• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.26 no.6
• /
• pp.624-633
• /
• 2020

In those day, Incheon and Busan local government are arguing about establishment of a maritime court. This study aims to develop a model that evaluates the priority orders for the establishment of maritime courts using maritime casualties counts based on the integrated ELECTRE-CRITIC-ISM technique, as well as to verify its usefulness in the establishment of maritime courts in Korea. For this purpose, a total of 22 ports, excluding nine ports where maritime accident data were integrated and managed among the 31 international trade ports, were matched with the jurisdiction of six alternative high courts. Second, the CRITIC method was used to calculate the weights of the number of maritime casualties during a 5-year period that were evaluation factors and combine with the ELECTRE method. Finally, the ELECTRE&ISM method was used to analyze the concordance and discordance between high courts and evaluate the priority orders considering the fluctuations of maritime casualties counts. As the final evaluation result considering the mean values in fluctuations of maritime casualties counts, the Busan High Court ranked first, the Gwangju high court second, the Seoul high court third, the Daejeon and the Daegu high court forth (equal), and the Suwon high court sith. Therefore, it is necessary to preferentially establish a maritime court in the jurisdiction of the Busan High Court.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2007.12a
• /
• pp.56-57
• /
• 2007

해양안전심판원에서 재결한 내용을 몇 가지의 사례 분석을 통하여 우리나라 사법부에서 현재 어떻게 인용하고 있는가를 조사한 것으로 이를 통하여 해양안전심판원의 재결에 대한 전문성 및 신뢰성 등이 점차 견고하게 쌓아지고 있음을 밝히려는 것이다.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.91-107
• /
• 2018

This study considers the activation of the Asia Pacific Maritime Arbitration Center(APMAC) established for the first time in South Korea. This research investigates the suitability of arbitration for maritime disputes through literature review, as well as the importance and expectations of the establishment of the APMAC. In order to activate the APMAC, maritime arbitration rules must be established. Second, a cooperative body should be established between the courts and related institutions. Third, related institutions need to creat a short term and long term promotion plan. Fourth, the APMAC should appoint professional arbitrators in the maritime field. Fifth, an educational system should be established for new arbitrators. Finally, APMAC should link to universities for research activities.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.55-73
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the effect of class arbitration under voyage charter with Asbatankvoy form. This study analyses the Stolt-Nielsen case as a data. In this case, One Class Rule requires an arbitrator to determine whether an arbitration clause permits class arbitration. The parties selected an arbitration panel, designated New York City as the arbitration site, and stipulated that their arbitration clause was silent on the class arbitration issue. The panel determined that the arbitration clause allowed for class arbitration, but the District Court vacated the award. But the Second Circuit reversed, holding that because petitioners had cited no authority applying a maritime rule of customs and usage against class arbitration, the arbitrators' decision was not in manifest disregard of maritime law; and that the arbitrators had not manifestly disregarded New York law, which had not established a rule against class arbitration. However, the Supreme Court held, imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.577-586
• /
• 2022

The increasing trade volume between Korea and China has rapidly expanded the maritime transport between the two countries. However, safety, particularly considering the ship collisions in the Yellow Sea and East Sea waters, has not been fully ensured. These collision accidents in that region endanger traffic safety and the marine environment, moreover, it has the potential to cause legal complexity because Korea and China haver domestic legislation, that are considerably different in some aspects. International conventions and domestic legislation in China provide detailed laws with respect to ship collisions, however, the theory of ship collision infringement still needs to be improved, enriched, and developed. Because these laws are not very clear on the resolution of disputes resulting from ship collisions, we focused on the final judgments by the Supreme Court of China (SPC), and the judicial judgments set by the Maritime Court of China. This study aimed to explore the domestic legislation applicable to disputes related to ship collisions in China, and comparatively investigate the legal provisions of Korea and China on the issue of ship collisions, particularly on the aspect of damage compensation, fault ration, and liability apportionment.