• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.303-325
• /
• 2015

The latest slogan put forth by the international space community is the safety, security, and sustainability of outer space activities. The security of outer space activities, in particular, would be defined as the secure state from space-based threats. The latter comprises passive threats (such as collision with other satellites and space debris) and aggressive threats (such as electromagnetic interference, arms race on the earth or in outer space, and military attacks). Has outer space been used for military purposes in practice? If so, does international law regulate the military space activities it? The use of outer space for military purposes is referred to as space militarization and space weaponisation. Satellites has been used in Gulf War, Kosovo War, and Afghan War, recently, and research and development on space weapons are under way. Since only the placement of weapons of mass destruction on orbit around the earth is prohibited in accordance with 1967 Outer Space Treaty, it may be asked whether other weapons may be placed on orbit. It will be necessary to analyze the stance of on the above question, by studying UN space-related treaties including UN Charter. New international space norms represented by PPWT, ICoC, and UN GGE Report are at the center of progressive development of international law. In conclusion, the author will signpost the various points on international norms to be codified on the use of outer space for military purposes.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.117-126
• /
• 2019

Historically, the United Nations supported the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea after liberation and played a decisive role in defending liberal democracy and peace by sending peacekeepers during the Korean War. With the political and military support of the United Nations, the Republic of Korea was able to grow into the world's 10th largest economy today, and now it is time to fulfill its responsibilities and roles to contribute to peace and prosperity in the international community as a middle power. The international peace operations of the United Nations are comprehensive concepts encompassing conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace enforcement, peacekeeping, and peace building, and are implemented in accordance with the Security Council resolutions based on the UN Charter. In order to effectively respond to changes in the international security environment and conflict factors after the post-Cold War, the UN promoted a paradigm shift in international peace operations through the 2000 Brahim Report and the 2015 High-Level Panel Report on UN Peace Activities. Therefore, this study aims to assess the Korean military's international peace operations at a limited level, such as reconstruction assistance and humanitarian assistance, and to present development measures for more active participation as a middle power in the future. To this end, we reviewed the history and specificities of conflict, the conflicting factors after the post-Cold War, and the new paradigm of UN peace operations, focusing on the African region where a number of UN peacekeeping missions are stationed. And it also suggested ways to develop international peace operations that the Korean military should pursue in the future.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.273-302
• /
• 2015

The term "peaceful uses of outer space" in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty appears in official government statements and multilateral outer space related treaties. However, the examination of the state practice leads to the conclusion that this term is still without an authoritative definition. As far as the meaning of 'peaceful use' in international law is concerned the same phrases in the UN Charter, the 1963 Treaty of Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere in Outer Space and Under Water, the 1956 Statute of IAEA, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1972 United Nations Conference of the Human Environment were analysed As far as the meaning of 'peaceful uses of outer space' is concerned the same phrases the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1979 Moon Treaty and the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques(ENMOD) were studied. According to Article IV of the 1967 Outer Space treaty, states shall not place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies repeats in Article III much of the Outer Space Treaty. This article prohibits the threat or use of force or any other hostile act on the moon and the use of the moon to commit such an act in relation to the earth or to space objects. This adds IN principle nothing to the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty relating to military space activities. The 1977 ENMOD refers to peaceful purposes in the preamble and in Article III. As far as the UN Resolutions are concerned, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space, the 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space(NPS) were studied. And as far the Soft Laws are concerned the 2008 Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT), the 2002 Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Prolifiration(HCoC) and 2012 Draft International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities(ICoC) were studied.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.137-174
• /
• 2021

The main theme of this paper centers on how to promote Three Major Works of Daesoon Jinrihoe, charity aid, social welfare, and education projects, during the unification period. Determining the best methods of promotion is crucial because the Three Major Works must be carried out after unification, and the works must remain based on the practice of the philosophy of Haewon-sangsaeng (the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence). The idea of Haewon-sangsaeng is in line with the preface of the U.N. Charter and the aim of world peace. North Korean residents are suffering from starvation under their devastated economy, which is certain to face a crisis of materialistic deficiency during reunification. In this study, the peaceful unification of Germany, unification under a period of sudden changes in Yemen, and the militarized unification of Vietnam were taken as case studies to diagnose and analyze the conditions which would affect the implementation of the Three Major Works. These three styles of unification commonly required a considerable budget and other forms of support to carry out the Three Major Works. Especially if unification were to occur after a period of sudden changes, this would require solutions to issues of food, shelter, and medical support due to the loss of numerous lives and the destruction of infrastructure. On the other hand, the UNHCR model was analyzed to determine the implications of expanding mental well prepared and sufficiently qualified professionals, reorganizing standard organizations within complex situations, task direction, preparing sufficient relief goods, budgeting, securing bases in border areas with North Korea, and establishing networks for sponsorship. Based on this, eight detailed tasks in the field of system construction could be used by the operators of the Three Major Works to prepare for unification. Additionally, nine tasks for review were presented in consideration of the timing of unification and the current situation between South and North Korea. In conclusion, in the event of unification, the Three Major Works should not be neglected during the transition period. The manual "Three Major Works during the Unification Period" should include strategic points on organizational formation and mission implementation, forward base and base operation, security and logistics preparation, public relations and external cooperation, safety measures, and transportation and contact systems.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2011

People may operate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) thousands of miles from the drone's location. Drones were first used (like balloons) for surveillance. By 2001, the United States began arming drones with missiles and using them to strike targets during combat in Afghanistan. By mid-2010, over forty states and other entities possessed drones, many with the capability of launching missiles and dropping bombs. Each new development in military weapons technology invites assessment of the relevant international law. This Insight surveys the international law applicable to the recent innovation of weaponizing drones. In determining what international law rules govern drone use, the most salient feature is not the fact that drones are unmanned. The fact drones carry no human operator may be the most important new technological breakthrough, but the key feature for international law purposes is the type of weaponry drones carry. Whether law enforcement rules govern drone use depends on the situation and not necessarily who is operating the drone. Battlefield weapons may also be lawfully used before an armed conflict in the following situations: when initiating self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; when authorized by the UN Security Council; when a government seeks to suppress internal armed conflict; and, perhaps, when a state is invited to assist a government in suppressing internal armed conflict. The rules governing resort to force in self-defense are found in Article 51 of the UN Charter and a number of decisions by international courts and tribunals. Commentators continue to debate whether drone technology represents the next revolution in military affairs. Regardless of the answer to that question, drones have not created a revolution in legal affairs. The current rules governing battlefield launch vehicles are adequate for regulating resort to drones. More research must be undertaken, however, to understand the psychological effects of deploying unmanned vehicles and the effects on drone operators of sustained, close visual contact with the aftermath of drone attacks.