• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.5-32
• /
• 2011

This paper is a comparative analysis of constitutional decisions in which the Korea Consitutional Court and the United States Supreme Court applied the void for vagueness doctrine into free expression issues. Common aspects are: both courts applied the void for vagueness doctrine on the grounds that vague laws bring chilling effect on freedom of expression. Acknowledging inevitable uncertainties in lawmaking and legal jargons, however, both courts required minimum standards in the void for vagueness doctrine. In the cases where unclear legal meanings resulted in constitutional challenges, both courts adopted the "narrowing construction" by the courts or judges based on average/ordinary person's understanding. The biggest differences between the two constitutional courts are their approach to the degrees of vagueness allowed in free expression cases. The U.S. Supreme Court underscored the necessity of narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards. Meanwhile, the Korea Constitutional Court relaxed its standards in some cases such as the National Security Law cases, even though it admitted the possibility of curtailing the right to free expression. The Court reasoned that those laws, though vague, brought with bigger social interests and are necessary tools in dealing with changing world.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.157
• /
• pp.64-77
• /
• 2011

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.100
• /
• pp.2-13
• /
• 2003

우리나라의 현실여건을 감안해본다면, 묵시적 가격협정 카르텔의 존재 입증에 있어서 경제적 증거의 역할은 상당히 제약적일 수밖에 없음을 알 수 있다. 특히 상고허가제를 실행함으로써 상고심의 대상이 되는 사건의 수를 사전에 제한하고 이에 따라 사건심리에 충분한 시간을 투자할 수 있는 미국 연방대법원과는 달리, 우리나라의 경우 국민의 재판받을 권리를 최대한 보장하기 위하여 대법원이 대부분의 상고사건을 받아들이고 이로 인해 과중한 업무량에 시달리고 있음을 고려한다면, 실무적으로 경제적 증거를 충분히 평가하기란 힘들 것으로 예상된다.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.136
• /
• pp.35-49
• /
• 2008

• 발명특허
• /
• v.32 no.8 s.373
• /
• pp.28-32
• /
• 2007

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.65-94
• /
• 2015

Since American Airlines launched AAdvantage which was the first Frequent Flyer Program in 1981, many people has accumulated mileage credits, and now, frequent flyer program(FFP) is the universal marketing tool to the airlines. These days, airlines establish a strategic alliance with domestic and foreign companies of various fields ; other airlines, travel agencies, car hire firms, hotels, department stores, even credit card companies. However, more people want to use their mileage credits, more airlines reject to approve that or change frequent flyer program against their customers. Last year, Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, the United State Supreme Court made a decision that the preemption provision of Airlines Deregulation Act(ADA) preempts state laws related to rates, routes and services for air carriers including implied covenant of good faith and fare dealing. Thus, the claim of Ginsberg was canceled, it means that Northwest Inc. could terminated one-sidedly his membership in the frequent flyer program. In the contrast, Korea does not have the statute like ADA. If customers file a claim on FFP like Ginsberg, the courts of Korea judge whether the clauses of standard form contract are unfair or not. Therefore, in this article, Ginsberg would be checked on legal issues and be compared briefly with the courts' ruling in Korea.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.275-302
• /
• 2013

The Unites States has been plagued with soaring health care costs and an alarmingly large number of uninsured population. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 ushered in the most sweeping health care reform in the United States since the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 to address these issues. The law's requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance (the so-called "individual mandate"), however, not only caused a political stir but also prompted constitutional challenges. Some questioned whether the federal government, lacking general police power, could require its citizens to buy unwanted insurance based on its enumerated powers under the U.S. Constitution. This paper summarizes the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of individual mandate, and explores how the decision relates to Korea's own universal health care.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.161-184
• /
• 2020

In the process of the annulment of arbitral awards, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court contributes to keeping Switzerland as a venue for international arbitration. Challenges to an award rendered in Switzerland are handled by the Swiss Supreme Court only. Furthermore, the Swiss law provides extremely limited grounds (PILA 190) for the potential challenge of the award and those are different from what model law countries have. For example, violations of the parties' agreed procedural arrangements will not be grounds for the annulment of an award in Swiss. In arbitration, the intervention of a national court is necessary to protect justice but at the same time, it can impede the process of arbitration, even making it useless. Limited intervention of the Swiss Supreme Court protects the efficiency, autonomy, and justice of international arbitration. International Arbitration has to be simple and fast to solve complex international commercial problems and to promote trade. Therefore, the process and technique to be applied on an Arbitration-friendly Swiss court should be considered.

• Korean Journal of Comparative Education
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.149-178
• /
• 2012

The initial purpose of Affirmative Action(AA) in the U. S. was to increase access to, and ensure the equitable distribution of, opportunities for racial minority groups in order to redress past discrimination. Over the last several decades, support for AA has grown and waned as structural, political and social currents have shifted. Most recently, AA in university admissions policy was once again tested as The University of Texas at Austin successfully defended its use of AA in admissions and now faces Supreme Court review concerning the lawsuit. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the evolution of AA in university admissions reflected on major legal cases for and against it. AA is analyzed from the integrative approach based on the historical institutionalism. l.e., influenced by structure, political dynamics, institutions and critical actors.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.