국제우주법상 분쟁해결에 관한 연구

김한택 ( Han Taek Kim ) 안암법학회 2013 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.41

As far as the settlement of the space law dispute is concerned, there are provisions dealing with those problems in INMARSAT, INTELSAT, ITU, INTERSPUTNIK, ARABSAT, ESA, the United Nations resolutions of DBS, RS and NPS principles and space treaty provisions. However in this article I dealt with the traditional methods of settlement of the international law disputes such as negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement which are included in article 33 of the United Nations Charter and the settlement of the space law dispute contained in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1972 Liability Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement. Cosmos 954 incident was the first case occurred in Canada by the Soviet Union in relation to the settlement of the space law dispute. Cosmos 954 was a reconnaissance satellite launched by the Soviet Union in 1977. A malfunction prevented safe separation of its onboard nuclear reactor; when the satellite reentered the Earth`s atmosphere in the following year it scattered radioactive debris over northern Canada, prompting an extensive cleanup operation. Under the terms of the 1972 Liability Convention, a state which launches an object into space is liable for damages caused by that object. However Cosmos 954 case was settled not by the 1972 Liability Convention, but by 1981 Protoco1 on Settlement of Canada`s Claim for Damages Caused by Cosmos 954, although the two countries were the parties to the 1972 Liability Convention. International Law Association(ILA) proposed the Draft Convention on the Settlement of Space Law Dispute in Taipei Conference in 1998. International Tribunal for Space Law, ICJ and Arbitration were the proposed possible solutions to deal with the settlement of the space law dispute in the Draft Convention. However in my opinion the establishment of the Annexes of the Settlement of Space Law Dispute to 1967 Outer Space Treaty or 1972 Liability Convention would be better than the enactment of the Space Law Dispute Convention. The fact that Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA) adopted “Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities” in 2011 and nominated 16 judges over the world in 2012 is a recommendable way to the Space Law Dispute among states.

항공법,정책 : 공해의 상공비행에 관한 국제법

김한택 ( Han Taek Kim ) 한국항공우주법학회 2011 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.26 No.1

1982년 UN해양법협약 제86조에 의하면 공해는 영해와 내수는 물론이고 접속수역, 배타적 경제수역이 아닌 수역을 의미하므로 기존의 공해였던 부분이 상당히 연안국관할권 하에 놓이게 되었다. 이와 같은 공해의 상공비행과 관련된 국제법에 관한 사항으로 다음과 같은 결론을 얻을 수 있다. 첫째, 항공기의 국적에 관하여 1944년 시카고협약 제17조에 의하면 항공기는 등록한 국가의 국적을 갖는다. 여기서 항공법이 해양법과 구별되는 측면이 있는데, 선박에는 통용되는 ``편의치적``(便宜置籍 또는 편의기국, flags of convenience)이 항공기에는 적용되지 않기 때문에 항공기에 대한 실질적 소유와 효과적 통제가 유지된다. 둘째, UN해양법협약 제95조는 공해상 군함의 면제권에 대하여 설명하고 있는데, 공해에 있는 군함은 기국외의 어떠한 국가의 관할권으로부터도 완전히 면제된다고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 군용항공기(또는 군용기)의 경우도 이에 준하는 면책권을 향유한다고 해석할 수 있다. 셋째, UN해양법협약은 해적에 관한 정의를 제101조에 명시하고 있는데, 해적행위가 공해상의 선박에 대하여 행해 질 경우, 공해상의 선박뿐만 아니라 항공기에 의해서도 행해질 수 있음을 분명히 하고 있다. 넷째, UN해양법협약 제111조는 추적권에 관하여 상세하게 규정하고 있는데 이러한 추적권은 군함이나 군용항공기 또는 기타 정부역무에 종사함이 명백히 표시되고 식별되며 이에 대한 권한이 부여된 선박이나 항공기에 의해서만 행사되어질 수 있음을 명시하여 선박 뿐 아니라 항공기에 의해서 추적이 행사될 수 있음을 규정하고 있다. 다섯째, UN해양법협약 제110조는 임검권(right of approach)에 관하여 설명하고 있는데, 외국선박을 공해에서 만난 군함은 일정 혐의를 가지고 있다는 합리적 근거가 있는 한 그 선박을 임검하는 것은 정당화되는데, 이러한 규정은 군용항공기에도 준용되고, 이러한 규정은 또한 정부 업무에 사용 중인 것으로 명백히 표시되어 식별이 가능하며 정당하게 권한이 부여된 그 밖의 모든 선박이나 항공기에도 적용된다. 여섯째, 1982년 UN해양법협약은 해양오염과 항공기의 관계를 규정하고 있는데, 제212조는 대기에 의한 또는 대기를 통한 오염을 규정하고, 제222조는 대기에 의한 또는 대기를 통한 오염관련 법령집행을 규정하고 있고, UN해양법협약은 제1항에서 ``투기``(dumping)에 의한 오염을 규정하고 있는데 각 조항은 자국기를 게양하고 있는 선박 또는 자국에 등록된 선박뿐만 아니라 항공기에도 적용되는 법령을 채택한다고 규정하고 있다. 일곱 번째, 공해상공에서 발생한 범죄에 관하여 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)의 주관 하에 1963년 도쿄에서 개최된 회의에서 이러한 문제를 종합적으로 해결한 협약인 도쿄협약이 제정되었다. 또한 ICAO의 주관 하에 하이재킹문제를 해결하기 위하여 1970년 12월 16일 헤이그협약이 체결되었으며, 사보타지문제를 해결하기 위하여 ICAO에 의해서 1971년 9월 23일 몬트리올협약이 체결되었다. 도쿄협약, 헤이그협약, 몬트리올협약 모두 공해상에서 발생한 범죄에 대하여 항공기의 기국관할권(flag State jurisdiction)을 인정하고 있다. 여덟 번째, 공해상에서 연안국의 영토에 진입하지 않고 실시하는 정찰행위는 국제법 위반행위가 아니다. 이는 관련항공기의 공해상 정찰행위는 연안국 영토를 침범하지 않고 행해지는 것으로 공해상공비행의 자유가 우선적으로 적용되기 때문이다. 아홉 번째, 연안국에 의한 공해상 설치된 ``방공식별구역``(또는 방공확인구역, Air Defence Identification Zone: ADIZ)이 국제법상 합법적인가 하는 문제가 있는데, 이에 관하여 합의된 결론은 없고, 실제로 실행국가의 국내법에 따라 규율되고 있다. 마지막으로 북극해는 얼어있는 바다가 대부분이므로 북극해의 상공비행은 공해의 상공비행과 유사하다. 20세기후반부터 아시아, 북아메리카, 유럽을 잇는 항공로가 북극을 경유하도록 고안되었는데, 매우 추운 지방임에도 불구하고 지금까지 북극 항공노선에서 사고가 발생한 경우는 없다. 그러나 최근 기후온난화로 얼음이 녹기시작하면서 북극을 이용한 선박의 해로가 개발되면서 북극에 대한 자원개방을 둘러싼 연안국가들의 관할권주장이 열기를 띠고 있으므로 배타적 경제수역(EEZ)과 같은 연안국들의 해역선포는 북극해 비행에 지대한 영향을 미칠 수 있을 것이다. According to the Article 86 of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) the provisions of high seas apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. Article 87 also stipulates the freedom of the high seas. International laws on the flight over the high seas are found as follows; Firstly, as far as the nationality of the aircraft is concerned, its legal status is quite different from the ship where the flags of convenience can be applied practically. There is no flags of convenience of the aircraft. Secondly, according to the Article 95 of UNCLOS warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. We can suppose that the military(or state) aircraft over the high seas have also complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thirdly, according to the Article 101 of UNCLOS piracy consists of any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft. We can conclude that piracy can de done by a pirate aircraft as well as a pirate ship. Fourthly, according to the Article 111 (5) of UNCLOS the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. We can conclude that the right of hot pursuit may be exercised only military aircraft, or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect. Fifthly, according to the Article 110 of UNCLOS a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy, (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade, (c) the ship is engaged in an authorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109, (d) the ship is without nationality, or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft. Sixthly, according to the Article 1 (5)(dumping), 212(pollution from or through the atmosphere), 222(enforcement with respect to pollution from or through the atmosphere) of UNCLOS aircraft as well as ship is very much related to marine pollution. Seventhly, as far as the crime on board aircraft over the high seas is concerned 1963 Convention on the Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(Tokyo Convention) will be applied, and as for the hijacking over the high seas 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(Hague Convention) and as for the sabotage over the high seas 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Montreal Convention) will be applied respectively. These three conventions recognize the flag state jurisdiction over the crimes on board aircraft over the high seas. Eightly, as far as reconnaissance by foreign aircraft in the high seas toward the coastal States is concerned it is not illegal in terms of international law because its act is done in the high seas. Ninthly as for Air Defence Identification Zone(ADIZ) there are no articles dealing with it in the 1944 Chicago Convention. The legal status of the foreign aircraft over this sea zone might be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states whether this zone is legitimate or illegal. Lastly, the Arctic Sea is the frozen ocean. So the flight over that ocean is the same over the high seas. Because of the climate change the Arctic Sea is getting melted. If the coastal states of the Arctic Sea will proclaim the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) as the ocean is getting melted, the freedom of flight over that ocean will also be restricted to the regulations of the coastal states.

우주법과 해양법의 비교 연구

김한택 ( Han Taek Kim ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 2009 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.24 No.2

Space law(or outer space law) and the law of the sea are branches of international law dealing with activities in geographical ares which do not or do only in part come under national sovereignty. Legal rules pertaining to the outer space and sea began to develop once activities emerged in those areas: amongst others, activities dealing with transportation, research, exploration, defense and exploitation. Naturally the law of the sea developed first, followed, early in the twentieth century, by air law, and later in the century by space law. Obviously the law of the sea, of the air and of outer space influence each other. Ideas have been borrowed from one field and applied to another. This article examines some analogies and differences between the outer space law and the law of the sea, especially from the perspective of the legal status, the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources and environment. As far as the comparisons of the legal status between the outer space and high seas are concerned the two areas are res extra commercium. The latter is res extra commercium based on both the customary international law and treaty, however, the former is different respectively according to the customary law and treaty. Under international customary law, whilst outer space constitutes res extra commercium, celestial bodies are res nullius. However as among contracting States of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, both outer space and celestial bodies are declared res extra commercium. As for the comparisons of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources between the Moon including other celestial bodies in 1979 Moon Agreement and the deep sea bed in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the both areas are the common heritage of mankind. The latter gives us very systematic models such as International Sea-bed Authority, however, the international regime for the former will be established as the exploitation of the natural resources of the celestial bodies other than the Earth is about to become feasible. Thus Moon Agreement could not impose a moratorium, but would merely permit orderly attempts to establish that such exploitation was in fact feasible and practicable, by allowing experimental beginnings and thereafter pilot operations. As Professor Carl Christol said until the parties of the Moon Agreement were able to put into operation the legal regime for the equitable sharing of benefits, they would remain free to disregard the Common Heritage of Mankind principle. Parties to one or both of the agreements would retain jurisdiction over national space activities. In so far as the comparisons of the protection of the environment between the outer space and sea is concerned the legal instruments for the latter are more systematically developed than the former. In the case of the former there are growing tendencies of concerning the environmental threats arising from space activities these days. There is no separate legal instrument to deal with those problems.

국제법상 항공법과 우주법의 비교연구

김한택 ( Han Taek Kim ) 韓國航空宇宙法學會 2008 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.23 No.1

국제항공테러협약의 관할권 연구

김한택 ( Han Taek Kim ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 2009 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.24 No.1

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.

환경보호에 관한 국제 우주법연구

김한택 ( Han Taek Kim ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 2010 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.25 No.1

This article deals with international space law for the environmental protection in outer space especially for space debris arising from space activities. After studying 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement, we could find few provisions dealing with space environment in those treaties. During the earlier stages of the space age, which began in the late 1950s, the focus of international law makers was the establishment of the basic rules of space law governing the states` activities in outer space. Consequently the environmental issues and the risks that might arise from the generation of the space debris did not receive priority attention within the context of the development international space law. Although the phrases such as `harmful contamination`, `harmful interference`, `disruption of the environment`, `adverse changes in the environment` and `harmfully affecting` in relation to space environment were used in 1967 Outer Space Treaty and 1979 Moon Agreement, their true meaning was not definitely settled. Although 1972 Liability Convention deals with compensation, whether the space object covers space debris is unclear despite the case of Cosmos 954. In this respect international lawyers suggest the amendment of the space treaties and new space treaty covering the space environmental problems including the space debris. The resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are also studied to deal with space environment and space debris. In 1992 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed resolution 47/68 titled “Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space” for the NPS use in outer space. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee; IADC) issued some guidelines for the space debris which were the basis of “the UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines” approved by COPUOS in its 527th meeting. In 1994 the 66th conference of ILA adopted “International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris”. Although those resolutions, guidelines and draft convention are not binding states, there are some provisions which have a fundamentally norm-creating character and softs laws.

Cosmos 954 事件과 國際法

金漢澤(Kim Han-Taek) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2001 江原法學 Vol.13 No.-

달조약의 의미와 전망에 관한 연구

김한택 ( Han Taek Kim ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 2006 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.21 No.1

김치에서 박테리오신을 분비하는 Lactobacillus sakei 균주의 분리

김한택(Han-Taek Kim),박재용(Jae-Yong Park),이강권(Gang-Gweon Lee),김정환(Jeong-Hwan Kim) 한국식품영양과학회 2004 한국식품영양과학회지 Vol.33 No.3

배추김치로부터 식품유해균인 Listeria monocytogenes를 저해하는 박테리오신을 생산하는 유산균, Lactobacillus sakei P3-1이 분리되었다. 형태학적, 생화학적 특성조사와 최종적으로 PCR로 증폭하여 얻은 16S rDNA 염기서열 결정을 통해서 L. sakei로 동정되었다. L. sakei P3-1이 분비하는 박테리오신은 여러 그람 양성 및 음성균들 중에서 단지 L. monocytogenes만을 저해하는 그래서 저해범위가 매우좁은 박테리오신으로 확인되었다. 이온교환 크로마토그래피에 의해서 박테리오신은 부분 정제되었으며 박테리오신의 열처리 안정성을 조사한 결과 121℃에서 15분간 그리고 100℃에서 10분간 열처리 후에도 각각 12.5%와 50%의 역가가 잔존하여 상당한 열안정성을 지니고 있음을 알 수 있었다. MRS 배지에서 배양중 배양온도가 박테리오신 역가에 미치는 영향을 조사한 결과 30oC에서 배양할 때 그리고 18시간 이상 배양에서 가장 높은 1,000 AU/mL 역가를 보였다. 한편 SDS-PAGE 및 activity staining에 의해 측정된 박테리오신의 분자량은 4,000이었다. L. monocytogenes 생육 억제능, 작은 분자량 및 높은 열안정성 등의 성질들을 종합적으로 고려할 때 L. sakei P3-1이 생산하는 박테리오신은 박테리오신들 중에서 class Ⅱ-a에 속하는 것으로 추정된다. Bacteriocin producing lactic acid bacteria (LAB) were isolated from Kimchi by using spot-on-the-lawn method. Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, and Lactobacillus plantarum were used as indicators. One isolate (P3-1) produced a bacteriocin efficiently inhibiting the growth of Listeria monocytogenes. 16S rDNA sequence and sugar utilization test identified that P3-1 was a Lactobacillus sakei strain. Accordingly, the isolate was named as Lactobacillus sakei P3-1. L. sakei P3-1 produced a bacteriocin which efficiently inhibited the growth of Listeria monocytogenes but did not inhibit other Gram positive and negative organisms tested. The bacteriocin was stable against heat, organic solvent, and pH variation and it retained 50% of activity after 10 min heat treatment at 100℃. The molecular weight of Sakacin P3-1 was estimated to be 4 kDa by SDS-PAGE.

Thirty Years of the Moon Agreement : its retrospect and prospect

KIM Han-Taek(김한택) 대한국제법학회 2010 國際法學會論叢 Vol.55 No.1

국제법상 달에 대한 관심은 1979년에 제정된 ‘달협정’(Moon Treaty; 원래명칭은 “달과 다른 천체에 관한 국가활동을 규제하는 협정”, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies)의 제정에서 시작되었는데 이는 5개의 우주관련조약 중에서 중요한 부분을 차지하고 있음에도 불구하고 제정된 지 30년이 되어 가는데 우주개발국가들에게 외면당해 왔다. 2009년 12월이 마침 달협정 제정의 30년이 되는 해이므로 이 협정의 국제법적 의미를 분석하고 그것을 전망해 보는 데에 그 의미가 있을 것이다. 현재 달협정의 비준국은 호주, 오스트리아, 벨기에, 칠레, 카자흐스탄, 레바논, 멕시코, 모로코, 네덜란드, 파키스탄, 페루, 필리핀, 우루과이 등 13개국 정도이며, 프랑스, 과테말라, 인도, 루마니아가 서명국인데 우주개발국 중 프랑스만이 유일하게 서명국이고, 가입국 대부분이 비우주개발국이라고 할 수 있다. 따라서 미국과 러시아, 영국을 비롯한 선진우주개발국들은 가입하지 않았고, 한국, 중국, 일본도 아직 가입하지 않고 있다. 이 연구에서는 우선 달협정의 주요내용과 그 의미를 설명하였고 특히 1967년 우주조약(Space Treaty)과의 관계를 분석한 후 달협정에 명시된 ‘인류공동유산’(Common Heritage of Mankind)개념이 국제법상 어떠한 의미를 가지는가를 살펴보았다. 아울러 달협정의 국제법적 의미와 전망에 관하여 그리고 한국이 현재 달협정에 가입하고 있지 않은데, 달협정에 가입하는 것이 국익에 유리한가 하는 문제도 다루었다. 달협정의 핵심은 인류공동유산개념인데 이와 관련된 조항은 제11조이다. 우선 제11조 1항에서 달과 그것의 천연자원은 ‘인류공동의 유산’이라고 명시하고 있고, 제11조 2항은 1967년 우주조약 제2조와 동일하게 달은 주권의 주장, 사용이나 점령, 기타 어떠한 수단에 의해서도 국가전유의 대상이 될 수 없다는 ‘비전유원칙’(principle of non-appropriation)을 재확인하고 있다. 또한 제11조 3항에서 달의 표면 또는 그 지하, 달의 어느 부분이나 달에 위치한 천연자원은 어느 국가, 정부 간 또는 비정부간 국제기구, 국가기관, 비정부간 기관 또는 어떠한 자연인의 재산이 될 수 없으며 달의 표면이나 그 지하에 사람, 우주차량, 장비, 시설물, 기지 및 군사시설은 달의 표면이나 지하를 연결한 구조물과 함께 달의 표면이나 지하 또는 어느 지역에 대한 소유권을 창설하지 않는다고 하고, 이는 제11조 5항에 언급된 ‘국제제도’(international regime)를 손상하지 않는다고 규정하고 있다. ‘달의 천연자원의 개발이 가능해질’(exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon is about to become feasible)시기에 국제제도를 수립해야 한다는 제11조 5항의 규정은 국제제도의 수립 전에는 자원개발을 금지하는 것을 의미하는가? 그러나 달협정의 제정과정을 살펴보면 국제제도의 수립 전에 달과 다른 천체의 천연자원에 대한 개발유예는 예정되지 않았다고 해석해야 된다. 그러나 이것은 그와 같은 개발에 어떠한 제한이나 한계가 없음을 의미하는 것은 아니고 달과 다른 천체는 인류공동유산영역이므로 모든 개발가는 그들이 인류공동유산인 천연자원을 개발하고 있음을 명심할 것이 요구된다. 필자는 작년에 한국외교통상부에「달 협정의 내용 및 우리나라의 비준가능성 검토」라는 보고서를 통하여 달협정에 가입하는 것이 국익에 유익하다고 밝힌 바 있는데 그 이유는 달의 천연자원의 개발이 가능해질 시기에 국제제도를 수립해야 한다는 규정은 국제제도의 수립 전에는 자원개발을 금지하는 것을 의미하는 것이 아니므로 국가들로서는 달협정에 가입하고 자원개발을 추구하는 방법이 좋을 것 같다는 의견이다. 오히려 달협정 제11조 7항에서 동 자원으로부터 파생하는 이익을 모든 당사국에게 공평하게 분배하되 달의 개발에 직접 또는 간접적으로 공헌한 국가의 노력은 물론 개발도상국의 이익과 필요에 대한 특별한 고려가 있어야 한다는 규정을 보면 우선 달협정 가입을 적극적으로 고려하고 달개발에 착수하는 방법이 국익에 도움이 될 것으로 생각한다. The United Nations General Assembly approved the text of an international agreement to govern the activities of States on the Moon and other celestial bodies, and opened the agreement for signature and ratification on 18 December 1979. The title of that agreement is "Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (so-called Moon Agreement or Moon Treaty)". On that date, the agreement was signed by 6 nations -Chile, France, Romania, the Philippines, Austria and Morocco - at the United Nations Headquarter in New York. The year 2009 marks the 30th Anniversary of the conclusion of the 1979 Moon Agreement. Although the Moon Agreement is one of the 5 major space-related treaties, it has been accepted only by 13 states - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Uruguay - which are non-space powers, and so could not have had much influence on the field of space law. France, Guatemala, India and Romania have signed, but have not ratified it. Neither the United States, nor Russia, nor China, nor United Kingdom signed the treaty. Indeed, international acceptance of the Moon Agreement has been so weak that in the opinion of most jurists, the norms enshrined in that treaty failed to attain the force of customary international law. This article analyses the relationship between the 1979 Moon Agreement and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and discusses the meaning of the "Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM)" stipulated in the Moon Agreement, together with the prospect and future of the Moon Agreement. Article 11(1) of the Moon Agreement stipulates that "[t]he Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind, which finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement and in particular in paragraph 5 of this article." According to Professor Bin Cheng, the concept of CHM stipulated in the Moon Agreement created a whole new 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, not something left to an initiative and discretion of individual States and their nationals. Similar provision is found in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention for the International Sea-bed Authority created by the concept of CHM. According to the Moon Agreement, 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 exploitation of the natural resources on the celestial bodies. But, considering the drafting history of the Moon Agreement, there would not be any moratorium on the exploitation of natural resources, prior to the setting up of the international regime. So, each State Party could exploit the natural resources with bearing in mind that those resources are CHM. Because the Moon Agreement stipulated that the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly the exploitation of the Moon shall be given special consideration, the possibility of acceptance of the Moon Agreement by states would be increased with the development of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon. In this respect, it would be better for Korea, which currently is not a party to the Moon Agreement, to be a member state thereto in the near future. In 2008, I proposed Korean Government to accept the Moon Agreement in “[t]he Report concerning the Contents of the Moon Agreement and Korean Government's Ratification” which was submitted to Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. If Korea accept the Moon Agreement, it will encourage other Asian countries to accept that treaty.