A winter-over team member in his 50s accused of trying to harm fellow crew members at the Jang Bogo Antarctic Research Station was indicted and detained on the 28th. Prosecutors charged the team member with preparation for murder and violating the Act on the Safety Control of Firearms, Swords, and Explosives. The team member is accused of making a 47-centimeter-long sword inside the station.
The charges are preparation for murder and illegal manufacture of a sword. But this case raises questions different from ordinary criminal cases because the crime occurred in Antarctica. The Jang Bogo Antarctic Research Station is more than 10,000 kilometers from the Korean Peninsula. Once winter begins, operating aircraft is not easy. There is no police station, Prosecution Service, or court. So if a criminal case occurs in such a place, under which country's law and through what procedures will punishment be carried out?
Antarctica is not ordinary territory exclusively controlled by a particular country. Like outer space or the high seas, it is closer to a "space without an owner." That does not mean it is a legal vacuum. This case shows how criminal justice operates when a crime occurs in a place where a state's public power cannot easily reach.
◇Antarctica is not outside the law… Korean crimes can be subject to domestic law
The Antarctic Treaty System manages Antarctica by freezing territorial claims and focusing on peaceful use and scientific activities. No single country can rule the entirety of Antarctica as if it were its own territory. The Jang Bogo Antarctic Research Station is merely a research station operated by Korea; it does not make Antarctic land itself Korean territory.
Even so, if a Korean commits a crime in Antarctica, the domestic Criminal Act can apply. The starting point is the Criminal Act's provision on extraterritorial offenses by nationals. The crux of the matter is not "Is the Jang Bogo station Korean territory?" but "Can Korean criminal justice handle a crime committed by a Korean abroad?"
Kim Hee-gyun, a professor of criminal law at the University of Seoul School of Law, said, "In places that are not our land, the nationality principle basically applies," and "If the case involves a Korean, it can be handled under the domestic criminal justice system." Kim said, "Murder is a crime anywhere, so there is no need to view the application of the domestic Criminal Act in this case as difficult," adding, "Bring the suspect back to Korea and proceed with investigation and trial procedures."
Therefore, the location—Antarctica—complicates the case but does not make punishment itself impossible. The standard for applying the law is not whether Antarctica is Korean territory, but the suspect's nationality and the nature of the crime.
◇At a station without police, first neutralize the danger… investigate and try after return
The issue is procedure. There are no police officers or prosecutors at the Antarctic station. Investigative authorities cannot immediately deploy to the scene. In winter, the station is effectively isolated, making it difficult even to promptly transport the suspect to Korea.
The first measure taken is on-site risk control rather than full judicial processing. The station leader and crew must secure dangerous items such as weapons and separate the suspect from other crew members to prevent further harm. Although the station leader is not police or a prosecutor, emergency measures to protect the crew's lives and safety are possible. The government is also said to have an emergency manual for crimes at Antarctic stations covering on-site isolation, evidence preservation, and cooperation with investigations.
Lee Chang-hyun, a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies School of Law, said, "Even if you are not an investigative authority, you can arrest a person caught in the act at the crime scene," adding, "On site, remove the danger first, then hand over to domestic investigative authorities." Actual investigation, indictment, and trial proceed in earnest after the suspect is transported to Korea.
This is not the first criminal case at an Antarctic station. In 2018, a violent incident between crew members occurred at Russia's Bellingshausen Station, and the Russian identified as the suspect was sent home to face criminal proceedings. In 2025, at South Africa's SANAE IV station, a crew member was alleged to have assaulted and threatened a colleague, but immediate evacuation was difficult due to winter isolation. South African authorities combined psychological support with remote investigative responses.
These cases show a common approach to crimes at Antarctic stations. On site, danger is neutralized first, and the home country later conducts criminal justice procedures. In Antarctica, the law does not disappear; it simply takes time to arrive.
◇The same goes for spacecraft, ships, and aircraft… nationality and registration, not territory, set the standard
This issue is not unique to Antarctica. Similar questions arise in outer space, on the high seas, and on aircraft. These are all spaces that are hard to treat as any one country's territory, but there are standards for determining jurisdiction when crimes occur.
In space, what matters more than "whose land is it" is "which country registered the space object." The Outer Space Treaty provides that the country registering a space object retains jurisdiction and control over that object and its personnel. For facilities involving multiple countries, such as the International Space Station, the registering state, the nationality of the persons involved, the victim's nationality, and agreements among participating countries are considered together.
Crimes on ships on the high seas are similar. If an incident occurs in the middle of the ocean outside any country's territorial waters, the first question is which country's flag the ship is flying. This is the so-called flag state principle. For incidents with major international risks—such as piracy, ship hijacking, or maritime terrorism—separate international conventions and domestic special laws may apply.
Aircraft follow a similar basic structure. Even if they depart from a foreign airport or pass over the high seas, crimes and safety threats aboard an aircraft fall first under the jurisdiction of the aircraft's state of registration. However, the jurisdiction of the state of landing, the state where harm occurred, and states with an interest in aviation safety can overlap.
A few years ago, the "nut rage" incident also led to a domestic trial for conduct aboard a national airline aircraft that departed from a foreign airport. The Supreme Court's key issue then was not whether a domestic court had jurisdiction, but whether a return to the gate during ground taxiing constituted a "course change" under the Aviation Security Act. Even if an incident occurs abroad and Korea has jurisdiction, actual punishment depends on whether the elements of each offense are met.
An attorney said, "Antarctica is not Korean territory, but it is not a place beyond the reach of law," adding, "For serious crimes committed by Koreans, domestic criminal procedures can operate under the nationality principle."