• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Information and Commucation Sciences Conference
• /
• 2006.05a
• /
• pp.658-663
• /
• 2006

미국에서는 1996년에 62년이라는 장기간에 걸쳐 적용되어 오던 연방통신법의 대개정이 이루어졌다. 2006년 2월은 1996년 전기통신법 개정 10주년이 된다 미국에서는 그 동안 이루어진 IP화의 진전이 계기가 되어 통신법 재개정의 움직임이 현재 활발하게 진행되고 있다. 여기에서는 우선 1996년 전기통신법 성립 배경을 살펴 본 다음, 광대역화, VoIP 등장 등 동법이 예상하지 못했던 10년간의 시장 환경변화에 대하여 살펴보고, 현재 개정을 위하여 제출되어 있는 개정 법안을 소개하는 한편, 통신법 개혁 논의의 행방에 대하여 간략하게 살펴본다.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.40
• /
• pp.7-33
• /
• 2014

Korean Government decided to establish the Ministry of National Emergency Management and has reformed the emergency management system due to Sewol ferry disaster. These efforts has been focused on the hardware rather than the software. All-hazard approach has been employed as the one of main principles in the emergency management in the United States. All-hazards approach concerns arrangements for managing the large range of possible effects of risks and emergencies. Once the priority of risks and emergencies is decided, agencies prepare for them. In addition, interagency collaboration is critical for the preparation of risks and emergencies such as cooperation with local governments instead of FEMA alone. It is necessary to consider employing all-hazard approach for the Ministry of National Emergency Management. Moreover, 'Korean All-hazard approach' should be developed in order to manage upcoming emergencies.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.63-89
• /
• 2014

In 1976, the Dalkon Shield-intrauterine device injured several thousand women in U.S.A. which caused the changes of medical deivce regulation. The Medical Device Regulation Act or Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) was introduce. As part of the process of regulating medical devices, the MDA divides medical devices into three categories. The class II, and III devices which have moderate harm or more can use the section 510 (k), premarket notification process if the manufacturer can establish that its device is "substantially equivalent" to a device that was marketed before 1976. In 21 U.S.C. ${\S}$ 360k(a), MDA introduced a provision which expressly preempts competing state laws or regulations. After that, the judicial debates had began over the proper interpretation and application of Section 360(k) In February 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riegel v. Medtronic that manufacturer approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s pre-market approval process are preempted from liability, even when the devices have defective design or lack of labeling. But the Supreme Court ruled in Medtronic Inc. v. Lora Lohr that the manufactures which use the section 510 (k) process cannot be preempted and in Bausch v. Stryker Corp. that manufactures which violated the CGMP standard are also liable to the damage of patient at the state courts. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth v. Levine that patients harmed by prescription drugs can claim damages in state courts. This may cause a double standard between prescription drugs and medical devices. FDA Preemption is the legal theory in the United States that exempts product manufacturers from tort claims regarding Food and Drug Administration approved products. FDA Preemption has been a highly contentious issue. In general, consumer groups are against it while the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers are in favor of it. This issues also influences the theory of product liability of U.S.A. Complete immunity preemption is an issue need to be more declared.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.65-92
• /
• 2011

Die soeben entwickelten Grundgs$\ddot{a}$tze k$\ddot{o}$nnen dazu f$\ddot{u}$hren, dass es bei Fluggesellschaften zum Abschluss mehrerer Tarifvertr$\ddot{a}$ge $\ddot{u}$ber Personalvertretungen durch verschidene Gewerkschften kommt. Dies leitet schlie${\ss}$lich zu der bereits angesprochenen Problematik der Tarifkonkurrenz $\ddot{u}$ber. Tarifkonkurrenz zeichnet sich bekanntlich dadurch aus, dass f$\ddot{u}$r dasselbe Rechtsverh$\ddot{a}$ltnis dieselbe Regelungsmaterie durch mehr als einen Tarifvertrag geregelt wird. Eine solche Tarifkonkurenz kann unabh$\ddot{a}$ngig von der Frage, ob Regelungsgegenstand betriebsverfassungsrechtlicher Normen ein betriebliches Rechtsverh$\ddot{a}$ltnis ist, auch bei dieser Art von Tarifnormen auftreten. Dabei betriebsverfassungsrechtlichen Kollektivnormen gem$\ddot{a}{\ss}$ $\S$3 Abs. 2 TVG die Tarifbindung des Arbeitgebers f$\ddot{u}$r die Anwendungsbarkeit gen$\ddot{u}$gt, wird beim Vorhandensein mehrerer solcher Tarifvertr$\ddot{a}$ge h$\ddot{a}$ufig pauschal von einer in jedem Fall aufzul$\ddot{o}$senden tarifkonkurrenz gesprochen. $\ddot{U}$berschneiden sich die Geltungsbereiche mehrerer Tarifvertr$\ddot{a}$ge $\ddot{u}$ber personalvertretungsrechtliche Fragen der im Luftbetrieb t$\ddot{a}$tigen Besch$\ddot{a}$ftigten und handelt es sich nicht um textidentische Regelungen, f$\ddot{u}$hrt indes kein Weg daran vorbei, dass eine Tarifkonkurenz besteht, die einer Aufl$\ddot{o}$sung bedarf. Die Rechtsprechung hat sich zur speziellen Fragen der Aufl$\ddot{o}$sung einer Konkurrenz betriebsverfassungsrechtlicher Tarifnormen soweit ersichtlich noch nicht ge$\ddot{a}$u${\ss}$ert. Nicht zuletzt aus diesem Grund wird in der Literatur ein buntes Spektrum an L$\ddot{o}$sungen pr$\ddot{a}$sentiert, wobei sich die meisten neueren Stellungnahmen vor allem mit Organisationstarifvertr$\ddot{a}$gen im Sinne von ${\S}$3 BetrVG besch$\ddot{a}$ftigen.

• Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.23-39
• /
• 2004

The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 resulted not only in the establishment of the Socialist regime, but also in the critical changes in the Russian archival system. The Soviet government issued "Decree On the Reorganization and Centralization of Archival Affairs in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic", which prepared the ground for the archival administration in USSR. After having been revised and supplemented in the 1920's, the decree, signed by V. I. Lenin, was changed into "The Decree on the Archival Administration of Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic", by which the Bolshevik government was able not only to develop the conception of the State Archival Fond with the Single Archival Fond, but also to enlarge the archival collection. Besides, it was remarkable that the archival decree of 1929 provided the justification for actual developments of the archival institution. And from the practical point of view, the decree improved the archival affairs by means of the defining of the conservation period. It was at the beginning of the Stalin's period that the decree of 1929 was issued. Therefore, it may be said that the decree was one of the proofs as well as the agricultural collectivization and the industrialization that Stalin gained the overall control of the Soviet government. It was confirmed when the Second Conference of Soviet Archivists was held from 25 May to 1 June in 1929. After this meeting, M. N. Pokrovskii, who was the director of the Archival Administration in the course of the 1920's, lost the influence over the Soviet archival organizations, which meant that the autonomy of the Soviet archivists was reduced in a great degree. The Central Archival Administration of the Bolshevik regime experienced the analogous changes. It was changed into the Central Archival Agent in 1929 when the Stalinist system became strengthened. At the same time, it was significant that the Central Archival Administration of USSR was established. However, the Soviet archival affairs became under the direct control of the N. K. V. D. in the period of the Great Purge.