• Journal of Aerospace System Engineering
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.1-6
• /
• 2021

U.S contains the best technology, man power, and big investment in space. It considers space as not only a science and technology related area, but also as an industry and national security related area. Korea's space policy focuses on the development of space systems such as satellites and launch vehicles. Space policy systems of the two countries are also different, causing some discrepancy in mutual interest when we talk about cooperation with the U.S. This study introduced U.S space policy framework and compared it with Korea's policy. It is meaningful in that we can find an effective way of cooperation between two countries.

• Journal of Aerospace System Engineering
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.59-66
• /
• 2016

India and China are capable of developing indigenous space launch vehicles, with the rocket technology transferred from the U.S., Western countries, and the Soviet Union, in the 1950s and 1960s. Barring the early 1990s, both countries are absent in the missile nonproliferation regime, and have no major space cooperation records with the U.S., since the establishment of the Missile Technology Control Regime in 1987. With the advent of the $21^{st}$ century, historic progress has been made in the U.S.-India space cooperation, which includes using Indian launch vehicles to launch U.S.non-commercial satellites. However, the U.S. is skeptical with regards to space cooperation and using Chinese space launch vehicle services. In this paper, we present the U.S. nonproliferation policy applied on launch vehicles of India and China, and different aspects of the policy will be examined to draw implications on Korean space activities.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.129-140
• /
• 2002

• 한국항공우주법학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2008.05a
• /
• pp.143-149
• /
• 2008

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences
• /
• v.46 no.12
• /
• pp.1056-1069
• /
• 2018

In order to promote the commercial space activities of the private sector, the Trump Administration announced the commercial space regulatory reforms by issuing the Space Policy Directive-2 (SPD-2) on May 24, 2018, followed by the SPD-3 dealing with a separate issue of the space traffic management on June 18. Both executive orders, based on the recommendations prepared by the National Space Council (NSC) reconstituted in June 2017 and signed by the President, involve regulatory reform policy related to launch services, commercial remote sensing, establishment of one-stop shop office in Commerce Department, radio frequency spectrum, export control, and space traffic management, providing a strong guidance to the Federal Government. The commercial space regulatory reform policy can be seen in broader terms of the National Security Strategy earlier announced on Dec. 18, 2017, and as such, it pursues the economic growth of the U.S. and the national security as well. The U.S. law and policy prioritizing its national interests by promoting commercial space activities may lead to concerns and debate on the potential breach of the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. Hence, it is worth noting the legal implications as derived from the U.S. space policy and domestic legislation, thereby accelerating international discussion to build on international norms as appropriate to the pr ogress of space technology and space commercialization.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.285-302
• /
• 2001

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.53-64
• /
• 2002

• 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.14
• /
• pp.9-85
• /
• 2001

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.125-146
• /
• 1989

This paper is examine the problems of U.S.-Korea Air Service Agreement and recommend some directions for its improvement under the rapidly changing circumstance and growing importance of Korean penisula. Since the provisional agreement of 1949, U.S. -Korea Air Service Agreement has consistently been favorable to U.S. side. Fair and equal opportunity is the principle and basis of the bilateral air agreement. Notwithstanding such principle, it is only the U.S. carriers who can freely enter into any market, under the discretion of business strategy, while Korean carrier can serve only three points including Honolulu. In an effort to recitify such serious imbalance, Korea continuousely requested additional rights and has given utmost efforts to accommodate requests made by U.S. carries without much success. When we review aviation market between Korea and U.S. under the present agreement, Korea is fully open to U.S. carries as they can connect from any or all points in the U.S. via any or all points in Korea and all points beyond Korea. Increased number of U.S. carriers are enjoying greater utilization of the opportunity accorded them. Four(4) U.S. carries now operate to Korea using thirteen(13) gateway points and about one hundred fifty(150) on-line points in the U.S. such imbalance can be well understood when we review the exchange of traffic rights between the U.S. and the Pacific rim countries. During the yeras following the 1978 agreement with Korea, the U.S. proceeded to sign liberal agreements with Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore and the Phillipines. In exchange, the U.S. granted the four Pacific rim countries substantially greater rights than were granted to Korea, although Korea was the first Asian nation to sign a pro-competitive aviation agreement which granted U.S. carriers unrestricted market access and pricing flexibility. Moreover, Korea ranks the 2nd trading and tourist partner to the U.S. among the Pacific rim countries (Japan is the largest partner to the U.S. in terms of both trade and tourist market). In this paper such problems in the Korea-U.S. Air Services Agreement are analyzed in terms of historical perspective, U.S. Aviation policy, imbalance status in detail cases, discrimination to Korea comparing to other Asian countries, and theoretical application. And further it discusses current aviation issues between Korea and U.S. such as the ratification of 1980 MOU and various doing business issues of U.S. carriers in Korea. Finally, this paper concludes the analysis and suggests some directions to improve and rectify the problems and imbalance of U.S.-Korea Air Services Agreement in question.