• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.87-104
• /
• 2007

The launching of the Taepo-dong 1 on 31 August 1998 by the North Korea was the first case where the diplomatic protests was made against the flight, the purpose of which, the launching State claimed, consisted in space exploration and use. It is the principle regarding the freedom of space exploration and use, as included in the international treaty, that is relevant in applying the various rules and in defining the legal status of the flight. Its legal status, however, was not actually taken into account, as political negotiations leading to the test moratorium has been successful until present day in freezing the political crisis. This implies that the rules of the law lack the validity and logic sufficient in dictating the conduct of the States. This case shows that, in effect, it is not the rule but the politics that is to govern the status of the flight.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.271-297
• /
• 2011

Recently, risk of space accident possibility increased in according to commercial space activity and space debris. It failed launch satellite second times in South Korea. Therefore was discussed on liability and insurance issue. Generally, discuss of space insurance be divided two type. Firstly, space insurance relevant to launching satellite and in-orbit. Satellite Launch Insurance and In-Orbit Insurance by the Satellite Operator Secondly, space insurance relevant to Third Party Liability. The former is to protect owner of satellite and operator. The latter is to liable and indemnify owner of satellite and operator's liability. US, UK, France, Russia, South Korea forced to buy space insurance following to domestic law. This is a brief overview of risk allocation and insurance practices in the commercial space transportation industry today. We begin with traditional space transportation, i.e., commercial satellite launches. This is a mature industry with known players. Industry practices have developed and legislation has been adopted in the U.S. and other countries over the past decades to address liability and insurance issues. The primary focus here is on U.S. law, but the discussion of industry practice applies more generally. We then move on to a more exotic form of space transportation: Commercial human space flight. Several private companies are now signing up space tourists for commercial suborbital human space flight, advertised to become available in the near future. The United States amended its launch legislation in 2004 to promote commercial human space flight. But questions remain as to how this new industry will respond to the risk allocation regime established by the U.S. legislation, which leaves both the space flight operator and space tourist exposed to risk and potential liability. As a general proposition, state statutes and contractual waivers alone cannot be relied upon to provide adequate liability protection, and insurance will be required. Federally mandated contractual waivers by space flight participants or liability caps would be helpful to complement insurance solutions. Eventually, as the industry matures, such practices could be extended to an international legal regime. For all the issues mentioned above, I have studied the existing international treaties and several country's domestic law to the space by referring U.S's Commercial Space Launch Amendment Act of 2004 and concluded that uniform legal regime to govern these insurance issues should be established domestically and internationally in the future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.203-319
• /
• 2020

The regulation of satellite remote sensing is generally included with the scope of statutes governing outer space activities. But not all states opted for dedicated satellite remote sensing regulation. The decision whether to do so depends in part on the specific capabilities of national satellite remote sensing programs. Five states that have dedicated statutes governing operations with remote sensing data are the United States, with its developed Landsat regime (the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, LRSPA), Canada, with its Remote Sensing Systems Act, Germany, with its Satellite Data Securities Protection Act (SatDSiG), France, with its Law on Space Operations (LOS), Japan, with its Act on Ensuring Appropriate Handling of Satellite Remote Sensing Data. The major purpose of this article is to shed light on some legal issues surrounding remote sensing activities by comparative review. The paper analyzes international conventions or soft law and national law and policies relating to satellite remote sensing. It also offers some implications and suggestions for regulations of satellite remote sensing operations and satellite data.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.41-68
• /
• 2011

This article deals with the current rules of law of air warfare and its surrounding issues on precautionary action by a military aircraft at air-to-air operation in international armed conflict. However there is no separate and independent legal system to regulate warfare in aerospace in the current system of law of war (or law of armed conflict). In other words, law of air warfare does not exist in a form of a separate treaty. Air warfare has been regulated by international customary law and the relevant provisions in different Conventions, including 1949 four Geneva Conventions and two Additional Protocols, which mainly regulate land and naval warfare. And this makes difficult to make clear a legal term or legal tests on an issue concerned with law of air warfare, which concludes from time to time a dispute on interpretation and implementation of law of air warfare between states. Therefore, this article refers various materials (including 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, San Remo Manual, Harvard Manual, and ICAO Manual on Interception of Civilian Aircraft) for the purpose of defining the current and desirable legal test on precautionary action by military aircraft. In addition to the main purpose of this article, this article tried to show a characteristic of developing mechanism of law of air Warfare taking into account interactions between international air law and law of air warfare.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.145-167
• /
• 2016

UN Security Council is entitled to power for determining the existence of the threat to the peace. Specifying the provisions adopted in accordance with the chapter 7 of the UN Charter, its resolution is deemed as document confirming its decision about the threat to the peace. In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter. Regarding to the terms of the Resolutions to be interpreted, the word "decide" is used as to the suspension of the ballistic missile program, the word "demand" is used as to the stopping of the the launch of ballistic missile, and the word "demand" is used as to return to the missile test moratorium. These provisions may be deemed to determining specific obligations to be imposed upon the States in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. On the other hand, the Resolutions may be limited to the decision, not leading to a sort of international legislation, the main purpose of which is to provide a legal basis for international sanctions against Northe Korea. North Korea missile test case has reminded us of continuing discussion about whether the decision of the Security Council lacks the legislative authority due to its decision process. Furthermore, having regard to the outer space and space activities, the outer space law regime would be not compatible with the Security Council decision process in that the former presupposes the agreement among all States parties, while the latter based upon the agreement between Council member States. Therefore, it is premature to consider the Security Council decision as becoming the lex specialis of the space law regime.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.215-239
• /
• 2011

We are now entering the era of Commercial Space Transportation with the rapid commercialization of space. Commercial Space Tourism will be realized first of all in the commercial space transportation and the spacecraft is developing for it led by private enterprise such as Virgin Galatic and XCOR Aerospace. The spacecraft for space tourism is developed as Reusable Launch Vehicle(RLV). RLV Spaceship I & II manufactured by the Scaled Composites for Virgin Galatic had completed experimental flight successfully and is going to put to the operation for space travel around the year 2012. In our country, Yecheon Astro-Space Center located in Yecheon, Kyungbuk Province, signed a binding-MOU with XCOR Aerospace and going to start space travel in the year 2013 with the spacecraft LYNX MARK-II. Thus, now space travel has become a reality to us. But it is also reality that there's no study by legal basis preparing for the space tourism domestically and internationally. In this regards, this thesis dealt with legal issues related to space tourism. These are as follows : (1) the applicabe law issue that is which law between air law and space law will apply, (2) the status of space tourist issue that is space tourist can be considered as personnel of a spacecraft and/or space flight participant and has the duty to obey the order of the captain of spacecraft, (3) the responsibility of the government for the non-governmental entities such as private enterprise which involved in space tourism in case space accident occurs during the space travel, (4) license permit and supervision issue by the government (In this point, for activating the market of the space tourism, I think it is essential to guarantee the safety of the spacecraft by the government authority, though U. S. government declared that it has not certified the launch vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight participants), (5) registration issue, (6) space insurance issue. For all the issues mentioned above, I have studied the existing international treaties and several country's domestic law to the space by referring U.S's Commercial Space Launch Amendment Act of 2004 and New IGA of 1998 and concluded that uniform legal regime to govern these issues should be established domestically and internationally in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.121-146
• /
• 2018

In traditional international law, a state was internationally responsible only for its activities. With the diversification of the subjects of international law and with the expansion of state's activities, however, bearing international responsibility by the state for its nationals or private enterprises has been recognised in international case law and states practices. Also, this was codified in 2001 by International Law Commission, finishing Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Yet, international responsibility of state for private entities carrying out space activities including launching of satellites and space launch vehicles has been dealt with as an exception from state responsibility in general international law. As we have seen the successful launching of 'Falcon Heavy' by SpaceX which is an american private entity, the private activities in outer space are expanding to even as far as deep space such as Mars. In other words, the scope of the private activities is too enormous to deal with the activities, irrespective of general theories on state responsibility in international law. Therefore, it will be significant to see the constituent elements of state responsibility for private activities in outer space from the point of general international law, without prejudice to provisions related to international space law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.4
• /
• pp.167-176
• /
• 1992

1957년에 서명된 로마조약(條約)을 처음 개정한 단일(單一)유럽법(法)이 1987년 7월 1일에 발효(發效)되었을 때 유럽공동체(共同體) 12개 회원국(會員國)들은 공동정책(共同政策)에 의거 상업(商業), 농업(農業), 운송(運送), 금융(金融) 및 기타 관련부분에 있어 단일역내시장(單一域內市場)을 형성하기로 약속했다. 물론 완전한 역내공동시장(域內共同市場)은 자유로운 운송시장(運送市場)을 전제로 한다. 따라서 EC조약(條約)은 모든 회원국(會員國)들이 서어비스의 자유에 근거하여 공동운송정책(共同運送政策)을 따를 것을 강제하고 있다. 항공운송(航空運送)에 있어서의 목표도 역시 다른 모든 경제활동의 목표와 마찬가지로 로마조약(條約)이 적용되는 공동운송정책(共同運送政策)의 일부를 구성하고 있다. 종합적인 공동체항공정책(共同體航空政策)의 작업에는 운임(運賃), 공급량(供給量), 시장진출(市場進出) 및 경쟁상(競爭上)의 일괄적인 자유화 조치 이상의 것을 내포하고 있다. 그것은 국가장벽으로 방해되지 않는 공동체(共同體)의 항공운송망(航空運送網)의 개발과 확장뿐만 아니라 경제(經濟), 안전(安全), 환경(環境) 및 사회적(社會的) 요인(要因)들 간에 합리적인 균형을 이루는 공동체항공운송정책(共同體航空運送政策)의 개발을 위한 공동항공운송정책(共同航空運送政策)의 공식화(公式化)를 요한다. 1987년의 항공(航空)에 관한 일괄입법조치, 1989년의 제 2 차 항공(航空)에 관한 일괄입법조치 및 1992년 이후로 예정된 제 3 차 일괄입법조치에 따라 EC는 초국가적(超國家的)인 항공운송(航空運送) 분야에 있어서의 개방적인 국제경쟁(國際競爭)을 본격적으로 추구하고 있다. 결국 이러한 일괄규칙은 EC와 제(第) 3 국(國)들간의 관계에 중대한 의미를 가지게 될 것이다. EC항공운송정책(航空運送政策)이 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)의 상업운선(商業運船)에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 것인가는 모든 아시아 국가들이 알아야 할 중요한 문제이다. 이론적으로 말해서, 역내공동체(域內共同體) 항공운송(航空運送)의 자유화는 아시아 국가들에 대한 치외법권적(治外法權的) 효과를 일으킬 수 있는 로마조약(條約)과 유럽사법재판소(司法裁判所)에 의해 형성된 원칙들에 필연적으로 영향을 미칠 것이다. 이와 관련하여 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)은 무차별원칙(無差別原則), 설립(設立)의 자유(自由), 서어비스의 자유(自由) 및 EEC 경쟁법(競爭法)과 같은 제(第) 3 국(國)의 국제항공운송에 영향을 미치는 일련의 새로운 원칙과 법률의 출현에 큰 관심을 갖고 있다. 실무적인 관점에서, 1992년 이후의 종합적인 공동체항공운송정책(共同體航空運送政策)의 작업에는 항공운화(航空運貨), 시장진출(市場進出), 제(第)3 및 제(第)4의 운륜자유권(運輪自由權), 복수지정(複數指定), 제(第)5의 자유(自由), 캐보타지(cabotage), 손상(損傷)(derogation), 공급량(供給量), 편수(便數), 불정기운항(不定期運航) 및 기타 부문항공기소음(部門航空機騷音), 최저(最低) 안전(安全) 및 사회적(社會的) 조치(措置), 항공종사자면허(航空從事者免許), 감항증명(堪航證明), 운항시간제도(運航時間制度), 컴퓨터 예약제도(豫約制度), 탑승거절보상의 공동최저기준(共同最低基準), 공중혼잡(空中混雜), 공항이착륙시간할당법(空港離着陸時間割當法), 공항시설(空港施設), 정부지원(政府支援 등). 이와 같은 모든 공동체항공운송정책(共同體航空運送政策)의 주요문제들은 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)에 여러 각도로 영향을 미치게 될 것이다. 위와 같은 문제들 가운데, 제(第) 3국(國) 항공사(航空社)들의 역내공동체(域內共同體) 항로(航路)의 접근, 공급량(供給量), 운임(運賃), 제(第)5의 자유(自由) 및 캐보타지가 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)에 관심이 큰 문제가 되고 있다. 아시아 항공사(航空社)들의 EEC시장(市場)에로의 상업운항(商業運航)이 다소 영향을 받게 될 것이다. 첫째, 복수(複數) 목적지(目的地) 문제이다. 둘째, 항공(航空)서어비스의 운임(運賃) 및 료솔(料率)문제이다. 셋째, 항공운송구역(航空運送區域)에서의 사업에 대한 경쟁원칙의 적용 문제이다. 넷째, 제(第)5 자유(自由) 운륜권(運輪權) 문제이다. 다섯째, 캐보타지(cabotage)문제이다. 끝으로, 유럽 항공사(航空社)들간의 합병(合倂)의 문제이다. 결론적으로 유럽공동체항공운송(共同體航空運送)의 자유화는 1993년까지 공동체(共同體) 역내(域內)와 역외(域外)의 항공운송법제(航空運送法制)의 현재의 모습을 극적으로 바꾸어 놓을 정도로 가속화(加速化)되고 있다. 한편 항공운송(航空運送)의 자유화(自由化)에 대한 EC의 제의는 대담하고 급진적이다. 반면에 그것이 아시아 항공산업(航空産業)에 미칠 영향 또한 중대하다. 의심할 여지없이 항공사(航空社)와 고객들의 이익면에서 EEC와 비(非)EEC국가들의 항공운송산업(航空運送産業)에서 더욱 경제적으로 경쟁적이 되도록 할 필요가 있다. 전세계 항공운송산업(航空運送産業) 운영(運營)의 대부분을 정부가 소유하거나 통제하는 것은 정말로 국제항공운송(國際航空運送)의 발전에 불필요한 장애를 일으킨다. 따라서 國內航空社와 전세계 항공사(航空社)들간의 이해관계의 조화를 협상하는 것이 중요하다. 아마도 아시아 항공사(航空社)들간의 지역적 협조가 미국(美國)뿐만 아니라 유럽으로 부터의 압력 증가에 대해 균형을 이루는 힘이 될 수 있을 것이다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.