• Journal of Ginseng Culture
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.21-31
• /
• 2023

Korean ginseng, a special product of Korea, has been one of the most important exports since the era of the Three Kingdoms. However, not many records were kept about ginseng in Korea until the Goryeo Dynasty. This paper summarizes the records relating to international diplomatic relations and trade of ginseng in the Goryeo Dynasty and the medicinal books known to have been published at the time. During the Goryeo Dynasty, ginseng was actively transported to the neighboring countries of Bohai, Song, Wa, Later Jin, and Yuan as a diplomatic gift or as a trade item. Ginseng was mainly exported from Goryeo to these countries, but it was also received as a diplomatic gift from Bohai and Khitan. Arabian merchants came to Byeokran Port, a representative international trading port of Goryeo, and traded ginseng. After the Mongol invasion, the demand for ginseng in the Yuan Dynasty was excessive, which became a big social problem. During the Goryeo Dynasty, several medicinal books were published, including Jejungiphyobang, Eouuichwalyobang, Hyangyakgobang, Samhwajahyangyakbang, Hyangyak Hyemin Gyeongheombang, Hyangyak Gugeupbang, and Biyebaekyobang. Hyangyak Gugeupbang, which was reprinted during the Joseon Dynasty, has been handed down to the present time, although this has not been the case for the originals of the remaining books. Recently, some of the latter books have been restored through the study of the references in various medicinal books of later generations. While the medicinal books used in the royal court showed that a high proportion of the prescriptions containing ginseng, not a single prescription for ginseng has been found in theHyangyak Gugeupbang, which was mainly used for commoners. This is thought to be because ginseng was very rare and expensive at the time, so it was difficult for commoners to access it.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.31-69
• /
• 2018

This study examines the role of science in resolving trade disputes. After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 that not only jeopardized the people of Japan, but also put the safety of an entire region at risk, the Republic of Korea (Korea) has imposed import bans as well as increased testing and certification requirements for radioactive material on Japanese food products. Japan has challenged these restrictions at the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This study aims to explain how international trade agreements and previous DSB rulings have dealt with different scientific viewpoints provided by confronting parties. In doing so, it will contrast the viewpoints espoused by Korean and Japanese representatives, and then analyzes the most similar case studies previously ruled on by the DSB, including the case of beef hormones and the case of genetically modified crops including biotech corn, both between the United States and the European Communities (EC). This study finds that science is largely subordinate to national interests in the case of state decision-making within the dispute settlement processes, and science has largely been relegated to a supportive role. Due to the ambiguity and lack of truly decisive decisions in the Appellate Body in science-based trade disputes, this study concludes that the Appellate Body avoids taking a firm scientific position in cases where science is still inconclusive in any capacity. Due to the panel's unwillingness to establish expert review boards as it has the power to do, instead favoring an individual-based system so that all viewpoints can be heard, it has also developed a system with its own unique weaknesses. Similar to any court of law in which each opposing party defends its own interests, each side brings whatever scientific evidence it can to defend its position, incentivizing them to disregard scientific conclusions unfavorable to their position. With so many questions that can arise, combined with the problems of evolving science, questions of risk, and social concerns in democratic society, it is no wonder that the panel views scientific information provided by the experts as secondary to the legal and procedural issues. Despite being ruled against the EC on legal issues in two previous cases, the EC essentially won both times because the panel did not address whether its science was correct or not. This failure to conclusively resolve a debate over whose science is more scientific enabled the EC to simply fix the procedural issues, while continuing to enforce trade restrictions based on their scientific evidence. Based on the analysis of the two cases of disputes, Korea may also find itself guilty of imposing an unwarranted moratorium on Japan's fish exports, only to subsequently pass new restrictions on labelling and certification requirements because Japan may have much scientific evidence at its disposal. However, Korea might be able to create enough uncertainty in the panel to force them to rule exclusively on the legal issues of the case. This will then equip Korea, like the EC in the past, with a way of working around the ruling, by changing whatever legal procedure they need to while maintaining some, if not most, of its restrictions when the panel fails to address its case on scientific grounds.