• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.65-98
• /
• 2007

정인교는 그의 최근 논문에서 논리적 귀결 관계에 의해 논리 상항의 의미를 정의함에 있어 통상적인 도입 규칙과 제거 규칙에 의거하는 포퍼의 접근법과, 도입 규칙에만 의존하는 정당화주의적 접근법, 그리고 제거 규칙에만 의존하는 실용주의적 접근법을 구분한 바 있다. 이 글에서는 연언과 선언의 연결어의 경우에는 그 세 가지가 동등하다는 것을, 그리고 조건과 부정의 연결어의 경우에는 제거 규칙에 의거하는 실용주의적 접근법과 포퍼의 접근법이 대등하다는 것을, 타르스키가 처음 확립한 논리적 귀결에 관한 공리적 체계에 의존하여 보일 것이다.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2003

타당한 논증과 논리적 귀결에 대한 프라위츠와 더밋의 증명 이론적 정의는 그 적절성을 위해 이른바 "근본 가정"과 "도입규칙들은 자체적으로 정당한 규칙들이다"는 두 논제들을 전제하고 있다. 이 글에서는 어떤 규칙들 특히 도입규칙들이 자체적으로 정당하다는 두 번째 논제가 어떻게 이해될 수 있는지 살펴보고, 이 논제를 보다 분명히 드러내 보이려는 한 신도를 비판적으로 검토할 것이다. 그런 과정 중에 이 두 논제의 관계도 보다 분명히 드러내 보일 것이다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.109-134
• /
• 2014

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation of assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (Regulation No 261/2004) provides extra protection to air passengers in circumstances of denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay. The Regulation intends to provide a high level of protection to air passengers by imposing obligations on air carriers and, at the same time, offering extensive rights to air passengers. If denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay are caused by reasons other than extraordinary circumstances, passengers are entitled for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA(Case C-549/07, [2008] ECR I-11061), the Court did, however, emphasize that this does not mean that it is never possible for technical problems to constitute extraordinary circumstances. It cited specific examples of where: an aircraft manufacturer or competent authority revealed that there was a hidden manufacturing defect on an aircraft which impacts on safety; or damage was caused to an aircraft as a result of an act of sabotage or terrorism. Such events are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin. One further point arising out of the court's decision is worth mentioning. It is not just necessary to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances test for the airline to be excused from paying compensation. It must also show that the circumstances could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It is clear from the language of the Court's decision that this is a tough test to meet: the airline will have to establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able - unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time - to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.