The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a new model of international cooperation and new platform for global governance under contemporary international law. The Initiative will promote basic principles of international law, playing the mediating role of preventing disputes and resolving various risks in the process of establishing a new pattern of global governance. The Initiative is in line with the new trend of international cooperation and development in the 21st century, representing a new round of the process of reforming international political economy. It is a useful attempt to enhance China’s contribution to economic co-prosperity and political stability among the countries along the Belt and Road. This paper tries to understand the BRI under contemporary international law. Part two will discuss the status of the BRI. Part three will investigate the influence of the BRI. Part four will analyze the function of contemporary international law for co-building the Belt and Road.

선박재활용으로 인한 환경오염 피해는 국제해운에서 과거부터 지속적으로 제기되어져 오던 문제이다. 특히, 동남아시아 지역의 선박재활용 환경 문제는 유럽 및 선진국에 소재한 선박소유주들로부터 비롯되고 있다는 여러 보고들이 최근 유럽의 비정부기관과 사회단체들로부터 발표되고 있다. 국제사회는 이러한 환경피해를 막기 위해 여러 가지 국제 및 지역적 규제를 개발해오고 있지만, 관할권 및 제도적 한계, 그리고 선주의 의도적 법률 우회로 인해 제도적 실효성에 의문점이 많은 상태이다. 이에 본 논문에서는 선박재활용과 관련된 현 국제조약 및 제도들이 선박소유자들의 편의치적 사용으로 인한 관련 제도 집행력의 부족과 선박 매매 중계자로 인한 실제 선박소유주 식별의 어려움으로 인해 그 실효성을 확보하기 어렵다고 보고, 이를 보완하기 위한 새로운 국제제도 필요성에 대해 알아본다. 특히, 본 논문에서는 선박재활용으로 인한 환경피해를 중심으로 그 피해를 보상하기 위해 선박소유자의 책임을 국제환경법 원칙 (오염자부담원칙 및 월경(越境)피해 책임 원칙)을 통해 어떻게 부과할 수 있는 지에 대해 중점적으로 알아보고자 한다.

Law reacts to the progression of scientific technology in the end. Though conservative, changes are beginning to take place due to Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI is automating conventional legal works, creating a new industry namely Legal-Tech. This paper investigates the characteristics and flow of legal-AI and computational law while focusing on the applicability of AI to international law. Mainly, the paper reviews three critical areas: dispute resolution, trial prediction, and machine translation, respectively. International law has different characteristics than the domestic law applied in each country. Unlike domestic law, international law has not been aggregated from a pandect, and it is a still daunting task to draw any meaningful insights for further analysis due mainly to limited data (i.e., trial cases and precedents). Nevertheless, AI is already penetrating the legal ecology system, and international law would eventually accept the influx of such changes exhibiting greater force.

The 19th century’s international law distinguished civilized from non-civilized States resulting in any country desiring equal treatment was required to obtain recognition from those already deemed civilized. Japan was able to join the civilized world by presenting a civilized image of itself in the First Sino-Japanese War, which was depicted by Western legal scholars as a clash between barbarism and civilization. Neither Japanese nor Western scholars of international law, however, have touched on the issue of the Triple Intervention. This incident serves as a case study for re-evaluating the operation of Western countries’ international legal standards. The argument is, that these countries cloak their motives in legal language for self-aggrandizement, thereby demonstrating the ahistorical nature of the West’s rhetoric of civilization. Further, this incident taught Japan the lesson that international law is concerned not with morality but with power.

섬의 법적 지위와 관련하여 국제법은 섬과 암석을 구분하여 그 해양 지형이 창출할 수 있는 해양관할수역을 달리 규정하고 있다. 4면이 바다로 둘러싸여 있는 해양 지형이 국제법상 섬으로서 법적 지위를 인정받게 된다면 동 섬은 자체의 영해, 접속수역, 배타적 경제수역, 대륙붕과 같은 관할수역을 가질 수 있다. 이에 비해 암석은 배타적 경제수역과 대륙붕과 같은 확대된 해양관할수역을 창설할 수 없고 다만 영해 및 접속수역만을 가진다. 따라서 국제법상 해양관할수역을 가질 수 있는 섬이 되기 위한 법적 요건들에 관해서 구체적으로 고찰해 볼 필요가 있다. 이에 관하여 UN해양법협약은 제121조에 섬에 관한 통상적인 규정으로 다음과 같이 규정하고 있다. 즉, 인간의 거주 혹은 독자적인 경제활동을 영위할 수 없는 암석을 제외한 모든 섬은 영해, 접속수역, 배타적 경제수역 및 대륙붕을 가질 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 해양관할수역을 가질 수 있는 국제법상 섬의 지위에 대하여는 추상적이고 불명확하게 규정하고 있기 때문에 해석상 논란의 여지를 남겨두고 있다. 이에 따라 국가들은 자국의 해양관할권을 확대하기 위해 “섬”과 “암석”을 구분함이 없이 동일하게 광대한 배타적 경제수역과 대륙붕을 주장하고 있으므로 더욱더 섬의 국제법상 지위를 규명해야 할 필요가 있다. 이러한 필요에 따라 ‘법적인 섬’에 대한 논의는 해양에 고립되어 있는 섬이 어떤 지형과 형태를 갖추고 있어야 그 섬 주위에 영해 및 영해 이원의 해양관할수역이 인정될 수 있는 것인가의 문제이다. 이 논문에서는 ‘법적인 섬’의 정의가 이루어진 과정을 보면서 섬을 구성하는 요소에는 어떠한 것들이 있는지 그리고 국제공동체가 역사적 관행으로 인정하고 있는 섬은 어떠한 형태를 갖추고 있는지를 살펴본다. 그리고 UN해양법협약 제121조 3항, 국제관행, 학자들의 주장 및 국제중재재판소의 남중국해 사건 판결 등을 중심으로 섬의 해양관할수역에 관한 논의를 국제법적 시각에서 고찰한 후, 이를 바탕으로 독도가 국제법상 섬으로서 영해, 접속수역, 배타적 경제수역 및 대륙붕과 같은 해양관할수역을 창출할 수 있는지에 대한 검토를 하고자 한다.

Space law is normally referred to international space law. As national space activities develop, however, national space laws have been legislated in many countries for the development of space resources. These are used to present conflicting cases between national and international space law (corpus juris spatialis internationalis) on the interpretation of space resource exploitation. This study is devoted to bridging the gap between these two legal systems. In this paper, the author will critically review the fundamental principles of space resource exploitation under international law and suggest a direction for setting up national space laws for future space resources. This paper is composed of seven parts, including a short Introduction and Conclusion. Part two will discuss acts pertaining to asteroid resources. Part three will deal with res extra commercium. Part four will analyze the non-appropriation principle. Part five will look into the common heritage of mankind. Part six will investigate res nullius humanitatus.

Professor Petersmann has developed a constitutionalization theory for IEL based on Western constitutionalism theory in conjunction with human rights law. However, there is a paradox in his theory considering that he stresses ‘legal pluralism’ on the one hand, while calling for a cosmopolitan conception of IEL on the other hand. The hypothesis of this paper is that there are no ‘universalizable’ principles and common constitutional principles that can guarantee the compatibility between the two. Petersmann’s three often-used keywords, ‘human rights,’ “principles of justice,” and “judicial protection of individual rights,” are clarified in the context of Chinese thought and China’s progressive integration into the world economy. This paper finds that Petersmann’s theory focuses on bottom-up individual struggles, whereas Chinese thought is characterized by top-down overall consideration. The value divergence between the goodness of human nature in Chinese thought and the evil of human nature in Western thought makes ‘legal pluralism’ an insurmountable obstacle to a cosmopolitan conception of IEL.

This article’s aim is to review the jurisprudence which has emerged pursuant to the international dispute settlement provisions and to provide a provisional expectation as to the future of international dispute settlement under“UNCLOS”. Globally, marine fisheries play an important role in ocean biodiversity and the food security of millions of people, providing a vital source of high-quality dietary protein and supporting individuals’livelihoods and income. In the 1982 Convention, the establishment of co-operative mechanisms for effective monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement, decision-making procedures facilitating the adoption of such measures of conservation and management, and the promotion of the peaceful settlement of disputes are called for. In this study,‘Northeast Asian Sea’means that the Yellow/ East China Sea, the East Sea, the Ohotsk Sea, the Kamchaka Sea, the Alaska Sea, and the Bering Sea surrounded by Korea, China, Japan, Russia, U.S.A. and Canada including their EEZs. There are several bilateral fisheries agreements existing in Northeast Asian area, the Fisheries Agreement between Republic Korea and Japan, between Republic of Korea and China, between China and Japan, between Republic Korea and U.S.A., between Republic Korea and Russia, between Russia and Japan, And there are several regional fisheries organizations existing in Northeast Asian area, for example NPAFC(Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean), CBSPC (Convention on the Central Bering Sea Pollack Conservation), PICES(North Pacific Marine Science Organization), NPFC(North Pacific Fishery Commi-ssion) etc. It analyzed the proliferation of bilateral treaties and multilateral treaties due to the adoption of the EEZ in Northeast Asia reviewed the strengthening of management rights on the high seas marine living resources and marine environment preservation of regional fisheries organizations. In view of the changes in the international fisheries mechanism this paper suggested the future direction of the country in overseas fisheries. We concluded as follows. We shall apply bilateral treaties first, regional fisheries organizations’treaties secondly, and provisions under“UNCLOS”for dispute settlement last.

The rapid developments of research and teaching of international law in China have attracted the attention of international law academics of the world, who have looked over the landscape of international law in China with great interest. Unfortunately, existing literature has yet to completely satisfy their interests in this aspect. This article is intended to compensate for this gap by introducing representative international lawyers, publications, academic associations and research funding schemes on international law in China. More concretely, this paper will show the mainstream research sources of their Chinese counterparts as well as embrace teaching as part of the research system of international law in China. It is expected that, with their more attention into the holistic research methodology and the “One Belt, One Road” strategy, the Chinese academia of international law will contribute more to the international rule of law.

국내의 강력사건은 헬기·경비함정을 이용, 즉각적인 대응 및 처리를 할 수 있으나, 공해상 원양어선에서의 강력사건 대응은 지리적 원거리로 인한 자연적 한계가 있고, 국내법 및 국제법적 판단이 필요하다. 즉, 선박의 국적, 발생해역의 법적 지위, 가해자 또는 피해자의 국적 등을 감안하여 대한민국이 형사관할권을 행사할 수 있는지를 판단해야하며, 이러한 자연적인 문제와 함께 외국에서 해 양경찰이 실효적으로 경찰력을 발동할 수 있는가의 문제가 있다. 본 논문에서는 최근에 발생한 803광현호를 중심으로 관할권, 피의자 신병처리, 선상살인 사건의 근본 원인을 분석하여 향후 유사사례 발생 시 신속한 수사를 위한 제도적 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다.

During the Japanese Occupation of China (1931-45), countless Chinese cultural relics were simply destroyed or looted in accordance with Japan’s notorious ‘Three Alls Campaign,’ also known as ‘Burn all, loot all, and kill all’. Due to the 1972 Japan-Chian Joint Communiqué, however, the Chinese Government renounced its demand for war reparation from Japan. The question then becomes whether, when the Chinese Government renounced its claims for war reparations in a peace treaty. Chinese individuals still have a means to vindicate their rights to request restitution of Chinese cultural relics from Japan. The primary purpose of this research is to tackle two questions: First, was the taking of Chinese cultural relics during the Japanese Occupation prohibited by law? Second, can the Chinese individuals legally require the restitution of looted cultural relics? This paper handles a case of a 1300-year’s old Tang dynasty stele in Japan which has been asked to hand over to China since 2014.

New national security (NNS) represents a twenty-first century’s sociological paradigm on which the law is based on and is characterized by multiple actors, wide covering, low predictability, subjective perception, dual nature, and rampant diffusion. The emergence and expansion of the NNS prompts a highly advanced perspective to the rule of law at both the national and international levels, specifically, the relationship between international and domestic law. In this context, traditional approaches, ‘international approach’ or ‘national approach,’ are insufficient, so that a new ‘managerial approach’ is thus needed. The legal practice in relation to national security of China, a rising great power, attracts close attention in the international society. Furthermore, since Chinese conception of national security has its own ‘Chinese characteristics,’ how China will enforce its national security law in the context of international law remains to be seen. The NNS will lead profound sociological transformation upon which all legal orders are based.

This essay is a reflection on the significance of U.S. accountability to the struggles of Jeju Islanders for reparations. Under international law, a strong case can be made for the United States’ obligation to acknowledge its role in the Jeju atrocities and to provide compensation to the victims.1 Addressing the United States’ responsibility for complicity in these actions will prove controversial, no doubt, for it has significant implications not for U.S. actions in other parts of the world but for all states engaged in military occupations or acting through surrogate governments. These legal and political ramifications diminish the likelihood of voluntary remedial action by the United States, and the international legal system is ill-suited to compel compliance. Nonetheless, even if Jeju Islanders are ultimately unable to obtain full satisfaction from the United States government for its role in the atrocities to which they have been subjected, I believe that recognition of the international legal obligations incurred by the U.S. in that process can reinforce the legitimacy of their claims, thereby aiding in the restoration of their dignity and supporting their on-going struggles for self-determination.