• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.149-156
• /
• 2008

The right of hot pursuit is an exception to the general rule that a ship on the high seas is subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag she flies. The right of hot pursuit is provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This paper discusses the requirements for the right of hot pursuit. The use of force should be avoided during hot pursuit. When force is unavoidable, it should not be used beyond what is reasomable and necessary in the circumstances.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2008.05a
• /
• pp.197-204
• /
• 2008

The right of hot pursuit is an exception to the general rule that a ship on the high seas is subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag she flies. The right of hot pursuit is provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This paper discusses the requirements of the right of hot pursuit. The use of force should be avoided during hot pursuit. When force is unavoidable, that is not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

• The Magazine of the Society of Air-Conditioning and Refrigerating Engineers of Korea
• /
• v.37 no.5
• /
• pp.35-44
• /
• 2008

세계 해양환경의 보전을 위하여 설립된 UN 기구인 국제해사기구(IMO)에서는 해양환경 오염물질 등에 대한 규제강화를 위하여 최근 새로운 해양환경협약의 채택 및 발효를 강력히 추진해 오고 있다. IMO의 국제협약은 선박이라는 효과적인 제어수단을 통하여 가장 강력한 통제력을 갖는 협약으로 세계 모든 해양국의 해양환경에 관한 국제법의 성격을 띄고 있다. 구속력이 강력한 만큼 변화되는 국제협약에 의해 새롭게 창출되는 해양환경시장의 규모가 엄청나므로 당사국들이 서로 자국의 이익을 위해 올인하는 전형적인 그린라운드의 양상을 띄고 있는 현실이다. 우리나라는 국제해사기구의 A그룹 이사국이며 아울러 세계 제일의 조선대국, 또한 세계 6위의 해양대국으로서의 국제적인 위상을 감안할 때 해양환경 보호를 위하여 현재 발효되고 추진 중에 있는 협약에 대한 연구와 효과적 대처를 하여야 함은 물론 우리나라 조선, 해양산업이 보호되고 나아가 이익이 창출될 수 있는 방향으로 모든 국제협약이 이루어지게 노력해야할 것이다. 이 논문은 해양관련 환경규제 협약인 Marpol 73/78 협약, 선박의 유해방오도료 사용규제협약, 평형수 배출규제협약, 선박으로부터 오수에 의한 오염방지를 위한 협약, 대기오염방지협약 등의 주요 현안을 파악하고 분석하여 이에 따른 현실적인 대응책을 제시하고자 한다.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2011

According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.147-159
• /
• 2023

Sea level rise due to climate change is an increasing concern for the international community, and especially for coastal States. In case of regression of the coastal line or inundations of maritime features, including islands, the questions of whether coastal States are under an obligation to redraw their baseline and the outer limits of their maritime jurisdiction and of whether the existing maritime boundary treaties should be terminated are raised. This article reviews the arguments raised by the Small Island Developing States, International Law Association, and International Law Commission and suggests a solution within the current legal framework of the Law of the Sea through an interpretation of the existing provisions of the UNCLOS focusing on the legal issues relating to the Law of the Sea.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.201-224
• /
• 2017

The main subject of this article focused on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas. For this the legal status of the military aircraft, the freedom of overflight, the right of hot pursuit, the right of visit and Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) were dealt. The 1944 Chicago Convention neither explicitly nor implicitly negated the customary norms affecting the legal status of military aircraft as initially codified within the 1919 Paris Convention. So the status of military aircraft was not redefined with the Chicago Convention and remains, as stated in the 1919 Paris Convention, as a norm of customary international law. The analyses on the legal status of the military aircraft in the high seas are found as follows; According to the Article 95 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military aircraft in the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. According to the Article 111 (5) of the UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised by military aircraft. According to the Article 110 of the UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. As for Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) it is established and declared unilaterally by the air force of a state for the national security. However, there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention and there are no international standards to recognize or prohibit the establishment of ADIZs. ADIZ is not interpreted as the expansion of territorial airspace.

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.04a
• /
• pp.141-141
• /
• 2017

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Fisheries Technology Conference
• /
• 2003.05a
• /
• pp.38-38
• /
• 2003

유엔해양법 협약 (UNCLOS)이 1994년 11월16일자로 발효됨에 따라 국제해양어업은 새로운 질서에 의하여 개편되고 있다. 이에 따라, 해양생물자원의 관리에 있어서는 새로운 제도들이 채택되고 있다. 유엔해양법에서는 배타적경제수역 (EEZ) 설정시 총허용어획량 (TAC)에 의한 어업관리의무를 규정하고 있으며, 책임어업 (Responsible Fisheries)에 관한 Cancun 회의와 유엔환경개발회의 (UNCED)의 Agenda 21, UN Fish Stocks Agreement등은 전통적인 어업자원 이용방식의 변화를 요구하고 있다. (중략)

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Fisheries Technology Conference
• /
• 2002.10a
• /
• pp.131-132
• /
• 2002

새로운 UN해양법 협약의 발효로 연안국 관할권이 확대됨에 따라 해양은 자유 이용의 시대에서 분할 관리의 시대로 전환되고 있다. 이와 동시에 우리나라의 수산업은 한ㆍ일, 한ㆍ중 어업협정의 체결로 인한 어장 축소, WTO체제에 따른 수산물 시장의 전면 개방, 자원관리형 어업을 위한 조업 규제의 강화, 해양환경 오염에 따른 수산 자원의 감소 등으로 큰 어려움에 직면해 있다. 전통적인 선박에 의한 광역의 어해황정보 수집 및 광역어장의 정확한 조업위치 파악은 한계가 있다. (중략)