• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.35-59
• /
• 2018

Professor Bin Cheng said that outer space was res extra commercium, while the moon and the other celestial bodies were res nullius before the 1967 Outer Space Treaty(OST). However, Article 2 of the OST made the moon and other celestial bodies have the legal status as res extra commmercium, not appropriated by any country or private enterprises or individual person, but the resources there can be freely available, as those on the high seas. The non-appropriation principle was introduced to corpus juris spatialis internationalis. Whether or not the non-appropriation principle is binding for the non-parties of the OST, many scholars see this principle as an international customary law, even developing into jus cogens. Article 11(2) of the Moon Agreement(MA) reconfirms the nonappropriation principle of Article 2 of the OST, but it has much less effect than the OST because the MA binds only the 18 parties involved. The MA applies only to the moon and celestial bodies other than the Earth in the Solar System, the OST's application scope extends to the Galaxy because the OST has no such substantive enactment. As referred to in the 2015 CSLCA of USA or Luxembourg's Law of Space Resources, allowing individuals and enterprises run by other countries to commercially explore and utilize the space resources, the question may arise whether this violates the non-appropriation principle under Article 2 of the OST and Article 11 of the MA. In the case of the CSLCA, the law explicitly specifies that sovereignty, possessory rights, and judiciary rights to a specific celestial body cannot be claimed, let alone ownership. This author believes that this law respects the legal status of outer space and the celestial bodies as res extra commmercium. As long as any countries or private enterprises or individuals respect the non-appropriation principle of outer space and the celestial bodies, they could use, exploit it. Another question might be raised in the difference between res extra commercium on the high seas and res extra commercium in outer space and the celestial bodies. Collecting resources on the high seas and exploiting space resources should be interpreted differently. On the high seas, resources can be collected without any obstacles like fishing, whereas, in the case of the deep sea-bed area, the Common Heritage of Mankind principles under the UNCLOS should be operated by the International Seabed Authority as an international regime. The nature or form of the sea resources found on the high seas are thus different from that of space resources, which are fixed on the moon and the celestial bodies without water. Thus, if individuals or private enterprises collect these resources from outer space and the celestial bodies, they might secure a certain section and continue collecting or mining works without any limitation. If an American enterprise receives an approval from the U.S. government, secures the best location and collects resources on the moon, can other countries' enterprises access to this area? How large the exploiting place can be allotted on the moon? How long should such a exploiting activity be lasted? Under the current international space law, these matters might be handled according to the principle of "first come, first served." As a consequence, the international community should provide a guideline or a proposal for the settlement of any foreseeable disputes during the space activity to solve plausible space legal questions in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.181-202
• /
• 2020

The Non-Appropriation Principle was stipulated in the OST and the MA. However the MA, creating CHM in international law for the first time, attempted to further limit the prohibitions to include ownership of resources extracted from celestial bodies, its rejection by the U.S. and most of the international spacefaring community prevented it from serving as a binding international treaty. Individuals or private enterprises intending to perform space exploitation must receive approval from the nation and may not appropriate outer space or celestial bodies. In the course of this space activity, each party will be liable. Articles 6 and 7 of the OST and the Liability Convention of 1972 deal with matters concerning those problems. The CSLCA of 2015 and Luxembourg Space Resources Law of 2017 allows States to provide commercial exploration and use of space resources to their own nationals and to companies operated by other countries within their territory. These laws do not violate Article 2 of the OST. In the case of the CSLCA of 2015, the law clearly states that it cannot claim ownership, sovereignty or jurisdiction over certain celestial bodies. Even if scholars claim that the U.S. CSLCA and Luxembourg Space Resources Law violate the non-appropriation principle of the OST, they cannot prevent these two countries from extracting the space resources on "the first come, first served" basis. The legal status of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies is res extra commercium, like the high seas, where the fishing vessels from each country catch and sell fish without occupying the sea. Major space-faring nations must push for the adoption of an international regulatory committee which will oversee applications and issue permits based on a set of robust, modern, and forward-thinking ideals that are best equipped to govern and protect outer space as individuals, businesses, and nations compete to commercialize space through mining and the extraction of space-based resources. The new Corpus Juris Spatialis on the development of space resources, whether it is a treaty or a soft law such as recommendation and declaration, in the case of the Moon and Mars, will cover a certain amount of area to develop, and the development period by the states should be specified.

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

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

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.32
• /
• pp.215-249
• /
• 2011

This essay reflects on the modernity of Korea by examining the transformation of the traditional knowledge system from a historico-semantic perspective with its focus on the opposition and collision of the old and the new conception occurred in the early period(1890~1910) of the acceptance of the Western modern civilization. With scientific success, trick of reason, Christianity and evolutionary view of history, the Western modernity regarded itself as a peak of civilization and forced the non-Western societies into the world system in which they came to be considered as 'barbarism(野蠻)' or 'half-enlightened(半開).' The East Asian civilization, which had its own history for several centuries, became degraded as kind of delusion and old-fashioned customs from which it ought to free itself. The Western civilization presented itself as exemplary future which East Asian people should achieve, while East Asian past traditions came to be conceived as just unnecessary vestiges which it was better to wipe out. It can be said that East Asian modernization was established through the propagation and acceptance of the modern products of the Western civilization rather than through the preservation of its past experience and pursuit of the new at the same time. Accordingly, it is difficult to apply directly to East Asian societies Koselleck's hypothesis; while mapping out his Basic Concept of History, he assumed that, in the so-called 'age of saddle,' semantic struggle over concepts becomes active between the past experience and the horizon of expectation on the future, and concepts undergoes 'temporalization', 'democratization', 'ideologization', 'politicization.'The struggle over the old and new conceptions in Korea was most noticeable in the opposition of the Neo-Confucian scholars of Hwangseongsinmun and the theorists of civilization of Doknipsinmun. The opposition and struggle demanded the change of understanding in every field, but there was difference of opinion over the conception of the past traditional knowledge system. For the theorists of civilization, 'the old(舊)' was not just 'past' and 'old-fashioned' things, but rather an obstacle to the building of new civilization. On the other hand, it contained the possibility of regeneration(新) for the Neo-Confucian scholars; that is, they suggested finding a guide into tomorrow by taking lessons from the past. The traditional knowledge system lost their holy status of learning(聖學) in the process of its change into a 'new learning(新學),' and religion and religious tradition also weakened. The traditional knowledge system could change itself into modern learning by accepting scientific methodology which pursues objectivity and rationality. This transformation of the traditional knowledge system and 'the formation of the new learning from the old learning' was accompanied by the intersection between the old and new conceptions. It is necessary to pay attention to the role played by the concept of Sil(hak)(實學) or Practical Learning in the intersection of the old and new conceptions. Various modern media published before and after the 20th century show clearly the multi-layered development of the old and new conceptions, and it is noticeable that 'Sil(hak)' as conceptual frame of reference contributed to the transformation of the traditional knowledge system into the new learning. Although Silhak often designated, or was even considered equivalent to, the Western learning, Neo-Confucian scholars reinterpreted the concept of 'Silhak' which the theorists of civilization had monopolized until then, and opened the way to change the traditional knowledge system into the new learning. They re-appropriated the concept of Silhak, and enabled it to be invested with values, which were losing their own status due to the overwhelming scientific technology. With Japanese occupation of Korea by force, the attempt to transform the traditional knowledge system independently was obliged to reach its own limit, but its theory of 'making new learning from old one' can be considered to get over both the contradiction of Dondoseogi(東道西器: principle of preserving Eastern philosophy while accepting Western technology) and the de-subjectivity of the theory of civilization. While developing its own logic, the theory of Dongdoseogi was compelled to bring in the contradiction of considering the indivisible(道and 器) as divisible, though it tried to cope with the reality where the principle of morality and that of competition were opposed each other and the ideologies of 'evolution' and 'progress' prevailed. On the other hand, the theory of civilization was not free from the criticism that it brought about a crack in subjectivity due to its internalization of the West, cutting itself off from the traditional knowledge system.