• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.29-54
• /
• 2007

Nuclear Power Sources(NPS) have been used since 1961 for the purpose of generating energy for space objects and have since then been recognized as particularly suited essential to some space operations. In January 1978 a malfuctioning Soviet nuclear powered satellite, Cosmos 954, re-entered the earth's atmosphere and disintegrated, scattering radioactive debris over a wide area of the Canadian Northwest Territory. This incident provided some reasons to international legal scholars to make some principles to regulate using NPS in outer space. In 1992 General Assembly adopted "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space". These NPS Principles set out certain legal and regulatory requirements on the use of nuclear and radioactive power sources for non-propulsive purposes. Although these principles, called 'soft laws', are not legal norms, they have much enfluences on state practices such as 1983 DBS Principles(Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting), 1986 RS Principles(Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space) and 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interests of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries. As far as 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space is concerned the main points such as free use of outer space, non-appropriation of celestial bodies, application of international law to outer space etc. have become customary international law binding all states. NPS Principles might have similar characters according to states' willingness to respect them.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2007

Nuclear Power Sources(NPS) have been used since 1961 for the purpose of generating energy for space objects and have since then been recognized as particularly suited essential to some space operations. In January 1978 a malfuctioning Soviet nuclear powered satellite, Cosmos 954, re-entered the earth's atmosphere and disintegrated, scattering radioactive debris over a wide area of the Canadian Northwest Territory. This incident provided some reasons to international legal scholars to make some principles to regulate using NPS in outer space. In 1992 General Assembly adopted "Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space". These NPS Principles set out certain legal and regulatory requirements on the use of nuclear and radioactive power sources for non-propulsive purposes. Although these principles, called 'soft laws', are not legal norms, they have much enfluences on state practices such as 1983 DBS Principles(Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting), 1986 RS Principles(Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space) and 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interests of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries. As far as 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space is concerned the main points such as free use of outer space, non-appropriation of celestial bodies, application of international law to outer space etc. have become customary international law binding all states. NPS Principles might have similar characters according to states' willingness to respect them.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.367-399
• /
• 2011

This Article examines the regulation of outsider trading under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (the "Capital Markets Act"). Outsider trading occurs when a market participant who is not a traditional corporate insider trades securities based on either "inside" or "outside" nonpublic information. Unlike "inside" information, "outside" information is referred to as information not derived directly or indirectly from the issuer. "Outside" information includes both "corporate" and "market" information. "Corporate information" is information about events or circumstances which affect the company's assets or earning power. "Outside corporate information" is information about the company's assets or earning power not derived directly or indirectly from the issuer. "Market information" is information about events or circumstances which affect the market for a company's securities but which do not affect the company's assets or earning power. The Capital Markets Act prohibits both "temporary insiders" from using "corporate" information in trading securities and "outsiders" from using "market" information, such as (i) information regarding the initiation or discontinuance of a tender offer; or (ii) information regarding acquisition or disposition of stocks in bulk. However, the Act does not encompass circumstances (i) where an outsider trades securities based on confidential corporate information obtained through certain types of wrongful conduct; (ii) where an outsider trades securities based on corporate information obtained through eavesdropping; and (iii) where an outsider trades securities based on either outside corporate information or market information created by the outsider himself. In order to plug a few of the gaps left open in the law of outsider trading under the Capital Markets Act, this Article suggests that regulators adopt a relatively broad reading of the scope of ${\S}$ 178(1) of the Act, which is similar to SEC Rule 10b-5, to include outsiders with no relationship to the corporation that had issued the securities. Since ${\S}$ 178(1) of the Act does not require "deception" for liability, it would seem to evade the limitations imposed by the U.S. misappropriation theory. Key Words : Outsider Trading, Insider Trading, Material Nonpublic Information, the Capital Markets Act, Misappropriation Theory, Fiduciary Theory.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.137-166
• /
• 2018

Wenn nach dem starken Trinken etwas strafbares passiert, so ist das Gesamtverhalten als $strafw{\ddot{u}}rdig$ und strafbar anzuerkennen. Aber nach dem Schuldprinzip handelt ohne Schuld, wer bei Begehung der Tat $unf{\ddot{a}}hig$ ist, das Unrecht der Tat einzusehen oder nach dieser Einsicht zu handeln(Koinzidenzprinzip). Die Rechtsfigur der "actio libera in causa" dient dazu, diese in $h{\ddot{a}}ufigen$ $F{\ddot{a}}llen$ als kriminalpolitisch $unerw{\ddot{u}}nscht$ empfundene $L{\ddot{u}}cke$ zu umgehen. Dabei kommt auch dem Vollrauschtatbestand in der Praxis $erh{\ddot{o}}hte$ Bedeutung zu. Der deutsche Gesetzgeber war sich bei der Aufnahme des Vollrauschtatbestandes in das Gesetz durchaus $bewu{\ss}t$, $da{\ss}$ die Vorschrift eine Ausnahme zur Schuldzurechnungsregelung darstellte. Er $w{\ddot{a}}hlte$ jedoch die Form eines $selbst{\ddot{a}}ndigen$ Tatbestandes, um die Durchbrechung des reinen Schuldprinzips $ertr{\ddot{a}}glich$ zu machen. Der Vollrauschtatbestand ist ein abstraktes $Gef{\ddot{a}}hrdungdsdelikt$ -demnach die im Rausch verwirklichte rechtswidrige Tat nur objektive Bedingung der Strafbarkeit ist -, das sachlich eine Schuldzurechnungsregelung $enth{\ddot{a}}lt$, und zwar eine Ausnahme $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$ die Regelungen ${\ddot{u}}ber$ Schuldzurechnung. Dieser Vollrauschtatbestand ist dennoch als regitime $Erg{\ddot{a}}nzung$ der in Schuldzurechnungsregelungen beschriebenen $Schuldzurechnungsgrunds{\ddot{a}}tze$ anzusehen. Er steht $n{\ddot{a}}mlich$ in Einklang mit dem Schuldgrundsatz, wenn als subjektives Tatbestandsmerkmal des Vollrausches die Kenntnis der $Gef{\ddot{a}}hrlichkeit$ des Rauschzustandes $f{\ddot{u}}r$ die Begehung von Delikten vorausgesetzt wird.

• Research in Plant Disease
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.221-230
• /
• 2022

The fire blight caused by Erwinia amylovora (Ea) was first reported in 2015 in Korea, and the disease has rapidly spread to 22 regions until 2021. In Korea, all host plants in the apple and pear orchards where fire blight occurred should be eliminated and buried by the Plant Protection Act. To prevent the spread of the disease, all burial sites were prohibited from planting the new host plants for the next three years. To confirm the eradication efficiency of Ea and the reoccurrence of fire blight, the surveillance facilities were established on three burial sites from 2019 to 2020 in Anseong-si, Gyeonggi-do, and Chungju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do. As host plants, five apple trees of fire blight-susceptible cultivar 'Fuji', were planted in each facility. All facilities were enclosed with fences and nets and equipped with two CCTVs, motion sensors, and several other sensors for recording weather conditions to monitor the environment of the sentinel plants in real-time. The sentinel plants were checked for the reoccurrence of fire blight routinely. Suspicious plant parts were collected and analyzed for Ea detection by loop-mediated isothermal amplification polymerase chain reaction and conventional polymerase chain reaction. Until November 2022, Ea has not been detected in all sentinel plants. These results might support that the burial control of infected plants in soil works efficiently to remove Ea and support the possibility to shorten the prohibition period of host plant establishment in the burial sites.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

This paper described the contents of theme entitled "Domestic Legislative Problems on the Civil Liability of Air Carrier in Korea" including the current example of fourteen countries' legislation ((1) Great Britain, (2) United States of America, (3) Canada, (4)European Union), (5) Germany, (6) France, (7) Italy, (8) Spain, (9) Swiss, (10) Australia, (11) Japan, (12) People's Republic of China, (13) Taiwan, (14) North Korea) relating to the aviation law or air transport law. Though the Korean and Japanese aviation act has provided only the public items such as (1) registration of aircraft, (2) persons engaged in aviation, (3) operation of aircraft, (4) aviation facilities including airport, (5) air transport business, (6) investigate of aircraft accidents etc., but they could not regulated the private items such as the legal relations of the air transport contract (1) air passenger ticket, (2) air luggage ticket, (3) airway bill, (4) liability of air carrier, (5) amount of compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents, (6)jurisdiction, (7) arbitration, (8) limitation of action, (9) combined carriage, (10) carriage by air performed by an actual carrier other than contracting carrier, damage caused by aircraft to the third parties etc. in their aviation act until now. In order to solve speedily the legal problems on the limitation of air carrier's liability and long law suit and disputes between wrongdoers and survivors etc, it is necessary and desirable for us to enact a new "Draft for the Air Transport Act" including the abovementioned private items. I would like to propose personally and strongly the legislation of "Draft for the Air Transport Act" in Korea in emphasizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers air passengers and shippers in carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation between air carriers and survivors caused by the aircraft accidents such as the German Air Transport Act (Luftverkerhrsgesetz).