• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.21 no.6
• /
• pp.712-720
• /
• 2015

The cabotage rule has been protecting the domestic industry from foreign competitions as a kind of trade barrier. In the United States, the shipbuilding industry has been maintained with the help of to the strict cabotage operations by reinforcing advantages for domestic crews and ships which are built in the U.S. For most countries, cabotage has been granted legitimacy in their coastal shipping by Low Carbon Transport in terms of economic and emergency reasons. The cabotage rule is required in the stable supply of the seafarers which rely on the legitimate maritime education. This study analyzes Korean cabotage system and the problems with regard to seafarers education. It is found that the resolution is set up the cabotage act such as Jones Act, U.S.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.95-95
• /
• 2017

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.75-93
• /
• 2007

It is recent trend that every countries are opening their border in the name of liberalization of contemporary era. Shipping is not exceptional and it used to be said as international business. Therefore, co-operation and openness of maritime sectors between regional countries is required to utilize resources that each countries can manage. It can be done by employing their vessels in other countries' short sea area. However, there are some problems to implement this practices, here cabotage is centre of issue. Each countries do not open their sea in order to protect their national interests in sovereignty. But, it should be opened if co-operation between each countries work well and properly. To achieve true maritime co-operation, countries as Korea, China and Japan in Northeast Asia region should have understanding for the opening of cabotage. In order to make things work well, it can be done by the lessons from EU and American cases. Therefore, it should be clarified such as market scale to provide cabotage trade, employment as well as interested parties, and technical safety matters as well as environmental standards. Then cabotage matters can be smoothly resolved between three countries in Northeast Asia region.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.123-129
• /
• 2012

Cabotage means transportation of cargoes or passengers between two points within same country by vessel or aircraft which registered to foreign country. Cabotage regulation has justified by the protectionism in economic aspect and by national security in the defence of a country, thus most world's major countries including United States of America, Japan and European Union(outside EU) are executing cabotage. Even though Korean's controlled fleet ranked to 5th in the world, shortage and ageing of Korean domestic seafarers came to the restricted factor in the Korean domestic shipping. Resultingly Korean government permitted 530 Myanmarese and Indonesian seafarers to come on board in domestic vessel. In regarding to the Korean law, there are no direct relationship between boarding foreign crew in domestic vessel. However the baxic concept of cabotage will be spoiled by boarding foreign crew under the regulation of cabotage, so special treatment should be needed to cover the problems in coastal shipping arose form them. To minimize the problems derived from foreign crew, following actions are recommended; first, management skills of foreign crew are needed to overcome differences of communication and culture; second foreign crew supporting center should be established to counsel their difficulties; third, high level of manning companies should be promoted; forth, stabilized crew supply should be guaranteed by improving employment condition; finally, memorandum of understanding should be concluded between two countries to prevent seceders.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2022.06a
• /
• pp.329-330
• /
• 2022

태평양 도서국은 간선항로와 먼 거리, 적은 물동량, 수출입 불균형 등으로 해상운임이 높게 형성되어 있으며, 기후변화에 취약하여 항만운영에 제약이 많은 등 해상운송이 상당히 열악한 실정이다. 또한 해상운송 의존도가 상당히 높은 반면, 정기선 연계정도는 상당히 낮아 해운물류 경쟁력을 향상 필요성이 증대되고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 사회연결망분석(SNA)를 통해 14개 태평양 도서국의 국가 간 해상교역 구조를 파악하고 이를 통해 해상운송망 강화를 위한 방안을 제시하였다. 분석 결과, 대상국가 간 교역구조는 점차 복잡해지고 있으며, 점차 피지, 사모아, 파푸아뉴기니 등을 중심으로 Hub-spoke 체제의 해상운송 네트워크가 형성되고 있다. 역내 해상운송망 강화를 위해서는 분석결과에서 도출된 역내 주요 항만을 환적항으로 개발하여 해상운송 연계성을 강화하고, 카보타지 허용을 통한 정기선 입항빈도 증대, 인프라 개선을 통한 항만 운영탄력성 강화 등이 필요하다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.207-264
• /
• 1993

항공사의 외국인 소유는 이것으로 인하여 전체 항공운송 시스템이 변화될 수 있는 핵심적인 개념이다. 작금 항공운송산업을 둘러싼 환경은 급격하게 변화하고 있어서 많은 국가들이 항공사의 외국인 소유와 관련한 기존의 법제나 정책변경을 심각하게 고려하기 시작하였다. 항공기 및 항공사의 국적과 관련한 전통적인 개념은 양자사이에 '진정한' 또는 '효파적인' 관계가 있어야 한다는 것이다. 특별히 항공사의 '실질적인 및 효과적인 통제'조항은 양자 및 다자간 항공운송 협정에서 가장 핵심적인 역할을 해오고 있다. 그러나 변화의 바람이 거세게 일고 있다. 항공운송산업에서 이러한 변화는 미국에서 시작되고 미국의 국제항공관계에 적용되고 있는 규제완화에서 비롯되었다. 미국의 규제완화정책은 합병 및 흡수를 통한 항공사의 집중이라는 결과를 가져와서 항공운송 시장은 궁극적으로 소수의 거대 항공사에 의해 지배될 것이라는 우려를 낳고 있다. 이러한 새로운 추세에 대응하여 많은 국가틀이 다양한 형태의 지역협력체를 형성하고 있다. (예, EC, 아세안, 안데안 그룹, 야마스크로 선언 등) 또한 다수 국가들은 정치.경제적인 이웃에서 정부의 소유주식을 외국인 및 외국회사를 포함한 민간부문에 매각함으로써 사유.사영화를 추진하고 있다. 한편 제조업 분야에서 다국적기업 (IBM, 코카콜라 등)은 별 어력움이 없이 성립될 수 있다. GATT의 주관하에 열리고 있는 우루과이 협상에 참여하고 있는 국가들은 최혜국 대우, 내국인 대우, 시장접근 같은 상품교역의 개념및 원리를 항공운송서비스를 포함한 서비스교역에 적용하는데 기본적으로 합의하였다. 급격히 변화하는 환경에서 항공운송 산업만이 국가의 영공 주권, 항공사의 공익기업 개념, 상업적 이익의 균형교환 같은 자기류의 논리에 집착하여 언제까지나 홀로 고립될 수는 없을 것이다. 더구나 세계 항공운송 산업은 1980년 후반부터 큰 시련에 직면해 있다. 몇몇을 제외한 대부분의 항공사는 세계경제의 불황속에서 초과공급 및 운임전쟁으로 인한 엄청난 적자를 기록하고 있다. 모든점을 미루어볼 때 세계의 항공사들은 과거 어느 때보다도 외국인 투자를 필요로 하고 있으며 항공사가 속해 있는 정부는 외국인 소유에 관한 법제를 개정하고 나아가 전체 항공운송시스템을 개편하도록 압력을 받고 있다. 많은 국가에서 외국인 소유에 관한 법규의 개정은 현존 항공운송 시스템에 다각적인 영향을 가져올 것이다. 다시말하면 양자협상, 반독점및 경쟁볍규의 적용, 고용 및 카보타지등을 포함한 제반분야가 영향을 받을 것이다. 결국 외국인 소유에 관한 법제의 완화는 항공사의 세계화 또는 다국적화의 과정을 촉진시킬 것이고, 항공사간 다양한 형태의 제휴가 이러한 방향에서 계속될 것이다.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.45 no.6
• /
• pp.314-324
• /
• 2021

Competition between ports around the world is intensifying to attract transshipment cargo. However, recently, there have been concerns about the departure of transshipment cargo volume at Busan Port, such as the lifting of the cabotage policy in China's shipping sector and the implementation of a safe fare system. In terms of operation, terminal congestion and vehicle waiting time are seriously occurring due to imbalance in the transshipment volume of each terminal and vehicles concentrated in a specific time period. In this paper, we propose a method of inter-terminal transportation (ITT) using buffer space to solve the problem caused by inefficient ITT systems and presented a mixed integer programming (MIP) for the problem. The effect of using the buffer space was analyzed for various work volumes and capacity fluctuation ranges by applying the terminal congestion pattern and ITT vehicle in/out pattern based on the Busan New Port data.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.55-89
• /
• 2003

What are the international aviation regimes? It is said that they are sets of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures of international aviation around which aviation actors' (states-actors, intergovernmental aviation organization, international aviation conventions, airlines and their organizations etc.) expectations converge in a given aviation issue-area for the purposes of the human welfare and the operations of the stable civil aviation. In this regards, the purposes of this study are focused on the aviation actors' shifts. Chronologically, international aviation regimes have been developed by some stages as followings; The 1st stage is the period from 1944 Chicago Convention to 1978 US Deregulation Act, when the aviation regulations and rules within the international aviation relations were implemented by Chicago-Bermuda regimes as Christer Jonsson pointed out. In this first stage, the sovereignty for the airspace over their countries is absolute. The second stage is the period from 1978 to '1992 Open Skies Agreement' between US and Netherlands. In this regime, airlines' activities as well as state-actors' have been actuated. The third stage is the period from 1992 to the contemporary. In this stage, airlines' activities for the consumers such as 'Open Skies Agreements', 'e-commerce business', 'airspace open policy within EU area', 'service open policy of WTO', and 'airlines' strategic alliance' are the central focal points in the world aviation relationship. In the conclusion, this phenomenon of the core actors in the international aviation rules has been shifted from the states-actors to the non-states actors especially, operating airlines, or consuming customers. Finally, I' d like to suggest that international aviation regimes should be developed to promote and facilitate the globalized level for the people's movements among the global aviation society. That is the way to proceed to the welfare and peace for all human beings of the World.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.