• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.139-163
• /
• 2014

Recently with making of 'The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012(hereunder CIA)', the UK revised the duty of disclosure especially with the consumer insurance contract. According to the CIA, if the misrepresentation was careless, the insurer may have the three options based upon what the insurer would have done had the consumer taken care to answer the question accurately; a compensatory remedy, avoidance of the insurance contract or, amendment of the contract. I realized that the establishment of CIA has been exposed to pro-actively relieve the breach of Warranty and Disclosure, Representations as far as required by the Global Insurance market. It was found that it is expected to bring significant changes in UK Insurance Act system of the 21st century, and prepares competition from neighboring countries. On the other hand, in the common law system, countries under MIA(1906) are trying to address the breach of warranty and Disclosure, Representations, except the UK cannot completely adhere with a positive attitude.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.314-325
• /
• 2013

Background: Stem cell research competition is accelerating globally since President Obama signed an executive order, repealing Bush-era policy that limited use of federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. Methods: In this paper, we conducted a comparative analysis of stem cell research policy changes in three countries, including the Human Fertilisation Embryology Act (HFEA) of UK, executive order 13,505 (removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells) of USA, and Bioethics and Safety Act of South Korea. Debates on stem cell research are based on conflicts of fundamental beliefs that exist in the supporting and opposing coalitions. We compared regional characteristics of the advocacy coalitions in three countries and presented various factors that might be related to the policy changes. Results: The UK government, parliament, and the HFEA have sought expert consultations and public opinions to establish guidelines. UK has made social consensus through continued discussion for a long time. US President's veto power was one strongest factors influencing policy. South Korean policy was influenced by public opinion and policy brokers. Also, South Korea has not made social consensus. UK had a strong leadership and strong adjustment of coalitions but US and South Korea had not. Dr. Hwang's scandal has had one of the greatest impacts on policy decision in South Korea. Conclusion: The power of public opinion was critical in all three countries. In particular, the influence of public opinion was noticeable in South Korea. Also it turned out that in US and South Korea, the presence of a policy broker who could pursue his or her goals was the most powerful factor among the advocacy coalition factors.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.401-434
• /
• 2011

The discussion on the adoption of the horizontal regulatory framework is underway to overcome the problems regarding the vertical regulatory framework resulting from a convergence of broadcasting and telecommunications services. Recently, however, the horizontal regulatory framework shows its limitation to regulate the ecosystem established mainly by Google and Apple. The existing horizontal regulatory framework does not fully reflect the characteristics of the two-sided market and the change in the competition structure in the broadcasting and telecommunications sector. What is important to note is that if the existing horizontal regulatory framework is simply applied to the ecosystem, a regulatory imbalance can be caused among ecosystems. The existing horizontal regulatory framework, which is subject to a value chain structure, categorizes business entities into either contents layer or transmission layer and applies the same regulation to all business entities in the same category. However, in the ecosystem, a keystone-player can be categorized into different layers depending on its strategy. Therefore, if the existing horizontal regulatory framework is applied as it is, the regulatory imbalance between keystone-players located in less regulated areas and keystone-players located in more regulated areas occurs resulting in a distortion of competition. There are two possible ways to establish a new regulatory framework to prevent the distortion of competition likely to be caused by the adoption of a horizontal regulatory system. First, a new ecosystem regulatory framework different from the existing one can be established. Second, the horizontal regulatory framework can be modified to reflect the ecosystem elements. The first approach is hard to adopt given the current situation as the approach requires the analysis of all broadcasting and telecommunications ecosystems including mobile and wired services; currently research and study on the competition conditions in the ecosystems is not enough. Therefore, this paper supports the second approach proposing a modified horizontal regulatory framework through the improvement of institutions and remedies suitable for accommodating the ecosystem elements. This paper intends to propose a way to regulate broadcasting and telecommunications ecosystems taking into consideration the ecosystem elements on top of the Telecommunications Business Act, Broadcasting Act, IPTV Act, the competition condition evaluation system of the Basic Act on Broadcasting and Telecommunications Development, and regulation on common carriers under the Telecommunications Business Act.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.525-551
• /
• 2017

This Article discusses the current trend of European competition damage actions focused on the recent Damage Directive and its transposition by the United Kingdom and Germany. The relevant Directive was signed into law in November 2014, and it requires the EU Member States to adopt certain measures to support competition damage actions. The required measures and principles by the Directive include right to full compensation, rebuttable presumption of harm, extensive disclosure of evidence, use of pass-on for defense and indirect purchaser suits. Although many Member States did not meet the deadline to transpose the Directive, the end of 2016, it is reported that 23 Member States have now, as of September 2017, made enactments according to the Directive. When we look at the transposition done by the United Kingdom and Germany, the revisions on their competition laws closely follow the contents of the Directive. However, it will take quite a long time before the amended provisions apply to actual cases since most of the new provisions apply to the infringement that take place after the date of the amendment. A similar situation regarding application time may happen in some other Member States. Furthermore, even if the terms of the competition laws of the Member States become similar following the Directive, the interpretations of the laws may differ by the courts of different countries. EU also does not have a tool to coordinate the litigations that are brought in different Member States under the same facts. It is true that the EU made a big step to enhance competition damage actions by enacting Damage Directive. However, it needs to take more time and resources to have settled system of competition private litigation throughout the Member States. Korea has also experienced increase in competition damage actions during the last fifteen years, and there have been some revisions of the relevant fair trade law as well as development of relevant legal principles by court decisions. Although there are some suggestions that Korea should have more enactments similar to the EU Directive, its seems wiser for Korea to take time to observe how EU countries actually operate competition damage actions after they transposed the Directive. Then, it will be able to gain some wisdom to adopt competition action measures that are suitable for Korean legal system and culture.

• Journal of fish pathology
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.31-36
• /
• 2001

A novel clonidine binding sites were characterized in the intestinal membrane isolated from seawater eels, Anguilla japonica. The specific clonidine binding sites consisted of at least two classes, high affinity ($K_d=1.4{\pm}0.3$ nM n = 5) and low affinity ($K_d=175{\pm}34$ nM n = 5) sites. The specific binding of 2 nM [$^3H$]clonidine was most enhanced at $20^{\circ}C$ and pH 7.5, and reversed by unlabelled clonidine. Such binding was hardly inhibited by adrenaline, yohimbine or rauwolscine, indicating that most binding sites are distinct from $\alpha_2$-adrenoceptor. The specific clonidine binding sites was inhibited by various imidazoline/guanidinium drugs, indicating existence of imidazoline/guanidinium receptive sites (IGRS) or imidazoline receptors in the eel intestine. Competition experiments revealed that rank order to displace 2 nM [$^3H$]clonidine from their binding sites was as follows : guanabenz > cirazoline = naphazoline = UK14,304 = ST587 $\geq$ clonidine $\geq$ idazoxan = RX821002 = tolazoline > ST93 = oxymetazoline = amiloride = ST91 > yohimbine = efaroxan = rauwolscine $\geq$ adrenaline = ST567 = histamine = agmatine. Although physiological role of IGRS is not clear yet even in mammalian cell/tissues, eel intestine may be a good model to elucidate how the IGRS act in the cell and to decide what is the endogenous ligand for the IGRS.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.201-219
• /
• 2014

The Republic of Korea in the real economy to a knowledge economy, and a center of creativity and imagination in the creative economy is changing the paradigm. As the core of creating economic, creative industries with the technology and information play an important role in the industry individuals. In order to solve the problem of the polarization of the economy and high youth unemployment rate of Korea, to recognize the role of the creative industries, as objection part, dimensions pan-national and one creative companies in industries of Mobile Apps various policies that support has been promoted. Support these policies to be able to contribute to the establishment of the success of mobile apps one-person creating company, we performed this study targeting one-person company that creates mobile apps area, we conducted a demonstration study of success factors, and thus more effective and efficient in an attempt to seek out support measures. In this study, we derive a research 4 hypothesis about the success factors of one creative enterprise through literature discussion, a study was made on the basis of empirical data of one-person company that creates mobile apps. The results of the analysis, first, if the development rate of the mobile application technology is fast and a new competition associated product is appeared, it was possible to find a tendency to be higher at the performance quantitative companies. Second, if the founder is a founding for the benefit and rewarding work and come to terms with the risk, it was possible to discover tends to be higher achievement quantitative. Third, if one-person company select a target market with capture intensively, it was possible to find a tendency for higher qualitative results. Fourth, it could be found that the reliability of the contact frequency of the network related performance business environment these characteristics enterprise management strategy and act as a significant modulatory effect. Provision of information relating to management and entrepreneurship education to be one creative enterprise is required, these results suggest that there is a provision continuing need for the opportunity to be able to meet and network and reliable variety have. In this study, to take advantage to promote the elimination measures that can increase the likelihood of success of the company of institutions to support one company that creates knowledge-based, such as in the field of mobile application.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2024

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology is recognized as a key technology that will determine future national competitiveness, competition for AI technology and industry promotion policies in major countries is intensifying. This study aims to present implications for domestic policy making by analyzing the policies of major countries on the start-up of AI companies, which are the basis of the AI industry ecosystem. The top four countries and the EU for the number of new investment attraction companies in the 2023 AI Index announced by the HAI Research Institute at Stanford University in the United States were selected, The United States enacted the National AI Initiative Act (NAIIA) in 2021. Through this law, The US Government is promoting continued leadership in the United States in AI R&D, developing reliable AI systems in the public and private sectors, building an AI system ecosystem across society, and strengthening DB management and access to AI policies conducted by all federal agencies. In the 14th Five-Year (2021-2025) Plan and 2035 Long-term Goals held in 2021, China has specified AI as the first of the seven strategic high-tech technologies, and is developing policies aimed at becoming the No. 1 AI global powerhouse by 2030. The UK is investing in innovative R&D companies through the 'Future Fund Breakthrough' in 2021, and is expanding related investments by preparing national strategies to leap forward as AI leaders, such as the implementation plan of the national AI strategy in 2022. Israel is supporting technology investment in start-up companies centered on the Innovation Agency, and the Innovation Agency is leading mid- to long-term investments of 2 to 15 years and regulatory reforms for new technologies. The EU is strengthening its digital innovation hub network and creating the InvestEU (European Strategic Investment Fund) and AI investment fund to support the use of AI by SMEs. This study aims to contribute to analyzing the policies of major foreign countries in making AI company start-up policies and providing a basis for Korea's strategy search. The limitations of the study are the limitations of the countries to be analyzed and the failure to attempt comparative analysis of the policy environments of the countries under the same conditions.