지할 수 있도록 정치적 차원에서의 지원이 필요하며, 해적과 테러리스트가 연계됨으로써 국제문제로 확대되지 않도록 하는 노력도 병행되어야 한다. 둘째, 해적문제는 특정국가에만 해당되는 것이 아니라 초국가적인 문제임을 감안하여 유엔안전보장이사회 결의 제1851호에서 '지역 센터' 설립을 권고하고 있는 것처럼 2006년 아시아 국가들이 설치한 ReCAAP ISO와 같은 형태의 지역국가 간 협력기구 또는 유엔 차원의 해적 전담기구를 설치하여 국제사회 공조 하에 해적에 대처하는 방안을 추진하는 것이 필요하다. 셋째, 최근 발생하고 있는 해적행위는 주로 항구 등 내수, 영해 등 연안국의 관할권이 행사되는 지역에서 발생하고 있어 유엔해양법상의 규정은 이러한 '해적' 퇴치에 더 이상 효율적이지 못하다. 국제사회는 이러한 문제점을 인식하여 국제해사기구 (IMO) 등 국제기구를 통해 영해내의 해적 처벌을 위해 최선의 노력을 기울이고 있다. 향후 궁극적으로는 유엔해양법협약의 개정을 통해 법적인 문제점이 개선되어야 한다. 넷째, 전술적인 측면에서도 지상에 기지를 두고 있는 해적들의 지도부가 그 동안 쌓아 놓은 네트워크를 이용하여 다국적 해군에 대한 정보를 수집하고 대응방안을 강구함으로써 나름대로의 생존전략을 구사할 것으로 예상된다. 특히, 선박을 납치한 후 소말리아 연안으로 이동하면서 해군함정과 대치하는 과정에서 해적들이 살상을 당하는 사례가 증가함에 따라 지금까지는 피랍된 선박의 선원을 단순히 해적활동에 참여시키거나, 항해지원을 위한 목적 등으로만 활용했는데, 앞으로는 해적들의 인명피해를 최소화하기 위해서라도 선원들을 방패막이로 활용할 가능성이 더욱 높아질 것으로 예상된다. 따라서 참가하는 해군함정 또는 부대간 해적들의 활동 관련 정보를 공유하는 등 사전에 정보를 획득하기 위한 협력을 강화해야 한다. 다섯째, 한국군함이 삼호주얼리호를 납치했던 소말리아 해적을 한국까지 대리고 와서 처벌하는 것은 불합리하고, 많은 문제점을 야기할 수 있기 때문에 향후 해적처벌을 위한 국제사법기구의 설치가 요구된다. 회원국 분담금으로 운영되는 유엔에 산하기관을 설치하여 소말리아 인접국에서 해결하도록 적극적인 노력을 경주할 필요가 있다. 마지막으로, 선박회사에서도 자국 선박이 위험구역으로 지정된 해역을 항해할 경우를 대비해서 선박자동식별 시스템 구축을 확대하고, 해적이 선박에 승선했을 경우를 대비해서 안전구역(citadel)을 설치하여 선원의 안전을 확보하는 등의 대책이 필요하다. 본 연구를 통해 해양안보는 어느 특정국가에게만 주어진 것이 아니며, 해적행위도 특정 국가의 선박을 대상으로 하는 것이 아니므로 각국 정부간 공동의 협력과 국제사회의 공조가 반드시 실현될 때 해적의 위협으로부터 선박의 안전과 국제사회의 평화가 실현될 수 있다는 것을 강조하고자 한다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• 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.