• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.167-174
• /
• 2022

지난 2021년 3월 25일 「탐정업법」 제정을 촉구하는 추진위원회가 결성된 이후 사회 각계각층의 많은 의견과 관심이 쏟아지고 있는 실정이다. 문재인 대통령 대선 공약이기도 한 탐정제도는 많은 국민들의 치안서비스 수요 충족과 사법제도 개선, 국제화 제고 등의 효율적인 부분은 물론 실질적인 복지국가 발전을 도모하는 차원에서도 그 의미는 클 것으로 본다. 헌법재판소는 특정인들의 일반생활을 조사하는 것을 직업으로 하는 행위와 탐정이라는 유사 명칭의 사용마저도 금지한 「신용정보의 이용 및 보호에 관한 법률」 제40조 하단이 헌법에 저촉되지 아니한다는 9명 재판관의 의견 합치에 따라 일반생활 조사와 상관없이 탐정업무는 가능하게 되었다. 특히 2020년 8월 5일 탐정업의 등장으로 그동안 범죄수사 영역에서 독점적인 지위를 점유하고 있었던 검찰과 경찰, 변호사 등과 서로 치열한 경쟁을 통해 국민들에게 오히려 효과적인 업무서비스를 제공할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 사회의 급속한 변화에도 불구하고 탐정의 역할이 점차 확대되고 있지만 입법불비로 인하여 불법적인 행위가 만연할 뿐만 아니라 현재 1,600여개에 달하는 업체들이 탐정이라는 명칭을 사용하며 영업을 하고 있는 가운데 관리감독이 필요하지만 경찰은 "권한이 없다"는 이유만으로 사실상 손을 놓고 있어 그 피해는 오롯이 국민들에게 돌아갈 상황이라 무엇보다 법률 공백이 우려된다. 한편 탐정업 도입으로 불법행위를 감독하는 기관을 우려하고 있는 부분에서 미국처럼 민간경비와 탐정은 서로 비슷한 부분이 많으며, 또 지금까지 민간경비업체 관리 및 감독업무를 담당하고 있는 경찰에 탐정관련업체 관리감독 업무를 맡김으로서 국민들의 신뢰를 얻어낼 수 있을 것으로 본다. 따라서 우리나라를 제외한 대부분의 OECD 국가들이 「탐정업법」을 입법화하고 있는 현 시점에서 「탐정업법」을 제정하지 않고 탐정업을 허용하는 것은 사회적인 혼란을 더욱 부채질할 뿐만 아니라 새로운 4차산업과 더불어 탐정산업을 저해할 수 있기 때문에 「탐정업법」 제정이 조속히 이루어져야 할 것으로 본다.