• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.237-269
• /
• 2016

Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO) is the only intergovernmental space cooperation organization in Asia. Since its establishment to date, eight countries have signed the convention and become member states. South Korea participated actively in the preparatory phase of creating the organization, and one conference organized by AP-MCSTA which is the predecessor of APSCO was held in South Korea. However, after the APSCO Convention was opened for signature in 2005 to date, South Korea does not ratify the Convention and become a member. The rapid development of space commercialization and privatization, as well as the fastest growing commercial space market in Asia, provides opportunities for Asian countries to cooperate with each other in relevant space fields. And to participate in the existing cooperation framework (e.g., the APSCO) by the Asian space countries (e.g., South Korea) could be a proper choice. Even if the essential cooperation in particular space fields is challenging, joint space programs among different Asian countries for dealing with the common events can be initiated at the first steps. Since APSCO has learned the successful legal arrangements from ESA, the legal measures established by its Convention are believed to be qualified to ensure the achievement of benefits of different member states. For example, the regulation of the "fair return" principle confirms that the return of interests from the relevant programs is in proportion to the member's investment in the programs. Moreover, the distinguish of basic and optional activities intends to authorize the freedom of the members to choose programs to participate. And for the voting procedure, the acceptance of the "consensus" by the Council is in favor of protecting the member's interest when making decisions. However, political factors that are potential to block the participation of South Korea in APSCO are difficult to be ignored. A recent event is an announcement of deploying THAAD by South Korea, which causes tension between South Korea and China. The cooperation between these two states in space activities will be influenced. A long-standing barrier is that China acts as a non-member of the main international export control mechanism, i.e., the MTCR. The U.S takes this fact as the main reason to prevent South Korea to cooperate with China in developing space programs. Although the political factors that will block the participation of South Korea in APSCO are not easy to removed shortly, legal measures can be taken to reduce the political influence. More specifically, APSCO is recommended to ensure the achievement of commercial interests of different cooperation programs by regulating precisely the implementation of the "fair return" principle. Furthermore, APSCO is also suggested to contribute to managing the common regional events by sharing satellite data. And it is anticipated that these measures can effectively response the requirements of the rapid development of space commercialization and the increasing common needs of Asia, thereby to provide a platform for the further cooperation. In addition, in order to directly reduce the political influence, two legal measures are necessary to be taken: Firstly, to clarify the rights and responsibilities of the host state (i.e., China) as providing assistance, coordination and services to the management of the Organization to release the worries of the other member states that the host state will control the Organization's activities. And secondly, to illustrate that the cooperation in APSCO is for the non-military purpose (a narrow sense of "peaceful purpose") to reduce the political concerns. Regional cooperation in Asia regarding space affairs is considered to be a general trend in the future, so if the participation of South Korea in APSCO can be finally proved to be feasible, there will be an opportunity to discuss the creation of a comprehensive institutionalized framework for space cooperation in Asia.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.127-150
• /
• 2020

A Basic Plan for the Promotion of Space Development (hereinafter referred to as "basic plan"), which prescribes mid- and long-term policy objectives and basic direction-setting on space development every five years, is one of the matters to be deliberated by the National Space Committee. Confirmed February 2018 by the Committee, the 3rd Basic Plan has a unique matter, compared to the 2nd Basic Plan. It is to construct "Korean Positioning System(KPS)". Almost every country in the world including Korea has been relying on GPS. On the occasion of the shooting down of a Korean Air flight 007 by Soviet Russia, GPS Standard Positioning Service has been open to the world. Due to technical errors of GPS or conflict of interests between countries in international relations, however, the above Service can be interrupted at any time. Such cessation might bring extensive damage to the social, economic and security domains of every country. This is why some countries has been constructing an independent global or regional satellite navigation system: EU(Galileo), Russia(Glonass), India(NaVic), Japan(QZSS), and China(Beidou). So does South Korea. Once KPS is built, it is expected to make use of the system in various areas such as transportation, aviation, disaster, construction, defense, ocean, distribution, telecommunication, etc. For this, a pan-governmental governance is needed to be established. And this governance must be based on the law. Korea is richly experienced in developing and operating individually satellite itself, but it has little experience in the simultaneous development and operation of the satellites, ground, and users systems, such as KPS. Therefore we need to review overseas cases, in order to minimize trial and error. U.S. GPS is a classic example.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.151-208
• /
• 2020

Japan's two outer space-related laws were promulgated on November 16, 2016. There are the Act on Launching of Spacecraft, etc. and Control of Spacecraft (Act No. 76 of 2016, Space Activities Act) and the Act on Securing Proper Handling of Satellite Remote Sensing Records (Act No.77 of 2016, Remote Sensing Records Act). Japan's Space Activities Act states that a person who launches a satellite from the territory of Japan, or from a ship or airplane registered in Japan, must obtain permission from the Prime Minister prior to the launch. To obtain the permission, the person must have a certificate for a rocket design and for radio equipment at a launching facility. In addition, the ability to launch a rocket safely and the purpose for the satellite launch must be evaluated. Managing a satellite from Japan also requires permission from the government. A person who launches a rocket must have insurance for any potential damage arising from accidents, and the government is to supplement the potential compensation to allow for damage that cannot be covered by private insurance. The purpose of this paper reviews regulations of launch services and management of satellites in the Japan's Space Activities Act. It also offers some implications and suggestions for regulations of launching of spacecraft and management or operation of satellites.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.247-276
• /
• 2017

The protection of space asset has been new major cause of space militarization. For such purpose, it has been officially announced that a policy of deterring and denying any adversaries from accessing the outer space. Space militarization is to be conversed into a new concept of space weaponization. The USA has announced its policy of space weaponization, while China and Russia have not revealed their plan or policy. Latter States, however, have proposed a draft treaty limiting the deployment of warfare in the outer space. The terms of the Outer Space Treaty, reflecting three significant United Nations General Assembly resolutions from the 1960s, support the position that ground rules must be observed in the exploration and the use of outer space, particularly in the absence of specific space law rules. Yet the combination (and culmination) of these two approaches to the legal regulation of outer space-specific rules as and when agreed by the international community and the translation of principles developed for terrestrial regulation to outer space-still leaves much room for uncertainty and exploitation for military and strategic purposes. As space weaponization may contribute to deterring the use of weapon, it may be not against the UN Charter Article 2(4). If space weaponization might generate the space debris such that the outer space is no more available for exploration and use, it is against the proportionality principle and discrimination principle enshrined in the laws of the war. But, if the limitation upon the kind and use of space weaponization is agreed among the States, then the space weaponization may not be against the laws of the war, and be considered permissible within the rationale of limited war.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.83-138
• /
• 2017

Korea-China FTA entered into force on the 20th of December 2015, and one year elapsed after its effectuation as the FTA with China, our country's largest trading partner. Therefore, this study looks at the trends of air transport trade between Korea and China, and examines the contents of concessions to the air transport services sector in Korea-China FTA, and analyzes the impact on the air transport sector by Korea-China FTA, and proposes our country's aviation policy direction in order to respond to such impact. In 2016 the trends of air transport trade between Korea and China are as follows : The export amount of air transport trade to China was 40.03 billion dollars, down by 9.3% from the last year, and occupied 32.2% of the total export amount to China. The import amount of air transport trade from China was 24.26 billion dollars, down by 9.1% from the last year, and occupied 27.7% of the total import amount from China. The contents of concessions to the air transport services sector in Korea-China FTA are as follows : China made concessions to the aircraft repair and maintenance services and the computer reservation system services with limitations on market access and national treatment in the air transport services sector of the China Schedule of Specific Commitments of Korea-China FTA Chapter 8 Annex. Korea made concessions to the computer reservation system services, selling and marketing of air transport services, and aircraft repair and maintenance without limitations on market access and national treatment in the air transport services sector of the Korea Schedule of Specific Commitments of Korea-China FTA Chapter 8 Annex. The impact on the air transport sector by Korea-China FTA are as follows : As for the impact on the air passenger market, in 2016 the arrival passengers of the international flight from China were 9.96 million, up by 20.6% from the last year, and the departure passengers to China were 9.90 million, up by 34.8% from the last year. As for the impact on the air cargo market, in 2016 the exported goods volumes of air cargo to China were 105,220.2 tons, up by 6.6% from the last year, and imported goods volumes from China were 133,750.9 tons, up by 12.3% from the last year. Among the major items of exported air cargo to China, the exported goods volumes of benefited items in the Tariff Schedule of China of Korea-China FTA were increased, and among the major items of imported air cargo from China, the imported goods volumes of benefited items in the Tariff Schedule of Korea of Korea-China FTA were increased. As for the impact on the logistics market, in 2016 the handling performance of exported air cargo to China by domestic forwarders were 119,618 tons, down by 2.1% from the last year, and the handling performance of imported air cargo from China were 79,430 tons, down by 4.4% from the last year. In 2016 the e-commerce export amount to China were 109.16 million dollars, up by 27.7% from the last year, and the e-commerce import amount from China were 89.43 million dollars, up by 72% from the last year. The author proposes the aviation policy direction of Korea according to Korea-China FTA as follows : First, the open skies between Korea and China shall be pushed ahead. In June 2006 Korea and China concluded the open skies agreement within the scope of the third freedom and fourth freedom of the air for passenger and cargo in Sandong Province and Hainan Province of China, and agreed the full open skies of flights between the two countries from the summer season in 2010. However, China protested against the interpretation of the draft of the memorandum of understanding to the air services agreement, therefore the further open skies did not take place. Through the separate aviation talks with China from Korea-China FTA, the gradual and selective open skies of air passenger market and air cargo market shall be pushed ahead. Second, the competitiveness of air transport industry and airport shall be secured. As for the strengthening methods of the competitiveness of Korea's air transport industry, the support system for the strengthening of national air carriers' competitiveness shall be prepared, and the new basis for competition of national air carriers shall be made, and the strategic network based on national interest shall be built. As for the strengthening methods of the competitiveness of Korea's airports, particularly Incheon Airport, the competitiveness of the network for aviation demand creation shall be strengthened, and the airport facilities and safety infrastructure shall be expanded, and the new added value through the airport shall be created, and the world's No.1 level of services shall be maintained. Third, the competitiveness of aviation logistics enterprises shall be strengthened. As for the strengthening methods of the competitiveness of Korea's aviation logistics enterprises, as the upbringing strategy of higher added value in response to the industry trends changes, the new logistics market shall be developed, and the logistics infrastructure shall be expanded, and the logistics professionals shall be trained. Additionally, as the expanding strategy of global logistics market, the support system for overseas investment of logistics enterprises shall be built, and according to expanding the global transport network, the international cooperation shall be strengthened, and the network infrastructure shall be secured. As for the strengthening methods of aviation logistics competitiveness of Incheon Airport, the enterprises' demand of moving in the logistics complex shall be responded, and the comparative advantage in the field of new growth cargo shall be preoccupied, and the logistics hub's capability shall be strengthened, and the competitiveness of cargo processing speed in the airport shall be advanced. Forth, in the subsequent negotiation of Korea-China FTA, the further opening of air transport services sector shall be secured. In the subsequent negotiation being initiated within two years after entry into force of Korea-China FTA, it is necessary to ask for the further opening of the concessions of computer reservation system services, and aircraft repair and maintenance services in which the concessions level of air transport services sector by China is insufficient compared to the concessions level in the existing FTA concluded by China. In conclusion, in order to respond to the impact on Korea's air passenger market, air cargo market and aviation logistics market by Korea-China FTA, the following policy tasks shall be pushed ahead : Taking into consideration of national air carriers' competitiveness and nation's benefits, the gradual and selective open skies shall be pushed ahead, and the support system to strengthen the competitiveness of air transport industry and airport shall be built, and entry into aviation logistics market by logistics enterprises shall be expanded, and the preparations to ask for the further opening of air transport services sector, low in the concessions level by China shall be made.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.267-290
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews and criticizes the EU Case of C-452/13, Germanwings GmbH v. Ronny Henning. Under this case, Ronny Henning later sued Lufthansa's budget carrier Germanwings after it refused to pay him 250 euros compensation for a delay he said totalled more than three hours. Germanwings, however, maintained his flight had arrived only two hours and 58 minutes behind schedule. In those circumstances, the following question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling: What time is relevant for the term time of arrival used in Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation [No 261/2004]: (a) the time that the aircraft lands on the runway (touchdown); (b) the time that the aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or the chocks have been applied (in-block time); (c) the time that the aircraft door is opened; (d) a time defined by the parties in the context of party autonomy? ECJ says that the situation of passengers on a flight does not change substantially when their aircraft touches down on the runway at the destination airport, when that aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or when the chocks are applied, as the passengers continue to be subject, in the enclosed space in which they are sitting, to various constraints. Therefore, it is only when the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft and the order is given to that effect to open the doors of the aircraft that the passengers may in principle resume their normal activities without being subject to those constraints. ECJ rules that it is apparent that Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'arrival time', which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, corresponds to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.109-134
• /
• 2014

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation of assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (Regulation No 261/2004) provides extra protection to air passengers in circumstances of denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay. The Regulation intends to provide a high level of protection to air passengers by imposing obligations on air carriers and, at the same time, offering extensive rights to air passengers. If denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay are caused by reasons other than extraordinary circumstances, passengers are entitled for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA(Case C-549/07, [2008] ECR I-11061), the Court did, however, emphasize that this does not mean that it is never possible for technical problems to constitute extraordinary circumstances. It cited specific examples of where: an aircraft manufacturer or competent authority revealed that there was a hidden manufacturing defect on an aircraft which impacts on safety; or damage was caused to an aircraft as a result of an act of sabotage or terrorism. Such events are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin. One further point arising out of the court's decision is worth mentioning. It is not just necessary to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances test for the airline to be excused from paying compensation. It must also show that the circumstances could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It is clear from the language of the Court's decision that this is a tough test to meet: the airline will have to establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able - unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time - to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences
• /
• v.50 no.9
• /
• pp.647-655
• /
• 2022

The Russian government is expanding strategic cooperation with foreign countries, including production partnerships, in order to secure civil aircraft manufacturing technology and advanced materials, with the aim of becoming the world's third-largest civil aircraft producer. In addition, the Russian government supports the development of the aircraft manufacturing industry and reorganizes the aircraft certification organization to pursue systematic aviation safety and make great efforts in international cooperation and certification activities for the export of aviation products. Establishing a cooperative system for safety and certification of civil aircraft between countries requires a process of mutual understanding and trust in the overall certification system. Therefore in this study, we wanted to analyze Russia's aircraft certification organization, law system, certification procedures to help Russia understand its aircraft certification system.