• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.303-325
• /
• 2008

China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 revised in 2004 like "Foreign Trade law" 16.2 in 1994 is still stipulated resource restriction to protect domestic resources and it does not satisfy the introduction of article 20 and section (g) of GATT 1994. Through an interpretation of related regulations and China-EU cokes dispute, the paper points out that China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 has no validity of the introduction of article 20 and section (g) of GATT 1994. Comparing China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 to GATT 1994 20(g), China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 does not include important conditions of GATT 1994 20 introduction such as not being arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination and disguised restriction on international trade. For example, based upon China's "Foreign Trade law" , if she restricts or prohibits important natural resources that Korea mainly relies on China, it will effects not only trade between two countries but also our lives and securities. Hence, it is highly time to analyze China's the Validity of the China's Resource Export-Quota Restrictive Measures under the GATT/WTO. In the process of resolving China-EU cokes dispute in 2004, ministry of Commerce of China shows well its characteristics of dispute settlement and also we can find out EU's logical countermeasures. Therefore, because of the high possibility of disputes between Korea and China in the area of natural resources, Korea needs to pay attention to the China's resource protecting policies, and if it violates GATT 1994 20 introduction and (g), we should consider to sue China to WTO. The paper believes that it will play an important role as an aggressive demand and effect on amendment of China's "Foreign Trade law" in the long term.

• 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.