• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.215-236
• /
• 2006

This article focused on the meaning of the 1979 Moon Treaty and its future. Although the Moon Treaty is one of the major 5 space related treaties, it was accepted by only 11 member states which are non-space powers, thus having the least enfluences on the field of space law. And this article analysed the relationship between the 1979 Moon Treay and 1967 Space Treaty which was the first principle treaty, and searched the meaning of the "Common Heritage of Mankind(hereinafter CHM)" stipulated in the Moon treaty in terms of international law. This article also dealt with the present and future problems arising from the Moon Treaty. As far as the 1967 Space Treaty is concerned the main standpoint is that outer space including the moon and the other celestial bodies is res extra commercium, areas not subject to national appropriation like high seas. It proclaims the principle non-appropriation concerning the celestial bodies in outer space. But the concept of CHM stipulated in the Moon Treaty created an entirely new category of territory in international law. This concept basically conveys the idea that the management, exploitation and distribution of natural resources of the area in question are matters to be decided by the international community and are not to be left to the initiative and discretion of individual states or their nationals. Similar provision is found in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention that operates the International Sea-bed Authority created by the concept of CHM. According to the Moon Treaty international regime will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Before the establishment of an international regime we could imagine moratorium upon the expoitation of the natural resources on the celestial bodies. But the drafting history of the Moon Treaty indicates that no moratorium on the exploitation of natural resources was intended prior to the setting up of the international regime. So each State Party could exploit the natural resources bearing in mind that those resouces are CHM. In this respect it would be better for Korea, now not a party to the Moon Treaty, to be a member state in the near future. According to the Moon Treaty the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly the exploitation of the moon shall be given special consideration. The Moon Treaty, which although is criticised by some space law experts represents a solid basis upon which further space exploration can continue, shows the expression of the common collective wisdom of all member States of the United Nations and responds the needs and possibilities of those that have already their technologies into outer space.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.273-302
• /
• 2015

The term "peaceful uses of outer space" in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty appears in official government statements and multilateral outer space related treaties. However, the examination of the state practice leads to the conclusion that this term is still without an authoritative definition. As far as the meaning of 'peaceful use' in international law is concerned the same phrases in the UN Charter, the 1963 Treaty of Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere in Outer Space and Under Water, the 1956 Statute of IAEA, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1972 United Nations Conference of the Human Environment were analysed As far as the meaning of 'peaceful uses of outer space' is concerned the same phrases the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1979 Moon Treaty and the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques(ENMOD) were studied. According to Article IV of the 1967 Outer Space treaty, states shall not place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies repeats in Article III much of the Outer Space Treaty. This article prohibits the threat or use of force or any other hostile act on the moon and the use of the moon to commit such an act in relation to the earth or to space objects. This adds IN principle nothing to the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty relating to military space activities. The 1977 ENMOD refers to peaceful purposes in the preamble and in Article III. As far as the UN Resolutions are concerned, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space, the 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space(NPS) were studied. And as far the Soft Laws are concerned the 2008 Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT), the 2002 Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Prolifiration(HCoC) and 2012 Draft International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities(ICoC) were studied.

• 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.28 no.2
• /
• pp.223-258
• /
• 2013

1967 Outer Space Treaty(Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies; OST) is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law. OST is based on the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space announced by UNGA resolution. As of May 2013, 102 countries are states parties to OST, while another 27 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification. OST explicitly claimed that the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies are the province of all mankind. Art. II of OST 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", thereby establishing res extra commercium in outer space like high seas. However 1979 Moon Agreement stipulates that "the moon and its natural resources are the Common Heritage of Mankind(CHM)." Because of the number of the parties to the Moon Agreement(13 parties) it does not affect OST. OST also established its specific treaties as a complementary means such as 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention. OST bars states party to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications. However OST does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit. China and Russia submitted Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT) on the Conference on Disarmament in 2008. USA disregarded PPWT on the ground that there are no arms race in outer space. OST does not have some articles in relation to current problems such as space debris, mechanisms of the settlement of dispute arising from state activities in outer space in specific way. COPUOS established "UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" based on "IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" and ILA proposed "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris" for space debris problems and Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA) established "Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities" and ILA proposed "1998 Taipei Draft Convention on the Settlement of Space Law Dispute" for the settlement of dispute problems. Although OST has shortcomings in some articles, it is very meaningful in international law in considering the establishment of basic principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. OST established the principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space as customary law and jus cogens in international law as follows; the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States; outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. The principles of global public interest in outer space imposes international obligations erga omnes applicable to all States. This principles find significant support in legal norms dealing with following points: space activities as the "province of all mankind"; obligation to cooperate; astronauts as envoys of mankind; avoidance of harmful contamination; space activities by States, private entities and intergovernmental organisations; absolute liability for damage cauesd by certain space objects; prohibition of weapons in space and militarization of the celestial bodies; duty of openness and transparency; universal application of the international space regime.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.173-198
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability for the space damage and the settlement of the dispute with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of Korea. The United Nations has adopted five treaties relating to the space activity as follows: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Registration Convention of 1974, and the Moon Treaty of 1979. All five treaties have come into force. Korea has ratified above four treaties except the Moon Treaty. Korea has enacted three national legislations relating to space development as follows: Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, the national tort liability for damage by space launching object, the national measures for dispute prevention and international consultation in the exploration and use of outer space, the joint resolution of practical questions by international inter-governmental organizations in the exploration and use of outer space. 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, 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, the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the problem in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the problem in respect of the efficiency 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 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, the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. The 1998 Final Draft Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Related to Space Activities of 1998 by ILA regulates the binding procedure and non-binding settlement procedure for the disputes in respect of space activity. The non-binding procedure regulates the negotiation or the peaceful means and compromise for dispute settlement. The binding procedure regulates the choice of a means among the following means: International Space Law Court if it will be established, International Court of Justice, and Arbitration Court. The above final Draft Convention by ILA will be a model for the innovative development in respect of the peaceful settlement of disputes with reference to space activity and will be useful for establishing the frame of practicable dispute settlement. 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 dispute settlement, 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.19 no.2
• /
• pp.95-126
• /
• 2009

One of the controversial issues in investor-state investment arbitration is the interpretation of "umbrella clause" that is found in most BIT and FTAs. This treaty clause requires on Contracting State of treaty to observe all investment obligations entered into with foreign investors from the other Contracting State. This clause did not receive in-depth attention until SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines cases produced starkly different conclusions on the relations about treaty-based jurisdiction and contract-based jurisdiction. More recent decisions by other arbitral tribunals continue to show different approaches in their interpretation of umbrella clauses. Following the SGS v. Philippines decision, some recent decisions understand that all contracts are covered by umbrella clause, for example, in Siemens A.G. v. Argentina, LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentina, Sempra Energy Int'l v. Argentina and Enron Corp. V. Argentina. However, other recent decisions have found a different approach that only certain kinds of public contracts are covered by umbrella clauses, for example, in El Paso Energy Int'l Co. v. Argentina, Pan American Energy LLC v. Argentina and CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentina. With relation to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most of tribunals have the position that the contractual remedy should not affect the jurisdiction of BIT tribunal. Even some tribunals considered that there is no need to exhaust contract remedies before bringing BIT arbitration, provoking suspicion of the validity of sanctity of contract in front of treaty obligation. The decision of the Annulment Committee In CMS case in 2007 was an extraordinarily surprising one and poured oil on the debate. The Committee composed of the three respected international lawyers, Gilbert Guillaume and Nabil Elaraby, both from the ICJ, and professor James Crawford, the Rapportuer of the International Law Commission on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, observed that the arbitral tribunal made critical errors of law, however, noting that it has limited power to review and overturn the award. The position of the Committee was a direct attack on ICSID system showing as an internal recognition of ICSID itself that the current system of investor-state arbitration is problematic. States are coming to limit the scope of umbrella clauses. For example, the 2004 U.S. Model BIT detailed definition of the type of contracts for which breach of contract claims may be submitted to arbitration, to increase certainty and predictability. Latin American countries, in particular, Argentina, are feeling collectively victims of these pro-investor interpretations of the ICSID tribunals. In fact, BIT between developed and developing countries are negotiated to protect foreign investment from developing countries. This general characteristic of BIT reflects naturally on the provisions making them extremely protective for foreign investors. Naturally, developing countries seek to interpret restrictively BIT provisions, whereas developed countries try to interpret more expansively. As most of cases arising out of alleged violation of BIT are administered in the ICSID, a forum under the auspices of the World Bank, these Latin American countries have been raising the legitimacy deficit of the ICSID. The Argentine cases have been provoking many legal issues of international law, predicting crisis almost coming in actual investor-state arbitration system. Some Latin American countries, such as Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, already showed their dissatisfaction with the ICSID system considering withdrawing from it to minimize the eventual investor-state dispute. Thus the disagreement over umbrella clauses in their interpretation is becoming interpreted as an historical reflection on the continued tension between developing and developed countries on foreign investment. There is an academic and political discussion on the possible return of the Calvo Doctrine in Latin America. The paper will comment on these problems related to the interpretation of umbrella clause. The paper analyses ICSID cases involving principally Latin American countries to identify the critical legal issues arising between developing and developed countries. And the paper discusses alternatives in improving actual investor-State investment arbitration; inter alia, the introduction of an appellate system and treaty interpretation rules.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.259-294
• /
• 2013

After its experiment involving the exploding of a satellite in space in 2007, China proudly aired news on TV and ran articles in newspapers. However, the event was internationally criticized and drew widespread attention. Many countries denounced the explosion by pointing out that it could be part of the nation's plan to expand its military power to space or that it could pose a danger to the peaceful use of space. However, there is no talk of whether the experiment that produced a huge amount of space debris could have violated an international law, namely the Outer Space Treaty. Although space garbage has been said to be a serious problem, the amount is still on the increase. If we continue to launch new space launch vehicles into orbit at this rate, we will not be able to use it anytime soon like we do today. As the commercial use of space is likely to increase, the situation will certainly get worse. The international community is fully aware of the seriousness of the problem and working together to reduce the amount of space garbage. However, despite the fact that the United States and Soviet Union's ASAT(Anti-Satellite) programs have been implemented for a long time, there have been no complaints about them in terms of military expansion or breach of the Outer Space Treaty. Also, the recent Chinese test is largely viewed to be in accordance with international law. A lot of research has been undertaken with regard to the problem of space garbage. Now people's awareness of dangers being posed has been fully raised. Under the circumstances, the dismissing of China's satellite smashing, leaving a big mess in its wake, as nothing more than an experiment, is a red flag to, if not many, at least some people. By means of this thesis, I would like to review whether the Chinese test has violated an international space law. This thesis presents an overview of the issues surrounding the event and examines the possibility of violating the Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principle Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. After the China test, the UN Scientific and Technical Subcommittee first adopted space debris mitigation guidelines, I'll introduce the content of the guidelines and discuss the characteristics of the guidelines and what can be done to address the issue.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2009

Space law(or outer space law) and the law of the sea are branches of international law dealing with activities in geographical ares which do not or do only in part come under national sovereignty. Legal rules pertaining to the outer space and sea began to develop once activities emerged in those areas: amongst others, activities dealing with transportation, research, exploration, defense and exploitation. Naturally the law of the sea developed first, followed, early in the twentieth century, by air law, and later in the century by space law. Obviously the law of the sea, of the air and of outer space influence each other. Ideas have been borrowed from one field and applied to another. This article examines some analogies and differences between the outer space law and the law of the sea, especially from the perspective of the legal status, the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources and environment. As far as the comparisons of the legal status between the outer space and high seas are concerned the two areas are res extra commercium. The latter is res extra commercium based on both the customary international law and treaty, however, the former is different respectively according to the customary law and treaty. Under international customary law, whilst outer space constitutes res extra commercium, celestial bodies are res nullius. However as among contracting States of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, both outer space and celestial bodies are declared res extra commercium. As for the comparisons of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources between the Moon including other celestial bodies in 1979 Moon Agreement and the deep sea bed in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the both areas are the common heritage of mankind. The latter gives us very systematic models such as International Sea-bed Authority, however, the international regime for the former will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Thus Moon Agreement could not impose a moratorium, but would merely permit orderly attempts to establish that such exploitation was in fact feasible and practicable, by allowing experimental beginnings and thereafter pilot operations. As Professor Carl Christol said until the parties of the Moon Agreement were able to put into operation the legal regime for the equitable sharing of benefits, they would remain free to disregard the Common Heritage of Mankind principle. Parties to one or both of the agreements would retain jurisdiction over national space activities. In so far as the comparisons of the protection of the environment between the outer space and sea is concerned the legal instruments for the latter are more systematically developed than the former. In the case of the former there are growing tendencies of concerning the environmental threats arising from space activities these days. There is no separate legal instrument to deal with those problems.

• Journal of Aerospace System Engineering
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.33-38
• /
• 2022

In recent years, the space sector has been changing rapidly. The militarization of outer space is openly underway. On the other hand, space commercialization by private capital called "Newspace" is emerging in the U.S. Additionally, the Artemis project, a manned space moon exploration project, is being resumed 50 years after the end of the Apollo program. Eventually, the commercial use of space resources is actively being discussed. Due to the rapidly developing space technologies, the U.N. Space Treaty, enacted in 1967, has established the norms and principles of space activities. However, it may be nearing the end of its life. To confront the challenges of a new space era, Korea must engage in various legal and policy studies to meet these changes.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.205-236
• /
• 2010

This article deals with international space law for the environmental protection in outer space especially for space debris arising from space activities. After studying 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement, we could find few provisions dealing with space environment in those treaties. During the earlier stages of the space age, which began in the late 1950s, the focus of international law makers was the establishment of the basic rules of space law governing the states' activities in outer space. Consequently the environmental issues and the risks that might arise from the generation of the space debris did not receive priority attention within the context of the development international space law. Although the phrases such as 'harmful contamination', 'harmful interference', 'disruption of the environment', 'adverse changes in the environment' and 'harmfully affecting' in relation to space environment were used in 1967 Outer Space Treaty and 1979 Moon Agreement, their true meaning was not definitely settled. Although 1972 Liability Convention deals with compensation, whether the space object covers space debris is unclear despite the case of Cosmos 954. In this respect international lawyers suggest the amendment of the space treaties and new space treaty covering the space environmental problems including the space debris. The resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are also studied to deal with space environment and space debris. In 1992 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed resolution 47/68 titled "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space" for the NPS use in outer space. 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" approved by COPUOS in its 527th meeting. In 1994 the 66th conference of ILA adopted "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris". Although those resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are not binding states, there are some provisions which have a fundamentally norm-creating character and softs laws.