• 발명특허
• /
• v.13 no.8 s.150
• /
• pp.22-22
• /
• 1988

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.191-225
• /
• 2014

Most of all, this paper analyzes the current situation of EU(European Union) and ascertain EU's economic condition in terms of tariff lines and non-tariff barriers. and the purpose of this article is to find out the problems of EU's tariff lines and non-tariff barriers. Next, We suggest some future direction of export promotion from Korea to EU more largely for our companies. First, this paper describes the characteristics and outline of EU. The EU is a politico-economic union of 28 member states that are primarily located in Europe. The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community(ECSC) and the European Economic Community(EEC), formed by the Inner Six countries in 1951 and 1958, respectively. After that, The Maastricht Treaty established the European Union under its current name in 1993. The latest major amendment to the constitutional basis of the EU, the Treaty of Lisbon, came into force in 2009. There are a combined population of over 500 million inhabitants and generated a nominal gross domestic product(GDP) of 16.692 trillion US dollars in EU. The results are as follows ; First of all, In terms of tariff lines and customs duties, Our companies have to know precisely EU's real tariff lines and other customs duties, and such as value added tax and exercise tax, corporate tax regulated by EU commission and EU's 28 members. second, our companies have to confirm EU's non-tariff barriers. such as RoHS, WEEE, REACH. These non-tariff barriers could be hindrances or obstacles to trade with foreign companies in other countries. We perceive all companies exporting to EU are related with these Technical Barriers to Trade irrespective of their nationality. So, Our companies fulfill the requirements of EU Commission concerning safety, health, environment etc. Also, Our companies choose market-driven strategy to export more largely than before in the field of marketing and logistics.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2020

The study started with the question, "Is Japan's normalization of nationalization a return to militarism?" Therefore, in order to analyze this, the characteristics of the international system after the inauguration of the Japanese Empire during World War I and World War II and the Abe's 2nd Cabinet in contemporary Japan were compared. Through this, there were some differences in the characteristics of the international system of the two periods, and as a result, it was intended to derive the differences between the two examples. During the prewar period of World War I, the militaristic Japanese Empire suffered great damage from the national pride of being the only power in Asia through the Paris Enhancement Conference, the Washington Navy Treaty, and the London Navy Treaty. However, the Western powers with colonies in Asia still existed in the region, so it was not possible to turn them into immediate power expansion. Meanwhile, World War II broke out in Europe. As a result, the Western powers had to focus on the whole of Europe, and the militaristic Japanese empire became a regional hegemony without missing the international system characteristic of "the hegemony." Unlike in the past militarism, Japan's case of pursuing common nationalization since 2012 has been carried out in the order of Northeast Asia in the composition of the "cold war" new cold war. In particular, Japan is attempting to transform itself into a normal state to strengthen the US-Japan alliance on a self-reliant level due to the lack of quantitative military power compared to the neighboring countries.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.12 no.10
• /
• pp.61-71
• /
• 2014

Global commerce is apparently here to bind Korean firms as well as Koreans. The advertising, buying and selling of goods and services recognizes no borders. As a result, enforcing territorially based trademark rights has become ever more challenging. Remote trademark owners who peacefully coexisted in a time before the internet and increasing globalism are now bumping heads. The internet also has made it easier for unscrupulous operators to deceive consumers and divert customers from established businesses by misappropriating trademarks on web-sites and in domain names. U.S. federal courts have been willing to help American businesses halt trademark infringements that reaches outside the United States. This is particularly true for e-business, via the internet, and the trend toward enforcement seems to be in favor of the trademark owner. This article discusses this trend as well as the extraterritorial enforcement of trademark rights by U.S. courts under the Lanham Act. It also offers suggestions for protecting valuable trademark rights worldwide. This paper will contribute to global Korean firms and Koreans who carefully read arguments in this valuable literature.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.55-89
• /
• 2003

What are the international aviation regimes? It is said that they are sets of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures of international aviation around which aviation actors' (states-actors, intergovernmental aviation organization, international aviation conventions, airlines and their organizations etc.) expectations converge in a given aviation issue-area for the purposes of the human welfare and the operations of the stable civil aviation. In this regards, the purposes of this study are focused on the aviation actors' shifts. Chronologically, international aviation regimes have been developed by some stages as followings; The 1st stage is the period from 1944 Chicago Convention to 1978 US Deregulation Act, when the aviation regulations and rules within the international aviation relations were implemented by Chicago-Bermuda regimes as Christer Jonsson pointed out. In this first stage, the sovereignty for the airspace over their countries is absolute. The second stage is the period from 1978 to '1992 Open Skies Agreement' between US and Netherlands. In this regime, airlines' activities as well as state-actors' have been actuated. The third stage is the period from 1992 to the contemporary. In this stage, airlines' activities for the consumers such as 'Open Skies Agreements', 'e-commerce business', 'airspace open policy within EU area', 'service open policy of WTO', and 'airlines' strategic alliance' are the central focal points in the world aviation relationship. In the conclusion, this phenomenon of the core actors in the international aviation rules has been shifted from the states-actors to the non-states actors especially, operating airlines, or consuming customers. Finally, I' d like to suggest that international aviation regimes should be developed to promote and facilitate the globalized level for the people's movements among the global aviation society. That is the way to proceed to the welfare and peace for all human beings of the World.