• Journal of International Area Studies (JIAS)
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.287-310
• /
• 2010

Developed nations are increasingly seeking to secure competitiveness in the international market through the development of human resources of workers in high value-added industries. And what is especially important in this process is the fact that workers, employers, and concerned government agencies are participating together in building and improving workers' skills through partnerships. This is based on the perception that workers training programs conducted according to the interest of one side are difficult to bring desired results. For the past decades, Korea has focused mostly on labor-management-government partnerships and strategies for developing the human resources of workers in developed nations in Europe. Related case studies show labor-management-government partnerships in European countries established through powerful trade unions, and interested parties actively cooperate and participate in employment and training programs that benefit both workers and employers. In contrast, studies on human resource development participated by workers and employers are relatively rare in the US, the reason being the lack of a mechanism for establishing labor-management-government partnership due to the country's strong tradition of decentralization and the emphasis on market principles. However, while it is difficult to find such channels for dialogue between workers, employers, and the government in th US on the federal level, there are many regional-level or industry-level programs that tackle common problems through partnerships between interested parties. This study analyzes how the regional labor-management-government partnerships in the US work and examines the types of programs operated by investigating the One-Stop Center based on the Workforce Investment Act and the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership. While the One-Stop Center is a regional labor-management-government partnership model that is institutionally executed in each state according to the Workforce Investment Act, the WRTP is a regional labor-management -government partnership model led by the private sector. The two examples are introduced in the OECD as best practice examples of regional partnerships, and are key references to Korea's current human resource development policy.

• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.89-97
• /
• 2010

This study researches the effects of common features on a no-choice option with respect to regulatory focus theory. The primary interest is in three factors and their interrelationship: common features, no-choice option, and regulatory focus. Prior studies have compiled vast body of research in these areas. First, the "common features effect" has been observed bymany noted marketing researchers. Tversky (1972) proposed the seminal theory, the EBA model: elimination by aspect. According to this theory, consumers are prone to focus only on unique features during comparison processing, thereby dismissing any common features as redundant information. Recently, however, more provocative ideas have attacked the EBA model by asserting that common features really do affect consumer judgment. Chernev (1997) first reported that adding common features mitigates the choice gap because of the increasing perception of similarity among alternatives. Later, however, Chernev (2001) published a critically developed study against his prior perspective with the proposition that common features may be a cognitive load to consumers, and thus consumers are possible that they are prone to prefer the heuristic processing to the systematic processing. This tends to bring one question to the forefront: Do "common features" affect consumer choice? If so, what are the concrete effects? This study tries to answer the question with respect to the "no-choice" option and regulatory focus. Second, some researchers hold that the no-choice option is another best alternative of consumers, who are likely to avoid having to choose in the context of knotty trade-off settings or mental conflicts. Hope for the future also may increase the no-choice option in the context of optimism or the expectancy of a more satisfactory alternative appearing later. Other issues reported in this domain are time pressure, consumer confidence, and alternative numbers (Dhar and Nowlis 1999; Lin and Wu 2005; Zakay and Tsal 1993). This study casts the no-choice option in yet another perspective: the interactive effects between common features and regulatory focus. Third, "regulatory focus theory" is a very popular theme in recent marketing research. It suggests that consumers have two focal goals facing each other: promotion vs. prevention. A promotion focus deals with the concepts of hope, inspiration, achievement, or gain, whereas prevention focus involves duty, responsibility, safety, or loss-aversion. Thus, while consumers with a promotion focus tend to take risks for gain, the same does not hold true for a prevention focus. Regulatory focus theory predicts consumers' emotions, creativity, attitudes, memory, performance, and judgment, as documented in a vast field of marketing and psychology articles. The perspective of the current study in exploring consumer choice and common features is a somewhat creative viewpoint in the area of regulatory focus. These reviews inspire this study of the interaction possibility between regulatory focus and common features with a no-choice option. Specifically, adding common features rather than omitting them may increase the no-choice option ratio in the choice setting only to prevention-focused consumers, but vice versa to promotion-focused consumers. The reasoning is that when prevention-focused consumers come in contact with common features, they may perceive higher similarity among the alternatives. This conflict among similar options would increase the no-choice ratio. Promotion-focused consumers, however, are possible that they perceive common features as a cue of confirmation bias. And thus their confirmation processing would make their prior preference more robust, then the no-choice ratio may shrink. This logic is verified in two experiments. The first is a $2{\times}2$ between-subject design (whether common features or not X regulatory focus) using a digital cameras as the relevant stimulus-a product very familiar to young subjects. Specifically, the regulatory focus variable is median split through a measure of eleven items. Common features included zoom, weight, memory, and battery, whereas the other two attributes (pixel and price) were unique features. Results supported our hypothesis that adding common features enhanced the no-choice ratio only to prevention-focus consumers, not to those with a promotion focus. These results confirm our hypothesis - the interactive effects between a regulatory focus and the common features. Prior research had suggested that including common features had a effect on consumer choice, but this study shows that common features affect choice by consumer segmentation. The second experiment was used to replicate the results of the first experiment. This experimental study is equal to the prior except only two - priming manipulation and another stimulus. For the promotion focus condition, subjects had to write an essay using words such as profit, inspiration, pleasure, achievement, development, hedonic, change, pursuit, etc. For prevention, however, they had to use the words persistence, safety, protection, aversion, loss, responsibility, stability etc. The room for rent had common features (sunshine, facility, ventilation) and unique features (distance time and building state). These attributes implied various levels and valence for replication of the prior experiment. Our hypothesis was supported repeatedly in the results, and the interaction effects were significant between regulatory focus and common features. Thus, these studies showed the dual effects of common features on consumer choice for a no-choice option. Adding common features may enhance or mitigate no-choice, contradictory as it may sound. Under a prevention focus, adding common features is likely to enhance the no-choice ratio because of increasing mental conflict; under the promotion focus, it is prone to shrink the ratio perhaps because of a "confirmation bias." The research has practical and theoretical implications for marketers, who may need to consider common features carefully in a practical display context according to consumer segmentation (i.e., promotion vs. prevention focus.) Theoretically, the results suggest some meaningful moderator variable between common features and no-choice in that the effect on no-choice option is partly dependent on a regulatory focus. This variable corresponds not only to a chronic perspective but also a situational perspective in our hypothesis domain. Finally, in light of some shortcomings in the research, such as overlooked attribute importance, low ratio of no-choice, or the external validity issue, we hope it influences future studies to explore the little-known world of the "no-choice option."

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.201-248
• /
• 2015

In Korea the number of unlawful interference act on board aircrafts has been increased continuously according to the growth of aviation demand, and there were 55 incidents in 2000, followed by 354 incidents in 2014, and an average of 211 incidents a year over the past five years. In 1963, a number of states adopted the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (the Tokyo Convention 1963) as the first worldwide international legal instrument on aviation security. The Tokyo Convention took effect in 1969 and, shortly afterward, in 1970 the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Hague Convention 1970) was adopted, and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(the Montreal Convention 1971) was adopted in 1971. After 9/11 incidents in 2001, to amend and supplement the Montreal Convention 1971, the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation(the Beijing Convention 2010) was adopted in 2010, and to supplement the Hague Convention 1970, the Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Beijing Protocol 2010) was adopted in 2010. Since then, in response to increased cases of unruly behavior on board aircrafts which escalated in both severity and frequency,, the Montreal Protocol which is seen as an amendment to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(the Tokyo Convention 1963) was adopted in 2014. Korea ratified the Tokyo Convention 1963, the Hague Convention 1970, the Montreal Convention 1971, the Montreal Supplementary Protocol 1988, and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosive 1991 which have proven to be effective. Under the Tokyo Convention ratified in 1970, Korea further enacted the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in 1974, as well as the Aviation Safety and Security Act that replaced the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in August 2002. Meanwhile, the title of the Aviation Safety and Security Act was changed to the Aviation Security Act in April 2014. The Aviation Security Act is essentially an implementing legislation of the Tokyo Convention and Hague Convention. Also the language of the Aviation Security Act is generally broader than the unruly and disruptive behavior in Sections 1-3 of the model legislation in ICAO Circular 288. The Aviation Security Act has reflected the considerable parts of the implementation of national legislation under the Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol 2010, and the Montreal Protocol 2014 that are the modernized international conventions relating to aviation security. However, in future, when these international conventions would come into effect and Korea would ratify them, the national legislation that should be amended or provided newly in the Aviation Security Act are as followings : The jurisdiction, the definition of 'in flight', the immunity from the actions against the aircraft commander, etc., the compulsory delivery of the offender by the aircraft commander, etc., the strengthening of penalty on the person breaking the law, the enlargement of application to the accomplice, and the observance of international convention. Among them, particularly the Korean legislation is silent on the scope of the jurisdiction. Therefore, in order for jurisdiction to be extended to the extra-territorial cases of unruly and disruptive offences, it is desirable that either the Aviation Security Act or the general Crime Codes should be revised. In conclusion, in order to meet the intelligent and diverse aviation threats, the Korean government should review closely the contents of international conventions relating to aviation security and the current ratification status of international conventions by each state, and make effort to improve the legislation relating to aviation security and the aviation security system for the ratification of international conventions and the implementation of national legislation under international conventions.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.97-158
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this paper is to research on the contents and improvement of national legislations relating to space development in Korea to make the sustainable progress of space development project in Korea. Korea has launched its first satellite KITST-1 in 1992. The National Space Committee has established "The Space Development Promotion Basic Plan" in 2007. The plan addressed the development of total 13 satellites by 2010 and the space launch vehicle by 2020, and the launch of moon exploration spaceship by 2021. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheng Province in June 2009. In Korea the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 was launched at the Naro Space Center in August 2009, and its second launch was made in June 2010. The United Nations has adopted five treaties relating to the development of outer space as follows : The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Registration Convention of 1974, and the Moon Treaty of 1979. All five treaties has come into force. Korea has ratified the Outer Space Treaty, the Rescue and Return Agreement, the Liability Convention and the Registration Convention excepting the Moon Treaty. Most of development countries have enacted the national legislation relating to the development of our space as follows : The National Aeronautic and Space Act of 1958 and the Commercial Space Act of 1998 in the United States, Outer Space Act of 1986 in England, Establishment Act of National Space Center of 1961 in France, Canadian Space Agency Act of 1990 in Canada, Space Basic Act of 2008 in Japan, and Law on Space Activity of 1993 in Russia. There are currently three national legislations relating to space development in Korea as follows : Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. The Ministry of Knowledge Economy of Korea has announced the Full Amendment Draft of Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act in December 2009, and it's main contents are as follows : (1) Changing the title of Act into Aerospace Industry Promotion Act, (2) Newly regulating the definition of air flight test place, etc., (3) Establishment of aerospace industry basic plan, establishment of aerospace industry committee, (4) Project for promoting aerospace industry, (5) Exploration development, international joint development, (6) Cooperative research development, (7) Mutual benefit project, (8) Project for furthering basis of aerospace industry, (9) Activating cluster of aerospace industry, (10) Designation of air flight test place, etc., (11) Abolishing the designation and assistance of specific enterprise, (12) Abolishing the inspection of performance and quality. The Outer Space Development Promotion Act should be revised with regard to the following matters : (1) Overlapping problem in legal system between the Outer Space Development Promotion Act and the Aerospace industry Development promotion Act, (2) Distribution and adjustment problem of the national research development budget for space development between National Space Committee and National Science Technology Committee, (3) Consideration and preservation of environment in space development, (4) Taking the legal action and maintaining the legal system for policy and regulation relating to space development. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act should be revised with regard to the following matters : (1) Definition of space damage and indirect damage, (2) Currency unit of limit of compensation liability, (3) Joint liability and compensation claim right of launching person of space object, (4) Establishment of Space Damage Compensation Council. In Korea, it will be possible to make a space tourism in 2013, and it is planned to introduce and operate a manned spaceship in 2013. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the policy relating to the promotion of commercial space transportation industry. Also it is necessary to make the proper maintenance of the current Aviation Law and space development-related laws and regulations for the promotion of space transportation industry in Korea.