• 환경정책연구
• /
• 제11권3호
• /
• pp.149-170
• /
• 2012

2011년 12월 12일 남아프리카 공화국 더반에서 열린 제17차 유엔기후협약 당사국 총회가 예정보다 36시간 연장 협상 끝에 더반 플랫폼을 채택하며 폐막했다. 더반 총회는 예상과 다르게 교토의정서 연장에 합의하고 2020년부터 모든 국가가 참여하는 감축 체제 협상 출범에 합의하는 성과를 거두었다. 교토의정서의 연장과 2020년 이후 전지구적인 기후체제 출범 합의라는 성과에도 불구하고 성공적인 기후체제의 안착을 위해서는 앞으로 풀어야 할 숙제가 많다. 총회 이전부터 일부 감축 의무국들은 교토의정서 제2차 감축기간에 참여하지 않겠다고 공표하여 교토의정서 연장의 실효성을 반감시켰으며, 협상당사국들은 새로운 협약 하의 국가별 감축목표, 목표 이행의 법적 구속력 여부 등 다양한 의제를 두고 첨예하게 대립하고 있기 때문이다. 이러한 불확실한 국제 정세 속에 한국은 교토의정서 연장으로 인해 당분간 감축의무를 면제받았다는 것에 안도하지 말고 장기적인 관점에서 국내 기후변화대응정책을 재정비해야 할 것이다. 장기적인 석유 의존도를 줄이는 저탄소 경제로의 이행을 위해 기후변화대응정책의 필요성에 대한 범국민적 공감대 형성을 위해 노력하고, 국제경쟁력 제고를 위해 비용효과적인 감축정책 마련을 위해 고민하며, 국제협상에서는 전지구적인 참여를 독려하기 위해 국가 간 신뢰 형성에 일조해야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.215-239
• /
• 2011

우주의 급속한 상업화와 더불어 본격적인 상업우주운송시대가 열리고 있다. 이 상업우주운송 중 가장 먼저 실현될 것으로 보이는 분야는 우주여행분야로서 이를 위한 우주운송체 개발이 Virgin Galatic 사와 XCOR Aerospace 사 등 민간기업의 주도로 진행되고 있다. 우주여행을 위한 우주운송체는 재 사용가능한 운송체(Resuable Launch Vehicle)로 개발되고 있으며 Virgin Galatic사의 Spaceship I과 II는 시험비행을 성공리에 끝내고 2012년 경 부터 본격적인 우주여행에 투입할 계획이다. 우리나라도 예천천문연구센타에서 XCOR Aerospace사와 동사의 LYNX MARK-II를 도입하는 양해각서를 체결하고 계획대로 라면 2013년부터 동 우주선을 사용하여 우주여행을 실시하려고 하고 있다. 이와 같이 이제는 우주여행은 우리에게 먼 미래의 이야기가 아니라 현실적인 문제가 되었다. 그러나 우주여행을 위한 법적측면에서의 대비는 거의 마련되어 있지 않은 것도 국내외적 현실이다. 이에 따라 본 논문은 우주여행과 관련하여 발생할 수 있는 제반 법적 문제점을 (1) 항공법과 우주법 중 어느 법의 적용을 받아야 하는가 하는 적용법 문제와, (2)우주여행객의 법적지위 문제를 우주선원으로 볼 수 있는가와 우주비행참가자로 볼 수 있는가를 우주관련 조약과 미국의 개정 상업우주발사법을 통하여 살펴보고 우주여행객에 대한 우주선선장의 권한 문제도 살펴보았다. (3)우주여행사고시의 책임문제는 정부 및 비정부단체의 국제책임문제와 관련하여 살펴보고, (4)허가와 감독문제는 미국의 AST의 사례와 개정 상업우주발사법을 통하여 고찰하였다. 특히 우주선의 안전성 보장 문제가 우주여행의 본격화를 위해서는 필수적인 점에서 현행 법제도상의 한계점과 개선점에 대해서도 살펴보았다. (5)우주여행선의 등록문제도 우주물체 등록협약과 관련하여 살펴보고, (6)마지막으로 우주여행 사업의 리스크 보전차원에서 우주보험 문제를 제3자 손해에 대한 보험과 자기재산에 대한 손해 순으로 보험문제를 살펴보았다. 우주여행이 본격적으로 활성화되기 위해서는 적어도 본 논문에서 언급되고 있는 법적 문제점들에 대한 검토와 이에 대한 법적 제도적 보완 장치가 조속히 국내적으로도 국제적으로도 마련되어야 할 것으로 본다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.73-106
• /
• 2004

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Working Group began its deliberations on the topic of interim measures of protection at its thirty-second session (Vienna, 21-30 March 2000), when the Working Group expressed general support for a legal regime governing enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by the arbitral tribunal. Also the Working Group took a preliminary analysis of whether there was a need for a uniform rule on court-ordered interim measures of protection in support of arbitration. The Working Group agreed, at its thirty-third session (Vienna, 20 November-1 December 2000), that the proposed new article to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration on enforcement of interim measures of protection (tentatively numbered article 17 bis) should include an obligation on courts to enforce interim measures if prescribed conditions were met. At its thirty-fourth session (New York, 21 May-1 Jun 2001), in addition to continuing its review of draft article 17 bis, the Working Group proceeded to consider a text revising article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which defined the scope of an arbitral tribunal's power to order interim measures and included an additional provision on the granting of interim measures on an ex parte basis. Discussions in relation to revised drafts of article 17 and 17 bis of the UNCITRAL Model Law have continued at the fortieth session ( New York, 23-27 February 2004). Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides that the arbitral tribunal may order any party to take such interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect to the subject matter of the dispute. However it may be noted that the article does not deal with enforcement of such measures.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.183-203
• /
• 2017

Two solution approaches have been suggested globally to solve the crisis of bill of lading; that is to say, electronic bill of lading and sea waybill. Electronic bill of lading is not unsettled as a solution to solve the crisis of bill of lading but sea waybill is used on a global basis to do so. The surrendered bill of lading is applied for practical usage instead of sea waybill in a short voyage among Korea, China, and Japan, owing to faster delivery at destination and lower cost than bill of lading. To surrender the original bill of lading, the consignor should submit all originals with a request letter to the carrier of goods with necessary surrender charges, if any, in doing so. Once after receiving the original bills of lading consisting of normally three originals but in some cases five, the carrier stamped "Surrendered" on the front of original bills of lading and sent a message to his counterpart at the port of destination, stating that the original bill of lading surrendered at the port of shipment and the consignee can take delivery of the goods without production of the original bill of lading at destination. The legal regime of the surrendered bill of lading is not settled as it is not considered legally as bill of lading, and the decisions rendered by each nation's courts are different according to the usages of the surrendered bill of lading. The purpose of this paper is to prevent the disputes between parties with regard to the surrendered bill of lading by studying the causes and precautions of disputes in relation to the surrendered bill of lading.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.277-292
• /
• 2005

우주개발진흥법은 동 법령의 목적, 및 그 주요 개념 규정에 있어서 항공우주산업개발 촉진법과의 구별야 확연하도록 도모하고 있으며, "우주개발"의 개념을 새로이 규정하면서 이를 꾀하고 있다. 규정된 개념의 특징은 우주공간을 탐사하고 이용하는 각종행위는 인공위성 및 발사체 등과 같이 우주 환경에서 사용되기 위한 기기와 장비의 기술 개발에 의해서만 가능한 것이기에 우주공간의 탐사와 이용은 그러한 기술개발을 포함하는 개념으로 보아야 한다는 데에 있다. 이에 동법이 추구하는 우주개발은 "우주산업"과는 구분되는 것이기에 법령 체계와의 조화 문제가 극복되고 있다고 볼 수 있다. 아울러 우주개발진흥볍은 국제협약상의 의무를 이행하면서, 아울러 최소한의 규제에 의해서 필요한 목적을 달성하기 위한 방식을 택하고 있다. 즉, 우주물체의 등록제도, 국내에서의 발사 허가제도 등을 통해서 우주활동에 대한 규제를 꾀하고 있다.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• pp.121-148
• /
• 1997

The Japanese fishery management system has been established on the basis of various experience accumulated over many years. The fishery management system in Japan, one of the oldest fishery management systems in the world, is aimed at ensuring comprehensive utilization of the water surface and developing fishery productivity, by giving protection of the breeding environment of aquatic animals and plants, enabling the appropriate use of fishery grounds, preventing and solving disputes over fishery grounds and making other fishery adjustments. Japanese Fishery Law has been changed largely into (1) The Feudal Era(to 1900), (2) The Oldest Fishey Law(1901~48), (3) Current Fishery Law(1949 to present). Japanese fishery legislation is designed as a single package combining coastal, offshore and distant-water fisheries. During the period of the old fishery law, numerous conflicts arose over the joint use of fishing grounds and fish stocks. Such conflicts occurred among users of the same gear as well as between users of different gears or of different sizes of fishing craft. Large scale conflict sometime occurred between neighbouring fishing communities due to a lack of fairness in principle and coordination in practice. Therefore, the new fishery law enacted in 1949. This law was designed primarily to realize the most effective and rational use of fishing grounds and fishery resources, the basic philosophy being that, through democratic organization by fishermen themselves, productivity would be stimulated and incomes and living standards eventually improved. Nowadays, Community Based Fisheries Management through democratic organization by fishermen themselves have to enforce at coastal fisheries. This Community Based Fisheries Management manage to fishery resources by fishermen themselves and harvest in collaboration with that resources. Therefore, this paper is intended to briefly to describe the entire system and the historical development of Japanese fishery legislation in order to assist in reform of our country fisheries management regime.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.57-77
• /
• 2004

1967년 우주조약에서 규정된 우주활동에 대한 국가의 감독 의무가 구체적으로 어떠한 방식으로 이행되는가에 대해서는 각국의 입법 사례에 따라 다르며, 아울러 그 의무의 강제력에 대한 논의도 지속되어 왔다. 다수의 국적 위성을 발사하고, 발사장을 곧 건설, 운용할 대한민국 정부는 그러한 감독 의무를 이제는 이행하기 위한 구체적인 조치를 취할 단계에 이른 것으로 판단되며, 이에 입법 방향을 검토해 보고자 한다. 1967년 우주조약은 우주활동 주체들이 국제법을 포함한 1967년 우주조약을 준수하고, 그에 따른 국제책임을 국가가 부담할 것을 규정하고 있다. 이에 전 국가를 위한 우주 이용의 원칙, 우주공간의 비영유원칙, 및 우주활동에 대한 국가 감독 및 책임 원칙 등이 준수하여야 할 국제협약상의 의무로 요약되며, 그 이행을 위한 입법 조치가 필요하다고 판단된다. 국내 입법 체계상, 기존의 타 법령과의 조화를 꾀하면서, 우주 발사체의 발사 허가제도 등을 내용으로 하는 입법 조치가 필요하다고 판단된다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.587-613
• /
• 1999

Environmental problems such as global climate change, depletion, ocean and air pollution, and resource degradation-compounded by an expanding world population-respect no border and threaten the health, prosperity and jobs of all mankind. Our efforts to promote democracy, free trade, and stability in the world will fall short unless people have a livable environment. We have an enormous stake in the management of the world's resources. By increasing demand for timber, natural gas, coal and consumer's goods have destroyed the grounds for living. Greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the world have threatened coastal communities, and then changed the Earth's climate system. The burning of coal, oil, and other fossil fuels is increasing substantially the concentration of heat-trapping gasses such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in our air. The earth's temperature and sea levels are rising as a result. Since 1972 there has been a marked growth in the number and scope of environmental treaties. In particular, after the 1992 Rio Conference, international legal instruments became more concentrated on addressing environment within the context of sustainable development and incorporated a number of new concepts and innovative approaches. A preliminary analysis of recent conventions and in particular those associated with the Rio Conference indicates various ideas, concepts and principles which have come to the fore including sustainable development, equity, common concern of humankind, common but differentiated responsibilities and global partnership. However, international trade also has an environmental impact which must be minimized or countered. Positive measures are to be preferred to achieve environmental goals, but where trade provisions are necessary, they should be appropriately used within environmental conventions to facilitate the reduction and limitation of the negative impacts of trade and to enhance the complementarity of the multilateral trade regime with the imperatives of environmental protection, in the interests of environmental protection and sustainable development generally. The international community has to recognize and endorse this need to achieve complementarity between trade and environment issues.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제72권
• /
• pp.57-80
• /
• 2016

Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the legislation of Insurance Act 2015. According to the enforcement of the Insurance Act 2015 on 12 August 2016, ss 18~20 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906(MIA 1906) were repealed and substituted by the new concept of fair presentation. This article intends to analyze the legal implications through the comparative research between the duty of fair presentation in Insurance Act 2015 and ss 18~20 of MIA 1906. The major changes in Insurance Act 2015 are designed to (1) encourage active engagement by the insurer rather than passive underwriting, asking questions of the insured if the desired information is not provided at the stage of proposal; (2) encourage policyholders to structure and signpost their presentation in an clear and accessible way, and prevent data dumps; (3) give guidance as to how the insured should prepare a fair presentation, by undertaking a reasonable search of available information and giving examples of what circumstances might be material; (4) clarify whose knowledge in the insured's organization is attributed to the insured for the purposes of disclosure; (5) clarify the exceptions to the duty of disclosure, including circumstances "which are known or presumed to be known to the insurer"; and (6) replace the remedy of avoidance in all circumstances with more proportionate remedies. This is a default regime, which may be altered by agreement between the parties.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.