• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.81-98
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This study aims to compare the requirements under the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) and the Korean Civil Act (KCA) regarding the buyer's right to require the delivery of substitute goods. The buyer's right to demand substitute delivery not only protect them from the seller's breach of contract but also preserves the contractual bond between the parties by providing an opportunity for sellers to protect their goodwill and circumvent the extreme remedy of avoidance. However, as substitute delivery entails additional efforts and costs for return and re-shipment, this right should not be allowed in every case of defect. Additionally, unlike the CISG, the KCA contains no specific provision related to the requirements for claiming substitute delivery. Therefore, it would be meaningful to examine and compare what requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right in relation to non-conforming goods under the CISG and the KCA. Design/methodology - We conducted a comparative study of the requirements under the CISG and the KCA regarding the buyer's right to require delivery of substitute goods given a seller's delivery of non-conforming goods. Additionally, we referred to the opinions from the CISG Advisory Council, the draft of the KCA amendment, and related precedents, mainly focusing on the existence and severity of defects, reasonableness, and timely notice and requests as the major requirements for substitute delivery. Findings - The results of this study can be summarized as follows: First, the CISG provides more detailed requirements about the right to require delivery of substitute goods; by contrast, the KCA does not stipulate any such requirement. Thus, specific requirements for substitute delivery should be included when amending the KCA. Second, the CISG attempts to minimize overlapping and conflict with other remedies by specifying detailed requirements for the delivery of substitutes. Third, both the CISG and KCA require reasonableness for substitute delivery. Originality/value - Although there are no explicit legal requirements for substitute delivery under the KCA, there has been relatively little discussion of this issue to date. Therefore, the findings of our study can guide future revisions of the KCA to fill this loophole. Moreover, the recently released CISG Advisory Council opinion that clarifies the continuing confusion and debate, can help distinguish which remedy is suitable for a particular case. It may provide practical advice for businesspeople in international trade as well as legal implications for the future development of the KCA.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.44-51
• /
• 2023

The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs) was adopted to prevent ships from colliding with other ships or any object such as the seabed. COLREGs have been codified and refined since the mid-19th century, and have reached the present. Therefore, the terms and sentences used in COLREGs also have distinct academic and legal connotations. However, in the Maritime Safety Act of the Republic of Korea, which translated COLREGs into domestic law, the "risk of collision" and the "danger of collision" was used in the law without distinguishing their meanings. Accordingly, the difference between "risk" and "danger" was analyzed with reference to the definition of risk by an authoritative international organization of the United Nations such as the International Maritime Organization and the International Organization for Standardization as a well-known and authoritative non governmental organization. In addition, the cases codified in COLREGs and translated cases in the Maritime Safety Act were analyzed to highlight the need for amending the Maritime Safety Act. From the perspective of safe navigation, it is expected that the Maritime Safety Act in the future would distinguish between "danger" and "risk" so that the efforts of watch officers to prevent collisions could be further systematized.

• Journal of Appropriate Technology
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.106-113
• /
• 2019

In order to respond to the global environmental issues, developed countries have been helped the developing countries as the Official Development Assistance (ODA). It is important to understand technology needs of the developing countries to provide the optimum solutions. In this study, the information of the environmental R&D dealing with appropriate technology were comprehensively collected based on the conducted R&D projects from the ministry of environment in Korea. The technology needs by UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and Korean government were analyzed named as TNA and CPS according to the target developing countries. In South-East Asia and Africa region, there were technology needs on water, biota, air, solid wastes, infrastructures and resources. And they were related to the issues such as environmental pollution, construction, climate change, biodiversity, energy and water management. The technology needs by UNFCCC and Korean government were also compared. Furthermore, the environmental R&D on appropriate technology should be focused on localization and maintenance to provide sustainable solutions to the developing countries.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.211-241
• /
• 2012

The Draft International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities officially proposed by the European Union on the occasion of the 55th Session of the United Nations Peaceful Uses of the Outer Space last June 2012 in Vienna, Austria is to fill the lacunae of the relevant norms to be applied to the human activities in the outer space and thus has the merit our attention. The missing elements of the norms span from the prohibition of an arms race, safety and security of the space objects including the measures to reduce the space debris to the exchange of information of space activities among space-faring nations. The EU's initiatives, when implemented, cover or will eventually prepare for the forum to deal with such issues of interests of the international community. The EU's initiatives begun at the end of 2008 included the unofficial contacts with major space powers including in particular the USA of which position is believed to have been reflected in the Draft with the aim to have it adopted in 2013. Although the Code is made up of soft law rather than hard law for the subscribing countries, the USA seems to be afraid of the eventuality whereby its strategic advantages in the outer space will be affected by the prohibiting norms, possibly to be pursued by the Code from its current non-binding character, of placing weapons in the outer space. It is with this trepidation that the USA has been opposing to the adoption of the United Nations Assembly Resolutions on the prevention of an arms race in the outer space (PAROS) and in the same context to the setting-up of a working group on the arms race in the outer space in the frame of the Conference on Disarmament. China and Russia who together put forward a draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT) in 2008 would not feel comfortable either because the EU initiatives will steal the lime light. Consequently their reactions are understandably passive towards the Draft Code while the reaction of the USA to the PPWT was a clear cut "No". With the above background, the future of the EU Code is uncertain. Nevertheless, the purpose of the Code to reduce the space debris, to allow exchange of the information on the space activities, and to protect the space objects through safety and security, all to maximize the principle of the peaceful use and exploration of the outer space is the laudable efforts on the part of EU. When the detailed negotiations will be held, some problems including the cost to be incurred by setting up an office for the clerical works could be discussed for both efficient and economic mechanism. For example, the new clerical works envisaged in the Draft Code could be discharged by the current UN OOSA (Office for Outer Space Affairs) with minimal additional resources. The EU's initiatives are another meaningful contribution following one due to it in adopting the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 to the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on the Climate Change) and deserve the praise from the thoughtful international community.

• 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.30 no.1
• /
• pp.273-302
• /
• 2015

The term "peaceful uses of outer space" in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty appears in official government statements and multilateral outer space related treaties. However, the examination of the state practice leads to the conclusion that this term is still without an authoritative definition. As far as the meaning of 'peaceful use' in international law is concerned the same phrases in the UN Charter, the 1963 Treaty of Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere in Outer Space and Under Water, the 1956 Statute of IAEA, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1972 United Nations Conference of the Human Environment were analysed As far as the meaning of 'peaceful uses of outer space' is concerned the same phrases the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1979 Moon Treaty and the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques(ENMOD) were studied. According to Article IV of the 1967 Outer Space treaty, states shall not place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies repeats in Article III much of the Outer Space Treaty. This article prohibits the threat or use of force or any other hostile act on the moon and the use of the moon to commit such an act in relation to the earth or to space objects. This adds IN principle nothing to the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty relating to military space activities. The 1977 ENMOD refers to peaceful purposes in the preamble and in Article III. As far as the UN Resolutions are concerned, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space, the 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space(NPS) were studied. And as far the Soft Laws are concerned the 2008 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), the 2002 Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Prolifiration(HCoC) and 2012 Draft International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities(ICoC) were studied.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Marine Environment & Energy
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.263-272
• /
• 2012

Carbon dioxide, emitted by human activities since the industrial revolution, is regarded as a major contributor of global warming. There are many efforts to mitigate climate change, and carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCS) is recognized as one of key technologies because it can reduce carbon dioxide emissions from large point sources such as a power station or other industrial installation. The inclusion of CCS as clean development mechanism (CDM) project activities has been considered at UNFCCC as financial incentive mechanisms for those developing countries that may wish to deploy the CCS. Although the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol (CMP), at Cancun in December 2010, decided that CCS is eligible as CDM project activities, the issues identified in decision 2/CMP.5 should be addressed and resolved in a satisfactory manner. Major issues regarding modalities and procedure are 1) Site selection, 2) Monitoring, 3) Modeling, 4) Boundaries, 5) Seepage Measuring and Accounting, 6) Trans-Boundary Effects, 7) Accounting of Associated Project Emissions (Leakage), 8) Risk and Safety Assessment, and 9) Liability Under the CDM Scheme. The CMP, by its decision 7/CMP.6, invited Parties to submit their views to the secretariat of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), SBSTA prepared a draft modalities and procedure by exchanging views of Parties through workshop held in Abu Dhabi, UAE (September 2011). The 7th CMP (Durban, December 2011) finally adopted the modalities and procedures for CCS as CDM project activities (CMP[2011], Decision-/CMP.7). The inclusion of CCS as CDM project activities means that CCS is officially accredited as one of $CO_2$ reducing technologies in global carbon market. Consequently, it will affect relevant technologies and industry as well as law and policy in Korea and aboard countries. This paper presents a progress made on discussion and challenges regarding the issue, and aims to suggest some considerations to policy makers in Korea in order to demonstrate and deploy the CCS project in the near future. According to the adopted modalities and procedures for CCS as CDM project activities, it is possible to implement relevant CCS projects in Non-Annex I countries, including Korea, as long as legal and regulatory frameworks are established. Though Korea enacted 'Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth', the details are too inadequate to content the requirements of modalities and procedures for CCS as CDM project. Therefore, it is required not only to amend the existing laws related with capture, transport, and storage of $CO_2$ for paving the way of an prompt deployment of CCS CDM activities in Korea as a short-term approach, but also to establish the united framework as a long-term approach.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.

• 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.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.