• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.156-162
• /
• 2020

Since the early 20th century, there have been reviews and legislations regarding the legal status of the Government ships operated for non-commercial purposes. In particular, as criticized in the absolute theory of immunity in conventional international law, the sovereign immunity theory has become more vital as a restrictive theory for immunity. As per the customary international law and international law of the sea, non-commercial government vessels, including warships, are provided with sovereign immunity on the sea. National universities of Korea have built and operated training ships and survey ships for educational purposes, such as training high-grade mariners and fishing practices. These training ships sail not only on the national maritime jurisdictions but also on the maritime jurisdictions of other States and the high sea. Therefore, clarifying the legal status of national university training ships is one of the important factors in international navigation according to international law. However, it is not easy to answer the question of the legal status of the training ship. Hence, this article analyzes the parameters that define the Government ship operated for non-commercial purposes and examines whether national university training ships are in line with the relevant criterion. Furthermore, the article analyzes the scope of sovereign immunity in conventional international law and international conventions and identifies the scope of sovereign immunity enjoyed by the national university training ships according to international law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.261-284
• /
• 2018

The current international legal system does not provide a safeguard against the militarization and the weaponization of outer space. Although the term "peaceful use of outer space" in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty(OST) appears in official government statements or in multilateral space treaties, it is still without an authoritative definition in reviewing national practices. The ambiguous ban on weapons in Article IV of the OST allows countries to loophole on the deployment of other weapons other than nuclear weapons. Meanwhile "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)" to Conference on Disarmament (CD) commissioned by the UN General Assembly's Special Session jointly submitted by China and Russia in 2008 and later revised in 2014, attempting to define and prohibit the proliferation of weapons in outer space and provided definitions of prohibited weapons, are opposed by the US on the grounds that currently there is no arms race in outer space. Some experts support a hard law approach in which binding laws aimed at ultimately creating integrated and binding legal instruments in all aspects of the use of outer space should be adopted to regulate the military use of space. However as a temporary measure the soft law guidelines should be developed for the non liquiet, a situation where there is no applicable law. The soft law could be used to create support for the declaration of the treaties and to create international customary law. For example, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space that regulates the activities of the state in the exploration and use of the universe, and the 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space will illustrated. While substantial portions of the former was codified later in the 1967 OST, the latter which, although written in somewhat mandatory terms, have been consistently complied with by states, have arguably become part of customary international law. On November 12, 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed that the development of international law may be reflected inter alia, by declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly which may to that extent be taken into consideration by the International Court of Justice.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.469-497
• /
• 2015

In 2009 Iridium 33, a satellite owned by the American Iridium Communications Inc. and Kosmos-2251, a satellite owned by the Russian Space Forces, collided at a speed of 42,120 km/h and an altitude of 789 kilometers above the Taymyr Peninsula in Siberia. NASA estimated that the satellite collision had created approximately 1,000 pieces of debris larger than 10 centimeters, in addition to many smaller ones. By July 2011, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network(SSN) had catalogued over 2,000 large debris fragments. On January 11, 2007 China conducted a test on its anti-satellite missile. A Chinese weather satellite, the FY-1C polar orbit satellite, was destroyed by the missile that was launched using a multistage solid-fuel. The test was unprecedented for having created a record amount of debris. At least 2,317 pieces of trackable size (i.e. of golf ball size or larger) and an estimated 150,000 particles were generated as a result. As far as the Space Treaties such as 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement are concerned, few provisions addressing the space environment and debris in space can be found. In the early years of space exploration dating back to the late 1950s, the focus of international law was on the establishment of a basic set of rules on the activities undertaken by various states in outer space.. Consequently environmental issues, including those of space debris, did not receive the priority they deserve when international space law was originally drafted. As shown in the case of the 1978 "Cosmos 954 Incident" between Canada and USSR, the two parties settled it by the memorandum between two nations not by the Space Treaties to which they are parties. In 1994 the 66th conference of International Law Association(ILA) adopted "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris". 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" which had been approved by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) in its 527th meeting. On December 21 2007 this guideline was approved by UNGA Resolution 62/217. The EU has proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities" as a transparency and confidence-building measure. It was only in 2010 that the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee began considering as an agenda item the long-term sustainability of outer space. A Working Group on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities was established, the objectives of which include identifying areas of concern for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities, proposing measures that could enhance sustainability, and producing voluntary guidelines to reduce risks to long-term sustainability. By this effort "Guidelines on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities" are being under consideration. In the case of "Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space" adopted by UNGA Resolution 1962(XVIII), December 13 1963, the 9 principles proclaimed in that Declaration, although all of them incorporated in the Space Treaties, could be regarded as customary international law binding all states considering the time and opinio juris by the responses of the world. Although the soft law such as resolutions, guidelines are not binding law, there are some provisions which have a fundamentally norm-creating character and customary international law. In November 12 1974 UN General Assembly recalled through a Resolution 3232(XXIX) "Review of the role of International Court of Justice" that the development of international law may be reflected, inter alia, by the declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly which may to that extend be taken into consideration by the judgements of the International Court of Justice. We are expecting COPUOS which gave birth 5 Space Treaties that it could give us binding space debris mitigation measures to be implemented based on space debris mitigation soft law in the near future.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• pp.142-163
• /
• 2013

Ieodo is a submerged rock within a Korea's Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) in the East China Sea with its most shallow part about 4.6m below the sea level which has no specific rights for the EEZ delimitation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that any coastal state has the rights to claim an EEZ that stretches up to 200 nautical miles from its shore, except where there is an overlap with a neighboring country's claims. Korea claims that Ieodo is within its EEZ as it sits on the Korean side of the equidistant line and the reef is located on the Korea section of the continental shelf. China does not recognize Korea's application of the equidistance principle and insists that Ieodo lies on its continental shelf. According to UNCLOS, Ieodo is located in international waters, rather than one country's EEZ as the two countries have failed to reach a final agreement over the delimitation of the maritime border. This study seeks to understand the evolution of the People's Liberation Army Navy(PLAN) strategy as main obstacles for the EEZ delimitation between Korea and China. PLAN's Strategy evolves from "coastal defense" to "offshore defence", since the late 1980s from a "coastal defence" strategy to an "offshore defence" strategy which would extend the perimeter of defence to between 200 nm and 400 nm from the coast. China's economic power has increased It's dependence on open trade routes for energy supplies and for its own imports and exports. China want secure Sea Lane. PLAN's "offshore defence" strategy combines the concept of active defence with the deployment of its military forces beyond its borders. China's navy try to forward base its units and to achieve an ocean going capability. China's navy expects to have a 'Blue Water' capability by 2050. China insists that coastal states do have a right under UNCLOS to regulate the activities of foreign military forces in their EEZs. China protests several times against US military forces operating within It's EEZ. The U.S. position is that EEZs should be consistent with customary international law of the sea, as reflected in UNCLOS. U.S. has a national interest in the preservation of freedom of navigation as recognized in customary international law of the sea and reflected in UNCLOS. U.S. insists that coastal states under UNCLOS do not have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs. To be consistent with its demand that the U.S. cease performing military operations in china's EEZ, China would not be able to undertake any military operations in the waters of South Korea's EEZ. As such, to preserve its own security interests, China prefers a status quo policy and used strategic ambiguity on the Ieodo issue. PLAN's strategy of coastal defence has been transformed into offensive defence, Korea's EEZ can be a serious limitation to PLAN's operational plan of activities. Considering China'a view of EEZs, China do not want make EEZ delimitation agreement between Korea and China. China argues that the overlapping areas between EEZs should be handled through negotiations and neither side can take unilateral actions before an agreement is reached. China would prefer Ieodo sea zone as a international waters, rather than one country's EEZ.

• 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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.38
• /
• pp.163-192
• /
• 2015

This study is intended for the Maritime Boundaries(Baseline) of the Unified Korea. According to the international law, North-Korea is recognized as a nation. Then with unification, the state succession will be a very important issue. Thus we should seek for the expected problems and counter-measures, by analyzing of the State-succession. There is a conflict of the positive or negative reaction about the state succession. However, in general, 'the principle of continuity' has been applied for at the national border treaty, regardless of the type of State succession. This can be found on Article 11 & 12 of the 「1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties」, Article 62, paragraph 2 of the 「1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties」, and a series of international case law. Currently it is being understood as customary international law. In summary, although South and North Korea, China, Russia and Japan are not the parties of 「1978 Vienna Convention」, the unified Korea will necessarily have a duty to succeed national boundaries(also, maritime baseline) of North Korea. Specifically, we have an objective and rigorous review of the treaty of maritime baseline that is signed between North Korea and neighboring countries, such as 「National Border Treaty Regime between North Korea and China」 and 「Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic people's Republic of Korea on the Demarcation of the Soviet-Korea National Border」. Also, we analyzed 'Historical Bays' and 'Straight Baseline' system. By this, we are able to occupy a favorable position when renegotiating with neighboring countries, at the point of unification.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.45
• /
• pp.60-90
• /
• 2019

The use of the high seas are supported by the two pillars of customary principles --the freedom of navigation and the flag state control on its vessels, which are codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. There have been attempts to limit and retrain the two pillars as maritime regimes are newly created to address new maritime threats, while coastal stares' control over the seas expand. The pillars have been created over thousands years since human beings took to the sea and have served as a foundation to use the oceans peacefully and orderly. Therefore, any retreat or exception from these principles would undermine the fundamental framework for the use of the oceans and eventually these regimes would be subject to control of maritime powers. In conclusion, new maritime regimes such as the sanction measures on North Korea should be enforced within the framework of international law and comply with the fundamental principles such as innocent passage and the freedom of navigation at the high seas.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.138-146
• /
• 1993

In accordance with the establishment of 200 nautical miles EEZ regime as a customary international law since the mid - 1980s, the area of global high seas became reduced relatively. On the other hand, the importance of high seas fishing ground became serious for the distant-water fishing states like Korea. But it can be expected that international dispute on the jurisdictional problem of the fishing vessels engaging high sea fishery will occur frequently owing to institutional inertia of the UNLOS Convention on this matter. "The Draft Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas" as an international code of conduct for responsible fishing which was adopted by FAO in 1993 is providing the more consolidating and definiting rules for jurisdictional responsibility of flag states to make completion the loophole of the UNLOS Convention. As a precondition for the effective control and enforcement of activities of the fishing vessels engaging high sea fishery, the Draft Agreement is providing some articles allowing the flag states to hold the rights of granting nationality, fishery permission, fishery supervision and control with punishment for the fishing vessels entitled to fly their own flag. Accordingly it can be evaluated that this Draft Agreement does not deviate on the whole from the traditional practice and the basic legal principle of the UNLOS Convention.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.77-97
• /
• 1995

The protection of the marine environment is one of the main international legal problems in recent years. In parallel with the industrial development, a great quantity of chemical materials were used and in consequence, mass transportation of oil and other dangerous materials was required on the one hand, and discharge of industrial wasters drew also the attention on the other hand. Furthermore, oil tankers accidents, mass use of nuclear materials, sea-bed exploration and exploitation stimulated further deep human concern on the marine environment. The expansion of international concern to new and more dangerous sources of marine pollution regarded more strict and legal control on the Oil Tanker(DWT 95, 000tons, Cb=0.805) model. Calculation results are compared to the international, especially regional level. In particular, this study is concerned with the preservation of the Northeast Asian Seas surrounded by Japan, the Russian Far East, South Korea, North Korea, China and Taiwan. These adjacent countries must intensify cooperation regarding the prevention, reduction and control of the contamination of the sea. And this cooperation between the States concerned should, as much as possible, be aimed at maximizing the effectiveness of measures to prevent or abate transboundary environmental pollution. To achieve this purpose, States concerned should be imposed upon duties such as duty to assess the environmental impact, duty to inform, duty to consult and duty to assist on the basis of general principle of international law, international customary law and other various resolutions of international bodies. Depending on the nature and extent of actual or potential transboundary pollution with the use of a natural resource or the environment in general the establishment of some form of institutionalized cooperation between the States concerned may become useful or indispensable. The functions of this Organization are, inter alia, to keep the implementation of the Convention and the protocals under continuous observation, to make recommendations on regional or sub-regional rules and standards to be elaborated and on measures to be taken by the Contracting Parties, to be notified of any grave and imminent danger from pollution or threat of pollution by the Contracting Parties and to promote in close cooperation with appropriate governmental bodies additional measures to protect the marine environment of the Northeast Asian Seas, and so on. Above mentioned countries, first of all, are located within the Northeast Asian Seas geographically and, therefore, take responsibilities of preserving the clean sea against marine interferences regardless of any difference of the social, political and economic systems. They must be followed under the UNCLOS and other marine conventions. Under the present circumstances, Northeast Asian Seas will become dead seas in case that there is no instant and prompt action against pollution. Hence we have an absolute obligation to promote the development of the mandatory international environmental law, which in turn can faciliate more effective implementation of the regional cooperation by the neighbouring states within this area.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.83-109
• /
• 2008

According to 1944 Chicago Convention aircraft are classified into public aircraft(or state aircraft) and private aircraft(or civil aircraft). However even if public aircraft owned by government are used as commercial flights, those are classified into private aircraft. But as far as space activities are concerned in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, those are related to all activities and all space objects, thus there being no differentiation between the public spacecraft and private spacecraft. As for the institutions of air law there are ICAO, IATA, ECAC, AFCAC, ACAC, LACAC in the world. However in the field of space law there is no International Civil Space Organization like ICAO. There is only COPUOS in the United Nations. The particular institutions such as INTELSAT, INMARSAT, ITU, WIPO, ESA, ARABSAT would be helpful to space law field. In the near future there is a need to establish International Civil Space Organization to cover problems rising from all space activities. According to article 1 of the 1944 Chicago Convention the contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. It means that absolute airspace sovereignty is recognized by not only the treaty law and but also customary law which regulates non-contracting States to the treaty. However as for the space law in the article n of the 1967 Space Treaty 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. It creates res extra commercium like the legal status of high seas in the law of the sea. However the 1979 Moon Agreement proclaimed Common Heritage of Mankind as far as the legal status of the outer space is concerned which is like the legal status of deep sea-bed in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea. As far as the liabilities of air transport system are concerned there are two kinds. One is the liabilities to passenger on board aircraft and the other is the liabilities to the third person or thing on the ground by the aircraft. The former is regulated by the Warsaw System, the latter by the Rome Convention. As for the liabilities of space law the 1972 Liability Convention applies. The Rome Convention and 1972 Liability Convention stipulate absolute liability. In the field of space transportation there would be new liability system to regulate the space passengers on board spacecraft like Warsaw System in the air transportation.