• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.14 no.3_1
• /
• pp.35-44
• /
• 2014

It has been shown that the lack of sufficient defense industry cooperation between Korea and the US. The severe imbalance in defense trade between tow countries and Korea's weak defense industrial base has been a problem. This paper suggests the enhancement of defense industry cooperation with the US as a defense policy. The US policy has been changed to utilize the globalization of defense industries. The following cases were analyzed to show the policy change; The security of supply arrangement with 6 countries, the defense cooperation treaty with the United Kingdom and Australia. the defense Memorandum of Understanding with 23 countries, and the international cooperation with 8 countries for F-35 JSF program. Korea government needs to sign a defense MOU with U.S. and the defense industries are recommended to increase the opportunities of weapon system co-development and co-production. So that the Korea defense industry may improve competitiveness and to overcome the current weaknesses.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.28 no.6
• /
• pp.1761-1771
• /
• 2016

In respect of the existing relation between Sea-going Vessels and Vessels at anchor, Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal has applied 'Ordinary Practice of Seamen' that is regulated by the article No. 2 of COLREG. That is, general navigation rule is not applied between the two vessels, and the action to avoid collision of vessels by utilizing experience knowledge of the seamen. However, the content of the Ordinary Practice of Seamen included in the revised plan in the process of 2011 "Maritime affairs Safety Act" revision was deleted in the screening of the Office of Legislation due to the reason that it could not specified when the content of deed is not concertized. Furthermore, prior application regulation of international treaty included in the existing "Sea Traffic Safety Act"(Article 5) was deleted in the screening of the National Assembly. So, doubt about whether the Ordinary Practice of Seamen could be continuously applied according to the regulation of the international treaty, nevertheless not specified in domestic law, has been continuously raised. In this situation, recently Central Maritime Safety Tribunal changed precedent by applying of Article 96(3) of Maritime Safety Act without applying Ordinary Practice of Seamen in the Case No. 2015-001. Accordingly, this study intended to review propriety of precedent change and legal issue with the decision of Central Maritime Safety Tribunal excluding Ordinary Practice of Seamen for a collision between Sea-going Vessels and Vessels at anchor.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.419-477
• /
• 2017

In Space contains valuable natural resources. These provide a compelling reason for entrepreneurs, investors, and governments to pursue space exploration and settlement. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet. Article II of the Outer Space Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 (CSLCA), however, makes significant advances in furthering U.S. commercial space industry, which explicitly allows U.S. citizens to engage in the commercial exploration and exploitation of 'space resources' including water and minerals. Thus, some scholars argue that the United States recognizing ownership of space resources is an act of sovereignty, and that the act violates the Outer Space Treaty. This paper suggests that it is necessary to guarantee the right to resources harvested in outer space. More specifically, a private ownership of extracted space resources needs to promote new space business and industry. As resources on Earth become increasingly difficult and expensive to mine, it is clear that our laws and policies must encourage private appropriation of space resources. CSLCA which addresses all aspects of space resource extraction will be one way to encourage space commercial activity.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.303-325
• /
• 2015

The latest slogan put forth by the international space community is the safety, security, and sustainability of outer space activities. The security of outer space activities, in particular, would be defined as the secure state from space-based threats. The latter comprises passive threats (such as collision with other satellites and space debris) and aggressive threats (such as electromagnetic interference, arms race on the earth or in outer space, and military attacks). Has outer space been used for military purposes in practice? If so, does international law regulate the military space activities it? The use of outer space for military purposes is referred to as space militarization and space weaponisation. Satellites has been used in Gulf War, Kosovo War, and Afghan War, recently, and research and development on space weapons are under way. Since only the placement of weapons of mass destruction on orbit around the earth is prohibited in accordance with 1967 Outer Space Treaty, it may be asked whether other weapons may be placed on orbit. It will be necessary to analyze the stance of on the above question, by studying UN space-related treaties including UN Charter. New international space norms represented by PPWT, ICoC, and UN GGE Report are at the center of progressive development of international law. In conclusion, the author will signpost the various points on international norms to be codified on the use of outer space for military purposes.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.589-616
• /
• 2016

The reviewing of an analysis of the Korea-China FTA due to guidance introduced for the new regulations or exceptional regulations compared to the KORUS, Korea-EU, Korea-ASEAN FTA. Commodity sectors in the Korea-China FTA and the KORUS, Korea-EU, Korea-ASEAN FTA(the majority in the country and trade criteria analysis result) compared and analyzed the results, rules of origin and the customs clearance procedures of origin, preferential tariff rate of origin and the origin preferential specific rules are somewhat difference, but customs and trade facilitation regulations are already quite consistent with the Korea customs system. Relatively important research results were as follows. First, the calculation of the regional value content in KORCHINA FTA is that I'm to use the deduction method can comprehensively reflect a regional value ratio, with respect to the materials acquired originating status as the FTA in the US and EU use the product non it's not to consider the value of the originating materials originating materials can be utilized for intermediate goods. Second, even if a non-treaty country in the middle with the exception of direct transport rules, and acknowledge the country of origin are under customs control, there are provisions for the period are temporarily stored in a non-treaty countries separately, that period goods imported into the non-treaty countries and up to three months from the day. If the situation of the occurrence of force majeure be greater than three months, but has so exceed six months. Third, the materials acquired originating status in the Korea-China FTA not to consider the value of non-originating materials used in its products as the KORUS FTA and Korea-EU FTA, that can be utilized originating materials for intermediate goods. It is expected that higher utilization of rules of origin. Meanwhile, Korea-China FTA has provisions to allow requests for preferential tariff applied on imports Customs declaration of intention to apply pre-condition for a preferential tariff applied to the importer. In other words, if the import customs tariff preference when applying post-intention not to advance is to be noted that any preferential treatment to prevent the later application.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.163-186
• /
• 2007

Charter flight in international air law has, from very beginning, not precisely defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (lCAO) since 1947 when it came into being. By practice, the operation of charter traffic is, in its very beginning, the subject to the regulations of national rules and bilateral charter agreements (charter annex clause) within the framework of normal bilateral agreement of international air services. Taiwan had signed a series of bilateral air service agreement under the name of the Government of the Republic of China when Taiwan was recognized by the United Nations and major members of international community as the sole legal government representing China before 1971, but that situation was changed since then. Taiwan has only maintained diplomatic relations with 25 States, but maintained semi-official relations with major powers of the world. The former agreements were signed within the framework of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 while the latter agreements were signed within the framework of administrative and civil law of two countries which were not in the form of bilateral treaty signed by two sovereign States in its proper sense of international law. The legal regime of charter flights between Taiwan and Mainland China is regulated by special arrangements negotiated by delegated airlines and airlines association or private law institutions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.55-74
• /
• 2007

When the People's Republic of China destroyed one of its own defunct meteorological satellites, the Fengyun-1C, at an altitude of some 865 km above the earth's surface, the PRC was accused of initiating, or at the very least risking an(other) arms race in outer space also. The test also gave rise to a few legal questions as to the permissibility of this test, and the broader permissibility of using space for military and other weapon-touting activities, Whilst the test cannot be considered to constitute a direct threat to international peace and security so as to invoke relevant legal principles and consequences in terms of the UN Charter for example, it highlights the importance of such clauses in international space law as requiring international cooperation and consultation, due regard for the interests of all other countries both on earth and in outer space, and the further development of general regimes of registration and space debris-prevention. From that perspective, the PRC violated international outer space law not so much by the test itself but by the accompanying lack of information, consultation and due regard for other states', and indeed mankind's, interests.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.181-199
• /
• 2007

When the People's Republic of China destroyed one of its own defunct meteorological satellites, the Fengyun-1C, at an altitude of some 865 km above the earth's surface, the PRC was accused of initiating, or at the very least risking an(other) arms race in outer space also. The test also gave rise to a few legal questions as to the permissibility of this test, and the broader permissibility of using space for military and other weapon-touting activities, Whilst the test cannot be considered to constitute a direct threat to international peace and security so as to invoke relevant legal principles and consequences in terms of the UN Charter for example, it highlights the importance of such clauses in international space law as requiring international cooperation and consultation, due regard for the interests of all other countries both on earth and in outer space, and the further development of general regimes of registration and space debris-prevention. From that perspective, the PRC violated international outer space law not so much by the test itself but by the accompanying lack of information, consultation and due regard for other states', and indeed mankind's, interests.

• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.155-168
• /
• 2021

The EU and the UK apply a treaty to establish new relations from 2021. Brexit is making a big difference in relations among the EU, the UK, and third countries. A new paradigm of international law has begun to be applied to relations among Korea, the EU, and the UK. The UK was excluded from the application of the Korea-EU FTA, and the Korea-UK FTA was applied to trade relations between Korea and the UK. The signing of these new treaties and the changes in the subject to which they apply are impacting the existing international legal system. The countries are showing some response, but it cannot be evaluated as a complete level, and there are still tasks to be solved. Therefore, the legal basis for EU-UK relations, Korea-EU relations, and Korea-UK relations should continue to be laid down in the future. The Korea-UK FTA cannot govern all the problems arising from trade and economic cooperation. Many interests that the UK did not reflect in the course of previous Korea-EU FTA negotiations will be revealed, so a new legal framework for Korea-UK bilateral relations will be established according to the negotiations between the two sides. There should be more detailed research and suggestion of alternatives in the field of law.