• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.115-129
• /
• 2023

Purpose - This study empirically analyzes the consumer value of risk management associated with illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing of fishery products imported to Korea. The global regulatory paradigm for IUU fishing has shifted from production-centered to market-centered. As a result, changes in the international fisheries trade environment emphasizing "transparency" and "legality" of the production process are accelerating. Therefore, changes in the management systems of fishery products entering the country are also needed. Accordingly, this study estimated the consumer value for risk management of IUU fishing, targeting major fish species imported to Korea, and derived the feasibility of introducing related policies. Design/methodology - This study used the choice experiment as an analysis model to estimate consumers' willingness to pay for the "possibility to check for IUU fishing." The choice experiment assumes that the value of a good or service is composed of separable attributes and that the sum of the part-worth of these individual attributes becomes the total value. In this study, respondents were presented with profiles comprising three attributes (country of origin, price, and possibility of checking IUU fishing) and the levels of frozen poulp squid, the subject of the analysis. The participants were asked to select their preferred profile. The marginal willingness to pay for each attribute was derived from the results of the respondents' choices using conditional logit model estimates. Findings - There is a marked difference in utility based on the preference of the country of origin of fishery products among consumers. In addition, the utility of fishery products that have undergone IUU fishing verification was observed to be higher, with the utility marked to be higher for lower prices. Originality/value - Estimating the policy value of the risk management in IUU fishing of imported fisheries products in this study is a novel attempt that has never been conducted before. Several studies have been conducted to assess the risk of IUU fishing associated with the import of fishery products internationally. However, such studies are yet to be conducted in Korea. Instead, policies and studies have focused on issues related to complying with trading partners' legal and transparent standards for exporting fishery products. This study should be the beginning of more in-depth empirical and theoretical explorations to establish order in the domestic seafood market and respond to changes in international regulations on IUU fishing.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.223-272
• /
• 2009

Both Daesoon philosophy and Buddhist philosophy have strong aspirations for establishing a world comprised of human-beings. In other words, Daesoon philosophy and Buddhist philosophy put human-beings in the place of 'subject character(主語的 人格)' instead of 'predicate character(述語的 人格).' This is because a human is the master rather than a guest of the universe and the world. In this regard, it is safe to say that both Daesoon philosophy and Buddhist philosophy have a common goal of reaching 'an infinitely open life managed by a human-being, the master.' Daesoon philosophy and Buddhist philosophy also share the idea that everything in the universe is an organistic world that is closely connected, like a network. In this aspect, the two philosophies consider the whole world rather than the individual, and seek ways for people to live together actively while expanding the scope of community to the world. Even if 'the morality of living together (相生)' and 'the realization of mercy(同體大悲)' are completely different languages on the surface, it is not difficult to understand the homogeneity inherent in such expressions. Daesoon philosophy and Buddhist philosophy show endless reliability towards all humans and are declarative and reasonable, but both herald human beings as eligible to become the main characters of the future world and lead to the birth of independent human beings while inducing them to the highest position in the universe by liberating humans from the limitations they find. 'Heaven on Earth' as stated in Daesoon philosophy refers to an ideal society where humans and God harmonize, and God and humans complement each other. Also, the world will achieve political stability and equality, realizing an economically prosperous world. Furthermore, social justice will be realized and cultural and religious conflicts resolved. As humans acknowledge there is a way to live together in a universal nature, the environmental issue no longer becomes the top priority for human beings and a world where the morals of human beings reach the highest level will be established. From the original Buddhist perspective, King Jeonrhyun, the proxy of Buddha, realizes the ideal of Buddhism in the mundane world. The world controlled by King Jeonrhyun can be described as having liberty, equality, peace, justice, prosperity, morality, order, legality, democracy, welfare, etc. Therefore, the ideal Buddhist world is materially prosperous, physically healthy and socially just, as well as a world where moral maturity and mental freedom are achieved.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.211-234
• /
• 2009

North Korea conducted the launcher test, which, as North Korea claimed, belonged to the sovereign rights for the purpose of peaceful utilization and exploration of the outer space. The launching was allegedly done for the sole purpose of putting the satellite into earth orbit, while international community stressed the fact that the orbiting of satellite was not confirmed and that the technology used was not distinct from the purpose of building intercontinental ballistic missile. UN Security Council adopted the resolutions which took the effect that the launching was deemed as the missile launching, not the mere launcher test. North Korea declared the moratorium of suspending its test activity. Controversial issues have been raised regarding whether the launcher itself has the legal status of enjoying the freedom of space flight based upon the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The resolutions, however, has put forward a binding instrument forbidding the launching. UN Security Council resolutions, however, should be read not as defining the missile test illegal, in that the language of resolutions, such as 'demand', should be considered as not formulating a sort of obligatory act or inact. On the other hand, the resolutions should be read as having binding force with respect to any activity relating to the weapons of mass destruction. The resolution 1718 is written in more specific language such as 'decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching'. Therefore, the lauching activity of the North Korea is banned by the UN Security Council resolution. It should be noted that the resolution does not include any specific provisions defining the space of activity of the North Korea as illegal. But, the legal effect of the moratorium is not denied as to its launching itself, which is corresponding to the missile test clearisibanned in accordance with the resolutions.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.239-272
• /
• 2014

The rights and obligations of the Member States of ITU in the domain of international frequency management of the spectrum/orbit resource are incorporated in the Constitution and Convention of the ITU and in the Radio Regulations that complement them. These instruments contain the main principles and lay down the specific regulations governing the major elements such as rights and obligations of member administrations in obtaining access to the spectrum/orbit resource, as well as international recognition of these rights by recording frequency assignments and, as appropriate, any associated orbits, including the geostationary-satellite orbits used or intended to be used in the Master International Frequency Register (MIFR) Coordination is a further step in the process leading up to notification of the frequency assignments for recording in the MIFR. This procedure is a formal regulatory obligation both for an administration seeking to assign a frequency in its network and for an administration whose existing or planned services may be affected by that assignment. Regulatory problem lies in allowing administrations to fulfill their "bringing into use" duty for preserving his filing simply putting any satellites, whatever nationlity or technical specification may be, into filed orbit. This sort of regulatory lack may result in the emergence of the secondary market for satellite orbit. Within satellite orbit secondary market, the object of transaction may be the satellite itself, or the regulatory rights in rem, or the orbit registered in the MIFR. Recent case of selling the Koreasat belongs to the typical example of orbit transaction between private companies, the legality of which remains doubtedly controversial from the perspective of international space law as well as international transaction law. It must be noted, however, that the fact is the Koreasat 3 and its filed orbit is for sale.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.39
• /
• pp.319-353
• /
• 2014

Cyber-based technologies are now ubiquitous around the glob and are emerging as an "instrument of power" in societies, and are becoming more available to a country's opponents, who may use it to attack, degrade, and disrupt communications and the flow of information. The globe-spanning range of cyberspace and no national borders will challenge legal systems and complicate a nation's ability to deter threats and respond to contingencies. Through cyberspace, competitive powers will target industry, academia, government, as well as the military in the air, land, maritime, and space domains of our nations. Enemies in cyberspace will include both states and non-states and will range from the unsophisticated amateur to highly trained professional hackers. In much the same way that airpower transformed the battlefield of World War II, cyberspace has fractured the physical barriers that shield a nation from attacks on its commerce and communication. Cyberthreats to the infrastructure and other assets are a growing concern to policymakers. In 2013 Cyberwarfare was, for the first time, considered a larger threat than Al Qaeda or terrorism, by many U.S. intelligence officials. The new United States military strategy makes explicit that a cyberattack is casus belli just as a traditional act of war. The Economist describes cyberspace as "the fifth domain of warfare and writes that China, Russia, Israel and North Korea. Iran are boasting of having the world's second-largest cyber-army. Entities posing a significant threat to the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure assets include cyberterrorists, cyberspies, cyberthieves, cyberwarriors, and cyberhacktivists. These malefactors may access cyber-based technologies in order to deny service, steal or manipulate data, or use a device to launch an attack against itself or another piece of equipment. However because the Internet offers near-total anonymity, it is difficult to discern the identity, the motives, and the location of an intruder. The scope and enormity of the threats are not just focused to private industry but also to the country's heavily networked critical infrastructure. There are many ongoing efforts in government and industry that focus on making computers, the Internet, and related technologies more secure. As the national intelligence institution's effort, cyber counter-intelligence is measures to identify, penetrate, or neutralize foreign operations that use cyber means as the primary tradecraft methodology, as well as foreign intelligence service collection efforts that use traditional methods to gauge cyber capabilities and intentions. However one of the hardest issues in cyber counterintelligence is the problem of "Attribution". Unlike conventional warfare, figuring out who is behind an attack can be very difficult, even though the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has claimed that the United States has the capability to trace attacks back to their sources and hold the attackers "accountable". Considering all these cyber security problems, this paper examines closely cyber security issues through the lessons from that of U.S experience. For that purpose I review the arising cyber security issues considering changing global security environments in the 21st century and their implications to the reshaping the government system. For that purpose this study mainly deals with and emphasis the cyber security issues as one of the growing national security threats. This article also reviews what our intelligence and security Agencies should do among the transforming cyber space. At any rate, despite of all hot debates about the various legality and human rights issues derived from the cyber space and intelligence service activity, the national security should be secured. Therefore, this paper suggests that one of the most important and immediate step is to understanding the legal ideology of national security and national intelligence.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.145-173
• /
• 2016

A patient's Right to Self-Determination or his/her Right of Autonomy in the Republic of Korea has traditionally been understood as being composed of two elements. The first, is the patient's Right to Know as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Report [the Medical Situation] to the patient; the second, is the patient's Right to Consent and Right of Refusal as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Inform [for Patient's Consent]. The legal and ethical positions pertaining to the patient's autonomous decision, particularly those in the interest of the patient's not wanting to know about his/her own body or medical condition, were therefore acknowledged as passively expressed entities borne from the patient's forfeiture of the Right to Know and Right to Consent, and exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform. The potential risk of adverse effects rising as a result of applying the Informed Consent Dogma to situations described above were only passively recognized, seen merely as a preclusion of the Informed Consent Dogma or a denial of liability on part of the physician. In short, the legal measures that guarantee a patient's 'Wish for Ignorance' are not currently being understood and acknowledged under the active positions of the patient's 'Right Not to Know' and the physician's 'Duty to Consideration' (such as the duty not to inform). Practical and theoretical issues arise absent the recognition of these active positions of the involved parties. The question of normative evaluation of cases where a sizable amount of harm has come up on the patient as a result of the physician explaining to or informing the patient of his/her medical condition despite the patient previously waiving the Right to Consent or exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform, is one that is yet to be addressed; that of ascertaining direct evidence/legal basis that can cement legality to situations where the physician foregoes the informing process under consideration that doing so may cause harm to the patient, is another. Therefore it is the position of this paper that the Right [Not to Know] and the Duty [to Consideration] play critical roles both in meeting the legal normative requirements pertaining to the enrichment of the patient's Right to Self-Determination and the prevention of adverse effects as it pertains to the provision of [unwanted] medical information.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.27-54
• /
• 2010

Soon after September 11 attacks in 2001, there were strong demands in Korea on making relevant laws and regulations on aviation security, and Korean parliament legislated "Aviation Safety and Security Act"to fulfill the demands on safety and security of aircrafts during aviation. However, the current Aviation Safety and Security Act seems to have many problems which do not meet the practical needs in Korea, because there were not enough considerations on the practical needs and extinguishable national circumstances on civil aviation system in Korea, but only regarded the relevant international conventions and foreign practices on it. In this context, it is necessary to amend several provisions in Aviation Safety and Security Act to enhance more practical efficiencies in its implementation through systematization of the provisions on crimes which may happen during aviation. In this context, this article argues two main issues. First, Article 39 of Aviation Safety and Security Act does not express whether it is possible to punish the attempt of crime of causing damage to aircraft. Therefore, regarding a principle of legality, it is impossible to punish the perpetrator even when coincidently failed to destruct or damage aircraft. In this context, this article argues that the necessity to introduce the possibility to punish the attempt of crime of causing damage to aircraft. Second, regarding Article 160 of Civil Aviation Act of Korea, current Aviation Safety and Security Act should be amended by guaranteeing the culpability of negligence of crime of causing damage to aircraft.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.61
• /
• pp.39-57
• /
• 2019

The executive authority of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security on the 'management of security of the government complexes' is not sufficiently secured only with the organization law, the Government Organization Act. It is needed to establish an administrative actions law, an individual law that sets detailed contents and limitations of the executive authority to be stipulated. The current regulation, Regulation on the Management of the Government Complexes which is a Presidential Decree, is a legal decree that lacks a legal basis. The decree does not match with the current constitutional framework and raises the issue of its legality. The regulation may have the characteristics as a public property management law so far as it stipulates such matters as supply and maintenance management for the complexes, acquisition and disposition of complexes, facilities management of complexes, etc. However, the regulation includes high authority actions by an administrative organization, such as facilities security and order maintenance including restriction and control of access. This makes the regulation have the characteristics of a public property policy act as well. To supplement the legal framework for this situation, it is needed to level up some of the provisions relating to protection and security management to the level of an act as they stipulate high authority actions by an administrative organization. Other matters in the Regulation on the Management of the Government Complexes such as provisions relating to supply and allocation of complexes, etc. may be maintained as they are. In addition, the protection officers (general service official) does not own legal authority and have limitations on securing the capability to deal with the situations on implementing the on-site protection duty. Therefore, it is needed for the protection officers to secure protection duty-related authority by stipulating in a law. The main contents of the law on the protection and security of the government complexes may be those matters providing reservations on the implementations of laws. These may include the limitation of rights of and charging obligations on the people such as restricting the actions of personnel in the complex, rights and obligations of protection personnels relating to their duties, use of weapons, training of protection personnel, penal provisions, etc. These legal reservations should be included in an individual act.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.239-262
• /
• 2011

The Korean government's recent large-scale termination and modification of welfare benefits revealed a procedural problem under the National Basic Living Security Act. Under the Act, welfare recipients have a legal right to make complaints only after the termination or modification is enforced; the Act fails to provide the recipients with an opportunity for a hearing before termination or modification, and this creates serious threats to the recipients, whose livelihoods are dependent on welfare benefits. Korean jurisprudence has adopted the due process of law principle. The principle originated from the due process in US jurisprudence, and Korea has applied it broadly to any government actions that restrict individuals' constitutional or legal rights. This paper reviews the termination or modification procedure under the Act with the lens of the due process principle and criticizes that the current law is not in compliance with the principle. In supporting that such termination and modification procedure infringes on welfare recipients' protected rights, this paper discusses two theories as to what rights are protected. First, termination or modification of welfare benefits can be considered as deprivation of property. The 'property' theory may be weak under Korean jurisprudence, because the concept of property under the Korean Constitution is narrowly construed. Second, this paper relies on the constitutional provision that recognizes "the right to a life worthy of human beings," which requires the State to guarantee minimum standard of living for all. As welfare recipients are deemed to receive benefits as a right under the Constitution, any deviation from the minimum requirement would constitute a violation of constitutional rights. In any case, termination or modification of welfare benefits that are concretized under the Act should be protected under the due process principle, because the principle would cover any government actions that restrict established legal rights. This paper argues that the procedural due process requires the recipients be guaranteed an opportunity to have a hearing before the termination or modification is enforced. An independent decision-maker should hear the proceedings, and the recipients should have an option to orally present their opinions in front of the decision-maker. The hearing process under the Administrative Procedures Act of Korea offers elements that would satisfy these procedural requirements. Thus, this paper concludes that the National Basic Living Security Act should be amended to adopt the hearing process under the Administrative Procedures Act in its termination and modification procedure.