• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.55-71
• /
• 2013

By aircraft from Aviation regulations and institutional regulatory framework for ensuring the safety is secured. State-of-the-art aircraft, according to the type of development and diversification, modernization and new types of aircraft are operated. In particular, light aircraft and ultralight flying device such as the gyro-plane and unmanned flying devices is introduced a new device, and the device operates at these flight in accordance with the standards of the Aviation Act regulations may not occur often. Variety of light aircraft and ultra-light aircraft assembly, can be adapted for a person engaged in the business of aviation safety management and to perform the legal basis was established. Depending on the classification of newly introduced aircraft, the biggest change is the introduction of the concept of the LSA. In Korea, the various light aircraft are operating, but these aircraft range not clearly Aviation Regulations had difficulty in ensuring safety. This study examined the differences between international rules and regulations of Korea about the classification of aircraft. The LSA are included in aircraft categories internationally, but LSA will not be included in the aircraft categories, which is one of a range of powered flight device exists in Korea Aviation Act. Limit for maximum continuous power speed in a LSA, it is a limit on the right of the people who want using the high-performance plane. Also it is an international trend does not fit in, and is consistent with the intent of LSA manufacturer. Delete the content from a range of future aviation law revisions and light aircraft-related provisions to limit the maximum continuous power speed is considered to be suitable for the purpose of introducing the light aircraft industry. The laws and regulations set up in order to ensure the safety of ultralight aircraft categories existing in ultralight aircraft that exceeds the purpose of the introduction of LSA technology development at home and abroad, and is intended to reflect. These standards complement of aircraft operation is not appropriate for the situation unless the country is difficult to ensure the safety of operations. Also developed in other countries, the introduction of aircraft operating in the country, so many problems occur early revision is required.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.261-284
• /
• 2018

The current international legal system does not provide a safeguard against the militarization and the weaponization of outer space. Although the term "peaceful use of outer space" in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty(OST) appears in official government statements or in multilateral space treaties, it is still without an authoritative definition in reviewing national practices. The ambiguous ban on weapons in Article IV of the OST allows countries to loophole on the deployment of other weapons other than nuclear weapons. Meanwhile "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)" to Conference on Disarmament (CD) commissioned by the UN General Assembly's Special Session jointly submitted by China and Russia in 2008 and later revised in 2014, attempting to define and prohibit the proliferation of weapons in outer space and provided definitions of prohibited weapons, are opposed by the US on the grounds that currently there is no arms race in outer space. Some experts support a hard law approach in which binding laws aimed at ultimately creating integrated and binding legal instruments in all aspects of the use of outer space should be adopted to regulate the military use of space. However as a temporary measure the soft law guidelines should be developed for the non liquiet, a situation where there is no applicable law. The soft law could be used to create support for the declaration of the treaties and to create international customary law. For example, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space that regulates the activities of the state in the exploration and use of the universe, and the 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space will illustrated. While substantial portions of the former was codified later in the 1967 OST, the latter which, although written in somewhat mandatory terms, have been consistently complied with by states, have arguably become part of customary international law. On November 12, 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed that the development of international law may be reflected inter alia, by declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly which may to that extent be taken into consideration by the International Court of Justice.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.147-174
• /
• 2018

The air transportation industry is a field where control and interference of the state are generalized compared to other industries. However, the premise for national intervention in the air transportation industry is the determination of the nationality of the aircraft or airline company concerned. This is because it is necessary to clarify the distinction between the domestic and foreign carriers so that they can exercise airspace sovereignty. The purpose of this paper is to compare the current status and contents of Korean law and regulations on the determination of nationality with the foreign legal system. To this end, the starting point of the discussion is to look at the history of nationality restrictions on the US air transport industry and the issues that arise in the content and operation of the system today. In addition, this paper examined the provisions of the Japanese aviation law, which is very similar to that of Korea, and then compared the current legal provisions of the United States, Japan and Korea. As a conclusion, this paper sought the direction of revision of the Korean law on the basis of the foreign status of the restriction of nationality in the air transportation industry. Compared with our law, the US and Japan are generally regarded to be more concerned with the contents of their own airline companies than those of foreigners or non-citizen. In spite of the fact that there are many laws and regulations in the United States regarding the de facto dominance of domestic airline companies by foreigners, there have been a lot of controversies in this matter. By the way, Japan has been stipulating regulations on holding companies and affiliated companies. In the global era, it would be meaningful to check the status of the nationality restrictions in the aviation industry, which is based on internationality. I hope that this study will be able to build a legal institutional basis for Korea's aviation industry development from a reasonable protectionist point of view rather than a narrow nationalism in a rapidly changing era.

• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.191-217
• /
• 2014

The Purpose of this study is to find the effect factors of R&D investment in SMEs which plays an important role in the national economy, and the differences of the effect factors by the type of SMEs. The subject of this study is about 3,400 SMEs mentioned in "The survey of technical statistics on SMEs in 2007" by Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business. The effect factors are related with the size of business, the infrastructure of R&D and the activities of R&D which have been studied by many researchers. The methods of analysis are regression analysis, moderating effect analysis and the software package used is SPSS 12.0. The results of the study are as fallow. First, it was found that unlike in previous studies which show the effect of the elements of business's size, research infrastructure, research activities on R&D investment, one element alone can't be considered for meaningful result but the various elements have effect on R&D investment at the same time. In other words, the number of employees and the sales as the elements of business's size, the ratio of researchers, the technical ability, the ratio of equipment possession and the intellectual properties as the elements of R&D infrastructure, the activity of ideas and joint research as the elements of R&D activities have positive(+) effect, whereas the participation of CEO in the activity of R&D as the elements of R&D activities activity has negative(-) one. The number of employees, the ratio of researchers, and the sales had relatively high influence whereas equipment possession, technical ability, intellectual properties, the participation of CEO in the research, the activity of idea, joint research had relatively low influence. Next, it was also found that there are differences of the effect factors over the types of SMEs. SMEs were classified into 19 types by eight criteria such as start-ups and existing business by business age; small business and medium business by size; manufacturing business and service business by product type;independent business and subcontractor business by dealing type; businesses in the entering, growing, maturing and restructuring stage by growth stage; businesses with low, medium and high technology by technological level; pioneering business and non-pioneering business by industrial type; and businesses with state-of-the-art technology and non-advanced business by the level of business activities. The meaning of this study lies in the fact that it found the various effect factors should be considered at the same time when conducting study on SMEs' R&D investment, and the differences by the type should be acknowledged. This study surpassed the limitations of the previous studies which focused on a couple of factors and types. This study result can also be considered for other studies on achievement, organization, marketing and others. Moreover, it shows that a differential policy by business type is needed when formulating SME policy.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.47-85
• /
• 1989

The Fundamental purpose of the Warsaw Convention was to establish uniform rules applicable to international air transportation. The emphasis on the benefits of uniformity was considered important in the beginning and continues to be important to the present. If the desire for uniformity is indeed the mortar which holds the Warsaw system together then it should be possible to agree on a worldwide liability limit. This liability limit would not be so unreasonable, that it would be impossible for nations to adhere to it. It would preclude any national supplemental compensation plan or Montreal Agreement type of requirement in any jurisdiction. The differentiation of liability limits by national requirement seems to be what is occurring. There is a plethora of mandated limits and Montreal Agreement type 'voluntary' limits. It is becoming difficult to find more than a few major States where an unmodified Warsaw Convention or Hague Protocol limitation is still in effect. If this is the real world in the 1980's, then let the treaty so reflect it. Upon reviewing the Warsaw Convention, its history and the several attempts to amend it, strengths become apparent. Hijackings of international flights have given rise to a number of lawsuits by passengers to recover damages for injuries suffered. This comment is concerned with the liability of an airline for injuries to its passengers resulting from aviation terrorism. In addition, analysis is focused on current airline security measures, particularly the pre-boarding screening system, and the duty of air carriers to prevent weapons from penetrating that system. An airline has a duty to exercise a high degree of care to protect its passengers from the threat of aviation terrorism. This duty would seemingly require the airline to exercise a high degree of care to prevent any passenger from smuggling a weapon or explosive device aboard its aircraft. In the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescene to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. A finding of willful misconduct on the part of an air carrier, which is a prerequisite to imposing unlimited liability, remains a question to be determined by a jury using the definition or standard of willful misconduct prevailing in the jurisdiction of the forum court. Through the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention, air carrier face the possibility of unlimited liability for failure to implement proper preventive precautions against terrorist. Courts, therefore, should broadly construe the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention in order to find unlimited liability for passenger injuries whenever air carrier security precautions are lacking. In this way, the courts can help ensure air carrier safety and prevention against terrorist attack. Air carriers, therefore, would have an incentive to increase, impose and maintain security precautions designed to thwart such potential terrorist attacks as in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight No.858 incident having a tremendous impact on the civil aviation community. The crash of a commercial airliner, with the attending tragic loss of life and massive destruction of property, always gives rise to shock and indignation. The general opinion is that the legal system could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. I would like to remind all passengers that every discovery of the human spirit may be used for opposite ends; thus, aircraft can be used for air travel but also as targets of terrorism. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the soverign rights of the states, and the human rights of the individuals. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co-ordinated measures. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.271-297
• /
• 2011

Recently, risk of space accident possibility increased in according to commercial space activity and space debris. It failed launch satellite second times in South Korea. Therefore was discussed on liability and insurance issue. Generally, discuss of space insurance be divided two type. Firstly, space insurance relevant to launching satellite and in-orbit. Satellite Launch Insurance and In-Orbit Insurance by the Satellite Operator Secondly, space insurance relevant to Third Party Liability. The former is to protect owner of satellite and operator. The latter is to liable and indemnify owner of satellite and operator's liability. US, UK, France, Russia, South Korea forced to buy space insurance following to domestic law. This is a brief overview of risk allocation and insurance practices in the commercial space transportation industry today. We begin with traditional space transportation, i.e., commercial satellite launches. This is a mature industry with known players. Industry practices have developed and legislation has been adopted in the U.S. and other countries over the past decades to address liability and insurance issues. The primary focus here is on U.S. law, but the discussion of industry practice applies more generally. We then move on to a more exotic form of space transportation: Commercial human space flight. Several private companies are now signing up space tourists for commercial suborbital human space flight, advertised to become available in the near future. The United States amended its launch legislation in 2004 to promote commercial human space flight. But questions remain as to how this new industry will respond to the risk allocation regime established by the U.S. legislation, which leaves both the space flight operator and space tourist exposed to risk and potential liability. As a general proposition, state statutes and contractual waivers alone cannot be relied upon to provide adequate liability protection, and insurance will be required. Federally mandated contractual waivers by space flight participants or liability caps would be helpful to complement insurance solutions. Eventually, as the industry matures, such practices could be extended to an international legal regime. For all the issues mentioned above, I have studied the existing international treaties and several country's domestic law to the space by referring U.S's Commercial Space Launch Amendment Act of 2004 and concluded that uniform legal regime to govern these insurance issues should be established domestically and internationally in the future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2011

People may operate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) thousands of miles from the drone's location. Drones were first used (like balloons) for surveillance. By 2001, the United States began arming drones with missiles and using them to strike targets during combat in Afghanistan. By mid-2010, over forty states and other entities possessed drones, many with the capability of launching missiles and dropping bombs. Each new development in military weapons technology invites assessment of the relevant international law. This Insight surveys the international law applicable to the recent innovation of weaponizing drones. In determining what international law rules govern drone use, the most salient feature is not the fact that drones are unmanned. The fact drones carry no human operator may be the most important new technological breakthrough, but the key feature for international law purposes is the type of weaponry drones carry. Whether law enforcement rules govern drone use depends on the situation and not necessarily who is operating the drone. Battlefield weapons may also be lawfully used before an armed conflict in the following situations: when initiating self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; when authorized by the UN Security Council; when a government seeks to suppress internal armed conflict; and, perhaps, when a state is invited to assist a government in suppressing internal armed conflict. The rules governing resort to force in self-defense are found in Article 51 of the UN Charter and a number of decisions by international courts and tribunals. Commentators continue to debate whether drone technology represents the next revolution in military affairs. Regardless of the answer to that question, drones have not created a revolution in legal affairs. The current rules governing battlefield launch vehicles are adequate for regulating resort to drones. More research must be undertaken, however, to understand the psychological effects of deploying unmanned vehicles and the effects on drone operators of sustained, close visual contact with the aftermath of drone attacks.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.159-203
• /
• 2010

Together with the development of space science outer space law has become one of the most rapidly developing branches of international law. This reflects a general realization that these new activities must be subject to reasonable legal regulation if they are to serve the peaceful purposes of mankind without undue confusion and disorder. The exploration and use of outer space introduces many novel opportunities and dilemmas, and inspired insights are needed in the development of this new resource. In particular, the settlement of space law disputes is a relatively new discussion in international law. However, the significance of the settlement of space law disputes was acknowledged in various colloquia organized by legal academicians and practitioners around the world. Analysis of the dispute settlement provisions in space agreements plainly reveals the degree to which States persist to be mistrustful of any impingement to their sovereignty. They are reluctant to submit disputes to adjudication and binding arbitration, particularly when these provisions are negotiated between States which have dissimilar political, economic and social interests and demography. However, there is a slow but clear shift in this attitude as States realize the contemporary political, economic and technical pressures necessitating the lifting of the veil of State sovereignty. The development of an effective mechanism for the settlement of disputes arising in relation to the development of the exploration and exploitation of outer space has been the subject of global study by highly qualified publicists and international institutions. The 1972 Liability Convention is the space treaty with the most elaborate provisions for dispute settlement. However, it fails to ensure binding decisions. In this point, the 1998 Taipei Final Draft Convention may be a useful instrument for further consideration on whether an independent sectorialized dispute settlement mechanism should be established. Considering these circumstances it seemed essential to take legislative action to implement a system as comprehensive as the relevant legal framework are in the Law of the Sea and International Criminal Law mechanisms for dispute settlement and conflict avoidance from outer space activities.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2010

The European Union(EU) has recently introduced its Directive 2008/101/EC to include aviation in the EU ETS(emissions trading system). As an amendment to Directive 2003/87/EC that regulates reduction of the green house gas(GHG) emissions in Europe in preparation for the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, it obliges both EU and non-EU airline operators to reduce the emission of the carbon dioxide(CO2) significantly in the year 2012 and thereafter from the level they made in 2004 to 2006. Emission allowances allowed free of charge for each airline operator is 97% in the first year 2012 and 95% from 2013 and thereafter from the average annual emissions during historical years 2004 to 2006. Taking into account the rapid growth of air traffic, i.e. 5% in recent years, airlines operating to EU have to reduce their emissions by about 30% in order to meet the requirements of the EU Directive, if not buy the emissions right in the emissions trading market. However, buying quantity is limited to 15% in the year 2012 subject to possible increase from the year 2013. Apart from the hard burden of the airline operators, in particular of those from non-European countries, which is not concern of this paper, the EU Directive has certain legal problems. First, while the Kyoto Protocol of universal application is binding on the Annex I countries of the Climate Change Convention, i.e. developed countries including all Member States of the European Union to reduce GHG at least by 5% in the implementation period from 2008 to 2012 over the 1990 level, non-Annex I countries which are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol see their airlines subjected to aircraft emissions reductions scheme of EU when operating to EU. This is against the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol dealing with the emissions of GHG including CO2, target of the EU Directive. While the Kyoto Protocol mandates ICAO to set up a worldwide scheme for aircraft emissions to contribute to stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, the EU ETS was drawn up outside the framework of the international Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO). Second, EU Directive 2008/101 defines 'aviation activities' as covering 'flights which depart from or arrive in the territory of a Member State to which the [EU] Treaty applies'. While the EU airlines are certainly subject to the EU regulations, obliging non-EU airlines to reduce their emissions even if the emissions are produced during the flight over the high seas and the airspace of the third countries is problematic. The point is whether the EU Directive can be legally applied to extra-territorial behavior of non-EU entities. Third, the EU Directive prescribes 2012 as the first year for implementation. However, the year 2012 is the last year of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol for Annex I countries including members of EU to reduce GHG including the emissions of CO2 coming out from domestic airlines operation. Consequently, EU airlines were already on the reduction scheme of CO2 emissions as long as their domestic operations are concerned from 2008 until the year 2012. But with the implementation of Directive 2008/101 from 2012 for all the airlines, regardless of the status of the country Annex I or not where they are registered, the EU airlines are no longer at the disadvantage compared with the airlines of non-Annex I countries. This unexpected premium for the EU airlines may result in a derogation of the Kyoto Protocol at least for the year 2012. Lastly, as a conclusion, the author shed light briefly on how the Korean aviation authorities are dealing with the EU restrictive measures.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.37-44
• /
• 2018

As the international Maritime Organization is tightening up the emission regulation vessel, many countries and companies are pushing ahead the LNG fuel as one of long term solution for emission problems of ship. as a study on the way to conduct business for LNG bunkering around the world, this study was analyzed in view-point of business models focused on major countries such as Japan, China, Singapore, Europe and United States. The results of this study are as follows. China first established a nation-centered LNG bunkering policy. And then, the state and the energy company have been cooperating and carrying on LNG bunkering business for LNG fueled ships. Some countries in Europe and United States are in the process of LNG bunkering business mainly with private company. To obtain cheaper LNG fuel than bunker-C, the private company has a business model of LNG bunkering on their own LNG fueled ships, while securing LNG with high price competitiveness through partnership with middle class operators such us LNG terminal and natural gas liquefaction plant. Also, the LNG bunkering business around the world is focused on private companies rather than public corporations, but it was going to be focused on large energy companies because the initial cost required to build LNG bunkering infrastructure. Three models (TOTE model, Shell model, ENGIE model) of LNG bun kering business are currently being developed. It has been found that the way in which LNG bunkering business is implemented by different countries is applied differently according to the enterprise and national policy.