• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.21-51
• /
• 2018

This article takes several approaches in explaining recent developments in Vietnam. First, it draws upon an array of sources that idealize Vietnam's embrace of capitalism and integration into the global market in order to sketch out its economy's progress in 2017. Second, it observes, evaluates, and diagnoses recent changes in the Vietnamese economy in the medium to long term by incorporating conflicting perspectives on Vietnam's performance as a capitalist country. Third, this article traces the power shifts that have risen from internal struggles in the Communist Party over political and social issues. Fourth, it elaborates on the aforementioned impact that foreign relations have had on socio-political developments in Vietnam, as well as the government's response. In so doing, it also attempts to evaluate, however briefly, the significance of the 25th anniversary of South Korea-Vietnam relations. Finally, it examines the public's reaction to the post-reform transitions in light of recent sociocultural changes. 2017 was a memorable year for Vietnam: a continuous march toward capitalism; the resulting expansion of the Vietnamese people's demands; political controversies and government control; the looming instability of United States-China relations and various attempts to address the situation. These events will inevitably replicate themselves in the future as the ostensibly socialist Vietnam adopts a capitalist model. The problem is that it is unclear whether these experiences will continue with the consent of the people of socialist Vietnam or engender resistance. It is difficult to achieve meaningful consent in the status quo of worsening inequalities, widespread corruption, monopoly on power, and sustained use of unskilled low-wage workers. In other words, when concerns such as welfare, public health, and the environment are set aside in favor of economic development and commercialization as they have been, discontent, rather than consent, will prevail. It is thus important to keep a watchful eye on the viability of the nominal economic growth, surface-level political stability, and strategic responses to foreign relations that took place in 2017.

• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.95-129
• /
• 2017

This study surveys and reviews political change, economic performance, and regional cooperation that were carried out in 2016 by Southeast Asian countries and ASEAN. This paper reports that what has followed the inauguration of new governments in Myanmar, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Laos fails to live up to the expectation and optimism that arose in the aftermath of elections and party congresses that took place in the first half of the year. In other countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Cambodia, where authoritarian regimes are faced with strong oppositions, the prospects for democratic change worsened to a substantial degree, as schisms and internal strives complicated the opposition camp as a result of instigation and intervention by the authoritarian leaders and their followers. In stable political systems, both democratic and authoritarian, no significant changes that may entail serious political implications were noticed. In 2016, the national economy of almost each and every country continued its slow but steady recovery that had started in 2014 and grew by 5% on the average. For 2017 onward, however, the earlier optimism that it would grow at least as fast dimmed down as uncertainty about the world economy looms larger due to the unexpected win by Donald Trump as U.S. president and the expected 'hard landing' of the Chinese economy around 2018. ASEAN declared the launch of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) only one day before the New Year, but its track record looked already bad and unpromising by the end of 2016. ASEAN leaders were tied up by their domestic politics and affairs too tightly to take time off to work seriously to observe the schedule as laid out in the AEC Blueprint 2025. Korea's relationship with Southeast Asian countries and ASEAN was "as good as it gets" in 2016 as ever but could become subject to tough review in the near future, if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is found out to have been implicated in the ongoing Choi Sun Sil scandal and if the opposition wins the next presidential election to be held by this year.

• Journal of Korea Entertainment Industry Association
• /
• v.15 no.6
• /
• pp.35-54
• /
• 2021

This study examines the characteristics of CBS's Kim Hyun-Jung's News Show(hearafter News Show) and the change to transmedia. The distinguishing characteristics of News Show compared to radio-based current affairs programs are as follows. First, despite its time limit, it adopts the form of investigative reports or investigative documentaries to uncover the truth of the events through 'Detective Son Su-Ho', etc. Second, News show's interviews have avoided biased stance in the reporting of minority issues by interviewing the affected parties anonymously including people involved in incidents and accidents, bereaved families, and other victims. News Show has been producing a transmedia content called 'That Honey Show' (a show that reads comments as fun as honey) since November 2018. 'That Honey Show' is broadcast in real time on YouTube right after the News Show radio broadcast ends. As a form of spin-off content, 'That Honey Show' breaks down the boundaries among staff, MCs, and guests, as well as shifting roles by using 'vice characters'. The female host, Kim conducts interviews with the main characters related to various issues and extends the fixed identity of current affairs shows to the everyday politics and cultural realms. Thus she draws active participation and responses audience. This paper analyzes two representative broadcast cases of 'That Honey Show'-first, the case of resistance and activity of the BTS fandom ARMY in the US presidential election, and, second, the case of reporting on the Nth room incident. This analysis considers the critical participation of digital citizens and the effect of fostering a sense of community in the current affairs show in the transmedia era.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.