• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2008

항공운송과 관련하여 우리나라는 1955년 헤이그 의정서에 의하여 개정된 바르샤바협약과 1999년 몬트리올 협약에 가입하여 국제운송에 관하여는 적용할 법률을 가지고 있지만, 현재 국내항공운송에 관하여는 적용될 법률이 없는 실정이다. 법무부는 상법 내에 항공운송편을 제정하기로 결정하고, 항공운송편제정 특별위원회를 구성하였다. 동 위원회는 2008년 여름 항공운송편 초안을 완성하여 동 초안은 현재 법제처의 심의를 받고 있다. 항공운송편을 제정함에 있어서는 현재까지 성립된 항공운송관련 대부분의 조약을 수용하였다. 항공운송법의 편제는 1장 통칙, 제2장 운송, 제3장 지상 제3자의 손해에 대한 책임 등 총 3개의 장을 두었다. 우리나라가 항공운송에 관한 단행법을 제정하지 않고 상법 제6편에 항공운송편을 두어 제2편 상행위편에 육상운송을 규정하곤 제5편에 해상운송에 관한 규정을 둔 것과 함께! 통합적인 운송법체계를 가진 것은 입법례가 없는 매우 독특한 입법형식을 취한 것이다. 특히 항공기운항자의 지상 제3자의 손해에 대한 책임에 관한 로마조약체계까지도 수용하여 함께 규정한 것은 국내항공운송법체계를 완성한 것으로서 매우 의미 있는 일이라고 생각한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.97-158
• /
• 2010

우리나라는 1992년 최초의 인공위성 우리별 1호를 발사한 이후, 현재까지 11기의 인공위성을 발사하였다. 2007년 국가우주위원회에서 우주개발중장기 기본계획을 수정 보완한 우주개발진흥계획을 수립하였다. 동 계획에 의하면, 2010년 까지 총 13기의 인공위성 개발, 2020년경까지 한국형 우주발사체 개발, 2021년 달 탐사선 발사 등이 예정되어 있다. 한편 2009년 6월 전남 고흥군 외나로도에 우주센터가 준공되어 동년 8월 우리나라 최초의 소형 우주발사체 나로호 KSLV-1가 1차 발사되었으며, 2010년 6월 나로호가 2차 발사되었다. 유엔에서 채택되어 발효 중인 우주개발 관련 국제조약으로는 1967년 우주조약, 1968년 우주구조반환협정, 1971년 우주손해책임조약, 1972년 우주물체등록조약, 1979년 달 조약 등 5가지 조약이 있으며, 우리나라는 달 조약을 제외한 4가지 조약을 가입 비준하였다. 세계 주요국의 우주개발 관련 국내입법례로는, 미국의 1958년 국가항공우주법 및 1998년 상업우주법, 영국의 1986년 우주법, 프랑스의 1961년 국립우주센터 설립법, 캐나다의 1990년 우주청법, 일본의 2008년 우주기본법, 러시아의 1993년 우주활동법 등이 제정되어 있다. 우리나라의 우주개발 관련 국내입법으로는, 1987년 항공우주산업개발 촉진법, 2005년 우주개발진흥법, 2008년 우주손해배상법 등이 제정 시행되고 있으며, 이러한 국내입법의 개선방향은 다음과 같다. 지식경제부는 2009년 12월 23일 항공우주산업개발촉진법 전부 개정안을 입법 예고하였는 바, 개정안의 주요내용으로는 (1) 법의 제명 "항공우주산업육성법"으로 변경, (2) 항공비행시험장 등 정의규정 신설, (3) 항공우주산업 기본계획 수립, 항공우주산업위원회 설치, (4) 항공우주산업의 육성을 위한 사업, (5) 탐색개발, 국제공동개발, (6) 협동개발, (7) 공제사업, (8) 우주산업의 기반 조성을 위한 사업, (9) 항공우주산업의 집적 활성화, (10) 항공비행시험장의 지정 등, (11) 특정사업자의 지정 및 지원제도 폐지, (12) 성능검사 및 품질검사 폐지 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주개발진흥법의 개정방향으로는 (1) 우주개발진흥법과 항공우주산업개발촉진법과의 법체계상의 중복문제, (2) 국가우주위원회와 국가과학기술위원회 간에 우주개발에 관한 국가연구개발 예산의 배분, 조정문제, (3) 우주개발에 있어서 환경의 배려 및 보전, (4) 우주개발에 관한 시책 및 규제를 위한 법제상 조치 강구 및 법제의 정비 등의 사항에 관하여 수정 보완이 되어야 할 것이다. 우주손해배상법의 개정방향으로는 (1) 우주손해의 정의와 간접손해, (2) 손해배상책임 한도액의 통화단위, (3) 우주물체 공동발사자의 연대책임 및 구상권, (4) 우주손해배상심의위원회의 설치 등의 사항에 관하여 수정보완이 되어야 할 것이다. 우리나라가 2013년에 우주여행의 실현을 위하여 미국의 민간 유인 우주선 제작사인 XCOR 에어로스페이스사로 부터 우주선을 도입하여 운항할 계획이다. 앞으로 우주여행 관련기업들을 비롯한 상업우주운송 기업체들의 국내진출이 예상되므로 상업우주운송에 대한 안전인증 및 관리감독 체계의 마련이 시급하며, 국내 상업우주운송산업의 육성에 관한 정책개발과 현행 항공법 및 우주개발 관련 법령의 적절한 보완 정비가 필요하다.

• 환경정책연구
• /
• 제3권1호
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2004

The role of the financial institution to promote corporate sustainability may be reviewed in two angles, as a commercial lender and an investor. As a commercial lender, financial institutions should minimize the legal risks and the political risks. Financial institutions began to recognize environmental risks as legal risks that directly affect their lending practices since the legislation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act("Superfund") of the U.S.A. The so-called lender liability rule has a detailed guideline where the financial institutions may be exempted from the Superfund Liability. Similar attempts are noticed in the recent EU White Paper on Environmental Liability. In Korea, comprehensive environmental liability laws are yet to be developed. The Soil Environment Preservation Act now includes a far-reaching environmental liability provisions, where the owners and operators as well as receivers of the facility bear responsibility. However, whether the financial institutions may be captured as a potential responsible party is not very clear. Until the relevant legislation is developed and court decisions accumulate, Korean financial institutions are well advised to raise awareness on this issue, to develop environmental policies and to train personnels.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.117-136
• /
• 2007

Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the international private law and the international commercial arbitration. The purpose of this article is to make research on the party's autonomy principle for the international commercial arbitral awards. For this purpose ist to analyse regal issue the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility of $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$ relating to the party autonomy. In this Article ist dealt with Art. 29 para. 1 of the Korean Arbitration Act in comparison with Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. The Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure provides equally. "The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with such 'rules of law' as chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given State shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules." The term 'rule of law' used to describe the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$. Unlike Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para.1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Act, Art. 29(1) of the Korean Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with the 'law' chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. However the majority view in Korea takes the position that the term 'law' should be interpreted broadly so as to encompass 'rules of law' at UNCITRAL Model Law and the German Code of Civil Procedure.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2010

It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international trade and investment. Increasingly, arbitration, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, it will be important thing for arbitral institutions to reach an agreement to promote the dispute settlement of the commercial disputes, for which efforts have been made between the Korean Commercial Arbitral Board(KCAB) and principal arbitration institutions of the foreign countries. Since 1973, the KCAB has entered into many arbitration agreements with well-known foreign institutions of arbitration. If the place of arbitration is not so designated by the parties, it, as a general rule, shall be the country of the respondent(s) under the Korea-Japanese Arbitration Agreement. On the other hand, the U.S.-Korean Commercial Arbitration Agreement maintains 'Joint Arbitration Committee which finally decide the place of arbitration. In 1996, the Korea-Austria Agreement of Cooperation was concluded for the prompt and equitable settlement on an amicable basis of commercial disputes. Under this Agreement, arbitral institutions between Korea and Austria agreed to act as an appointing authority in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It is also very important for Korea and China including North Korea to cooperate each other for the settlement of the commercial disputes within the Pan Yellow Sea Economic Bloc(PYSEB). The PYSEB is quickly becoming a distinctive and crucial region in the world sharing geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values although they have disparities in stages of development, trade and economic policies, and financial and legal frameworks. Finally, it should be considered to establish a central common system for settlement promotion of the commercial disputes within the PYSEB through the arbitration agreement. Such a dispute resolution system was already introduced and established within the area of the NAFTA, and it is called the Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.53-76
• /
• 2017

Korean businesses, and their legal representatives, have observed the improvements of enforcement of commercial judgments through arbitration over traditional collections litigation in U.S. Courts-due to quicker proceedings, exceptional cost savings and more predictable outcomes-in attaching assets within U.S. jurisdictions. But how are the 2016 interim measures implemented by the Arbitration Act of Korea utilized to avoid jurisdictional and procedure pitfalls of enforcement proceedings in the Federal Courts of the United States? Authors examine the necessary prerequisites of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act as adopted through the New York Convention, to which Korea and the U.S. are signatories, as distinguished from the Panama Convention. Five common U.S. arbitration institutions address U.S. "domestic" disputes, preempting U.S. state law arbitrations, while this article focuses on U.S. enforcement of "international" arbitration awards. Seeking U.S. recognition and enforcement of Korean arbitral awards necessitates avoiding common defenses involving due process, public policy or documentary formality challenges. Provisional and conservatory injunctive relief measures are explored. A variety of U.S. cases involving Korean litigants are examined to illustrate the legal challenges involving non?domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards and injunctive relief. Suggestions aimed toward further research are focused on typical Korean business needs such as motions to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enforce such awards or motions to compel arbitration.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.245-258
• /
• 2010

South and North Korean fisheries cooperation has not been attained since 1950's political situation, and the major fishery resources of Korean peninsula also has not been cooperatively managed by South and North Korea. Furthermore, the species inhabiting the Korean peninsula region with commercial value are usually maintaining the single ecosystem which requires for cooperative management of fishery resources for continuous fishery. Therefore, in order for South and Korean fishery industry to develop the political situation to a rational direction, present condition of North's fishery industry must be accurately understood and acknowledge in its point of issues, also as level to prepare for future unification, reform and reaction of long-termed and well organized South and North's fisheries program must be arranged.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제15권
• /
• pp.211-238
• /
• 2001

This article discusses and analyses several issues regarding to the Electronic Signature and the Electronic Certification. The objects of the analyse are the each paragraphs of the Korean Electronic Signature Act of 1999 and that of the Korean Electronic Transaction Basic Act of 1999 in comparing to the paragraphs of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act' (E-Sign) of 2000, U.S.A. and that of the Draft UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signature of 2000. The main issues discussed herein are the scope of the electronic signature, the definition of the electronic signature, permission of services to the non-authorized certification service providers, the effect of the electronic signature, the liability of the concerning parties of the electronic signature including liability of the certification service providers, that of the subscribers and that of the relying parties. This paper also discusses the problems of the possibility of issuing the electronic negotiable commercial papers, the validity of the electronic signatures done by electronic agents, the authority certificate, mutual certification of the foreign certification service providers, the permission of the electronic notary service, the problems of the consumer protection and the possibility of issuing electronic insurance policy, etc. The writer concludes by suggesting some measures that will activate the use of electronic signatures under the korean circumstances.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2019

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.