• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.145-176
• /
• 2016

Aviation safety can be secured through regulations and policies of various areas and thorough execution of them on the field. Recently, for aviation safety management Korea is making efforts to prevent aviation accidents by taking various measures: such as selecting and promoting major strategic goals for each sector; establishing National Aviation Safety Program, including the Second Basic Plan for Aviation Policy; and improving aviation related legislations. Obstacle limitation surface is to be established and publicly notified to ensure safe take-off and landing as well as aviation safety during the circling of aircraft around airports. This study intends to review current aviation obstacle management system which was designed to make sure that buildings and structures do not exceed the height of obstacle limitation surface and identify its operating problems based on my field experience. Also, in this study, I would like to propose ways to improve the system in legal and regulatory aspects. Nowadays, due to the request of residents in the vicinity of airports, discussions and studies on aviational review are being actively carried out. Also, related ordinance and specific procedures will be established soon. However, in addition to this, I would like to propose the ways to improve shortcomings of current system caused by the lack of regulations and legislations for obstacle management. In order to execute obstacle limitation surface regulation, there has to be limits on constructing new buildings, causing real restriction for the residents living in the vicinity of airports on exercising their property rights. In this sense, it is regarded as a sensitive issue since a number of related civil complaints are filed and swift but accurate decision making is required. According to Aviation Act, currently airport operators are handling this task under the cooperation with local governments. Thus, administrative activities of local governments that have the authority to give permits for installation of buildings and structures are critically important. The law requires to carry out precise surveying of vast area and to report the outcome to the government every five years. However, there can be many problems, such as changes in the number of obstacles due to the error in the survey, or failure to apply for consultation with local governments on the exercise of construction permission. However, there is neither standards for allowable errors, preventive measures, nor penalty for the violation of appropriate procedures. As such, only follow-up measures can be taken. Nevertheless, once construction of a building is completed violating the obstacle limitation surface, practically it is difficult to take any measures, including the elimination of the building, because the owner of the building would have been following legal process for the construction by getting permit from the government. In order to address this problem, I believe penalty provision for the violation of Aviation Act needs to be added. Also, it is required to apply the same standards of allowable error stipulated in Building Act to precise surveying in the aviation field. Hence, I would like to propose the ways to improve current system in an effective manner.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.57
• /
• pp.177-203
• /
• 2018

Police Assigned to Special Guard Act was legislated in 1962 to solve issues regarding the protection of various staple industrial installations, and in 2001, the Security Services Industry Act was revised to establish an effective security system for important national facilities. Thereby the Special Guards System was instituted. The current law has two parts, with the Police Assigned to Special Guard System and Special Guards System, and many scholars have actively discussed the appropriateness of the integration of both systems to solve problems caused by a bimodal system. However, in spite of these discussions taking place in the academic world, the idea of unification lost its power when the guarantee of status regulation was established for the police assigned to special guard. Strictly speaking, police assigned to special guard is a self-guard, and a special guard is a contractual guard. So, both of them have pros and cons. Thus, it would be desirable to give a legal, constitutional guarantee for both systems by strengthening each of them and making up for the weakness of each of them rather than trying to unify police assigned to special guard and special guard. To begin this process, we need to revise unreasonable legal provisions of Security Services Industry Act and Police Assigned to Special Guard Act as below. First, since the actual responsibilities of special guards and police assigned to special guard duty are the same, we need to make the facilities which they use equal. Second, legal provisions need to be revised so that a special guard may perform the duties of a police officer, according to the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, within the facility that needs to be secured in order to prevent any vacancy in the guarding of an important national facility. Third, disqualifications for the special guards need to be revised to be the same as the disqualifications for the police assigned to special guard duty. Fourth, it is reasonable to unify the training institution for special guards and for police assigned to special guard duty, and it should be the training institution for police. On-the-job education for a security guard needs to be altered to more than 4 hours every month just like the one for police assigned to special guard duty. Fifth, for a special guard, it is not right to limit the conditions in their using weapons to 'use of weapon or explosives' only. If one possesses 'dangerous objects such as weapon, deadly weapon, and so on' and resists, a special guard should be able to use their weapon against that person. Thus, this legal provision should be revised. Sixth, penalty, range of fines, and so on for police assigned to special guard duty need to be revised to be the same as the ones for a special guard. If we revise these legal provisions, we can correct the unreasonable parts of Security Services Industry Act and Police Assigned to Special Guard Act without unifying them. Through these revisions, special guards and police assigned to special guard duty may develop the civilian guard industry wholesomely under the law, and the civilians would have a wider range of options to choose from to receive high quality security service.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.