• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.127-152
• /
• 2020

Despite growing international cooperation for maintenance of international peace and security, wars continue to occur due to conflicted state interests. Continuing conflicts has advanced development of various weapon systems such as global integrated intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. However, with a big increase in the number of civilian casualties caused by the weapon systems development, the international community has also advanced diplomatic efforts to minimize deaths of civilian and military personnel. Therefore, it is essential to observe the principle of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants when operating unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), better known as drones. Drones have become more capable of distinguishing combatants from non-combatants due to its high-tech prowess. In the operation of drones, any parties involved in combat or the war are responsible for mounting civilian casualties. In addition, it should comply with the principle of proportionality that calls for a balance between results of such action and expected military advantage anticipated from the attack. The rule of proportionality prohibits use of military force which may be expected to cause excessive civilian harm. Drones have been able to track and monitor targets for hours and select the accurate locations of the targets. The aim is to reduce civilian losses and damage to a minimum. Drones meet the standards of Article 51.4 of the Additional Protocol.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.35 no.5
• /
• pp.371-380
• /
• 2011

Traditionally, UNCLOS stipulates that States have the obligation and responsibility to protect and preserve the marine environment and exercise their rights in Principle of Non-Discrimination with respect to foreign ships visiting to port states. UNFCCC and Kyoto protocol established Common but Differentiated Responsibility as the basis which is established on the historic responsibility. The principle in which IMO is presently developing the regulations of Green House Gas emitted from ships is contradict with the principle of UNFCCC regime. In this paper, the development and the principle of UNFCCC and Kyoto protocol is surveyed and it provides the tendency of the IMO activities regarding GHG emission from ships. Also, through consideration of the problems and restrictions drawn from comparison between two principles, the conclusion suggests the fundamental theory and implementation means in order to carry out the purpose of IMO regulations in accordance with the principles of UNCLOS and IMO Convention.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Information and Commucation Sciences Conference
• /
• 2002.11a
• /
• pp.706-709
• /
• 2002

1999년에 있었던 리스본에서의 유럽정상회담을 통하여 EU의 각 국가는 디지털화-지식기반의 경제체제로의 전환을 모색하게 되었다. 이러한 신경제체제로의 전환을 위한 대표적인 육성산업으로서 통신산업에 주목하게 되었다. 이러한 통신산업의 육성과 서비스 보급에 따른 이용자의 권익보호를 위하여 유럽연합은 통신규제정책에 대한 framework을 규정하게 되었다. 규제틀의 주요 원칙은 비차별성으로서, 기존의 사업자는 새로 시장에 진입한 신규사업자에 대해서 상호접속이나 설비병설(collocation)과 같은 서비스 제공시에 자사의 부서나 계열회사에게 제공하는 것과 비교하여 차별적으로 처리하지 말도록 하고 있다. 이러한 비차별성을 원칙으로 벤치마킹모형과 최적관행(best practice) 요금을 권장하고 있는데, 벤치마킹모형은 Bottom-Up형태의 통신망 재설계를 실시할 것을 권고하고 있다.

• Electronics and Telecommunications Trends
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.121-129
• /
• 2010

FCC가 2005년 인터넷상에서 콘텐츠, 애플리케이션, 단말기의 비차별적 접속을 보장하기 위해 망중립성 4원칙을 발표한 이후 망중립성 원칙의 타당성에 대한 찬반 논란이 계속되어 왔다. 2008년에는 Comcast의 파일공유사이트 접속 차단 조치에 대해서 FCC가 망중립성 원칙 위반행위로 판정하여 중지 명령(Comcast order)을 내린 바 있다. 그러나 2010년 4월 사법부가 2008년 FCC의 Comcast order를 무효화함에 따라 망중립성 원칙 적용을 시도하던 FCC의 노력이 무산될 위기에 놓여 있다. 본 고에서는 FCC의 망중립성 원칙 제시 배경과 추진 경과, 사법부의 최근 판결내용, 이해당사자의 찬반 논란을 살펴보고 향후 망중립성 원칙의 법적 근거를 마련하기 위한 FCC의 선택지(option)를 전망하고자 한다.

• Proceedings of the KIEE Conference
• /
• 2000.07a
• /
• pp.409-411
• /
• 2000

전력산업 구조개편이후 송전체제, 특히 송전요금체계에 관한 연구가 미흡한 가운데 자연적 독점을 유지하게 될 송전에 대한 정부의 규제가 중요성을 가지게 되었다. 본 연구에서는 여러 정부 규제방안들을 비교 검토하여 최적방안 모색을 위한 방향을 제시하고자 한다. 송전요금은 비용반영 투명성, 비(非)차별, 경쟁 등의 원칙을 지켜야 하고 이런 송전요금에는 경제적 효율성 사회 복지, 비용 최소 운영 등의 증진을 위해 한계비용이 반영되어야 한다. 하지만, 송전 네트웍은 규모의 경제에 종속되는 장기 투자로 구성된다. 이런 조건에서는 한계비용은 정의되기 어렵다. 그러므로 송전요금은 단기적 한계비용들의 신호와 장기적으로는 적절한 비용회수의 보장들과의 타협조정을 해야 한다. 네트웍 요금은 경쟁 정책의 원칙을 준수할 필요가 있으며 어떤 한 네트웍 회사도 과도한 요금을 부과한다든지 또는 사용자들을 차별한다든지 또는 약탈적(predatory) 방식으로 행동할 시에는 지배적 지위 남용에 대해 벌칙을 당하게 되어있다. 송전요금에 관한 결정은 공공서비스 의무비용, 특정 소비자그룹 우대를 위한 국가 정책들과 같은 사회적 목적들에 의해 제한을 받는다. 현존하는 대표적인 정부규제방안인 가격상한제와 투자보수율 규제방식을 검토한 결과 유도된 중요한 사실은 가격상한제 규제방식이 기업들로 하여금 위험(risk)에 좀 더 종속되게 만들지만 반면에 비용절감을 위한 강력한 인센티브를 주어 효율성 향상을 기할 수 있게 만든다는 것이다. 이러한 사실은 가격상한제 규제방식이 정부규제의 기본원칙에 더 많이 부합되며 궁극적인 경제체제의 목표인 자원의 효율적 배분에 더 가깝다는 것을 의미한다.

• Electronics and Telecommunications Trends
• /
• v.17 no.6 s.78
• /
• pp.89-98
• /
• 2002

현재, 한.미 ROU 협상당시 의도했던 목적은 이미 달성되었다. 우리나라는 WTO 정부조달협정에 가입하여 협정을 준수하고 있으며, WTO 정신에 입각하여 통신장비 조달도 공개, 공정, 비차별 원칙에 따라 운영하고 있다. 양허대상 통신사업자인 한국통신의 경우, 1997년 10월부터 출자전환과 함께 조달시장이 전면 개방됨에 따라 전세계 모든 공급업체에 비차별, 내국민대우를 보장하고 있다. 또한 한.미 ROU에 명시된 바와 같이 한국이 WTO 정부조달협정에 가입함으로서 한.미 ROU에서 배제조건을 충족시키고 있다. 더불어 현재 KT의 정부지분은 100% 민간에 매각되어 완전하게 민영화되었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 한.미 ROU는 WTO 정부조달협정으로 대체되거나 종료되지 않고 있어 양허대상인 통신사업자는 한.미 ROU의 본래의 취지와는 달리 경영의 자율성 침해와 조달의 비효율성 증가로 인하여 많은 추가비용을 지불하고 있다. 따라서 본 고는 국내통신사업의 발전과 규제완화라는 측면에서 정부조달협정 중에서 가장 파급효과가 큰 한.미 ROU의 개정협상을 위한 방향을 모색해 보았다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.237-264
• /
• 2017

With the onset of the Human Genome Project, social concerns about 'genetic information discrimination' have been raised, but the problem has not yet been highlighted in Korea. However, non-medical institutions' genetic testing which is related to disease prevention could be partially allowed under the revised "Bioethics and Safety Act" from June 30, 2016. In the case of one domestic insurance company, DTC genetic testing was provided for the new customer of cancer insurance as a complimentary service, which made the social changes related to the recognition of the genetic testing. At a time when precision medicine is becoming a new standard for medical care, discipline on genetic information discrimination has become a problem that can not be delayed anymore. Article 46 and 67 of the Bioethics Act stipulate the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of genetic information and penalties for its violation. However, these broad principles alone can not solve the problems in specific genetic information utilization areas such as insurance and employment. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany have different regulations that prohibit genetic information based discrimination. In the United States, Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act takes a form that adds to the existing law about the prohibition of genetic information discrimination. In addition, the range of genetic information includes the results of genetic tests of individuals and their families, including "family history". Canada has recently enacted legislation in 2017, expanding coverage to general transactions of goods or services in addition to insurance and employment. The United Kingdom deals only with 'predictive genetic testing results of individuals'. In the case of insurance, the UK government and Association of British Insurers (ABI) agree to abide by a policy framework ('Concordat') for cooperation that provides that insurers' use of genetic information is transparent, fair and subject to regular reviews; and remain committed to the voluntary Moratorium on insurers' use of predictive genetic test results until 1 November 2019, and a review of the Concordat in 2016. In the case of employment, The ICO's 'Employment Practices Code (2011)' is used as a guideline. In Germany, Human Genetic Examination Act(Gesetz ${\ddot{u}}ber$ genetische Untersuchungen bei Menschen) stipulates a principle ban on the demand for genetic testing and the submission of results in employment and insurance. The evaluation of the effectiveness of regulatory framework, as well as the form and scope of the discipline is different from country to country. In light of this, it would be desirable for the issue of genetic information discrimination in Korea to be addressed based on the review of related regulations, the participation of experts, and the cooperation of stakeholders.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2014

TThe CCS, gathering attention as a practical measure against climate change, has various potential risks within itself. Identifying those risks and developing proper countermeasures for each one, therefore, is essential. Failure to take proper measures against such risks may result in significant damages and accidents, causing social anxiety and unwillingness to accept CCS. This study proposes the precautionary principle as a fundamental principle for CCS risk management. While the justifications for the precautionary principle are acceptable, there have been criticisms on its limitations including its impracticality. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to identify detailed application strategies to overcome those limitations. The risk factors related to CCS consist of quantifiable risk domains as well as a number of those with high uncertainty and ambiguity. Thus, there is a need to develop differentiated coping measures, meaning that the precautionary principle should be applied. The risk assessment and management applying the precautionary principle has implication of social appraisal based on wide participation and communication among the interested parties, which may be a useful approach for expanding social applicability.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.1-28
• /
• 2007

Because the result of environmental pollution of one state is not limited to the national border but spills over into neighboring countries or global environment either directly or indirectly, international discussions on environment are crucial in domestic environmental law and policy. International environmental law demands differential obligation between developed and developing countries in the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibility'. The common but differentiated responsibility is the principle that draws distinction between developed and developing countries about global environmental issues, while recognizing the common responsibility of environmental protection for all nations. Environmental technology transfer or financial support from developed countries to developing countries, for example, has been discussed. The problem is the status of Korea. Korea's international environmental policy will be different by the distinction of responsibility for international environmental protection according to the status of developed and developing countries. International communities have never established a clear standard distinguishing developed from developing countries in any international laws. The WTO entrusts each country to decide whether it is a developing country or not. In the international environmental law, the status of a country is determined by the ability to negotiate. The status of Korea, thus, cannot be fixed in general international law. Rather, the Korean government is able to choose its own status strategically, It can be a policy choice to insist that Korea's developing country so as to reduce the burden of international responsibility. But, considering an economic indicator and environmental pollution indicator at which Korea ranks about 10th, the reality of Korea is much closer to a developed country. Positive policies such as development of environment-friendly technologies and products should be preferred to defensive assertion of developing country.

• 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.