• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.139-207
• /
• 2022

As various state restrictions on individual freedom were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised that excessive infringements on fundamental rights were indiscriminately permitted based on the public interest of preventing infectious diseases. Therefore, the question of how to set acceptable limits of liberty restrictions on individuals has emerged. However, since the phenomenon of infections spreading to the population is only predicted statistically, how to deal with the risk of the infected individual as a subject of legal analysis has become a problem. In the absence of a theoretical framework of legal analysis of risk, the risk of infected individuals during the pandemic was not analyzed strictly, and proportionality review of infection prevention measures was often only an abstract comparison of the importance of public interest and individual rights. Therefore, this research aims to conduct a theoretical review on how risk can be conceptualized legally in a public health crisis, and to develop a theoretical framework for proportionality review of the risk of liberty-limiting measures during a pandemic. Chapter 2 analyzes the legal philosophical concepts of risk, which are the basis for liberty restrictions during a public health crisis, and applies and extends them to the pandemic. Chapter 3 reviews previous studies related to liberty restriction measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and points out they have a limitation that specific criteria for the proportionality review of public health measures in the pandemic have not been presented. Accordingly, Chapter 3 specifies the methodological framework for proportionality review, referring to the theoretical discussion on risks in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 reviews the legitimacy of gathering restriction orders, applying the theoretical discussion in Chapter 2 and the criteria for proportionality review established in Chapter 3. In particular, Section 4 examines logic of proportionality review in judicial precedents over the ban on gathering restrictions implemented in the COVID-19 pandemic. In analyzing the precedents, the logic of proportionality review in each case is critically reviewed and reconstructed based on the theoretical framework presented in this research.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.