• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Crop Science Conference
• /
• 2017.06a
• /
• pp.51-52
• /
• 2017

"Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture" means any genetic material of plant origin of actual or potential value for food and agriculture. "Genetic material" means any material of plant origin, including reproductive and vegetative propagating material, containing functional units of heredity. (Internal Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, ITPGRFA). The "Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (shortly Nagoya Protocol)" is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It provides a transparent legal framework for the effective implementation of one of the three objectives of the CBD: the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol on ABS was adopted on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan and entered into force on 12 October 2014, 90 days after the deposit of the fiftieth instrument of ratification. Its objective is the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, thereby contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Nagoya Protocol will create greater legal certainty and transparency for both providers and users of genetic resources by; (a) Establishing more predictable conditions for access to genetic resources and (b) Helping to ensure benefit-sharing when genetic resources leave the country providing the genetic resources. By helping to ensure benefit-sharing, the Nagoya Protocol creates incentives to conserve and sustainably use genetic resources, and therefore enhances the contribution of biodiversity to development and human well-being. The Nagoya Protocol's success will require effective implementation at the domestic level. A range of tools and mechanisms provided by the Nagoya Protocol will assist contracting Parties including; (a) Establishing national focal points (NFPs) and competent national authorities (CNAs) to serve as contact points for information, grant access or cooperate on issues of compliance, (b) An Access and Benefit-sharing Clearing-House to share information, such as domestic regulatory ABS requirements or information on NFPs and CNAs, (c) Capacity-building to support key aspects of implementation. Based on a country's self-assessment of national needs and priorities, this can include capacity to develop domestic ABS legislation to implement the Nagoya Protocol, to negotiate MAT and to develop in-country research capability and institutions, (d) Awareness-raising, (e) Technology Transfer, (f) Targeted financial support for capacity-building and development initiatives through the Nagoya Protocol's financial mechanism, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) (Nagoya Protocol). The Rural Development Administration (RDA) leading to conduct management agricultural genetic resources following the 'ACT ON THE PRESERVATION, MANAGEMENT AND USE OF AGRO-FISHERY BIO-RESOURCES' established on 2007. According to $2^{nd}$ clause of Article 14 (Designation, Operation, etc. of Agencies Responsible for Agro-Fishery Bioresources) of the act, the duties endowed are, (a) Matters concerning securing, preservation, management, and use of agro-fishery bioresources; (b) Establishment of an integrated information system for agro-fishery bioresources; (c) Matters concerning medium and long-term preservation of, and research on, agro-fishery bioresources; (d) Matters concerning international cooperation for agro-fishery bioresources and other relevant matters. As the result the RDA manage about 246,000 accessions of plant genetic resources under the national management system at the end of 2016.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.11
• /
• pp.69-99
• /
• 1984

A dramatic development in the new technology of copying materials has presented us with massive problems on reconciling the conflicts between copyright owners and potential users of copyrighted materials. The adaptation to this changing condition led some countries to revise their copyright laws such as in the U. S. in 1976 and in Korea in 1984 for merging with the international or universal copyright conventions in the future. Copyright defined as exclusive rights given to copyright owners aims to secure a fair return for an author's creative labor and to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. The exclusive rights on copyrightable matters, generally for reproduction, preparation of derivative works, public distribution, public performance, and public display, are limited by fair use for scholarship and criticism and by library reproduction for its preservation and interlibrary loan. These limitations on the exclusive rights are concerned with all aspects of library services and cause a great burden on librarian's daily duty to provide balance between the rights of creators and the needs of library patrons. The fair use as one of the limitations on it has been coupled with enormous growth of a new technology and extended from xerography to online database systems. The implementation of the fair use and library reprography in Korean law to the local practices is examined on the basis of the new American copyright act of 1976. Under the draft revision of Korean law, librarians will face many potential problems as summarized below. 1. Because the new provision of 'life time plus 50 years' will tie up substantial bodies of material longer than the old law, until that date librarians would need permissions from the owners and should pay attention to the author's death date. 2. Because the copyright can be sold, distributed, given to the heirs, donated, as a whole or a part, librarians should chase down the heirs and other second owners. In case of a derivative work, this is a real problem. 3. Since a work has its protection from the moment of its creation, the coverage of copyrightable matter would be extended to the published or the unpublished works and librarian's work load would be heavier. Without copyright registration, no one can be certain that a work is in the public domain. Therefore, librarians will need to check with an authority. 4. For implementation of limitations on exclusive rights, fair use and library reproduction for interlibrary loan, there can be no substantial aggregate use and there can be no systematic distribution of multicopies. Therefore, librarians should not substitute reproductions for subscriptions or purchases. 5. For the interlibrary loan by photocopying, librarians should understand the procedure of royalty payment. 6. Compulsory licenses should be understood by librarians. 7. Because the draft revision of Korean law is a reciprocal treaty, librarians should take care of other countries' copyright law to protect foreign authors from Korean law. In order to solve the above problems, some suggestions are presented below. 1. That copyright clearinghouse or central agency as a centralized royalty payment mechanism be established. 2. That the Korean Library Association establish a committee on copyright. 3. That the Korean Library Association propose guidelines for each occasion, e.g. for interlibrary loan, books and periodicals and music, etc. 4. That the Korean government establish a copyright office or an official organization for copyright control other than the copyright committee already organized by the government. 5. That the Korean Library Association establish educational programs on copyright for librarians through seminars or articles written in its magazines. 6. That individual libraries provide librarian's copyright kits. 7. That school libraries distribute subject bibliographies on copyright law to teachers. However, librarians should keep in mind that limitations on exclusive rights are not for an exemption from library reprography but as a convenient access to library resources.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.349-384
• /
• 2013

The Sputnik 1 launching in 1957 made the world recognize the necessity of international regulations on space development and activities in outer space. The United Nations established COPUOS the very next year, and adopted the mandate to examine legal issues concerning the peaceful uses of outer space. At the time, the military sector of the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union were in charge of the space development and they were not welcomed to discuss the prohibition of the military uses of outer space at the legal section in the COPUOS. Although both countries had common interests in securing the freedom of military uses in outer space. As the social and economic benefits derived from space activities have become more apparent, civil expenditures on space activities have continued to increase in several countries. Virtually all new spacefaring states explicitly place a priority on space-based applications to support social and economic development. Such space applications as satellite navigation and Earth imaging are core elements of almost every existing civil space program. Likewise, Moon exploration continues to be a priority for such established spacefaring states as China, Russia, India, and Japan. Recently, Companies that manufacture satellites and ground equipment have also seen significant growth. On 25 February 2012 China successfully launched the eleventh satellite for its indigenous global navigation and positioning satellite system, Beidou. Civil space activities began to grow in China when they were allocated to the China Great Wall Industry Corporation in 1986. China Aerospace Corporation was established in 1993, followed by the development of the China National Space Administration. In Japan civil space was initially coordinated by the National Space Activities Council formed in 1960. Most of the work was performed by the Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science of the University of Tokyo, the National Aerospace Laboratory, and, most importantly, the National Space Development Agency. In 2003 all this work was assumed by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency(JAXA). Japan eases restrictions on military space development. On 20 June 2012 Japan passed the Partial Revision of the Cabinet Establishment Act, which restructured the authority to regulate Japanese space policy and budget, including the governance of the JAXA. Under this legislation, the Space Activities Commission of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, which was responsible for the development of Japanese space program, will be abolished. Regulation of space policy and budget will be handed over to the Space Strategy Headquarter formed under the Prime Minister's Cabinet. Space Strategy will be supported by a Consultative Policy Commission as an academics and independent observers. By revoking Article 4 (Objectives of the Agency) of a law that previously governed JAXA and mandated the development of space programs for "peaceful purposes only," the new legislation demonstrates consistency with Article 2 of the 2008 Basic Space Law. In conformity with the principles laid down in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty JAXA is now free to pursue the non-aggressive military use of space. New legislation is the culmination of a decade-long process that sought ways to "leverage Japan's space development programs and technologies for security purposes, to bolster the nation's defenses in the face of increased tensions in East Asia." In this connection it would also be very important and necessary to create an Asian Space Agency(ASA) for strengthening cooperation within the Asian space community towards joint undertakings.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.147-162
• /
• 1989

The current status of the application and interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent Protocols in Asian countries is in its fredgling stages compared to the developed countries of Europe and North America, and there is thus little published information about the various Asian governments' treatment and courts' views of the Warsaw System. Due to that limitation, the accent of this paper will be on Korea and Japan. As one will be aware, the so-called 'Warsaw System' is made up of the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Hague Protocol of 1955, the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 1975. Among these instruments, most of the countries in Asia are parties to both the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol. However, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia are parties only to the Hague Protocol, while Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are parties only to the Warsaw Convention. Thailand and Taiwan are not parties only to the convention or protocol. Among Asian states, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Pakistan are also parties to the Guadalajara Convention, but no country in Asia has signed the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 or the Montreal Additional Protocols, which Protocols have not yet been put into force. The People's Republic of China has declared that the Warsaw Convention shall apply to the entire Chinese territory, including Taiwan. 'The application of the Warsaw Convention to one-way air carriage between a state which is a party only to the Warsaw Convention and a state which is a party only to the Hague Protocol' is of particular importance in Korea as it is a signatory only to the Hague Protocol, but it is involved in a great deal of air transportation to and from the united states, which in turn is a party only to the Warsaw Convention. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Korea appears to be, that parties to the Warsaw Convention were intended to be parties to the Hague Protocol, whether they actually signed it or not. The effect of this decision is that in Korea the United States and Korea will be considered by the courts to be in a treaty relationship, though neither State is a signatory to the same instrument as the other State. The first wrongful death claim in Korea related to international carriage by air under the Convention was made in Hyun-Mo Bang, et al v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. case. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed for damages based upon breach of contract as well as upon tort under the Korean Civil Code. The issue in the case was whether the time limitation provisions of the Convention should be applicable to a claim based in tort as well as to a claim based in contract. The Appellate Court ruled on 29 August 1983 that 'however founded' in Article 24(1) of the Convention should be construed to mean that the Convention should be applicable to the claim regardless of whether the cause of action was based in tort or breach of contract, and that the plaintiffs' rights to damages had therefore extinguished because of the time limitation as set forth in Article 29(1) of the Convention. The difficult and often debated question of what exactly is meant by the words 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' in Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, has also been litigated. The Supreme Court of Japan dealt with this issue in the Suzuki Shinjuten Co. v. Northwest Airlines Inc. case. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, and decided that 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' under Article 25(1) of the Convention was within the meaning of 'gross negligence' under the Japanese Commercial Code. The issue of the convention of the 'franc' into national currencies as provided in Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol has been raised in a court case in Korea, which is now before the District Court of Seoul. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the gold franc equivalent must be converted in Korean Won in accordance with the free market price of gold in Korea, as Korea has not enacted any law, order or regulation prescribing the proper method of calculating the equivalent in its national currency. while it is unclear if the court will accept this position, the last official price of gold of the United States as in the famous Franklin Mint case, Special Drawing Right(SDR) or the current French franc, Korean Air Lines has argued in favor of the last official price of gold of the United States by which the air lines converted such francs into us Dollars in their General Conditions of Carriage. It is my understanding that in India, an appellate court adopted the free market price valuation. There is a report as well saying that if a lawsuit concerning this issue were brought in Pakistan, the free market cost of gold would be applied there too. Speaking specifically about the future of the Warsaw System in Asia though I have been informed that Thailand is actively considering acceding to the Warsaw Convention, the attitudes of most Asian countries' governments towards the Warsaw System are still wnot ell known. There is little evidence that Asian countries are moving to deal concretely with the conversion of the franc into their own local currencies. So too it cannot be said that they are on the move to adhere to the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 3 & 4 which attempt to basically solve many of the current problems with the Warsaw System, by adopting the SDR as the unit of currency, by establishing the carrier's absolute liability and an unbreakable limit and by increasing the carrier's passenger limit of liability to SDR 100,000, as well as permiting the domestic introduction of supplemental compensation. To summarize my own sentiments regarding the future, I would say that given the fact that Asian air lines are now world leaders both in overall size and rate of growth, and the fact that both Asian individuals and governments are becoming more and more reliant on the global civil aviation networks as their economies become ever stronger, I am hopeful that Asian nations will henceforth play a bigger role in ensuring the orderly and hasty development of a workable unified system of rules governing international commercial air carriage.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.