• 해운
• /
• no.2 s.1
• /
• pp.36-39
• /
• 2004

• Nuclear industry
• /
• v.29 no.7
• /
• pp.44-47
• /
• 2009

• Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.81-91
• /
• 2007

The European Union(EU) has implemented the Structural Funds since 1994, in order to achieve its harmonious development though the strengthening of economic and social cohesion in the EU territory, and particularly to tackle regional disparities and to support backward regions in the territory. In the July of 2006, the Council of EU has flatly laid down the provisions of the Structural Funds which is applied to the period of 2007-2013, having regard to the proposal from the European Commission and the assent of the European Parliament. Given this context, this work deals with the features of the Structural Funds(2007-2013), focusing on the funds' objectives, the regions and countries under the application of such objectives, allocation of the funds among the EU Member States, and the funds' financial resources.

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.35-67
• /
• 2019

This study aims to analyze and evaluate the outcomes of the far-right parties in the 2019 European Parliament (hereinafter EP) elections. To this end, this study refrains from the conventional method of analyzing the number of seats of the political group(s) classified as far-right in the EP. Instead, the study takes a method based on the party family classification by summing up the number of the EP members who have been elected to the far-right party within individual member states. There are two reasons for the analysis of EP election results based on this far-right party family. Firstly, some of the far-right members of the EP do not join the political group(s) classified as far-right, and secondly, some of the political group(s) classified as far-right tends to be inhomogeneous. In this vein, this study attempts to analyze the outcomes of the far-right party in the 2019 EP elections based on the classification of the far-right party family. As a result, this study shows that the assessment of the European major press based on the number of seats of the political group(s) classified as far-right in the EP was inconsistent with the actual political landscape. According to the analysis of election results based on the classification of the far-right party family, the number of seats secured by the far-right parties in the 2019 EP elections corresponded to or significantly exceeded the results of previous polls. In addition, this is a significant increase in the seats of the far-right parties compared to the 2014 EP elections, and it is reasonable to affirm that the far-right parties have made great strides in the 2019 EP elections.

• Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.271-305
• /
• 2014

There is an inescapable requirement in public policy to provide evidence. For the evaluation of the EU Rural Development Policy, the European Commission has designed a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework(CMEF). The principal objectives of evaluations are to improve decision-making, resource allocation and accountability. In Korea, howerver, the opinion-based policy by expert is still rural development evaluation system. It does not provide the objective quantitative indicators for impact of rural development project. According to this, the budget-making body (parliament, government, etc.) have questioned the effectiveness of rural development projects, rural development projects often reduced or changed. To improve the accountability of rural development policy, it is necessary to build a reliable monitoring and evaluation system based on the evidence. First, rural development evaluation indicators should be considered the multipul goal of rural development, namely economic development, social development. Second, the purpose of the evaluation is necessary to be designed for the learning rather than reward. Third, the participation by local residents should be strengthened in evaluation process. Finally, it is necessary to establish rural development monitoring and evaluation system, such as CMEF of the EU (CMEF).

• Journal of the korean veterinary medical association
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.198-205
• /
• 1999

유럽연합의회는 1998년 12월 17일 사료첨가물에 관한 유럽의회규정(Council Directive 70/524/EEC, `70. 11. 23)을 개정(Council Regulation EC 2821/98)하여 그동안 사료첨가용으로 사용을 허용하였던 항생물질 중 아연바시트라신, 스피라마이신, 인산타일로신 및 버지니아마이신 등 4종의 사용을 금지하였다. 그러나 풀라보포스포리폴(풀라보마이신), 모넨신소디움, 살리노마이신소디움, 아빌라마이신 등 4종의 사료첨가용 항생물질은 계속 사용이 허용된다. 축산식품의 안전성이 강조되고 있는 가운데 유럽연합의 이러한 조치는 축산분야에 종사하는 사람들에게 커다란 관심을 갖게 하고있다. 이 글은 유럽연합이 4종의 항생물질을 사료첨가용으로 사용을 금지하게된 배경을 살펴봄으로서 유럽연합의 사료첨가용 항생제 사용금지에 관한 정확한 내용을 파악하는데 도움을 드리기 위하여 작성되었다. 유럽연합의 아연바시트라신, 스피라마이신, 인산타일로신 및 버지니아마이신 등 4종의 항생제에 대한 이러한 사용금지 조치는 가축의 성장촉진용으로 사용되는 이러한 항생물질에 내성을 획득한 가축의 세균이 인체에 기생하는 세균에게 그 내성을 전달하여 인체용으로 사용되는 관련 약품들에 대하여 내성을 일으켜 사람에서의 질병 치료를 어렵게 함으로서 인체의 건강을 해할 우려가 있다는 전제하에서 실시되었다. 이러한 조치는 현재까지 확실한 증거가 나타나지는 않았으나, 그 위험을 배제할 수 없으므로 이러한 위험을 예방하는 차원에서 이루어지는 예방적 조치이며, 따라서 금번의 사용금지 조치는 유럽연합 집행위원회에서 2000년 12월 31일 이전까지 이러한 항생제의 내성 유발에 관한 여러 가지 연구와 항생제 투여동물에서의 미생물 내성 감시 프로그램의 결과에 따라 재검토될 것을 규정하고 있다. 금번 사용금지 조치된 4종의 항생제는 그 동안 우리나라에서도 그 유효성과 안전성이 인정되어 축산 현장에서 사용되어온 물질들이다. 금번 유럽연합의 조치는 우리나라에서도 이러한 항생제들에 대한 재평가의 필요성을 제기하는 것으로서 이 분야에 종사하는 산업계, 학계, 연구계가 모두 힘을 모아 조속한 기간 내에 그 안전성을 재평가하여 축산식품에서의 안전성을 확보하도록 노력하여야할 것이다.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.655-688
• /
• 2013

Most of all the transfer of undertakings in such a service provision business as labour-intensive operation creates uncertainty of employment, aggravates terms of employment and breaks a trade union. However there are no regulations in Korea to protect employees from these undesirable situations. On the other hand Great Britain has introduced the concept of a transfer of undertakings by service provision change in 2006. It was intended to remove or at least alleviate the uncertainties and difficulties created by the need under TUPE 1981 and EU Directive to establish a transfer of a stable economic identity which retained its identity in the hands of the alleged transferee. In contrast to the words used to define transfer in the 1981 Regulations 'service provision change' is a wholly new statutory concept and distinguished from the economic entity. The new provisions seems to be straightforwards and the circumstances in which service provision change is established are clearly set out in Regulations. In this context there is no need for a judicially prescribed multi-factorial approach, as advanced by European Court of Justice like Spijkers test. The new concept of service provision change apply even though there are some minor difference or differences between the nature of the tasks carried on after service provision change as compared with before it. A commonsense and pragmatic approach is required and It is enough only to ask whether the activities carried on by the alleged transferee are fundamentally or essentially the same as those carried out by the alleged transfer. TUPE 2006 of Great Britain far exceeding the scope of the Acquired Rights Directive is full of suggestions as a model of legislation to secure a stable employment itself and favorable and fair conditions of employment. More active efforts are needed for lawmaking to prohibit a dismissal and vary conditions of employment for the reason of the transfer of undertakings itself.