• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.125-147
• /
• 2009

The Basic Environmental Policy Act (BEPA) (Law No. 4257 effective 1. August 1990) sets forth the basic policies and administrative framework for environmental preservation, leaving more detailed regulations, and emission controls to separate laws targeting air, water, and solid waste, etc. The BEPA Article 31 adopts an unprecedented strict liability standard for damages as an absolute liability. The BEPA Article 31 provides for liability as follows. If a company is alleged to have caused damage through pollution of the environment, it will be liable for damages unless it can show that the pollution did not cause damages, or that it did not actually cause pollution. If the company did cause pollution, and if the pollution is the cause for the damages in question, the company will be liable irrespective of whether it was negligent or otherwise at fault. If there are two or more companies involved in the pollution, but it is unclear which company caused the damages, all of the companies will be jointly and severally liable for the damages. In this paper, the author attempts to uncover the problems of BEPA Article 31 and then seeks desirable amendments by comparing it to the German Environmental Liability Act. First, it will be necessary to provide definitions of 'companies etc.'. Second, it will be necessary to enumerate the kinds of company facilities. Third, it will be necessary to provide exclusionary clauses on material damages. Fourth, it will be necessary to show 'presumption of cause and effect'. Fifth, it will be necessary to provide a clause on 'right to information'. Sixth, it will be necessary to provide a clause for force majeure. Seventh, it will be necessary to take measures to secure abundant liability for damages which can be caused by the owner of the facility, the potential polluter. Finally, it is appropriate that Korea now legislate an Environmental Liability Act akin to the German Environmental Liability Act.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.93-129
• /
• 2018

These days, the world finds itself in a time when 21st century human and societal practices can benefit from alternative viable models; as such models are desperately needed. Daesoon Jinrihoe seeks to show one model inspired by the historical kings, Yao and Shun. In Daesoon Jinrihoe, King Yao and King Shun (堯舜 yo sun) are recollected and projected into modern times. This paper is a study that examines what aspects of Daesoon Thought go into understanding Kings Yao and Shun and what insights their example can provide for modern people today. In Daesoon Thought, the 'Dao of Kings Yao and Shun' has appeared again because the 'Era of the Great Opening (開闢時代 gaebyeok shidae)' has arrived, and this era is characterized by 'Seeking Out the Beginning and Returning to the Original Root (原始返本 wonshi banbon).' This is not simply a return to ancient times. The seeds that fall on the ground grow up to overcome winds and rains, bring forth new fruits in the autumn, and their fruits contain the original seeds. The seeds are simultaneously the original seeds, but not the seeds themselves. Rather, they are complete bodies condensed and infused with abundant experience gained after multitudinous trials. In Daesoon Thought, Kings Yao and Shun are analyzed from the following four perspectives: first, as an ideal human image that combines the qualities of Sages and Heroes (聖雄 seong oong), second, as the historical background behind the truth of the 'Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence (解冤相生),' third, as an ancient model of the ideal world, and fourth, as Daesoon Jinrihoe's 'Mind Dharma (心法)' and also as the classical basis for the 'Cultivation of Dao (修道).' However, the meaning of Kings Yao and Shun in Daesoon Thought is not limited to traditional philosophical thought but also contains certain crucial differences. In Daesoon Thought, the qualities of sages and heroes are combined in a way that does not compromise or penalize, but in accordance with the rule of law and beyond, the ideal world is understood as a world in which there are no natural disasters and everyone enjoys beauty and splendor. Mind Dharma means the spiritual cultivation of the 'Dao of Mutual Beneficence' as presented by Sangje (上帝 the Supreme God) through sincerity, respectfulness, and faithfulness (誠敬信 seong, gyeong, shin). In addition, through the core truth of Daesoon Thought, the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence, the resolution of the grudges associated with Kings Yao and Shun will likewise eliminate the root-grudge plaguing humanity and divine beings. In this paper, I intend to deepen my understanding of Daesoon Thought through a study on our theology's understanding of Kings Yao and Shun, and I also wish to redefine the value of Daesoon Thought through the symbolization and reinterpretation of ancient historical figures.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.3-51
• /
• 2017

From a historical point of view, while the Warsaw Convention was passed in 1924 to regulate the unified judicial responsibility in the global air transportation industry, protection of airline consumers was somewhat lacking in protecting air carriers. In principle, the air carrier does not bear any obligation or liability when the aircraft is not operated normally due to natural disasters such as typhoon or heavy snowfall. However, in recent years, in developed countries such as the US and Europe, there has been a movement in which regulates the air carriers' obligation to protect their passengers even if there is no misconduct or negligence. Furthermore, the legislation of such advanced countries imposes an obligation on the airlines to compensate the loss separately from damages in case the abnormal operation of the aircraft is not caused by force majeure but caused by their negligence. Under this historical and international context, Korea is also modifying the system of aviation consumer protection by referring to other foreign legislation. However, when compared with foreign countries, our norm has a few drawbacks. First, the airline's protection or care obligations are mixed with the legal liability for damages in the provision, which seems to be due to the lack of understanding of the airline's passenger protection obligation. The liability for damages, which is governed by the International Convention or the Commercial Act, shall be determined by judging the cause of the airline's liability in respect of the damage of the individual passenger in the course of the air transportation. However, the duty to care and the burden for compensation shall be granted to all passengers who feel uncomfortable with the abnormal operation regardless of the cause of the accident. Also, our compensation system for denied boarding due to oversale is too low compared to the case of foreign countries, and setting the compensation amount range differently based on the time for the re-routing is somewhat unclear. Regarding checked-baggage claim, it will be necessary to refund the fee only from the fact that the baggage is delayed without asking whether there is any damage occurred from the delayed baggage. This is the content of the duty to care, which is different from the current Commercial Act or the international convention, in which responsibility is different depending on whether the airline takes all the necessary measures in order to prevent delaying of the baggage. The content of force majeure, which is a requirement for exemption from the obligation to care passengers on the airplane, shall be reconsidered. Maintenance for safe navigation is not considered to be included in force majeure, and connection to airplanes, airport conditions are disputable. According to the EC Regulation, if the cause of the abnormal operation of the airline is force majeure, the airline's compensation obligation is exempted but the duty to care of airline company is still meaningful. Furthermore, even if the main role of aviation consumer protection is on an airline, it is the responsibility of government agencies to supervise the fulfillment of such protection obligations. Therefore, it is necessary for the Korean government to actively take measures such as enforcing incentives for airlines that faithfully fulfill their obligation to care and imposed penalties on the contrary.