• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.223-223
• /
• 2017

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.15
• /
• pp.40-66
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the legal controㅣ, by using the International Criminal Court(ICC) that will enter into force to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, and regulates the jurisdiction with respect to the following crimes: (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; Cd) The crime of aggression. However, the existing ICC Statute excludes (e) Crimes, established under or pursuant to the treaty, which was regulated by the ICC draft statute that the International Law Commission(ILC) examined and submitted to the UN General Assembly in 1994, and which contained aircraft terrorism such as hijacking in the Hague Convention of 1970 or sabotage in the Montreal Convention of 1971 in Annex of ILC draft. Therefore, this paper examines the legal character of aircraft terrorism as one of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, and suggests two kinds of legislative comments for the amendment of the ICC Statute including aircraft terrorism as an object of the jurisdiction of the Court, for suppressing aircraft terrorism in advance and ensuring equitable penalty by ICC system.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.191-225
• /
• 2014

Most of all, this paper analyzes the current situation of EU(European Union) and ascertain EU's economic condition in terms of tariff lines and non-tariff barriers. and the purpose of this article is to find out the problems of EU's tariff lines and non-tariff barriers. Next, We suggest some future direction of export promotion from Korea to EU more largely for our companies. First, this paper describes the characteristics and outline of EU. The EU is a politico-economic union of 28 member states that are primarily located in Europe. The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community(ECSC) and the European Economic Community(EEC), formed by the Inner Six countries in 1951 and 1958, respectively. After that, The Maastricht Treaty established the European Union under its current name in 1993. The latest major amendment to the constitutional basis of the EU, the Treaty of Lisbon, came into force in 2009. There are a combined population of over 500 million inhabitants and generated a nominal gross domestic product(GDP) of 16.692 trillion US dollars in EU. The results are as follows ; First of all, In terms of tariff lines and customs duties, Our companies have to know precisely EU's real tariff lines and other customs duties, and such as value added tax and exercise tax, corporate tax regulated by EU commission and EU's 28 members. second, our companies have to confirm EU's non-tariff barriers. such as RoHS, WEEE, REACH. These non-tariff barriers could be hindrances or obstacles to trade with foreign companies in other countries. We perceive all companies exporting to EU are related with these Technical Barriers to Trade irrespective of their nationality. So, Our companies fulfill the requirements of EU Commission concerning safety, health, environment etc. Also, Our companies choose market-driven strategy to export more largely than before in the field of marketing and logistics.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.205-236
• /
• 2010

This article deals with international space law for the environmental protection in outer space especially for space debris arising from space activities. After studying 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement, we could find few provisions dealing with space environment in those treaties. During the earlier stages of the space age, which began in the late 1950s, the focus of international law makers was the establishment of the basic rules of space law governing the states' activities in outer space. Consequently the environmental issues and the risks that might arise from the generation of the space debris did not receive priority attention within the context of the development international space law. Although the phrases such as 'harmful contamination', 'harmful interference', 'disruption of the environment', 'adverse changes in the environment' and 'harmfully affecting' in relation to space environment were used in 1967 Outer Space Treaty and 1979 Moon Agreement, their true meaning was not definitely settled. Although 1972 Liability Convention deals with compensation, whether the space object covers space debris is unclear despite the case of Cosmos 954. In this respect international lawyers suggest the amendment of the space treaties and new space treaty covering the space environmental problems including the space debris. The resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are also studied to deal with space environment and space debris. In 1992 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed resolution 47/68 titled "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space" for the NPS use in outer space. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee; IADC) issued some guidelines for the space debris which were the basis of "the UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" approved by COPUOS in its 527th meeting. In 1994 the 66th conference of ILA adopted "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris". Although those resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are not binding states, there are some provisions which have a fundamentally norm-creating character and softs laws.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.419-442
• /
• 2018

Space Treaty Article 2 stipuates non-appropriation by sovereignty, and in any other means. Interpretative controversies has continued as regards the meaning of any other means. It is not clear whether appropriation by private entity is also prohibited or not. Furthermore, the controverse around the binding force of Article 1 has made worse the controversy regarding such appropriation. U.S. Congress has enacted the law regarding the space resouce mining in 2015. Its main purpose is to alleviate legal unstability which U.S, private companies have faced, and it provides some provisions regarding private rights about space resources. Original bill, H.R. 1508 included the property right. Amendment to the bill is to ensure that an "asteroid resource utilization activity" is inter-preted as on a single asteroid and not on any asteroid. The use of the word "in situ" in defining space resources simply means resources in place in outer space; but any such resource within or on an asteroid would need to be "obtained" in order to confer a property right. The use of the word "in situ" in merely defining a space resource in the bill is not equivalent to claiming sovereignty or control over celestial bodies or portions of space. Further, there is clear Congressional direction in the bill that the President is only to encourage space resources exploration and utilization, including lowering barriers to such activity, "consistent with" and "in accordance with" US international obligations. Federal courts are granted original jurisdiction over entities defined in ${\S}$ 51301(4) and in-situ asteroid resources that have been removed from an asteroid by such entities. Federal courts are not granted jurisdiction over outer space, the Moon, other celestial bodies, or the asteroid from which the in-situ natural resource was removed. It is said that the Space Resource Utilization Exploration Act of 2015, talked about the rights of private players to own-kind of a "finders keepers" law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.97-158
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this paper is to research on the contents and improvement of national legislations relating to space development in Korea to make the sustainable progress of space development project in Korea. Korea has launched its first satellite KITST-1 in 1992. The National Space Committee has established "The Space Development Promotion Basic Plan" in 2007. The plan addressed the development of total 13 satellites by 2010 and the space launch vehicle by 2020, and the launch of moon exploration spaceship by 2021. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheng Province in June 2009. In Korea the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 was launched at the Naro Space Center in August 2009, and its second launch was made in June 2010. The United Nations has adopted five treaties relating to the development of outer space as follows : The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Registration Convention of 1974, and the Moon Treaty of 1979. All five treaties has come into force. Korea has ratified the Outer Space Treaty, the Rescue and Return Agreement, the Liability Convention and the Registration Convention excepting the Moon Treaty. Most of development countries have enacted the national legislation relating to the development of our space as follows : The National Aeronautic and Space Act of 1958 and the Commercial Space Act of 1998 in the United States, Outer Space Act of 1986 in England, Establishment Act of National Space Center of 1961 in France, Canadian Space Agency Act of 1990 in Canada, Space Basic Act of 2008 in Japan, and Law on Space Activity of 1993 in Russia. There are currently three national legislations relating to space development in Korea as follows : Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. The Ministry of Knowledge Economy of Korea has announced the Full Amendment Draft of Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act in December 2009, and it's main contents are as follows : (1) Changing the title of Act into Aerospace Industry Promotion Act, (2) Newly regulating the definition of air flight test place, etc., (3) Establishment of aerospace industry basic plan, establishment of aerospace industry committee, (4) Project for promoting aerospace industry, (5) Exploration development, international joint development, (6) Cooperative research development, (7) Mutual benefit project, (8) Project for furthering basis of aerospace industry, (9) Activating cluster of aerospace industry, (10) Designation of air flight test place, etc., (11) Abolishing the designation and assistance of specific enterprise, (12) Abolishing the inspection of performance and quality. The Outer Space Development Promotion Act should be revised with regard to the following matters : (1) Overlapping problem in legal system between the Outer Space Development Promotion Act and the Aerospace industry Development promotion Act, (2) Distribution and adjustment problem of the national research development budget for space development between National Space Committee and National Science Technology Committee, (3) Consideration and preservation of environment in space development, (4) Taking the legal action and maintaining the legal system for policy and regulation relating to space development. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act should be revised with regard to the following matters : (1) Definition of space damage and indirect damage, (2) Currency unit of limit of compensation liability, (3) Joint liability and compensation claim right of launching person of space object, (4) Establishment of Space Damage Compensation Council. In Korea, it will be possible to make a space tourism in 2013, and it is planned to introduce and operate a manned spaceship in 2013. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the policy relating to the promotion of commercial space transportation industry. Also it is necessary to make the proper maintenance of the current Aviation Law and space development-related laws and regulations for the promotion of space transportation industry in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.181-215
• /
• 2001

The thirty-fourth session of UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration was held in New York. Among the topics discussed at the session, many delegations agreed to reform the article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in light of the development of electronic commerce. As for the article 2(2) of the New York Convention, it was agreed to reflect the changes of the article 7 not in the form of a treaty amendment but in the form of an interpretative statement. The topic as to provisional measures has been found so difficult to reach an agreement that most of its texts submitted by the secretariat were left untouched for the lack of time. However, most provisions of the legislative texts on conciliation were dealt with by delegations. The next session is to be held in Vienna. While the Korean Arbitration Act of 1966 was fully amended in 1999, it seems interesting to look at the development in which the arbitration community of the world has already begun discussing the new dimension of the law and practice of international commercial arbitration. It may be considered early to start a new project of reforming the Korean Arbitration Act at this time when only three years passed after it was fully amended. It is, however, worthwhile to remember that some progressive efforts were aborted in amending the Arbitration Act of 1966. One of them is about the same issue on the insertion of some provisions on the enforcement of interim measures of protection to which the priority is given by the Working Group. It seems fair to say that it would not be dangerous to follow the developments and to adapt ourselves to such trends shown in the session. In Korea, the words “arbitration” and “conciliation” are misleadingly interchanged although these two words should be differentiated from each other in the sense of third-party binding decision. It is self-evident from the Korean Arbitration Act and judicial decisions that arbitral awards bind the disputing parties and are to be treated as final judgements by the competent courts. It is, however, not uncommon to find that the word “arbitration” is misinterpreted as having the same meaning of the word “conciliation”. One of the reasons for the confusion is that many legislations in Korea provide for conciliation as having the meaning of arbitration and vice versa. It may be probable that the proposed legislative texts on conciliation could be a kind of useful method to prevent such confusion from being uncontrollable. It is, therefore, necessary that the legislative texts should be introduced into Korea as a legislation on conciliation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.95-116
• /
• 2015

Air transport agreement can be divided into air passenger contract of carriage and aviation also of the contract of carriage. And air carriers for damages greater (1) cause reason, of (2) limit reason, (3) exemption reason. Exemption reason for the extinction of the liability for damages in our Commercial Code, the Convention and domestic law are mixed. Convention on the Commercial Code and air transport, air transport people, if it is proved and that it has taken all the measures that are needed for the prevention of damage to overdue damage of passengers, liability is waived. So what was to achieve the requirements of all the actions that are reasonably necessary in any case is a problem. Amendment has the feature that the treaty for the International Air Transport reflect in accordance with the domestic situation, while being struck by international standards encompassing land, sea and air transport, even on the system. However, Commercial Code while mainly reflect the Montreal Convention governing air carrier's liability issues on the contract of carriage, a problem which the Convention had also began to occur together. So the problem due to accept the treaty to fit the domestic situation occurs. There is a need for analysis of all of the actions that are "reasonably necessary, which is defined in the Commercial Code. If there is no claim within Value Date rotor two years to air carriers on the court for the damage caused by air transport, the responsibility of air carriers disappear, sued the period of such two years, what kind of meaning on domestic law extension and stop to be whether it is interpreted, it should be determined to do their aggressive measures for the reasonable care and accident prevention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2010

The European Union(EU) has recently introduced its Directive 2008/101/EC to include aviation in the EU ETS(emissions trading system). As an amendment to Directive 2003/87/EC that regulates reduction of the green house gas(GHG) emissions in Europe in preparation for the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, it obliges both EU and non-EU airline operators to reduce the emission of the carbon dioxide(CO2) significantly in the year 2012 and thereafter from the level they made in 2004 to 2006. Emission allowances allowed free of charge for each airline operator is 97% in the first year 2012 and 95% from 2013 and thereafter from the average annual emissions during historical years 2004 to 2006. Taking into account the rapid growth of air traffic, i.e. 5% in recent years, airlines operating to EU have to reduce their emissions by about 30% in order to meet the requirements of the EU Directive, if not buy the emissions right in the emissions trading market. However, buying quantity is limited to 15% in the year 2012 subject to possible increase from the year 2013. Apart from the hard burden of the airline operators, in particular of those from non-European countries, which is not concern of this paper, the EU Directive has certain legal problems. First, while the Kyoto Protocol of universal application is binding on the Annex I countries of the Climate Change Convention, i.e. developed countries including all Member States of the European Union to reduce GHG at least by 5% in the implementation period from 2008 to 2012 over the 1990 level, non-Annex I countries which are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol see their airlines subjected to aircraft emissions reductions scheme of EU when operating to EU. This is against the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol dealing with the emissions of GHG including CO2, target of the EU Directive. While the Kyoto Protocol mandates ICAO to set up a worldwide scheme for aircraft emissions to contribute to stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, the EU ETS was drawn up outside the framework of the international Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO). Second, EU Directive 2008/101 defines 'aviation activities' as covering 'flights which depart from or arrive in the territory of a Member State to which the [EU] Treaty applies'. While the EU airlines are certainly subject to the EU regulations, obliging non-EU airlines to reduce their emissions even if the emissions are produced during the flight over the high seas and the airspace of the third countries is problematic. The point is whether the EU Directive can be legally applied to extra-territorial behavior of non-EU entities. Third, the EU Directive prescribes 2012 as the first year for implementation. However, the year 2012 is the last year of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol for Annex I countries including members of EU to reduce GHG including the emissions of CO2 coming out from domestic airlines operation. Consequently, EU airlines were already on the reduction scheme of CO2 emissions as long as their domestic operations are concerned from 2008 until the year 2012. But with the implementation of Directive 2008/101 from 2012 for all the airlines, regardless of the status of the country Annex I or not where they are registered, the EU airlines are no longer at the disadvantage compared with the airlines of non-Annex I countries. This unexpected premium for the EU airlines may result in a derogation of the Kyoto Protocol at least for the year 2012. Lastly, as a conclusion, the author shed light briefly on how the Korean aviation authorities are dealing with the EU restrictive measures.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.173-205
• /
• 2008

Space debris have frequently caused damage to space objects like satellites in orbits and sometimes have fallen on the earth. Such increase in space debris will lead to the high possibility of threatening space activities of mankind. However, it is not so easy for the damage caused both by identified and by unidentified space debris to be recovered since in the regime of the current international law, there is no legislation of prescribing the damage done by space debris. For overcoming the limitation it seems desirable that either the Liability Convention should partly be amended or new international law regime should be established. For instance, 'space debris' should be included in the new definition of 'space object' and the range of launching should also be defined clearly by making the concept of 'launching' somewhat more specified. Moreover, the subject of international liability for damage caused by space debris should be divided into two classes: the subject before and after registration. While in case of before-registration launch states should be held liable for any damage jointly or individually, in case of after-registration 'the state of registry' or 'owner' of the space debris should be. In the event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object of other State, 'fault-based liability' is currently applied. But it needs to be changed into 'absolutely liability'. In this paper, 'Liability Pool', 'Insurance', 'Market-Share Liability' are presented as aid devices of the damages resulting from unidentified space debris. They should be defined through the amendment of the Liability Convention or another international treaty. Some day there comes a time when our country shall possess many of the astronomical price of satellites. It means that we can't be free from the damage by the increasing number of space debris. Provided that our satellites are damaged by such space debris, it will do the satellites damage and cause impaired functioning or troubles in operation. As a result, if we are not paid for the damage by space debris, we will be confronted with tremendous economic loss because it is necessarily connected with the excess burden of taxation. Thus, an international agreement regarding the measures of the compensation for space debris damage must be made very soon.