• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.165-185
• /
• 2007

Exploitation of transboundary oil and gas on continental shelves may cause conflicts between or among States concerned due to the physical character of these resources. As oil and gas are fluid, exploitation of such a transboundary oil field by one side may affect other parties in other jurisdictions. However, there is no universal international legal regime on the issue. This article tries to find the international legal regime governing such resources through analysing UN Assembly's resolutions, UNCLOS, international judicial opinions, bilateral agreements and ILC activities relating to transboundary natural resources. As a result of this study, it seems that each coastal State has an inherent sovereign right on its part of the transboundary oil and gas deposit, but this right is not unlimited. Each state involved with the deposit has a duty to cooperate with other states-through information exchange, consultation, and negotiation. Furthermore, the state has an obligation to refrain from unilateral action when there is a possibility of causing irrevocable damage to the interests of the other states.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.107-135
• /
• 2003

This study reviews the proposed liability and redress regime under the Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity. Several core elements for the regime are discussed in comparison with those listed in the 1999 Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage resulting from the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. These are (1) scope of the rules and procedures; (2) channeling of liability; (3) legal standing; (4) definition of damage; (5) standard of care; (6) ancillary sources of compensation; (7) limitation of liability; (8) financial guarantees; and (9) mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. Korea has given relatively little attention to the issue of liability and redress in the context of LMOs trade. As the Protocol is expected to enter into force soon, Korea needs to develop appropriate implementing domestic mechanisms for the Biosafety Protocol. Establishing an adequate domestic liability and compensation scheme will be one of the most important mechanisms not only to comply the Protocol but to ensure safety of LMOs in general. A further research is needed on the basis of a comparision of relevant legislations in different countries as well as analysis of current laws related to the accidents arising from LMOs trade, such as product liability laws, food safety laws, liability provisions in some environmental legislations.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.353-365
• /
• 2014

Artificial islands, installations and structures have been used as a major means for ocean development and management since the early 20th century. The International legal regime to regulate the man-made offshore structures also have evolved and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) acts as a basic international instrument for that purpose. Although the Convention includes more detailed provisions on man-made offshore structures, there are some legal issues regarding jurisdiction of coastal State on the man-made offshore structures in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or on the Continental shelf. For this reason, this article begins by reviewing the 1958 Convention on the Continental shelf and the UNCLOS by focusing on the EEZ and the Continental shelf regime governing the man-made offshore structures. It next examines some controversial international legal issues that have emerged from the regulation of man-made offshore structures in the EEZ or on the Continental shelf. This is followed by a review of the Korean domestic laws regulating artificial islands, installations and structures in the EEZ or on the continental shelf. Finally, it closes by summarizing the findings of the above examinations, and suggests some recommendations for future works.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.224-235
• /
• 2002

The problem of space debris has been dealt with at the STSC of the COPUOS. The technical discussion at the said Committee was finished by adopting the Technical Report in 1999. Its legal discussion will be followed very soon at the LSC of the COPUOS. In this paper, I try to outline certain legal points concerning the space debris.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.545-555
• /
• 2003

It is widely known that compare to many other countries, the U.S.A. has a strong framework for efficient implementation of mitigation policy to protect wetlands. As indicated in many strong mitigation initiatives, mitigation policy primary requires avoidance rule for wetland damage and if a developer inevitability damages wetlands, the development should be minimize, and as a last resort, the policy impose legal duty that a developer should compensate wetland corresponding to the damaged wetlands. However, the legal system fur Korea's mitigation system does not provide any legal duty for the compensatory mitigation, although the possibility of creation of tidal flat is casually expressed in several Korean legal systems. Therefore, without any strong and enforceable legal system, Korean mitigation system cannot efficiently protect Korea's vast and productive wetlands. To introduce mitigation policy similar to the U.S.A. in Korea, we suggest that there (a) should be a strongly policy which regulate legal duty for the compensatory mitigation, (b) should be an improve management system for actively corresponding to special knowledge relating to environment, and lastly, (c) should be a system which consider a class action introduced in environmental regime for a long term protection of tidal wetlands for future generation.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2006.06a
• /
• pp.121-122
• /
• 2006

The legal regime of the high seas has traditionally been characterised by the dominance of the principles of free use and the exclusivity of flag State jurisdiction. It means that the high seas are open to all States, and no State may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty. but it has not always been so. accordingly, here we discuss the general regime of the high seas in this papaer.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This study mainly investigates two potential legal regimes expected to govern the use of electronic bills of lading: the Rotterdam Rules (2009) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (2017). Widespread use of electronic bills of lading has been unsuccessful partly due to the absence of a uniform legal regime and protracted uncertainties. This paper aims to carry out an assessment of the possibilities where either of two potential legal regimes could provide certainty to the effect and validity of the use of electronic bills of lading, and contribute to the facilitation of electronically transferring the rights to goods carried by sea. Design/methodology - This paper first introduces two legal instruments and the relevance to electronic bills of lading. Since neither of these legal instruments has yet entered into force, the following section looks into the ratification or enactment possibilities based on a literature review and track records of the past legal regimes of the same kind. Assessment of the different adoption possibilities further requires comparative work of the two legal instruments, which will be based on an analysis of relevant provisions and a literature review. The literature review on the Rotterdam Rules delves into various studies and data produced since the UNCITRAL's adoption in 2009. The literature review on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records heavily relies on UNCITRAL working group documents from 2011 to 2017 together with the final explanatory note. Findings - The main findings can be summarized as follows. Application of the Rotterdam Rules would negate the role of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records assisting in the implementation of the Rotterdam Rules due to some conflicting issues. Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law alone can sufficiently provide a higher level of certainty in the use and effect of electronic bills of lading so long as lawmakers and parties are aware of some issues with the application. What concerns potential users most is the extension of the status quo, where neither of the legal instruments have any effect. It is necessary to take a number of alternatives into consideration, such as promotion of standard clauses and confirmation by a court ruling. Originality/value - Existing studies focus either on the Rotterdam Rules or on the UNCITRAL Model Law, but not both. Not many papers have yet dealt with the Model Law, which was adopted by UNCITRAL only 2 years ago, particularly in the context of a potential legal regime for electronic bills of lading. This paper attempts to introduce the differences between the two legal instruments in regulating the use of electronic bills of lading while providing an assessment of the various possibilities for which parties involved in international trade can be better prepared for the changing legal environment.

• 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.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.138-138
• /
• 2017

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.150-183
• /
• 1999

Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement concluded in 1965 made a contribution to the stable development of fisheries relationship for both countries until the year of 1980. From the time on thereafter a series of respectable fishery disputes occurred throughout the period of fisheries self-regulation in accordance with alteration of home and abroad conditions. And both countries marched into a cooperation era by enforcement of the new fisheries agreement from the 23 January 1999, because the Fisheries Agreement system of 1965 had many limitations to settle the fundamental fisheries problems. In this paper, the author carried out the legal interpretation, arrangement of historical facts and evaluation of actual results of the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement of 1965. The key contents of the Fisheries Agreement were the establishment of 12-nautical mile exclusive fishery zone and the joint-control fishery zone under the principles of maintenance of MSY for fishery resources, freedom of high seas and mutual cooperation. The legal foundation of the conclusion of the Fisheries Agreement were the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 and the four International Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 1958. During the 33 years, the fisheries power of Korea made a rapid stride, on the other hand that of Japan was almost stagnated. And in the meantime, there were very important development on the international law of the sea, for instant, the settlement of 12-nautical mile territorial sea regime and the establishment of 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone regime. Annual meetings of the Joint Fisheries Committee were not successful to fill the role for conservation of fishery resources. The Fisheries Self-Regulation Agreement concluded in 1980 was also insufficient to accept the new international regime on the law of the sea, for that reason it was terminated on 23 January 1999. But it is true that the Fisheries Agreement of 1965 made a contribution to normalization of fisheries relationship between both countries and fisheries development of Korea.