• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.349-386
• /
• 2013

This research analyzes and evaluates The Korean Security Industry Law(TKSIL) putting the regulation of the present government about the private security industry. It nowadays becomes the important axis of the police services offered in the aspect of 'the national life safety' in connection with 'the materialization of society which is safe from the crime'. TKSIL is one of the national administration strategies which Park Gun-hye government aims on supervision policy. After seeking out the core values of the private security industrial policy which sets up in order to approach the national life safety which Park Gun-hye government aims, we make some assessments of this revised security industry law systematically. Particularly all keynote of policy about the private security of the police tried to be confirmed and the desirable direction of policy tries to be presented as to the security industry law application and real operation. In the site of organized civil complaint, the revised security industry law was revised as the direction which intensifies the administrative regulation as to the partial regulation such as it established the reason of the introduction of the arrangement license system. And grounds for disqualification of security instructor and guard, and rules of punishment is intensified order to intercept previously illegal and violent act of the security company etc. However it has the feature that it accomplishes 'the law principle(principle of statute)' the substantial portion through the effort of them changing a lot the content for the form of the law when being the clauses of the fundamental human rights limit, although it has been prescribed in "the security industry law enforcement ordinance" or "the security industry law enforced regulation". The security industry law revised this time brought from the change of the sharp policy through the revision of 17 clauses or new establishment. It can divide into 4 categorizes. (1) strictness of punishment in the site of organized civil complaint (2) Intensification of throwing out for the violation person in the private security business market time-limitedly (3) Intensification of the legal guide supervision power of police (4) upstream of the capital, name tag attachment under compulsion and the limit about other equipment use etc. Essentially "the security industry law" cannot help regulating the national interference of the private security and regulation with this content. However as to this interference and regulation, the limit has to be possible within reasonable range. As the history proved, excessive regulation by the country is not only due to bring the distortion of the security system of nation but also provoke national social cost. It can't be disregards ever that it premises the harmony which appropriate as well as reasonable in the socio-economic dimension for drawing the best combination that all things which get the compulsory education, it limits the person providing the private security service to the corporation, or it limits to the certificate of qualification holder are the ultimate for 'the safety of the national life'.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.237-264
• /
• 2017

With the onset of the Human Genome Project, social concerns about 'genetic information discrimination' have been raised, but the problem has not yet been highlighted in Korea. However, non-medical institutions' genetic testing which is related to disease prevention could be partially allowed under the revised "Bioethics and Safety Act" from June 30, 2016. In the case of one domestic insurance company, DTC genetic testing was provided for the new customer of cancer insurance as a complimentary service, which made the social changes related to the recognition of the genetic testing. At a time when precision medicine is becoming a new standard for medical care, discipline on genetic information discrimination has become a problem that can not be delayed anymore. Article 46 and 67 of the Bioethics Act stipulate the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of genetic information and penalties for its violation. However, these broad principles alone can not solve the problems in specific genetic information utilization areas such as insurance and employment. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany have different regulations that prohibit genetic information based discrimination. In the United States, Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act takes a form that adds to the existing law about the prohibition of genetic information discrimination. In addition, the range of genetic information includes the results of genetic tests of individuals and their families, including "family history". Canada has recently enacted legislation in 2017, expanding coverage to general transactions of goods or services in addition to insurance and employment. The United Kingdom deals only with 'predictive genetic testing results of individuals'. In the case of insurance, the UK government and Association of British Insurers (ABI) agree to abide by a policy framework ('Concordat') for cooperation that provides that insurers' use of genetic information is transparent, fair and subject to regular reviews; and remain committed to the voluntary Moratorium on insurers' use of predictive genetic test results until 1 November 2019, and a review of the Concordat in 2016. In the case of employment, The ICO's 'Employment Practices Code (2011)' is used as a guideline. In Germany, Human Genetic Examination Act(Gesetz ${\ddot{u}}ber$ genetische Untersuchungen bei Menschen) stipulates a principle ban on the demand for genetic testing and the submission of results in employment and insurance. The evaluation of the effectiveness of regulatory framework, as well as the form and scope of the discipline is different from country to country. In light of this, it would be desirable for the issue of genetic information discrimination in Korea to be addressed based on the review of related regulations, the participation of experts, and the cooperation of stakeholders.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.27-56
• /
• 2006

Today's financial institutions usually take environmental issues seriously into consideration as they could not evade lender liability in an increasing number of cases. On the international scene, a brand-new concept of the "Equator Principles" in the New Millenium has driven more and more international banks to adopt these Principles in project financing. Sustainable development has been a key word in understanding new trends of the governments, financial institutions, corporations and civic groups in the 21st century. The Equator Principles are a set of voluntary environmental and social guidelines for sustainable finance. These Principles commit bank officers to avoid financial support to projects that fail to meet these guidelines. The Principles were conceived in 2002 on an initiative of the International Finance Corporation(IFC), and launched in June 2003. Since then, dozens of major banks, accounting for up to 80 percent of project loan market, have adopted the Principles. Accordingly, the Principles have become the de facto standard for all banks and investors on how to deal with potential social and environmental issues of projects to be financed. Compliance with the Equator Principles facilitates for endorsing banks to participate in the syndicated loan and help them to manage the risks associated with large-scale projects. The Equator Principles call for financial institutions to provide loans to projects under the following circumstances: - The risk of the project is categorized in accordance with internal guidelines based upon the environmental and social screening criteria of the IFC. - For Category A and B projects, borrowers or sponsors are required to conduct a Social and Environmental Assessment, the preparation of which must meet certain requirements and satisfactorily address key social and environmental issues. - The Social and Environmental Assessment report should address baseline social and environmental conditions, requirements under host country laws and regulations, sustainable development, and, as appropriate, IFC's Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines, etc. - Based on the Social and Environmental Assessment, Equator banks then make agreements with borrowers on how they mitigate, monitor and manage the risks through a Social and Environmental Management System. Compliance with the plan is included in the covenant clause of loan agreements. If the borrower doesn't comply with the agreed terms, the bank will take corrective actions. The Equator Principles are not a mere declaration of cautious banks but a full commitment of lenders. A violation of the Principles in the process of project financing, which led to an unexpected damage to the affected community, would not give rise to any specific legal remedies other than ordinary lawsuits. So it is more effective for banks to ensure consistent implementation of the Principles and to have them take responsible measures to solve social and environmental issues. Public interests have recently mounted up with respect to environmental issues on the occasion of the Supreme Court's decision (2006Du330) on the fiercely debated reclamation project at Saemangeum. The majority Justices said that the expected environmental damages like probable pollution of water and soil were not believed so serious and that the Administration should continue to implement the project seeking ways to make it more environment friendly. In this case, though the Category A Saemangeum Project was carried out by a government agency, the Supreme Court behaved itself as a signal giver to approve or stop the environment-related project like an Equator bank in project financing. At present, there is no Equator bank in Korea in contrast to three big banks in Japan. Also Korean contractors, which are aggressively bidding for Category A-type projects in South East Asia and Mideast, might find themselves in a disadvantageous position because they are generally ignorant of the environmental assessment associated with project financing. In this regard, Korean banks and overseas project contractors should care for the revised Equator Principles and the latest developments in project financing more seriously. It's because its scope has expanded to the capital cost of US$10 million or more across all industry sectors regardless of developing countries or not. It should be noted that, for a Korean bank, being an Equator bank is more or less burdensome in a short-term period, but it must be conducive to minimizing risks and building up good reputation in the long run.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.3-38
• /
• 2019

In 1984, Congress enacted a new measure of administrative sanctions which is a civil money penalty program for violations of Aviation Act and its implementing regulations. This civil money penalty system has been in operations in lieu of suspending or revoking certificates issued by Korean government, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. According to the rules of Aviation Business Act or Aviation Safety Act, where the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport should order an air carrier to suspend operation because of her violation under certain rules, in which case the suspension of operation is likely to cause serious inconvenience to consumers of air transport services or to harm public interest, the Minister of the department may impose an administrative monetary penalty in lieu of the suspension of operation. In this regard, airline related civil money penalties are somewhat different from those of fair trade, which is the origin of the money penalties system in Korea. Civil money penalties in the field of fair trade are imposed on executive duty violations that undermine the value of the market economy order, and focus on reimbursement of profits due to violations and compensation for unfair spending by consumers. However, in the aviation sector, breach of duty by a business operator does not simply cause the property loss of the public, but it has a direct impact on life or property of the public. In this respect, aviation penalties are more likely to be administrative sanctions or punitive measures than refunds of unfair benefits, compared to penalties in the field of fair trade. In general, civil money penalties have been highly preferred as administrative sanctions because they are subject to investigations by administrative experts and thus, efficiency can be ensured and execution is quicker than judicial procedures. Moreover, in Korea, because punitive civil damages cannot awarded by the courts, the imposition of civil money penalties is recognized as a means of realizing social justice by recognizing the legal feelings of the people. However, civil money penalties are administrative sanctions, and in terms of effectiveness, they are similar to criminal fines, which are a form of punishment. Inadequate legislation and operation of penalties imposition may cause damage to the value of Constitution. Under the above recognition, this paper has been described for the purpose of identifying the present status of the civil money penalties imposition system and operating status in the area of air transport under the laws and regulations in Korea. Especially, this paper was focused on exploring the problem and improvement direction of Korean system through the comparative study with foreign laws and regulations.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.167-191
• /
• 2018

Despite international cooperation, piracy has not yet been eradicated in major waters around the world. From the perspective of South Korea, which is absolutely dependent on exporting and importing, it's a lifeline for us to secure safe maritime traffic so it is a situation we have to be vigilant about maritime safety and security. However, criminal law on punishment of piracy is still insufficient and legislative consideration is needed. Since pirates are regarded as enemies of humankind, all nations can punish pirates regardless of their damage. The international community has done its best in cooperation from hundreds of years ago to secure maritime trade through this universal jurisdiction and marine transportation in international waters which is an essential space for military activities, particularly in the Gulf of Aden, the advanced nations have dispatched fleets to combat maritime security threats through joint operations to crack down on Somali pirates. Even if universal jurisdiction is allowed for piracy in accordance with the International Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is difficult to effectively deal with piracy if it not fully complied with a domestic legal system for this purpose or is stipulated as different from international regulations. In other words, universal jurisdiction corresponding to international norms and constitution of piracy should be defined in criminal law in accordance with criminal statutory law. If the punishment of pirates by unreasonably applying our criminal law without prejudice to such work can lead to diplomatic disputes in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other international norms. In South Korea, there is no provision to explicitly prescribe piracy as a crime, but punish similar acts like piracy in criminal law and maritime safety law. However, there is a limit to effective piracy punishment because we are not fully involved in internationally accepted piracy. In this study, we critically examine the proposals of the constitutional elements of piracy, propose the legislative direction, and insist on the introduction of globalism to pirate sins.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 1998

This thesis includes a study on the legal regulation, the system and formalities on the control of illegal fishing. And the author analyzed the details of the lists of illegal fishing controlled by fishing patrol vessels of Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries from 1994 to 1996 in adjacent sea area of Korea. The results are summarized as follows ; 1. The fishing patrol vessels controlled total 826 cases in 2,726 days of 292 voyages by 17 vessels in 1994, total 1,086 cases in 3,060 days of 333 voyages by 18 vessels in 1995 and total 933 cases in 3,126 days of 330 voyages by 19 vessels in 1996. 2. The fishing period of illegal fishing was generally concentrated from April to September. But year after year, illegal fishing was scattered throughout the year. 3. The most controlled sea area of illegal fishing was the south central sea area in the sea near Port of Tongyeong. The sea area occupied about 36~51% of totality and the controlled cases were gradually increased every year. The second was the south western sea area in the sea near Port of Yosu. The sea area occupied about 18-27% and the controlled cases were a little bit increased every year. The third was the south eastern sea area in the sea near Pusan. The sea area occupied about 13~23% and the controlled cases were gradually decreased year by year. 4. The most controlled kind of illegal fishing was the small size bottom trawl. This occupied about 81-95% of totality and the controlled cases were gradually increased year by year. The second was the medium size bottom trawl. This occupied about 4-7% and the controlled cases were gradually decreased year by year. The third was the trawl of the coastal sea, this occupied about 2~4% and the controlled cases were a little bit decreased every year. 5. The most controlled address of illegal fishing manager was Pusan city which occupied about 33-51% of totality. The second was Cheonnam which occupied about 24-29%. The third was Kyungnam which occupied about 16~35%. 6. The most controlled violation of regulations was Article 57 of the Fisheries Act which occupied about 56-64% of totality. The second was Article 23 of Protectorate for Fisheries Resources which occupied about 21-36%. And the controlled cases by it were gradually increased every year.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.