Pub Date : 2023-10-25DOI: 10.1163/22134484-12340178
Seokwoo Lee
Abstract This is a judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on compensation for damages related to the Vietnam War. The case was brought by a group of Vietnamese plaintiffs who claimed that they had suffered harm as a result of the actions of the South Korean military during the war. The plaintiffs argued that the South Korean military had committed various war crimes, including the massacre of civilians and the use of chemical weapons. The court’s judgment was a significant victory for the plaintiffs, as it ordered the Korean government to pay compensation. The judgment sets an important precedent for future cases involving claims of harm caused by military actions. The case highlights the need for greater accountability and transparency in military actions, and raises important questions about the relationship between international law and national sovereignty. The judgment is a significant development in the ongoing debate about the role of law in regulating military actions and protecting the rights of civilians in times of war.
{"title":"Korean Judicial Decision","authors":"Seokwoo Lee","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340178","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This is a judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on compensation for damages related to the Vietnam War. The case was brought by a group of Vietnamese plaintiffs who claimed that they had suffered harm as a result of the actions of the South Korean military during the war. The plaintiffs argued that the South Korean military had committed various war crimes, including the massacre of civilians and the use of chemical weapons. The court’s judgment was a significant victory for the plaintiffs, as it ordered the Korean government to pay compensation. The judgment sets an important precedent for future cases involving claims of harm caused by military actions. The case highlights the need for greater accountability and transparency in military actions, and raises important questions about the relationship between international law and national sovereignty. The judgment is a significant development in the ongoing debate about the role of law in regulating military actions and protecting the rights of civilians in times of war.","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"11 3-4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135167164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-25DOI: 10.1163/22134484-12340182
Buhm-Suk Baek, Hosung Ahn
Abstract This paper reviews five selected major decisions by domestic courts of Korea from the second half of 2022 to the first half of 2023 by taking a closer look at the changing legal practices and attitudes of the Korean judiciary in applying international law in domestic cases.
{"title":"Korean Judicial Decisions","authors":"Buhm-Suk Baek, Hosung Ahn","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340182","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper reviews five selected major decisions by domestic courts of Korea from the second half of 2022 to the first half of 2023 by taking a closer look at the changing legal practices and attitudes of the Korean judiciary in applying international law in domestic cases.","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"73 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135167559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-25DOI: 10.1163/22134484-12340181
Seokwoo Lee
Abstract In 2021, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea made recommendations to the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries for the promotion of human rights of migrant seafarers. In response, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries stated that in order to improve working conditions and strengthen labor supervision, regular inspections of the working conditions of offshore fisheries (biannual) and deep-sea fisheries (quarterly) have been carried out. In 2022, the Seafarer Act was amended by introducing a new provision mandating the education on the protection of labor rights and human rights of seafarers. In 2023, the Commission reviewed and determined that the response of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries partially accepted the recommendations. However, concerns were raised over the lack of response regarding the recommendation to establish legal standards of working conditions per Article 32 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. The Commission is of the opinion that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries must take on a more active role to legally guarantee migrant seafarers’ working conditions, to prevent human rights violations and discrimination against such workers, and to prevent excessive recruitment fees and unjust fees incurred by recruitment agencies to be borne by the migrant seafarers.
{"title":"Korean Judicial Decision","authors":"Seokwoo Lee","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340181","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2021, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea made recommendations to the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries for the promotion of human rights of migrant seafarers. In response, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries stated that in order to improve working conditions and strengthen labor supervision, regular inspections of the working conditions of offshore fisheries (biannual) and deep-sea fisheries (quarterly) have been carried out. In 2022, the Seafarer Act was amended by introducing a new provision mandating the education on the protection of labor rights and human rights of seafarers. In 2023, the Commission reviewed and determined that the response of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries partially accepted the recommendations. However, concerns were raised over the lack of response regarding the recommendation to establish legal standards of working conditions per Article 32 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. The Commission is of the opinion that the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries must take on a more active role to legally guarantee migrant seafarers’ working conditions, to prevent human rights violations and discrimination against such workers, and to prevent excessive recruitment fees and unjust fees incurred by recruitment agencies to be borne by the migrant seafarers.","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"122 3-4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135167304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-25DOI: 10.1163/22134484-12340180
Seokwoo Lee
Abstract This case involves a dispute over the use of land for the Mongolian embassy in Seoul. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had encroached upon the boundaries of the plaintiff’s adjacent land by using a portion of it as the defendant’s embassy property and attached property. The plaintiff sought partial demolition of the defendant’s building and delivery of the disputed land, as well as restitution for unjust enrichment. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s primary claim for partial demolition and delivery of the disputed land, but dismissed the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, citing a lack of jurisdiction over the issue. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the claim for restitution, arguing that the trial court had misinterpreted the legal principles regarding state immunity and jurisdiction. The Supreme Court partially accepted the plaintiff’s appeal, affirming the trial court’s judgment on the primary claim but reversing and remanding the claim for restitution for unjust enrichment to be re-tried and decided upon. The judgment was rendered in unanimous agreement by the participating justices.
{"title":"Korean Judicial Decision","authors":"Seokwoo Lee","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340180","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This case involves a dispute over the use of land for the Mongolian embassy in Seoul. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had encroached upon the boundaries of the plaintiff’s adjacent land by using a portion of it as the defendant’s embassy property and attached property. The plaintiff sought partial demolition of the defendant’s building and delivery of the disputed land, as well as restitution for unjust enrichment. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s primary claim for partial demolition and delivery of the disputed land, but dismissed the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, citing a lack of jurisdiction over the issue. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the claim for restitution, arguing that the trial court had misinterpreted the legal principles regarding state immunity and jurisdiction. The Supreme Court partially accepted the plaintiff’s appeal, affirming the trial court’s judgment on the primary claim but reversing and remanding the claim for restitution for unjust enrichment to be re-tried and decided upon. The judgment was rendered in unanimous agreement by the participating justices.","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"102 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135168989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-25DOI: 10.1163/22134484-12340177
Won-Mog Choi
Abstract On December 28, 2022, the Korean version of the Indo-Pacific Strategy (“ In-Tae Strategy ”), which will be the foundation for Korean foreign diplomacy for decades to come, was announced. The Strategy focuses on promoting its vision of freedom, peace, and prosperity through the establishment of the following three principles: inclusivity, trust, and reciprocity. The key to the successful implementation of Korea’s Indo-Pacific Strategy is to strengthen comprehensive cooperation with neighboring countries that have shared values and establish an “inclusive approach” that does not exclude China based on the approach of mutually beneficial pragmatism. Recovery of “trust” is also essential for the improvement of relations with Japan. Management of risks arising from any United States-China conflicts is an unavoidable task for Korea. In this light, policy makers and the people of Korea need to understand that the participation in the United States-led Indo-Pacific Economic Cooperation Framework ( IPEF ) is not merely to take sides with the United States in the system of competition between the United States and China. While attempting to remove the legacy of ideological diplomacy under President Moon Jae-in’s administration, the current administration of Korea should not pursue another ideological diplomacy under the name of “value alliance.” The process of materializing abstract principles of Korea’s Indo-Pacific Strategy into concrete policies must be thoroughly rooted in good neighbor and practical diplomacy in the true sense.
{"title":"Indo-Pacific Strategy: Korea and the World","authors":"Won-Mog Choi","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340177","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On December 28, 2022, the Korean version of the Indo-Pacific Strategy (“ In-Tae Strategy ”), which will be the foundation for Korean foreign diplomacy for decades to come, was announced. The Strategy focuses on promoting its vision of freedom, peace, and prosperity through the establishment of the following three principles: inclusivity, trust, and reciprocity. The key to the successful implementation of Korea’s Indo-Pacific Strategy is to strengthen comprehensive cooperation with neighboring countries that have shared values and establish an “inclusive approach” that does not exclude China based on the approach of mutually beneficial pragmatism. Recovery of “trust” is also essential for the improvement of relations with Japan. Management of risks arising from any United States-China conflicts is an unavoidable task for Korea. In this light, policy makers and the people of Korea need to understand that the participation in the United States-led Indo-Pacific Economic Cooperation Framework ( IPEF ) is not merely to take sides with the United States in the system of competition between the United States and China. While attempting to remove the legacy of ideological diplomacy under President Moon Jae-in’s administration, the current administration of Korea should not pursue another ideological diplomacy under the name of “value alliance.” The process of materializing abstract principles of Korea’s Indo-Pacific Strategy into concrete policies must be thoroughly rooted in good neighbor and practical diplomacy in the true sense.","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"11 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135167163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-25DOI: 10.1163/22134484-12340179
Seokwoo Lee
Abstract This Korean judicial decision concerns a case in which a child was adopted overseas following from the falsification of registration status and family records. The plaintiff, who was the child in question, sued the Social Welfare Organization B and the Republic of Korea for damages suffered in the international adoption process. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the Social Welfare Organization B to pay with interest. This case underscores the need for careful evaluation and oversight in international adoption processes to ensure that the best interests of the child are protected.
{"title":"Korean Judicial Decision","authors":"Seokwoo Lee","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340179","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Korean judicial decision concerns a case in which a child was adopted overseas following from the falsification of registration status and family records. The plaintiff, who was the child in question, sued the Social Welfare Organization B and the Republic of Korea for damages suffered in the international adoption process. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the Social Welfare Organization B to pay with interest. This case underscores the need for careful evaluation and oversight in international adoption processes to ensure that the best interests of the child are protected.","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"24 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135168985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-19DOI: 10.1163/22134484-12340175
Seokwoo Lee
Abstract Each Defendant (Japanese corporations) in this case re claim of victims of forced labor shall pay KRW 100,000,000 to each Plaintiff (victims of forced labor of Korea).
{"title":"Korean Judicial Decision","authors":"Seokwoo Lee","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340175","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Each Defendant (Japanese corporations) in this case re claim of victims of forced labor shall pay KRW 100,000,000 to each Plaintiff (victims of forced labor of Korea).","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135674889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-19DOI: 10.1163/22134484-12340176
Buhm-Suk Baek, Hosung Ahn
Abstract This paper reviews three selected major decisions by domestic courts of Korea in 2022 by taking a closer look at the changing legal practices and attitudes of the Korean judiciary in applying international law in domestic cases.
{"title":"Korean Judicial Decisions","authors":"Buhm-Suk Baek, Hosung Ahn","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340176","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper reviews three selected major decisions by domestic courts of Korea in 2022 by taking a closer look at the changing legal practices and attitudes of the Korean judiciary in applying international law in domestic cases.","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135674890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-19DOI: 10.1163/22134484-01101000
{"title":"Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/22134484-01101000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-01101000","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135674891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-19DOI: 10.1163/22134484-12340172
Yoshifumi Tanaka
The interpretation of “disputes concerning military activities” under Article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rests on a sensitive balance between the protection of strategic interests of States and the need for peaceful settlement of international disputes. There, an essential issue arises how an adjudicative body acting under Part XV UNCLOS should assess the nature of conducts of State for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b). This issue was vividly raised in the dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation with regard to the detention of Ukrainian naval vessels and servicemen. In this regard, both the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the arbitral tribunal set out in accordance with Annex VII UNCLOS wrestled with this issue. This article examines the manner of the interpretation of the concept of the military activities for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b) by comparing the approaches taken by ITLOS and the Annex VII arbitral tribunal.
{"title":"Military Activities or Law Enforcement Activities?: Reflections on the Dispute Concerning the Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels and Servicemen","authors":"Yoshifumi Tanaka","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340172","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The interpretation of “disputes concerning military activities” under Article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rests on a sensitive balance between the protection of strategic interests of States and the need for peaceful settlement of international disputes. There, an essential issue arises how an adjudicative body acting under Part XV UNCLOS should assess the nature of conducts of State for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b). This issue was vividly raised in the dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation with regard to the detention of Ukrainian naval vessels and servicemen. In this regard, both the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the arbitral tribunal set out in accordance with Annex VII UNCLOS wrestled with this issue. This article examines the manner of the interpretation of the concept of the military activities for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b) by comparing the approaches taken by ITLOS and the Annex VII arbitral tribunal.","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126042812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：