• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.223-243
• /
• 1989

The practical application of modern space science and technology have resulted in many actual and potential gains of mankind. These successes have conditioned and increased the need for a viable space law regime and the challenge of space has ultimately led to the formation of an international legal regime for space. Space law is no longer a primitive law. It is a modern law. Yet, in its stages of growth, it has not reached the condition of perfection. Therefore, under the existing state of thing, we could carefully say that the space law is one of the most newest fields of jurisprudence despite the fact that no one has so far defined it perfectly. However, if space law can be a true jurisprudential entity, it must be definable. In defining the space law, first of all, the grasp of it's nature iis inevitable. Although space law encompasses many tenets and facets of other legal discriplines, its principal nature is public international law, because space law affects and effects law relating intercourse among nations. Since early 1960s when mankind was first able to flight and stay in outer space, the necessity to control and administrate the space activities of human beings has growingly increased. The leading law-formulating agency to this purpose is the United Nation's ad hoc Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space("COPUOS"). COPUOS gave direction to public international space law by establishing the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of the States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space("1963 Declaration"). The 1963 Declaration is very foundation of the five international multilateral treaties that were established successively after the 1963 Declaration. The five treaties are as follows: 1) The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including Moon and other Celestial Bodies, 1967. 2) The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1968. 3) The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972. 4) The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1974. 5) The Agreement Governing Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Moon Treaty, 1979. The other face of space law is it's commercial aspect. Space is no longer the sole domination of governments. Many private enterprise have already moved directly or indirectly into space activities in the parts such as telecommunications and space manufacturing. Since space law as the public international law has already advanced in accordance with the developments of space science and technology, there left only a few areas untouched in this field of law. Therefore the possibility of rapid growth of space law is expected in the parts of commerical space law, as it is, at this time, in a nascent state. The resources of the space environment are also commercially both valuable and important since the resources include the tangible natural resources to be found on the moon and other celestial bodies. Other space-based resources are solar energy, geostationary and geosynchronous orbital positions, radio frequencies, area possibly suited to human habitations, all areas and materials lending themselves to scientific research and inquiry. Remote sensing, space manufacturing and space transportation services are also another potential areas in which commercial. endeavors of Mankind can be carried out. In this regard, space insurance is also one of the most important devices allowing mankind to proceed with commercial space venture. Thus, knowlege of how space insurance came into existence and what it covers is necessary to understand the legal issues peculiar to space law. As a conclusion the writer emphasized the international cooperation of all nations in space activities of mankind, because space commerce, by its nature, will give rise many legal issues of international scope and concern. Important national and world-community interests would be served over time through the acceptance of new international agreements relating to remote sencing, direct television broadcasting, the use of nuclear power sources in space, the regularization of the activities of space transportation systems. standards respecting contamination and pollution, and a practical boundary between outer space and air space. If space activity regulation does not move beyond the national level, the peaceful exploration of space for all mankind will not be realized. For the efficient regulation on private and governmental space activities, the creation of an international space agency, similar to the International Civil Aviation Organization but modified to meet the needs of space technology, will be required. But prior to creation of an international organization, it will be necessary to establish, at national level, the Office of Air and Space Bureau, which will administrate liscence liscence application process, safety review and sale of launch equipment, and will carry out launch service.

• 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.32 no.1
• /
• pp.225-285
• /
• 2017

In regard to the regulations related to the RPA(Remotely Piloted Aircraft), which is sometimes called in other countries as UA(Unmanned Aircraft), ICAO stipulates the regulations in the 'RPAS manual (2015)' in detail based on the 'Chicago Convention' in 1944, and enacts provisions for the Rules of UAS or RPAS. Other contries stipulates them such as the Federal Airline Rules (14 CFR), Public Law (112-95) in the United States, the Air Transport Act, Air Transport Order, Air Transport Authorization Order (through revision in "Regulations to operating Rules on unmanned aerial System") based on EASA Regulation (EC) No.216/2008 in the case of unmanned aircaft under 150kg in Germany, and Civil Aviation Act (CAA 1998), Civil Aviation Act 101 (CASR Part 101) in Australia. Commonly, these laws exclude the model aircraft for leisure purpose and require pilots on the ground, not onboard aricraft, capable of controlling RPA. The laws also require that all managements necessary to operate RPA and pilots safely and efficiently under the structure of the unmanned aircraft system within the scope of the regulations. Each country classifies the RPA as an aircraft less than 25kg. Australia and Germany further break down the RPA at a lower weight. ICAO stipulates all general aviation operations, including commercial operation, in accordance with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention, and it also applies to RPAs operations. However, passenger transportation using RPAs is excluded. If the operational scope of the RPAs includes the airspace of another country, the special permission of the relevant country shall be required 7 days before the flight date with detail flight plan submitted. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation 107 in the United States, a small non-leisure RPA may be operated within line-of-sight of a responsible navigator or observer during the day in the speed range up to 161 km/hr (87 knots) and to the height up to 122 m (400 ft) from surface or water. RPA must yield flight path to other aircraft, and is prohibited to load dangerous materials or to operate more than two RPAs at the same time. In Germany, the regulations on UAS except for leisure and sports provide duty to avoidance of airborne collisions and other provisions related to ground safety and individual privacy. Although commercial UAS of 5 kg or less can be freely operated without approval by relaxing the existing regulatory requirements, all the UAS regardless of the weight must be operated below an altitude of 100 meters with continuous monitoring and pilot control. Australia was the first country to regulate unmanned aircraft in 2001, and its regulations have impacts on the unmanned aircraft laws of ICAO, FAA, and EASA. In order to improve the utiliity of unmanned aircraft which is considered to be low risk, the regulation conditions were relaxed through the revision in 2016 by adding the concept "Excluded RPA". In the case of excluded RPA, it can be operated without special permission even for commercial purpose. Furthermore, disscussions on a new standard manual is being conducted for further flexibility of the current regulations.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.205-226
• /
• 2018

For sustainable development of air transport, the establishment and application of international standards of environmental protection area is significant. The development and use of alternative fire extinguishing agent to Halon, which is used for the fire extinguishing systems of engine nacelles/APU and cargo compartments, has been requested in order to protect the ozone layer. The ICAO has been active in preparing international standards and recommended practices (SARPs); however, certification of alternative fire extinguishing agents has been postponed due to technical readiness problem.. Consequently, the implementation of SARPs has also been postponed by two years from the end of 2016. to the end of 2018. As such consequences have caused confusion among Member States regarding its implementation, it is necessary to discuss and pay more attention to this issue. ICAO Council and Air Navigation Commission should consider between setting the implementation time frame earlier or giving enough time for mature readiness and preparedness. Also in order to minimize the unnecessary discharge of Halon owned by Member States, it is necessary to consider efficient management methodologies; for example, requesting fire extinguisher manufacturers to recharge in professional ways. For the successful implementation of the SARPs, ICAO developed an implementation task list as including notification of differences, establishment of a national implementation plan, drafting of the modification to the national regulations and means of compliance, adoption of the national regulations and means of compliance. Member States can develop their own rule making process in reference with the ICAO implementation task list. This issue was presented and discussed during the 54th Conference of Directors General of civil aviation, Asia and Pacific Regions which was held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia in 2017 with significant attention among participated Contacting States. In this regards, ICAO Council and Air Navigation Commission should consult with Legal Bureau lawyers regarding SARPs preparing process to eliminate difficulties and confusions for proper implementation within effective date.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.287-325
• /
• 2017

Considering the development of aerospace, military science and technology since the 20th century, the sky is very important for the nation's existence and prosperity. The proverb "Whosoever commands the space commands the world itself!" emphasizes the need for the command of the air. This essay is the first study on the status of airspace after reunification. First, the territorial airspace is over the territory and territorial sea, and its horizontal extent is determined by the territorial boundary lines. Acceptance of the present order is most reasonable, rather than attempting to reconfigure through historical truths about border issues, and it could be supported by neighboring countries in the reunification period. For peace in Northeast Asia, the reunified Korea needs to respect the existing border agreement between North Korea and China or Russia. However, the North Korean straight baselines established in the East Sea and the Yellow Sea should be discarded because they are not available under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is desirable for the reunified Korea to redefine the straight baselines that comply with international law and determine the territorial waters up to and including the 12-nautical mile outside it. Second, the Flight Information Region (hereinafter "FIR") is a region defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (hereinafter "ICAO") in order to provide information necessary for the safe and efficient flight of aircraft and the search and rescue of aircraft. At present, Korea is divided into Incheon FIR which is under the jurisdiction of South Korea and Pyongyang FIR which is under the jurisdiction of North Korea. If North Korea can not temporarily exercise control of Pyongyang FIR due to a sudden change of circumstances, it is desirable for South Korea to exercise control of Pyongyang FIR, and if it is unavoidable, ICAO should temporarily exercise it. In reunified Korea, it is desirable to abolish Pyongyang FIR and integrate it into Incheon FIR with the approval of ICAO, considering systematic management and control of FIR, establishment of route, and efficiency of management. Third, the Air Defense Identification Zone (hereinafter "ADIZ") is a zone that requires easy identification, positioning, and control of aircraft for national security purposes, and is set up unilaterally by the country concerned. The US unilaterally established the Korea Air Defense Identification Area (KADIZ) by the Declaration of Commitment on March 22, 1951. The Ministry of Defense proclaimed a new KADIZ which extended to the area including IEODO on December 13, 2013. At present, North Korea's military warning zone is set only at maritime boundaries such as the East Sea and the Yellow Sea. But in view of its lack of function as ADIZ in relations with China and Russia, the reunified Korea has no obligation to succeed it. Since the depth of the Korean peninsula is short, it is necessary to set ADIZ boundary on the outskirts of the territorial airspace to achieve the original purpose of ADIZ. Therefore, KADIZ of the reunified Korea should be newly established by the boundary line that coincides with the Incheon FIR of the reunified Korea. However, if there is no buffer zone overlapping with or adjacent to the ADIZs of neighboring countries, military tensions may rise. Therefore, through bilateral negotiations for peace in Northeast Asia, a buffer zone is established between adjacent ADIZs.