• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.81-111
• /
• 2018

Recently in Korea, public interest about patient safety has increased because patient safety incidents occurred continuously. In addition, as the way of coping with medical personnel and medical institutions after occurrence of patient safety incident became controversial, the necessity of introducing apology law and disclosure law was raised. We analyzed the contents of apology law and disclosure law in U.S.A and critically examined the legislative movements in Korea. First, the Apology law requires that a medical personnel provide apology, consolation, sympathy to the patient for discomfort, pain, damage or death, and that the expression of apology shall be inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability in civil action or administrative proceeding. The Apology law is divided into 'full apology law' and 'partial apology law' depending on whether mistake, error, fault, liability, and legal liability shall be inadmissible. Meanwhile, Disclosure law enforces or voluntarily enforces the law to communicate with the patient regarding the disclosure of the incident, the cause of incident, the compensation plan, and the measures to prevent the recurrence in the adverse incident that serious harm to the patient. In Korea, the concern about patient safety incidents has been amplified, and as the importance of communication between the medical personnel and patient has been recognized, the revision bill for the "Patient Safety Act", which adopted the U.S.A apology or disclosure law, was submitted to the National Assembly. The purpose of this study was to critically review the contents of the revised legislation based on the analysis of the apology law and disclosure law in U.S.A. and to provide implications for future legislative direction.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.32
• /
• pp.45-78
• /
• 2012

The significance of Presidential Impeachment in 2004 is subject to interpretations in many different contexts, but its nature as its justice was the constitutional trial by the nation's impeachment system. This study set out to compare and analyze the understanding of the event centered around its nature as "an impeachment event as a public activity" and the records related to it. For that purpose, the study attempted to analyze the impeachment event to understand it as a public activity and examined and analyzed the records of the impeachment event in the public domain through personal visit, phone interview, and request of information disclosure based on the analysis results. An impeachment event as a public activity can be understood as an activity carried out by the National Assembly, which is to issue a motion for impeachment under the norms of the nation's impeachment system, and Constitutional Court, which is responsible for impeachment trial, through their unique rights prescribed in the Constitution. The important subjects of such a public activity included the accused president, the acting presidential system created by the motion for impeachment, and the National Election Commission that provided a decisive ground for impeachment. It was confirmed that the records, which are legal requirements, were well created and have been preserved and managed in the public domain. However, it was difficult to conclude that the records of the impeachment event were thoroughly created in terms of content in relation to affairs as they mainly covered the superficial treatment processes and the results of explicit activities. There was, in particular, the absence of records showing the context of activity.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.223-258
• /
• 2013

1967 Outer Space Treaty(Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies; OST) is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law. OST is based on the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space announced by UNGA resolution. As of May 2013, 102 countries are states parties to OST, while another 27 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification. OST explicitly claimed that the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies are the province of all mankind. Art. II of OST states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means", thereby establishing res extra commercium in outer space like high seas. However 1979 Moon Agreement stipulates that "the moon and its natural resources are the Common Heritage of Mankind(CHM)." Because of the number of the parties to the Moon Agreement(13 parties) it does not affect OST. OST also established its specific treaties as a complementary means such as 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention. OST bars states party to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications. However OST does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit. China and Russia submitted Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT) on the Conference on Disarmament in 2008. USA disregarded PPWT on the ground that there are no arms race in outer space. OST does not have some articles in relation to current problems such as space debris, mechanisms of the settlement of dispute arising from state activities in outer space in specific way. COPUOS established "UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" based on "IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines" and ILA proposed "International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris" for space debris problems and Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA) established "Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities" and ILA proposed "1998 Taipei Draft Convention on the Settlement of Space Law Dispute" for the settlement of dispute problems. Although OST has shortcomings in some articles, it is very meaningful in international law in considering the establishment of basic principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. OST established the principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space as customary law and jus cogens in international law as follows; the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States; outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. The principles of global public interest in outer space imposes international obligations erga omnes applicable to all States. This principles find significant support in legal norms dealing with following points: space activities as the "province of all mankind"; obligation to cooperate; astronauts as envoys of mankind; avoidance of harmful contamination; space activities by States, private entities and intergovernmental organisations; absolute liability for damage cauesd by certain space objects; prohibition of weapons in space and militarization of the celestial bodies; duty of openness and transparency; universal application of the international space regime.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• 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.