• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.177-213
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability and cases for space damage with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of major countries. The United Nations has adopted two treaties relating to the liability for space damage as follows: the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Liability Convention of 1972. Korea has enacted the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 relating to the liability for space damages. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, and the national tort liability for damage by space launching object. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, and the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, and the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. There are several cases with reference to the liability for damage caused by space accidents as follows: the Collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251, the Disintegration of Cosmos 954 over Canadian Territory, the Failure of Satellite Launching by Martin Marietta, and the Malfunctioning of Westar VI Satellite. In the disputes and lawsuits due to such space accidents, the problems relating to the liability for space damage have been settled by the application of absolute(strict) liability principle or faulty liability principle. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the clear definition in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the measure in respect of the enforcement of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of the currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, and the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2021

Recent Discussions on Third-Party Funding (TPF) in the forums of UNCITRAL, ICSID, and ICC are making different levels of progress towards finalizing the rules. However, they also have similarities in dealing with legal issues related to TPF, such as definitions, disclosure, allocation of costs, and security for costs. International treaty tribunals have dealt with TPF issues, too. When it comes to the standing of funded claimants, the tribunal in Ambiente v. Argentina did not accept the argument that claimants were controlled by the TPF provider. Concerning the scope of the disclosure, the tribunal in Tennant v. Canada ordered the disclosure of the TPF arrangement. As for the allocation of costs, the tribunal in Kardassopoulos v. Georgia noted that there is no reason why a TPF agreement should be treated differently than an insurance contract. Regarding the security for costs, the tribunal in South American Silver v. Bolivia considered the mere existence of a third-party funder as not an exclusive factor to determine costs in the earlier stage of the proceedings. Lastly, relating to TPF as a ground for annulment, the tribunal in Teinver v. Argentina declined the respondent's argument that the TPF agreement was the vehicle of fraud.

• Proceedings of the Korean Nuclear Society Conference
• /
• 1996.05d
• /
• pp.482-487
• /
• 1996

국제적 핵비확산체제의 일환으로 추진중인 CTBT(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) 협상에서 제기된 IDC(International Data Center)의 기능에 관한 세 가지 Option의 내용과 배경을 살펴보고 이를 국제적인 핵비확산 체재확립과 신기술의 국내도입이라는 두 가지 관점에서 비교하였다. 특히 신기술 국내도입의 면에 있어서는 개발도상국의 기술개발이론에 대입, 각각의 Option이 선택되었을 경우의 손익을 비교하였다. 전체적으로 국제적인 핵비확산 체제확립을 위하여서는 Option 1이 그리고 우리나라의 현실과 국익을 고려할 경우에는 Option 2가 비용효과면에서 가장 효율적인 것으로 나타났다.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.293-306
• /
• 2005

In order to bridge the digital divide issues in the Asia Pacific region, Japan initiated the Asia Broadband Program, during implementing E-Japan and U-Japan Plans with collaboration among Asia Pacific Counties. This paper describes first joint experiments that were undertaken in Japan, Singapore and China. Then this paper also describes Japanese efforts to build space infrastructure for development of ICT Society in the Asia Pacific region for further international cooperation to bridge the digital divide Article 1, para. 1, of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, calls for exploration and use of outer space to be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. The augmentation of common benefit from space communication could contribute to bridge the digital divide issues in developing countries in Asia Pacific region. Accordingly, space- infrastructure building would be very important to implement common benefit among countries concerned through international cooperation and collaboration

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.255-276
• /
• 2014

The dispute between China and Japan regarding $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$ is believed to be quite similar to the controversy surrounding Dokdo in terms of historical and post-war processes except for the point that the phenomena of occupation is different with regard to Dokdo. China's claim to $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$ is based on historical title and continuous use while the basis of Japan's claim is summarized as preoccupancy of ownerless land. Even though Japan acknowledges that China discovered $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$, Japan claims that the act to establish sovereignty over the island from the standpoint of International Law was not taken by China. However, at that time, effective occupation was not an essential prerequisite for the acquisition of a territory. That is to say, from a legal perspective, the legal right for an area could be established based on the discovery of the land, and so it is thought that Japan is applying the current criteria of International Law in a manner that is inappropriate. When we review the post-war process, the San Francisco Peace Treaty does not directly mention $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$. But based on the said treaty, we can note that Japan gave up all rights for the southern area that is north of the boundary line that equates to latitude $29^{\circ}$ and that includes the Ryuku Islands and $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$. Of course, the provisions for the territory in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and its disposal are not the final factor for the judgment regarding dominium of $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$. However, it seems clear that Japan's attitude and interpretation regarding the issues of $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$, the Kuril Islands and Dokdo is problematic.

• 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 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.349-370
• /
• 2016

This thesis examines the problems faced in the electronic bill of lading for which improvements are necessary, and suggests various ways of overcoming those problems. First, to build a negotiation system for electronic B/Ls, active participation from related parties in addition to the government support is essential. Second, electronic B/Ls cannot be utilized within a short period of time in current commercial practices. Third, there should be infrastructure which connects all parties of international commerce through an electronic system. Fourth, instead of promoting mutual recognition through international treaty, there should be a plan which legally specifying mutual recognition between certification authorities. Fifth, it is needed to ease the strictness of electronic signature to promote the global negotiation of electronic B/Ls. Lastly, in prima facie weight of evidence, there was a significant difference with the Rotterdam Rules even in comparison with the Commercial Act which was amended with the significantly advanced rules on electronic B/L. He believed there should be a discreet consideration on these matters at the revision of the Commercial Act. For this, the government has to provide support more aggressively with more interest and commitments.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.14-14
• /
• 1996

In general, a source of international law comes out of either treaties or customs. Process of forming treaty law is relatively clear as it is created by both negotiations of legal experts in issue and express of states concerned in the international conferences. However, this process does not apply to the creation of customary international law. Rather the process to customary law depends on legal inference from or reasoning on states' practices in fact so that there is no definite process or procedures for establishing customary international law and objective criteria to identify it. It is more difficult to prove when and what states' practices have been recognized customary law that turns to bind on all members of world community. This paper is to explore, through theories and findings of ICJ, how the customary international law is formed to be effective as a binding norm of law.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.107-120
• /
• 1996

In general, a source of international law comes out of either treaties or customs. Process of forming treaty law is relatively clear as it is created by both negotiations of legal experts in issue and express of sttes concerned in the international conferences. However, this process does not apply to the creation of customary international law. Rather the process to customary law depends on legal inference from or reasoning states' practices in fact so that there is no definite process or procedures for establishing customary international law and objective criteria to identify it. It is more difficult to prove when and what states' practices have been recognized customary law that turns to bind on all members of world community. This paper is to explore, through theories and findings of ICJ, how the customary international law is formed to be effective as a binding norm of law.