• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.259-294
• /
• 2013

After its experiment involving the exploding of a satellite in space in 2007, China proudly aired news on TV and ran articles in newspapers. However, the event was internationally criticized and drew widespread attention. Many countries denounced the explosion by pointing out that it could be part of the nation's plan to expand its military power to space or that it could pose a danger to the peaceful use of space. However, there is no talk of whether the experiment that produced a huge amount of space debris could have violated an international law, namely the Outer Space Treaty. Although space garbage has been said to be a serious problem, the amount is still on the increase. If we continue to launch new space launch vehicles into orbit at this rate, we will not be able to use it anytime soon like we do today. As the commercial use of space is likely to increase, the situation will certainly get worse. The international community is fully aware of the seriousness of the problem and working together to reduce the amount of space garbage. However, despite the fact that the United States and Soviet Union's ASAT(Anti-Satellite) programs have been implemented for a long time, there have been no complaints about them in terms of military expansion or breach of the Outer Space Treaty. Also, the recent Chinese test is largely viewed to be in accordance with international law. A lot of research has been undertaken with regard to the problem of space garbage. Now people's awareness of dangers being posed has been fully raised. Under the circumstances, the dismissing of China's satellite smashing, leaving a big mess in its wake, as nothing more than an experiment, is a red flag to, if not many, at least some people. By means of this thesis, I would like to review whether the Chinese test has violated an international space law. This thesis presents an overview of the issues surrounding the event and examines the possibility of violating the Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principle Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. After the China test, the UN Scientific and Technical Subcommittee first adopted space debris mitigation guidelines, I'll introduce the content of the guidelines and discuss the characteristics of the guidelines and what can be done to address the issue.

• 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.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.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.

• Satellite Communications and Space Industry
• /
• v.2 no.3
• /
• pp.83-92
• /
• 1994

Outer Space is existing as the opening-up frontier. The space activities included benefit-and-risk are now confronted with the challenge of arriving at just and effective rules for the use of space serving many technical, practical and conflicting legal, economic, political and military interests. Therefore many governments have developed domestic and international policies to respond to the opportunities and constraints engendered by space exploration and exploitation. the challenges of outer space toward the 21st century are being internationalized, commercialized, and privatized, militarized through the international cooperation and competition in space activities. For the future of mankind, futhermore the right to live of humankind, we must be positively interested in international space law which may give rise to international repercussions. I suggeste that many issues be resolved by international coordinating organization.

• Proceedings of the Korean Vacuum Society Conference
• /
• 2015.08a
• /
• pp.135-135
• /
• 2015

Tubes are of extreme importance in industries as for fluid channels or wave guides. Furthermore, some weapon systems such as cannons use the tubes as gun barrels. To increase the service life of such tubes, a protective coating must be applied to the tubes' inner surface. However, the coating methods applicable to the inner surface of the tubes are very limited due to the geometrical restriction. A small-diameter cylindrical magnetron sputtering gun can be used to deposit coating layers on the inner surface of the large-bore tubes. However, for small-bore tubes with the inner diameter of one inch (~25 mm), the magnetron sputtering method can hardly be accommodated due to the space limitation for permanent magnet assembly. In this study, a new approach to coat the inner surface of small-bore tubes with the inside diameter of one inch was developed. Instead of using permanent magnets for magnetron operation, an external electro-magnet assembly was adopted around the tube to confine the plasma and to sustain the discharge. The electro-magnet was operated in pulse mode to provide the strong axial magnetic field for the magnetron operation, which was synchronized with the negative high-voltage pulse applied to the water-cooled coaxial sputtering target installed inside the tube. By moving the electro-magnet assembly along the tube's axial direction, the inner surface of the tube could be uniformly coated. The inner-surface coating system in this study used the tube itself as the vacuum chamber. The SS-304 tube's inner diameter was 22 mm and the length was ~1 m. A water-cooled Cu tube (sputtering target) of the outer diameter of 12 mm was installed inside of the SS tube (substrate) at the axial position. The 50 mm-long electro-magnet assembly was fed by a current pulse of 250 A at the frequency and pulse width of 100 Hz and 100 usec, respectively. The calculated axial magnetic field strength at the center was ~0.6 Tesla. The central Cu tube was synchronously driven by a HiPIMS power supply at the same frequency of 100 Hz as the electro-magnet and the applied pulse voltage was -1200 V with a pulse width of 500 usec. At 150 mTorr of Ar pressure, the Cu deposition rate of ~10 nm/min could be obtained. In this talk, a new method to sputter coat the inner surface of small-bore tubes would be presented and discussed, which might have broad industrial and military application areas.