• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.145-167
• /
• 2016

UN Security Council is entitled to power for determining the existence of the threat to the peace. Specifying the provisions adopted in accordance with the chapter 7 of the UN Charter, its resolution is deemed as document confirming its decision about the threat to the peace. In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter. Regarding to the terms of the Resolutions to be interpreted, the word "decide" is used as to the suspension of the ballistic missile program, the word "demand" is used as to the stopping of the the launch of ballistic missile, and the word "demand" is used as to return to the missile test moratorium. These provisions may be deemed to determining specific obligations to be imposed upon the States in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. On the other hand, the Resolutions may be limited to the decision, not leading to a sort of international legislation, the main purpose of which is to provide a legal basis for international sanctions against Northe Korea. North Korea missile test case has reminded us of continuing discussion about whether the decision of the Security Council lacks the legislative authority due to its decision process. Furthermore, having regard to the outer space and space activities, the outer space law regime would be not compatible with the Security Council decision process in that the former presupposes the agreement among all States parties, while the latter based upon the agreement between Council member States. Therefore, it is premature to consider the Security Council decision as becoming the lex specialis of the space law regime.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.87-102
• /
• 1997

The absolute absorbed dose can be determined according to the measurement conditions; measurement material, detector, energy and calibration protocols. The purpose of this study is to compare the absolute absorbed dose due to the differences of measurement condition and calibration protocols for photon beams. Dosimetric measurements were performed with a farmer type PTW and NEL ionization chambers in water, solid water, and polystyrene phantoms using 6MV photon beams from Siemens linear accelerator. Measurements were made along the central axis of 10cm $\times$ 10cm field size for constant target to surface distance of 100cm for water, solid water and polystyrene phantom. Theoretical absorbed dose intercomparisons between TG21 and IAEA protocol were performed for various measurement combinations of phantom, ion chamber, and electrometer. There were no significant differences of absorbed dose value between TG21 and IAEA protocol. The differences between two protocols are within 1％ while the average value of IAEA protocol was 0.5％ smaller than TG21 protocol. For the purpose of comparison, all the relative absorbed dose were nomalized to NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer and water phantom, The average differences are within 1％, but individual discrepancies are in the range of - 2.5％ to 1.2％ depending upon the choice of measurement combination. The largest discrepancy of - 2.5％ was observed when NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer is used in solid water phantom. The main cause for this discrepancy is due to the use of same parameters of stopping power, absorption coeficient, etc. as used in water phantom. It should be mentioned that the solid water phantom is not recommended for absolute dose calibration as the alternative of water, since absorbed dose show some dependency on phantom material other than water. In conclusion, the trend of variation was not much dependent on calibration protocol. However, it shows that absorbed dose could be affected by phantom material other than water.