• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.427-468
• /
• 2015

To date, we have considered the theoretical views, the standpoint of states and the discourse within the international community such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) regarding the Air/Outer Space Boundary Question which is one of the first issues of UN COPUOS established in line with marking the starting point of Outer Space Area. As above mentioned, discussions in the United Nations and among scholars of within each state regarding the delimitation issue often saw a division between those in favor of a functional approach (the functionalists) and those seeking the delineation of a boundary (the spatialists). The spatialists emphasize that the boundary between air and outer space should be delimited because the status of outer space is a type of public domain from which sovereign jurisdiction is excluded, as stated in Article 2 of Outer Space Treaty. On the contrary art. I of Chicago Convention is evidence of the acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as an international customary law, has the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. The functionalists, backed initially by the major space powers, which viewed any boundary demarcation as possibly restricting their access to space, whether for peaceful or non-military purposes, considered it insufficient or inadequate to delimit a boundary of outer space without obvious scientific and technological evidences. Last more than 50 years there were large development in the exploration and use of outer space. But a large number states including those taking the view of a functionalist have taken on a negative attitude. As the element of location is a decisive factor for the choice of the legal regime to be applied, a purely functional approach to the regulation of activities in the space above the Earth does not offer a solution. It seems therefore to welcome the arrival of clear evidence of a growing recognition of and national practices concerning a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a large number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution to the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated and a number of countries including Russia have already advocated the acceptance of the lowest perigee boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. As a matter of fact the lowest perigee where space objects are still able to continue in their orbiting around the earth has already been imposed as a natural criterion for the delimitation of outer space. This delimitation of outer space has also been evidenced by the constant practice of a large number of States and their tacit consent to space activities accomplished so far at this distance and beyond it. Of course there are still numerous opposing views on the delineation of a outer space boundary by space powers like U.S.A., England, France and so on. Therefore, first of all to solve the legal issues faced by the international community in outer space activities like delimitation problem, there needs a positive and peaceful will of international cooperation. From this viewpoint, President John F. Kennedy once described the rationale behind the outer space activities in his famous "Moon speech" given at Rice University in 1962. He called upon Americans and all mankind to strive for peaceful cooperation and coexistence in our future outer space activities. And Kennedy explained, "There is no strife, ${\ldots}$ nor any international conflict in outer space as yet. But its hazards are hostile to us all: Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again." This speech seems to even present us in the contemporary era with ample suggestions for further peaceful cooperation in outer space activities including the delimitation of outer space.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.31-67
• /
• 1990

One of the first issues which arose in the evolution of air law was the determination of the vertical limits of airspace over private property. In 1959 the UN in its Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, started to give attention to the question of the meaning of the term "outer space". Discussions in the United Nations regarding the delimitation issue were often divided between those in favour of a functional approach ("functionalists"), and those seeking the delineation of a boundary ("spatialists"). The functionalists, backed initially by both major space powers, which viewed any boundary as possibly restricting their access to space(Whether for peaceful or military purposes), won the first rounds, starting with the 1959 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space which did not consider that the topic called for priority consideration. In 1966, however, the spatialists, were able to place the issue on the agenda of the Outer Sapce Committee pursuant to Resolution 2222 (xxx1). However, the spatialists were not able to present a common position since there existed a variety of propositions for delineation of a boundary. Over the years, the funtionalists have seemed to be losing ground. As the element of location is a decisive factor for the choice of the legal regime to be applied, a purely functional approach to the regulation of activities in the space above the Earth does not offer a solution. It is therefore to be welcomed that there is clear evidence of a growing recognition of the defect inherent to such an approach and that a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a growing number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution of the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above the Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated, and a number of countries, among them Argentina, Belgium, France, Italy and Mexico have already advocated the acceptance of the lower boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. The adoption of the principle of sovereignty at that height does not mean that States would not be allowed to take protective measures against space activities above that height which constitute a threat to their security. A parallel can be drawn with the defence of the State's security on the high seas. Measures taken by States in their own protection on the high seas outside the territorial waters-provided that they are proportionate to the danger-are not considered to infringe the principle of international law. The most important issue in this context relates to the problem of a right of passage for space craft through foreign air space in order to reach outer space. In the reports to former ILA Conferences an explanation was given of the reasons why no customary rule of freedom of passage for aircraft through foreign territorial air space could as yet be said to exist. It was suggested, however, that though the essential elements for the creation of a rule of customary international law allowing such passage were still lacking, developments apperaed to point to a steady growth of a feeling of necessity for such a rule. A definite treaty solution of the demarcation problem would require further study which should be carried out by the UN Outer Space Committee in close co-operation with other interested international organizations, including ICAO. If a limit between air space and outer space were established, air space would automatically come under the regime of the Chicago Convention alone. The use of the word "recognize" in Art. I of chicago convention is an acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as a general principle of law, the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. Further it is important to note that the Aricle recognizes this sovereignty, as existing for every state, holding it immaterial whether the state is or is not a contracting state. The functional criteria having been created by reference to either the nature of activity or the nature of the space object, the next hurdle would be to provide methods of verification. With regard to the question of international verification the establishment of an International Satelite Monitoring Agency is required. The path towards the successful delimitation of outer space from territorial space is doubtless narrow and stony but the establishment of a precise legal framework, consonant with the basic principles of international law, for the future activities of states in outer space will, it is still believed, remove a source of potentially dangerous conflicts between states, and furthermore afford some safeguard of the rights and interests of non-space powers which otherwise are likely to be eroded by incipient customs based on at present almost complete freedom of action of the space powers.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.205-236
• /
• 2010

This article deals with international space law for the environmental protection in outer space especially for space debris arising from space activities. After studying 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement, we could find few provisions dealing with space environment in those treaties. During the earlier stages of the space age, which began in the late 1950s, the focus of international law makers was the establishment of the basic rules of space law governing the states' activities in outer space. Consequently the environmental issues and the risks that might arise from the generation of the space debris did not receive priority attention within the context of the development international space law. Although the phrases such as 'harmful contamination', 'harmful interference', 'disruption of the environment', 'adverse changes in the environment' and 'harmfully affecting' in relation to space environment were used in 1967 Outer Space Treaty and 1979 Moon Agreement, their true meaning was not definitely settled. Although 1972 Liability Convention deals with compensation, whether the space object covers space debris is unclear despite the case of Cosmos 954. In this respect international lawyers suggest the amendment of the space treaties and new space treaty covering the space environmental problems including the space debris. The resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are also studied to deal with space environment and space debris. In 1992 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed resolution 47/68 titled "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space" for the NPS use in outer space. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee; IADC) issued some guidelines for the space debris which were the basis of "the UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" approved by COPUOS in its 527th meeting. In 1994 the 66th conference of ILA adopted "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris". Although those resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are not binding states, there are some provisions which have a fundamentally norm-creating character and softs laws.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.189-217
• /
• 2017

Declaration of Air Defense and Identification Zones started with the United States in 1950, which was followed by declaration of KADIZ by the Republic of Korea in 1951. Initial ADIZ were solely linked with air defense missions, but their roles have changed as nations around the globe manifested a tendency to expand their influence over maritime resources and rights. In particular, China declared ADIZ over the East China Sea in October 2013 and forced all passing aircraft to submit flight plan to ATC or military authority, saying failure of submission will be followed by armed engagement. China announced it would declare another zone over the South China Sea despite the ongoing conflict in the area, clearly showing ADIZ's direct connection with territorial claim and EEZ and that it serves as a zone within which a nation can execute its rights. The expanded KADIZ, which was expanded in Dec 15, 2013 in response to Chinese actions, overlaps with the Chinese ADIZ over the East China Sea and the Japanese ADIZ. The overlapping zone is an airspace over waters where not only the Republic of Korea but also of China and Japan argue to be covering their continental shelf and EEZ. Military conventions were signed to prevent contingencies among the neighboring nations while conducting identifications in KADIZ, including the overlapping zone. If such military conventions and practice of air defense identification continue to be respected among states, it is under the process of turning into a regional customary law, although ADIZ is not yet recognized by international law or customary law. Moreover, identification within ADIZ is carried out by military authorities of states, and misguided customary procedures may cause serious negative consequences for national security since it may negatively impact neighboring countries in marking the maritime border, which calls for formulation of operation rules that account for other state activities and military talks among regional stake holders. Legal frameworks need to be in place to guarantee freedom of flights over international seas which UN Maritime Law protects, and laws regarding military aircraft operation need to be supplemented to not make it a requirement to submit flight plan if the aircraft does not invade sovereign airspace. Organizational instructions that require approval of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff for entrance and exit of ADIZ for military aircraft need to be amended to change the authority to Minister of National Defense or be promoted to a law to be applicable for commercial aircraft. Moreover, in regards to operation and management of ADIZ, transfer of authority should be prohibited to account for its evolution into a regional customary law in South East Asia. In particular, since ADIZ is set over EEZ, military conventions that yield authority related to national security should never be condoned. Among Korea, China, Japan and Russia, there are military conventions that discuss operation and management of ADIZ in place or under negotiation, meaning that ADIZ is becoming a regional customary law in North East Asia region.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2009

Space law(or outer space law) and the law of the sea are branches of international law dealing with activities in geographical ares which do not or do only in part come under national sovereignty. Legal rules pertaining to the outer space and sea began to develop once activities emerged in those areas: amongst others, activities dealing with transportation, research, exploration, defense and exploitation. Naturally the law of the sea developed first, followed, early in the twentieth century, by air law, and later in the century by space law. Obviously the law of the sea, of the air and of outer space influence each other. Ideas have been borrowed from one field and applied to another. This article examines some analogies and differences between the outer space law and the law of the sea, especially from the perspective of the legal status, the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources and environment. As far as the comparisons of the legal status between the outer space and high seas are concerned the two areas are res extra commercium. The latter is res extra commercium based on both the customary international law and treaty, however, the former is different respectively according to the customary law and treaty. Under international customary law, whilst outer space constitutes res extra commercium, celestial bodies are res nullius. However as among contracting States of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, both outer space and celestial bodies are declared res extra commercium. As for the comparisons of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources between the Moon including other celestial bodies in 1979 Moon Agreement and the deep sea bed in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the both areas are the common heritage of mankind. The latter gives us very systematic models such as International Sea-bed Authority, however, the international regime for the former will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Thus Moon Agreement could not impose a moratorium, but would merely permit orderly attempts to establish that such exploitation was in fact feasible and practicable, by allowing experimental beginnings and thereafter pilot operations. As Professor Carl Christol said until the parties of the Moon Agreement were able to put into operation the legal regime for the equitable sharing of benefits, they would remain free to disregard the Common Heritage of Mankind principle. Parties to one or both of the agreements would retain jurisdiction over national space activities. In so far as the comparisons of the protection of the environment between the outer space and sea is concerned the legal instruments for the latter are more systematically developed than the former. In the case of the former there are growing tendencies of concerning the environmental threats arising from space activities these days. There is no separate legal instrument to deal with those problems.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.9-39
• /
• 2003

The rule of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 are well known and still being all over the world. The Warsaw Convention is undoubtedly the most widely accepted private international air law treaty with some 140 countries. In the international legal system for air transportation, the Warsaw Convention has played a major role for more than half century, and has been revised many times in consideration of the rapid developments of air high technology, changes of social and economic circumstances, need for the protection of passengers. Some amendments became effective, but others are still not effective. As a result, the whole international legal system for air transportation is at past so complicated and tangled. However, the 'Warsaw system' consists of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, a supplementary convention, and the following six protocols: (1) the Hague Protocol of 1955, (2) the Guatemala Protocol of 1971, (3) the Montreal Additional Protocols, No.1, (4) the Montreal Additional Protocol No.2, (5) the Montreal Additional Protocol No.3, and (6) the Montreal Additional Protocol No.4. of 1975. As a fundamental principle of the air carrier's liability in the international convention and protocols, for instance in the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol, the principle of limited liability and a presumed fault system has been adopted. Subsequently, the Montreal Inter-carrier Agreement of 1966, the Guatemala City Protocol, the Montreal Additional Protocol No.3, and the Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 of 1975 maintained the limited liability, but substituted the presumed liability system by an absolute liability, that is, strict liability system. The Warsaw System, which sets relatively low compensation limits for victims of aircraft accidents and regulates the limited liability for death and injury of air passengers, had become increasingly outdated. Japanese Airlines and Inter-carrier Agreement of International Air Transport Association in 1995 has been adopted the unlimited liability of air carrier in international flight. The IATA Inter-Carrier Agreement, in which airlines in international air transportation agree to waive the limit of damages, was long and hard in coming, but it was remarkable achievement given the political and economic realities of the world. IATA deserves enormous credit for bringing it about. The Warsaw System is controversial and questionable. In order to find rational solution to disputes between nations which adopted differing liability systems in international air transportation, we need to reform the liability of air carriers the 'Warsaw system' and fundamentally, to unify the liability system among the nations. The International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) will therefore reinforce its efforts to further promote a legal environment that adequately reflects the public interest and the needs of the parties involved. The ICAO Study Group met in April, 1998, together with the Drafting Committee. The time between the "Special Group on the Modernization and Consolidation of the 'Warsaw system'(SGMW)" and the Diplomatic Conference must be actively utilized to arrange for profound studies of the outstanding issues and for wide international consultations with a view to narrowing the scope of differences and preparing for a global international consensus. From 11 to 28 May 1999 the ICAO Headquarters at Montreal hosted a Diplomatic Conference convened to consider, with a view to adoption, a draft Convention intended to modernize and to integrate replace the instruments of the Warsaw system. The Council of ICAO convened this Conference under the Procedure for the Adoption of International Conventions. Some 525 participants from 121 Contracting States of ICAO attended, one non-contracting State, 11 observer delegations from international organizations, a total of 544 registered participants took part in the historic three-week conference which began on 10 May. The Conference was a success since it adopted a new Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air. The 1999 Montreal Convention, created and signed by representatives of 52 countries at an international conference convened by ICAO at Montreal on May 28, 1999, came into effect on November 4, 2003. Representatives of 30 countries have now formally ratified the Convention under their respective national procedures and ratification of the United States, which was the 30th country to ratify, took place on September 5, 2003. Under Article 53.6 of the Montreal Convention, it enters into force on the 60th day following the deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification or acceptation. The United States' ratification was deposited with ICAO on September 5, 2003. The ICAO have succeeded in modernizing and consolidating a 70-year old system of international instruments of private international law into one legal instrument that will provide, for years to come, an adequate level of compensation for those involved in international aircraft accidents. An international diplomatic conference on air law by ICAO of 1999 succeeded in adopting a new regime for air carrier liability, replacing the Warsaw Convention and five other related legal instruments with a single convention that provided for unlimited liability in relation to passengers. Victims of international air accidents and their families will be better protected and compensated under the new Montreal Convention, which modernizes and consolidates a seventy-five year old system of international instruments of private international law into one legal instrument. A major feature of the new legal instrument is the concept of unlimited liability. Whereas the Warsaw Convention set a limit of 125,000 Gold Francs (approximately US$ 8,300) in case of death or injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier system. The first tier includes strict liability up to l00,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR: approximately US$ 135,000), irrespective of a carrier's fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of a carrier and has no limit of liability. The 1999 Montreal Convention also includes the following main elements; 1. In cases of aircraft accidents, air carriers are called upon to provide advance payments, without delay, to assist entitled persons in meeting immediate economic needs; the amount of this initial payment will be subject to national law and will be deductable from the final settlement; 2. Air carriers must submit proof of insurance, thereby ensuring the availability of financial resources in cases of automatic payments or litigation; 3. The legal action for damages resulting from the death or injury of a passenger may be filed in the country where, at the time of the accident, the passenger had his or her principal and permanent residence, subject to certain conditions. The new Montreal Convention of 1999 included the 5th jurisdiction - the place of residence of the claimant. The acceptance of the 5th jurisdiction is a diplomatic victory for the US and it can be realistically expected that claimants' lawyers will use every opportunity to file the claim in the US jurisdiction - it brings advantages in the liberal system of discovery, much wider scope of compensable non-economic damages than anywhere else in the world and the jury system prone to very generous awards. 4. The facilitation in the recovery of damages without the need for lengthy litigation, and simplification and modernization of documentation related to passengers. In developing this new Montreal Convention, we were able to reach a delicate balance between the needs and interests of all partners in international civil aviation, States, the travelling public, air carriers and the transport industry. Unlike the Warsaw Convention, the threshold of l00,000 SDR specified by the Montreal Convention, as well as remaining liability limits in relation to air passengers and delay, are subject to periodic review and may be revised once every five years. The primary aim of unification of private law as well as the new Montreal Convention is not only to remove or to minimize the conflict of laws but also to avoid conflict of jurisdictions. In order to find a rational solution to disputes between nations which have adopted differing liability systems in international air transport, we need fundamentally to reform their countries's domestic air law based on the new Montreal Convention. It is a desirable and necessary for us to ratify rapidly the new Montreal Convention by the contracting states of lCAO including the Republic of Korea. According to the Korean and Japanese ideas, airlines should not only pay compensation to passengers immediately after the accident, but also the so-called 'condolence' money to the next of kin. Condolence money is a gift to help a dead person's spirit in the hereafter : it is given on account of the grief and sorrow suffered by the next of kin, and it has risen considerably over the years. The total amount of the Korean and Japanese claims in the case of death is calculated on the basis of the loss of earned income, funeral expenses and material demage (baggage etc.), plus condolence money. The economic and social change will be occurred continuously after conclusion of the new Montreal Convention. In addition, the real value of life and human right will be enhanced substantially. The amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accident has increased in dollar amount as well as in volume. All air carrier's liability should extend to loss of expectation of leisure activities, as well as to damage to property, and mental and physical injuries. When victims are not satisfied with the amount of the compensation for damage caused by aircraft accident for which an airline corporation is liable under the current liability system. I also would like to propose my opinion that it is reasonable and necessary for us to interpret broadly the meaning of the bodily injury on Article 17 of the new Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence. Furthermore, Korea and Japan has not existed the Air Transport Act regulated the civil liability of air carrier such as Air Transport Act (Luftverkehrsgestz) in Germany. It is necessary for us to enact "the Korean Air Transport Contract Act (provisional title)" in order to regulate the civil liability of air carrier including the protection of the victims and injured persons caused by aircraft accident.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.215-236
• /
• 2006

This article focused on the meaning of the 1979 Moon Treaty and its future. Although the Moon Treaty is one of the major 5 space related treaties, it was accepted by only 11 member states which are non-space powers, thus having the least enfluences on the field of space law. And this article analysed the relationship between the 1979 Moon Treay and 1967 Space Treaty which was the first principle treaty, and searched the meaning of the "Common Heritage of Mankind(hereinafter CHM)" stipulated in the Moon treaty in terms of international law. This article also dealt with the present and future problems arising from the Moon Treaty. As far as the 1967 Space Treaty is concerned the main standpoint is that outer space including the moon and the other celestial bodies is res extra commercium, areas not subject to national appropriation like high seas. It proclaims the principle non-appropriation concerning the celestial bodies in outer space. But the concept of CHM stipulated in the Moon Treaty created an entirely new category of territory in international law. This concept basically conveys the idea that the management, exploitation and distribution of natural resources of the area in question are matters to be decided by the international community and are not to be left to the initiative and discretion of individual states or their nationals. Similar provision is found in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention that operates the International Sea-bed Authority created by the concept of CHM. According to the Moon Treaty international regime will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Before the establishment of an international regime we could imagine moratorium upon the expoitation of the natural resources on the celestial bodies. But the drafting history of the Moon Treaty indicates that no moratorium on the exploitation of natural resources was intended prior to the setting up of the international regime. So each State Party could exploit the natural resources bearing in mind that those resouces are CHM. In this respect it would be better for Korea, now not a party to the Moon Treaty, to be a member state in the near future. According to the Moon Treaty the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly the exploitation of the moon shall be given special consideration. The Moon Treaty, which although is criticised by some space law experts represents a solid basis upon which further space exploration can continue, shows the expression of the common collective wisdom of all member States of the United Nations and responds the needs and possibilities of those that have already their technologies into outer space.

• Journal of Venture Innovation
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.57-70
• /
• 2022

In modern industrial capitalism, the relationship between the provision of work and the receipt of wages has become an important principle governing society. According to the labor contract, the wages provided by entrusting the right to dispose of one's labor to the employer are directly compensated, and human life should be guaranteed and reproduced with proper rest. The establishment of labor relations under free contracts represents a problem in protecting workers, and accordingly, the maximum of working hours is set as a minimum right for workers, and the standard for minimum rest is set and assigned. The reduction of working hours is very important in terms of the quality of life of workers, but it is also an important issue in efficient corporate activities. As of 2020, Korea has 1,908 hours of annual working hours, the third lowest among OECD 37 countries in the happiness index surveyed by the Sustainable Development Solution Network(SDSN), an agency under the United Nations. Accordingly, the necessity of reducing working hours has been recognized, and the maximum working hours per week has been limited to 52 hours since 2018. In this situation, various working hours are legally excluded as a way to maintain the company's value-added creation and meet the diverse needs of workers, and Korea's Labor Standards Act restricts flexible working hours within three months, flexible working hours exceeding three months, selective working hours, and extended working hours. However, in the discussion on the application of the revised flexible working hours system in 2021 and the expansion of the settlement unit period recently discussed, there is a problem with the flexible working hours system, which needs to be improved. Therefore, this paper aims to examine the problems of the flexible working hours system and improvement measures. The flexible working hours system is a system that does not violate working hours even if the legal working hours are exceeded on a specific day or week according to a predetermined standard, and does not have to pay additional wages for excessive overtime work. It is mainly useful as a form of shift work in manufacturing, sales service, continuous business or electricity, gas, water, and transportation for long-term operations. It is also used as a way to shorten working hours, such as expanding holidays through short working days. However, if the settlement unit period is expanded, it is disadvantageous to workers as the additional wages that workers can receive will not be received. Therefore, First, in order to expand the settlement unit period currently under discussion, additional wages should be paid for the period expanded from the current standard. Second, it is necessary to improve the application of the flexible working hours system to individual workers to have sufficient consultation with individual workers in a written agreement with the worker representative, Third, clarify the allowable time for extended work during the settlement unit period, and Fourth, limit the daily working hours or apply to continuous rest. In addition, since the written agreement of the worker representative is an important issue in the application of the flexible working hours system, it is necessary to secure the representation of the worker representative.