• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.179-185
• /
• 2013

UNCLOS recognizes the right of innocent passage in the ocean but grants jurisdiction and governance to the state of the flag the vessel flies. However, by granting the right to determine vessel's nationality to each country in UNCLOS and by practically consenting inconsistency with the ownership and the state of flag has made the keeping of maritime order quite difficult. Especially, acknowledging the exclusive rights of the flag state on criminal jurisdiction hinders the owner state from exercising its rights and exposes the problem of not taking into account the opinion of the affected state party. This study addresses these issues and examines international regulations on vessels and flag states, mainly UNCLOS, and provides case studies on how criminal jurisdiction is determined when accidents occur at sea. Furthermore, it takes a deeper look into the mutual assistance system in criminal matters and proposes some alternatives on how to overcome these issues.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.419-454
• /
• 2017

Faced with the internationalization of capital markets, Korea needs to protect its investors and markets by applying the relevant laws extraterritorially. The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act ("Capital Markets Act") explicitly introduced a new provision recognizing the extraterritoriality of the Act. While Article 2 of the Capital Markets Act comprehensively provides for prescriptive extraterritorial jurisdiction, the enactment of extraterritoriality alone does not guarantee that the Act will apply to cross-border transactions effectively. The effective extraterritorial application of an act is inseparable from the adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction of the act. Specifically, active investigations and detections by the public regulators might be the first step for enforcing the Capital Markets Act. Unlike domestic regulations, however, multinational enforcement actions outside a regulator's home country becomes more problematic because of various obstacles. This Article examines difficulties which domestic regulators may confront in enforcing the Capital Markets Act extraterritorially and makes several recommendations for more effective multinational enforcement as follows. First, the Korean regulators should continue to foster cooperation through the IOSCO and provide international markets with the information and tools necessary for successful regulation of cross-border transactions. Second, the principle of dual criminality should be applied in a modified form for the effective mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Third, there should be a legal device for the domestic regulator to freeze foreign wrongdoer's assets located outside Korea to repatriate those assets for distribution to defrauded investors in Korea.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.48
• /
• pp.259-285
• /
• 2016

As the need for anti-terrorism legislation has been continuously argued, Anti-terrorism act has been enacted and enforced. On the other hand, there still remain a lot of points to be discussed regarding the definition of the concept of terrorism, matters of human rights violations, strengthening authority of the investigation and intelligence agencies, and mobilization military forces for the suppression of terrorism. Also, reviewing Anti-terrorism act and its enforcement ordinance draft, this legislation seems to regulate terrorist groups like IS. If so, in the case of terrorism of North Korea or domestic anti-government organizations, whether this law would be applied could become an issue. In the case of terrorism of North Korea, Ministry of National Defense has a right of commandership in the military operations, however, it is also possible to apply the article 4 of Natural Security Act a crime of performing objective-or a crime of foreign exchange on Criminal law as legal grounds for not military terrorisms but general investigations. Therefore, it is necessary to involve consideration about this matter. Furthermore, in the view of investigation, Anti-terrorism act and its enforcement ordinance draft do not mention Supreme Prosecutors Office and Ministry of Justice that conduct investigations. In the case of terrorism, the police and prosecution should conduct to arrest criminals and determine crimes at the investigation stage, however, any explicit article related to this content in Anti-terrorism act and its enforcement ordinance draft was unable to be found. Although Anti-terrorism act is certainly toward preventive aspects, considering some matters such as prevention, actions on the scene, maneuver after terrorism, arresting terrorists, investigation direction, cooperation, and mutual assistance, it is necessary to reflect these contents in Anti-terrorism act. In other words, immediately after terrorists attacks, it is possible to mobilize the military operations by Integrated Defense act in order to arrest them in the case of military terrorism. Nevertheless, because both military terrorism and general one are included in the investigation stage, it needs to begin an investigation under the direction of the prosecution. Therefore, above all, a device for finding out the truth behind the case at the investigation stage is not reflected in the current Anti-terrorism act and its enforcement ordinance draft. Accordingly, if National Intelligence Service approaches information at the prevention level in this situation, it may be necessary to come up with follow-up measures of the police, the prosecution, and military units.