• Strategy21
• /
• s.45
• /
• pp.60-90
• /
• 2019

The use of the high seas are supported by the two pillars of customary principles --the freedom of navigation and the flag state control on its vessels, which are codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. There have been attempts to limit and retrain the two pillars as maritime regimes are newly created to address new maritime threats, while coastal stares' control over the seas expand. The pillars have been created over thousands years since human beings took to the sea and have served as a foundation to use the oceans peacefully and orderly. Therefore, any retreat or exception from these principles would undermine the fundamental framework for the use of the oceans and eventually these regimes would be subject to control of maritime powers. In conclusion, new maritime regimes such as the sanction measures on North Korea should be enforced within the framework of international law and comply with the fundamental principles such as innocent passage and the freedom of navigation at the high seas.

• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.167-192
• /
• 2012

The purpose of the study aims to analyse the judgement criterion of arrived ship under voyage charterparty with the Merida Case. A ship is an arrived ship if she is in port and either able to proceed immediately to a berth or in such a position that she is at the immediate and effective disposition of the chaterparty. Identification of the specified destination-whether berth or port-impacts on the incidence of loss occasioned by delay in loading or discharging, when the delay is due to the place at which the vessel is obliged by the terms of the charterparty to load or discharge her cargo being occupied by other shipping. The Merida case is an appeal by the charterers from a final Arbitration award of two very experienced arbitrators, dated 20th April, 2009. The arbitrators held that a voyage charterparty, dated 5th February, 2007, of the vessel, The M/V Merida, entered into between charterers and the owners, was a port rather than a berth Charterparty. The Primary relevance of this distinction does to the allocation, as between owners and charterers, of the risk of delay caused by congestion at load and discharge ports. The question of law arising in this appeal is whether the arbitrators were right to conclude that the charterparty was a port and not a berth charterparty. The arbitrators additionary placed some reliance on a post-contractual e-mail from the agents, which suggested that charterers did not dispute the validity of the NOR-and, hence, that this was a port charterparty.