• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.215-244
• /
• 2015

The 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Daubert v. Merrel Dow Chemical, Inc. has changed the ways in which scientific evidence is evaluated for legal purposes. A new set of guidelines, called thereafter the Daubert Standard, that was intended to increase the judge's authority in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in the court, turns out to have increased the burden of proof on the part of plaintiffs and have also considerably influenced the outcome of policy decisions in the regulatory areas. This paper analyzes the changes made in the relationship between science and law after the introduction of the Daubert Standard, examining the epistemological differences between its proponents and opponents. The judge's dilemma as a gatekeeper, this paper argues, is not simply that of an 'amateur scientist' seeking to learn and practice scientific knowledge per se. Rather, the dilemma ought to be that of an 'legal expert,' faithful to ethos of social justice without succumbing to the practical convenience of the Daubert Standard. This paper also suggests that there is much room for STS scholars to make contributions to the use of science in legal settings by conducting in-depth studies on court cases in the broad social and political context.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.26 no.7
• /
• pp.93-108
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This paper examines the admissibility of restitution as the legal consequence where a contract is frustrated under the Law of Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 in comparison with Korean Civil Code (KCC). In order to provide practical guidelines and advice regarding choice of and application of law for contracting parties in international trade, the paper comparatively evaluates requirements and the scope of restitution under the Act 1943 and KCC. Design/methodology - This paper executes a comparative study to analyze whether the parties may claim restitution of money paid or non-money benefit obtained before or after the time of discharge under English law and KCC. To achieve the purpose, it focuses on the identifying characteristics of each statute, thereby providing guidelines to overcome difficulties in legal application and interpretation as to restitution as the consequence of frustration. Findings - Under English law, the benefit may be restituted according to Art 1943 or the common law rule, mistake of fact or law. Under the KCC, restitution is considered based on the principle of the obligation to recover the original obtained regardless of the time when the benefit is conferred. Whilst Act 1943 does not require careful analysis of the grounds of restitution, requirements to justify restitution according to the principle of unjust enrichment, mistake of fact or law, and the KCC should be met. Meanwhile, the KCC may provide more opportunities to award restitution because it does not require the burden of proof related to the defendant's good faith, unlike the principle of unjust enrichment. Originality/value - Where the contract is frustrated by the effect of COVID-19, one legal issue is a consequence of frustration. Therefore, this paper analyzes requirements and the scope of restitution under English law as compared with the KCC in a timely manner. It provides contracting parties with practical guidelines and advice to reduce unpredictability when they choose the governing law in a contract.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Child Welfare
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.87-111
• /
• 2016

This study aimed to examine how video-recorded hearsay statements are taken in trial with regard to testimony of children less than the age of 13 in terms of children's rights, and to assess policy implications for the purpose of improving the current system. This study analyzed the precedents in accordance with their facts and contents. The analysis of the contents dealt with the main issues of trials concerning the sexual violence of children less than the age of 13. Specifically, This study selected precedents dealing with video-recorded hearsay statements, which are children's indirect statement, as core legal issues; examined the credibility(probative power) and admissibility of video-recorded statements; and prepared systemic alternatives in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the international standards for the protection of children's rights. As a result, this study proposed creating and utilizing indicators to assess evidence admissibility and the credibility of video-recoded statements in trial, thus reducing judgement through judges' discretion. Also proposed are new regulations with regard to cross-examination coverage of the hearsay statement of a child in a sexual violence trial of concerning children less than the age of 13. This study suggests an improvement in legal policies, based given that children's rights are more vulnerable than those of adults in trial. Nevertheless, this study is limited in that it selected and reviewed only among precedents that are in the public record.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.121-147
• /
• 2016

Factual issues in most patent litigation are related to very complicated techniques. Thus, the courts has emphasised that the technology in dispute has to be read and understood through the eyes of a person to whom it is directed. Therefore, among the various processes in federal litigation, most litigation in the field of patent infringement relies on at least some expert evidence. This paper focuses on issues regarding patent dispute evidence, and explore whether there are unresolved issues in evidential rules and procedures of patent proceedings. Further, this paper seeks to demonstrate that both the parties and the courts in patent disputes generally benefit from the current evidence system. However, in a number of Australian cases, the scope of expert evidence in patent cases has been strictly limited. Australian Government identified uncertain issues associated with the present patent enforcement system, due to factors such as a low level of knowledge about what patent rights entail, the high degree of uncertainty of outcome in legal proceedings, etc. Arbitration shall be reviewed and suggested as an alternative to tackling the ongoing problems in the trial system.

• The Korean Journal of Emergency Medical Services
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.117-138
• /
• 2015

Purpose: This study was performed targeted to paramedic and doctors, to examine the frequency, importance, and admissibility of the tasks of paramedics, and to establish as a basis for expanding their business scope. Methods: The subjects were 282 paramedics and 58 doctors, and the study was performed from October 20 to November 19, 2014. The statistical analysis was done by using SPSS/WIN 20.0. Results: The results showed the difference between the legal business scope of paramedics and the actually performed work. The frequently covered areas were trauma, cardiac arrest, and respiratory care; however, severity classifications were the most important. Concerning drug administration, epinephrine administration seemed to be the most necessary. Conclusions: The findings of this study can be used as basic data to broaden the capacity building and business scope of paramedics. Furthermore, to increase the resuscitation rate of emergency patients, the various tasks of paramedics must be incorporated, and these should be supported by laws and institutions.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.13 no.8
• /
• pp.1687-1692
• /
• 2009

Cyber forensics is used the process and technology of digital forensics as a criminal investigation in cyber space. Cyber crime is classified into cyber terror and general cyber crime, and those two classes are connected with each other. The investigation of cyber terror requires high technology, system environment and experts, and general cyber crime is connected with general crime by evidence from digital data in cyber space. Accordingly, it is difficult to determine relational crime types, collect evidence and the legal admissibility of evidence. Therefore, we considered the classifications of cyber crime, the collection of evidence in cyber space and the application of laws to cyber crime. In order to efficiently investigate cyber crime, it is necessary to integrate those concepts for each cyber crime-case. In this paper, we constructed a cyber forensics domain ontology for cyber criminal investigation using the concepts, relations and properties, according to categories of cyber crime, laws, evidence, and information of criminals and crime-cases. This ontology can be used in the process of investigating of cyber crime-cases, and for data mining of cyber crime; classification, clustering, association and detection of crime types, crime cases, evidences and criminals.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

The Chevron saga including Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron I") and Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron II") started out of domestic litigations between TexPet and Ecuador in the early 1990s. In Chevron I, the Tribunal decided that Article 2(7) of the U.S.-Ecuador BIT on effective means of provision was breached because of undue delays in the seven legal proceedings TexPet had brought against Ecuador in respect to contractual obligations. In Chevron II, it was contended that through the actions and inactions of the judiciary and the executive, Ecuador breached her several obligations under the BIT. Ecuador objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because TexPet's investment was terminated in 1992, and because Chevron is not a party to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and 1998 Final Release. In its Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Tribunal applied a prima facie standard to the facts alleged by the Claimants but denied by the Respondent, and decided that questions in respect of the Respondent's jurisdictional objections should be joined to the merits under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In the merits phase of Chevron II, the Tribunal divided the merits of the Parties' dispute into two parts, entitled "Track 1" and "Track 2". In its Partial Award on Track 1, the Tribunal decided that Chevron is a "Releasee" under the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In a decision on "Track 1B", the Tribunal decided that the Lago Agrio complaint cannot be read as pleading "exclusively" or "only" diffuse claims, and that, to this extent, the Claimants' reliance on the 1995 Settlement Agreement as a complete bar to the Lago Agrio complaint must fail, as a matter of Ecuadorian law. The Tribunal maintained the position that the Parties' disputes on both merit and jurisdiction should be reserved for Track 2. It remains to be seen how the Tribunal addresses the Claimants' allegations of multiple denials of justice under international law against the judgments of the Respondent's Courts, together with the Respondent's jurisdictional objections in Track 2 of the arbitration.