• Maritime Security
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.1-53
• /
• 2022

One manifestation of the contemporary era of renewed great power competition has been the deepening relationship between China and Russia. Their strengthening military ties, notwithstanding their lack of a formal defense alliance, have been especially striking. Since China and Russia deploy two of the world's most powerful navies, their growing maritime cooperation has been one of the most significant international security developments of recent years. The Sino-Russian naval exercises, involving varying platforms and locations, have built on years of high-level personnel exchanges, large Russian weapons sales to China, the Sino-Russia Treaty of Friendship, and other forms of cooperation. Though the joint Sino-Russian naval drills began soon after Beijing and Moscow ended their Cold War confrontation, these exercises have become much more important during the last decade, essentially becoming a core pillar of their expanding defense partnership. China and Russia now conduct more naval exercises in more places and with more types of weapons systems than ever before. In the future, Chinese and Russian maritime drills will likely encompass new locations, capabilities, and partners-including possibly the Arctic, hypersonic delivery systems, and novel African, Asian, and Middle East partners-as well as continue such recent innovations as conducting joint naval patrols and combined arms maritime drills. China and Russia pursue several objectives through their bilateral naval cooperation. The Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation lacks a mutual defense clause, but does provide for consultations about common threats. The naval exercises, which rehearse non-traditional along with traditional missions (e.g., counter-piracy and humanitarian relief as well as with high-end warfighting), provide a means to enhance their response to such mutual challenges through coordinated military activities. Though the exercises may not realize substantial interoperability gains regarding combat capabilities, the drills do highlight to foreign audiences the Sino-Russian capacity to project coordinated naval power globally. This messaging is important given the reliance of China and Russia on the world's oceans for trade and the two countries' maritime territorial disputes with other countries. The exercises can also improve their national military capabilities as well as help them learn more about the tactics, techniques, and procedures of each other. The rising Chinese Navy especially benefits from working with the Russian armed forces, which have more experience conducting maritime missions, particularly in combat operations involving multiple combat arms, than the People's Liberation Army (PLA). On the negative side, these exercises, by enhancing their combat capabilities, may make Chinese and Russian policymakers more willing to employ military force or run escalatory risks in confrontations with other states. All these impacts are amplified in Northeast Asia, where the Chinese and Russian navies conduct most of their joint exercises. Northeast Asia has become an area of intensifying maritime confrontations involving China and Russia against the United States and Japan, with South Korea situated uneasily between them. The growing ties between the Chinese and Russian navies have complicated South Korean-U.S. military planning, diverted resources from concentrating against North Korea, and worsened the regional security environment. Naval planners in the United States, South Korea, and Japan will increasingly need to consider scenarios involving both the Chinese and Russian navies. For example, South Korean and U.S. policymakers need to prepare for situations in which coordinated Chinese and Russian military aggression overtaxes the Pentagon, obligating the South Korean Navy to rapidly backfill for any U.S.-allied security gaps that arise on the Korean Peninsula. Potentially reinforcing Chinese and Russian naval support to North Korea in a maritime confrontation with South Korea and its allies would present another serious challenge. Building on the commitment of Japan and South Korea to strengthen security ties, future exercises involving Japan, South Korea, and the United States should expand to consider these potential contingencies.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.469-497
• /
• 2015

In 2009 Iridium 33, a satellite owned by the American Iridium Communications Inc. and Kosmos-2251, a satellite owned by the Russian Space Forces, collided at a speed of 42,120 km/h and an altitude of 789 kilometers above the Taymyr Peninsula in Siberia. NASA estimated that the satellite collision had created approximately 1,000 pieces of debris larger than 10 centimeters, in addition to many smaller ones. By July 2011, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network(SSN) had catalogued over 2,000 large debris fragments. On January 11, 2007 China conducted a test on its anti-satellite missile. A Chinese weather satellite, the FY-1C polar orbit satellite, was destroyed by the missile that was launched using a multistage solid-fuel. The test was unprecedented for having created a record amount of debris. At least 2,317 pieces of trackable size (i.e. of golf ball size or larger) and an estimated 150,000 particles were generated as a result. As far as the Space Treaties such as 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement are concerned, few provisions addressing the space environment and debris in space can be found. In the early years of space exploration dating back to the late 1950s, the focus of international law was on the establishment of a basic set of rules on the activities undertaken by various states in outer space.. Consequently environmental issues, including those of space debris, did not receive the priority they deserve when international space law was originally drafted. As shown in the case of the 1978 "Cosmos 954 Incident" between Canada and USSR, the two parties settled it by the memorandum between two nations not by the Space Treaties to which they are parties. In 1994 the 66th conference of International Law Association(ILA) adopted "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris". 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" which had been approved by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) in its 527th meeting. On December 21 2007 this guideline was approved by UNGA Resolution 62/217. The EU has proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities" as a transparency and confidence-building measure. It was only in 2010 that the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee began considering as an agenda item the long-term sustainability of outer space. A Working Group on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities was established, the objectives of which include identifying areas of concern for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities, proposing measures that could enhance sustainability, and producing voluntary guidelines to reduce risks to long-term sustainability. By this effort "Guidelines on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities" are being under consideration. In the case of "Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space" adopted by UNGA Resolution 1962(XVIII), December 13 1963, the 9 principles proclaimed in that Declaration, although all of them incorporated in the Space Treaties, could be regarded as customary international law binding all states considering the time and opinio juris by the responses of the world. Although the soft law such as resolutions, guidelines are not binding law, there are some provisions which have a fundamentally norm-creating character and customary international law. In November 12 1974 UN General Assembly recalled through a Resolution 3232(XXIX) "Review of the role of International Court of Justice" that the development of international law may be reflected, inter alia, by the declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly which may to that extend be taken into consideration by the judgements of the International Court of Justice. We are expecting COPUOS which gave birth 5 Space Treaties that it could give us binding space debris mitigation measures to be implemented based on space debris mitigation soft law in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.311-336
• /
• 2015

This article surveys the current international law with respect to RPAS from both the public air law and private air law perspectives. It then reviews current and proposed Australian domestic RPAS regulation while emphasizing the peculiar risks in operation of RPAS; and how they affect concepts of liability, safety and privacy. While RPAS operations still constitute only a small portion of total operations within commercial aviation, international pilotless flight for commercial air transport remains a future reality. As the industry is developing so quickly the earlier the pursuit of the right policy solutions begins, the better the law will be able to cope with the technological realities when the inevitable risks manifest in accidents. The paper acknowledges that a domestic or regional approach to RPAS, typified by the legislative success of the Australian experience, is and continues to be the principal measure to deal with RPAS issues globally. Furthermore, safety remains the foremost factor in present and revised Australian RPAS regulation. This has an analogue to the international situation. Creating safety-related rules is imperative and must precede the creation or adoption of liability rules because the former mitigates the risk of accidents which trigger the application of the latter. The flipside of a lack of binding airworthiness standards for RPAS operators is potentially a strong argument that the liability regime (and particularly strict liability of operators) is unfair and unsuited to pilotless flight. The potential solutions the authors raise include the need for revised ICAO guidance and, in particular, SARPs with respect to RPAS air safety, airworthiness, and potentially liability issues for participants/passengers, and those on the ground. Such guidance could then be adapted swiftly for appropriate incorporation into domestic laws bypassing the need for or administrative burden and time it would take to activate the treaty process to deal with an arm of aviation that states know all too well is in need of safety regulation and monitoring.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.47-85
• /
• 1989

The Fundamental purpose of the Warsaw Convention was to establish uniform rules applicable to international air transportation. The emphasis on the benefits of uniformity was considered important in the beginning and continues to be important to the present. If the desire for uniformity is indeed the mortar which holds the Warsaw system together then it should be possible to agree on a worldwide liability limit. This liability limit would not be so unreasonable, that it would be impossible for nations to adhere to it. It would preclude any national supplemental compensation plan or Montreal Agreement type of requirement in any jurisdiction. The differentiation of liability limits by national requirement seems to be what is occurring. There is a plethora of mandated limits and Montreal Agreement type 'voluntary' limits. It is becoming difficult to find more than a few major States where an unmodified Warsaw Convention or Hague Protocol limitation is still in effect. If this is the real world in the 1980's, then let the treaty so reflect it. Upon reviewing the Warsaw Convention, its history and the several attempts to amend it, strengths become apparent. Hijackings of international flights have given rise to a number of lawsuits by passengers to recover damages for injuries suffered. This comment is concerned with the liability of an airline for injuries to its passengers resulting from aviation terrorism. In addition, analysis is focused on current airline security measures, particularly the pre-boarding screening system, and the duty of air carriers to prevent weapons from penetrating that system. An airline has a duty to exercise a high degree of care to protect its passengers from the threat of aviation terrorism. This duty would seemingly require the airline to exercise a high degree of care to prevent any passenger from smuggling a weapon or explosive device aboard its aircraft. In the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescene to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. A finding of willful misconduct on the part of an air carrier, which is a prerequisite to imposing unlimited liability, remains a question to be determined by a jury using the definition or standard of willful misconduct prevailing in the jurisdiction of the forum court. Through the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention, air carrier face the possibility of unlimited liability for failure to implement proper preventive precautions against terrorist. Courts, therefore, should broadly construe the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention in order to find unlimited liability for passenger injuries whenever air carrier security precautions are lacking. In this way, the courts can help ensure air carrier safety and prevention against terrorist attack. Air carriers, therefore, would have an incentive to increase, impose and maintain security precautions designed to thwart such potential terrorist attacks as in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight No.858 incident having a tremendous impact on the civil aviation community. The crash of a commercial airliner, with the attending tragic loss of life and massive destruction of property, always gives rise to shock and indignation. The general opinion is that the legal system could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. I would like to remind all passengers that every discovery of the human spirit may be used for opposite ends; thus, aircraft can be used for air travel but also as targets of terrorism. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the soverign rights of the states, and the human rights of the individuals. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co-ordinated measures. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.159-203
• /
• 2010

Together with the development of space science outer space law has become one of the most rapidly developing branches of international law. This reflects a general realization that these new activities must be subject to reasonable legal regulation if they are to serve the peaceful purposes of mankind without undue confusion and disorder. The exploration and use of outer space introduces many novel opportunities and dilemmas, and inspired insights are needed in the development of this new resource. In particular, the settlement of space law disputes is a relatively new discussion in international law. However, the significance of the settlement of space law disputes was acknowledged in various colloquia organized by legal academicians and practitioners around the world. Analysis of the dispute settlement provisions in space agreements plainly reveals the degree to which States persist to be mistrustful of any impingement to their sovereignty. They are reluctant to submit disputes to adjudication and binding arbitration, particularly when these provisions are negotiated between States which have dissimilar political, economic and social interests and demography. However, there is a slow but clear shift in this attitude as States realize the contemporary political, economic and technical pressures necessitating the lifting of the veil of State sovereignty. The development of an effective mechanism for the settlement of disputes arising in relation to the development of the exploration and exploitation of outer space has been the subject of global study by highly qualified publicists and international institutions. The 1972 Liability Convention is the space treaty with the most elaborate provisions for dispute settlement. However, it fails to ensure binding decisions. In this point, the 1998 Taipei Final Draft Convention may be a useful instrument for further consideration on whether an independent sectorialized dispute settlement mechanism should be established. Considering these circumstances it seemed essential to take legislative action to implement a system as comprehensive as the relevant legal framework are in the Law of the Sea and International Criminal Law mechanisms for dispute settlement and conflict avoidance from outer space activities.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.103-125
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews the EU Case, Claudia Wegener v. Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, Case C-537/17. It analyzes some issues as to Wegener case by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, entitled scope, provides: "this Regulation shall apply: (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier." ECJ held that must be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft. According to the Court, it is apparent from the regulation and case-law that when, as in the present case, two (or more) flights are booked as a single unit, those flights constitute a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers. Those flights must therefore be considered as one and the same connecting flight.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.229-260
• /
• 2011

European Union (EU) law has been a complex but at the same time fascinating subject of study due to its dynamic evolution. In particular, the Lisbon Treaty which entered into force in December 2009 represents the culmination of a decade of attempts at Treaty reform and harmonisation in diverse sectors. Amongst the EU private law fields, company law harmonisation has been one of the hotly debated issues with regards to the freedom of establishment in the internal market. Due to the significant differences between national provisions on company law, it seemed somewhat difficult to harmonise company law. However, Council Regulation 2157/2001 was legislated in 2001 and now provides the basis for the Statute for a European Company (or Societas Europaea: SE). The Statute is also supplemented by the Council Directive 2001/86 on the involvement of employees. The SE Statute is a legal measure in order to contribute to the internal market, and provides a choice for companies that wish to merge, create a joint subsidiary or convert a subsidiary into an SE. Through this option, the SE became a corporate form which is only available to existing companies incorporated in different Member States in the EU. The important question on the meaning of the SE Statute is whether the distinctive characteristics of the SE make it an attractive option to ensure significant numbers of SE registration. In fact, the outcome that has been made through the SE Statute is an example of regulatory competition. The traditional regulatory competition in the freedom of establishment has been the one between national statutes between Member States. However, this time is not a competition between Member States, which means that the Union has joined the area in competition between legal orders and is now in competition with the systems of company law of the Member States.Key Words : European Union, EU Company Law, Societas Europaea, SE Statute, One-tier System, Two-tier System, Race to the Bottom A quite number of scholars expect that the number of SE will increase significantly. Of course, there is no evidence of regulatory competition that Korea faces currently. However, because of the increasing volume of international trade and expansion of regional economic bloc, it is necessary to consider the example of development of EU company law. Addition to the existing SE Statute, the EU Commission has also proposed a new corporate form, Societas Private Europaea (private limited liable company). All of this development in European company law will help firms make their best choice for company establishment. The Delaware-style development in the EU will foster the race to the bottom, thereby improving the contents of company law. To conclude, the study on the development of European company law becomes important to understand the evolution of company law and harmonisation efforts in the EU.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2008

Until Montreal Convention was established in 1999, the Warsaw System is undoubtedly accepted private international air law treaty and has played major role on the carrier's liability in international aviation transport industry. But the whole Warsaw System, though it was revised many times to meet the rapid developments of the aviation transport industry, is so complicated, tangled and outdated. This thesis, therefore, aim to introduce the Montreal Convention by interpreting it as a new legal instrument on the air carrier's liability, specially on the passenger's, and analyzing all the issues relating to it. The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing international carriage by air. The Montreal Convention has modernized and consolidated the old Warsaw System of international instruments of private international air law into one legal instrument. One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is that it sifted its priority to the protection of the interest of the consumers from the protection of the carrier which originally the Warsaw Convention intended to protect the fledgling international air transport business. Two major features of the Montreal Convention adopts are the Two-tier Liability System and the Fifth Jurisdiction. In case of death or bodily injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier liability system. The first tier includes strict liability up to 100,000SDR, irrespective of carriers' fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of carrier and has no limit of liability. Regarding Jurisdiction, the Montreal Convention expands upon the four jurisdiction in which the carrier could be sued by adding a fifth jurisdiction, i.e., a passenger can bring suit in a country in which he or she has their permanent and principal residence and in which the carrier provides a services for the carriage of passengers by either its own aircraft or through a commercial agreement. Other features are introducing the advance payment, electronic ticketing, compulsory insurance and regulation on the contracting and actual carrier etc. As we see some major features of the Montreal Convention, the Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation liability and there can be no doubt it will prevail the international aviation transport world in the future. Our government signed this Convention on 20th Sep. 2007 and it came into effect on 29th Dec. 2007 domestically. Thus, it was recognized that domestic carriers can adequately and independently manage the change of risks of liability. I, therefore, would like to suggest our country's aviation industry including newly-born low cost carrier prepare some countermeasures domestically that are necessary to the enforcement of the Convention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.367-418
• /
• 2018

Just as safety is the most important thing in aviation, safety is the most important in the operation of unmanned aircraft (RPA), and safety operation is the most important in the legal responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft. In this thesis, the legal responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft, focusing on the responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft, was discussed in depth with the issue of insurance, which compensates for damages in the event of an accident First of all, the legal responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft was reviewed for the most basic : definition, scope and qualification of the operator of the unmanned aircraft, and the liability of the operator of the Convention On International Civil Aviation, the ICAO Annex, the RPAS Manual, the Rome Convention, other major international treaties and Domestic law such as the Aviation Safety Act. The ICAO requires that unmanned aircraft be operated in such a manner as to minimize hazards to persons, property or other aircraft as a major principle of the operation of unmanned aircraft, which is ultimately equivalent to manned aircraft Considering that most accidents involving unmanned aircrafts fall to the ground, causing damage to third parties' lives or property, this thesis focused on the responsibility of operators under the international treaty, and the responsibility of third parties for air transport by Domestic Commercial Act, as well as the liability for compensation. In relation to the Rome Convention, the Rome Convention 1952 detailed the responsibilities of the operator. Although it has yet to come into effect regarding liability, some EU countries are following the limit of responsibility under the Rome Convention 2009. Korea has yet to sign any Rome Convention, but Commercial Act Part VI Carriage by Air is modeled on the Rome Convention 1978 in terms of compensation. This thesis also looked at security-related responsibilities and the responsibility for privacy infringement. which are most problematic due to the legal responsibilities of operating unmanned aircraft. Concerning insurance, this thesis looked at the trends of mandatory aviation insurance coverage around the world and the corresponding regulatory status of major countries to see the applicability of unmanned aircraft. It also looked at the current clauses of the Domestic Aviation Business Act that make insurance mandatory, and the ultra-light flight equipment insurance policy and problems. In sum, the operator of an unmanned aircraft will be legally responsible for operating the unmanned aircraft safely so that it does not pose a risk to people, property or other aircraft, and there will be adequate compensation in the event of an accident, and legal systems such as insurance systems should be prepared to do so.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.313-374
• /
• 2020

The idea of creating a new International Space Agency (ISA) is only my academic and practical opinion. It is necessary for us to establish ISA as an international organization for the efficient and rapid exploitation of natural resources in the moon, Mars and other celestial bodies. The establishment of ISA as a new international regime is based on the Article 11, 5 and Article 18 of the 1979 Moon Agreement. In order to establish as a preliminary procedure, it needs to make a "Draft for the Convention on the Establishment of an International Space Agency" among the space-faring countries. In this paper, I was examined the domestic space legislation in the United States, Luxembourg, European Space Agency, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea as well as space exploration and planning of the moons, Mars, Asteroids, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan and Other Celestial Bodies. The creation of an ISA would lead to a strengthening of the cooperation needed essentially by the developed countries towards joint and cooperative undertakings in space and would act as a catalyst for the space exploration and exploitation of the moon, Mars and other celestial bodies. It will be managed effectively and centrally the exploitation and exploitation of space the natural resources, technology, manpower and finances as an independent organization in order to get the benefit of the space developed countries by ISA. It is desirable and necessary for us to establish ISA in order to promote cooperation in space policy, law, science technology and industry among the space developed countries in the near future. The establishment of the ISA will be promoted the international cooperation among the space-faring countries in exploration and exploitations of the natural resources in the moon and other celestial bodies. I would propose the "Draft for the Convention for the Establishment of an International Space Agency." in refering the "Convention for the Establishment of a European Space Agency." This "Draft for the Convention Convention for the Establishment of an ISA" must pass the abovementioned "Draft for the Convention" by two-third majority of Diplomatic Conference in the UNCOPUOS. Finally, a very important point is need that a political drive at the highest level and a solemn statement by heads of state of the space devloped countries including the United Nations for the space exploitation of the medium and long term. It should be noted that this political drive will be necessary not only to set up the organization, but also during a subsequent period. It is desirable and necessary for us to establish the ISA in order to develop the space industry, to strengthen friendly relations and to promote research cooperation among the space-faring countries based on the new ideology and creative ideas. If the heads of the superpowers including the United Nations will be agreed to establish ISA at a summit conference, 1 am sure that it is possible to establish an ISA in the near future.