• 기록학연구
• /
• 제22호
• /
• pp.157-199
• /
• 2009

중국공산당의 창당과 함께 문서와 당안 관리 조직이 출현한 것은 아니었다. 1926년 중앙 비서처가 설립된 이후 문서과와 그 소속 문건열람처, 문건보관처 등이 설립됨으로써 본격화되었던 것이다. 1930년대 초 비서조직의 업무개선이 집중적으로 논의되었는데, 비판의 핵심은 정치적 역할을 자각하지 못한 채 단순히 "기능적 조직"으로 전락하고 말았다는 것이었고, 이의 해결 방안은 곧 "비서처 업무의 정치화"였다. 나아가 1940년대에는 "정풍운동"의 영향으로 문서만이 아니라 각종 주요 정보자료를 수집하여 정리, 제공하는 재료과의 임무가 강조되었다. 한편, 문서의 작성에 있어서 인물이나 기관의 명칭을 다르게 표기한다든가 약물을 사용하여 문서를 작성하는 등 보안의 유지가 줄곧 강조되었으며, 또한 업무활동과 지역의 상황에 대한 정기보고를 통해 중앙과 지방간의 소통이 강조되었다. 비서장은 중요 공문의 초안을 작성하는 것은 물론, 모든 문건의 열람과 심사를 담당하여 문서처리의 중심적 역할을 수행하였다. 문서의 처리가 끝나면 당안이라고 불리우며 보관되었는데, 중앙 비서처 문서과의 "문건보관처"가 이러한 역할을 담당하였다. "중앙문고"라고 불리기도 한 문건보관처는 1930년대 초부터 더 이상 당안을 이관받을 수 없었지만, 1940년대에는 재료과가 문서와 간행재료를 보존하고 제공하는 역할을 강화해갔다. 특히 조사연구를 위한 재료의 수집이 실행되었고, 일본의 통치 아래에 있던 지역을 회복하면서 대량의 당안과 문헌 자료를 수집하기도 하였다. 1931년 당안의 분류방법과 목록작성방법이 규정된 이후 특히 1940년대에 본격적으로 제도화되었는데, 기본적으로는 주제분류법이 유지되었고 기초적인 목록표기법이 채택되었다. "중요성"과 "기밀성"을 관리의 기준으로 삼는 원칙은 비교적 초기부터 나타났지만, 문서의 보존과 폐기를 구분하는 평가의 개념이나 절차는 명확치 않았다. 비밀의 보안관리와 접근제한의 제도를 실행하는 한편, "보존과 이용의 통일"이라는 구호에서도 알 수 있듯이 당안재료의 이용제공에 대한 문제의식은 매우 강렬하였다. 혁명운동과 전쟁의 와중에서도 중국공산당은 문서당안의 관리와 보존을 강화해가는 노력을 지속했다. 그 성과가 항상 바람직한 것도 아니었고, 그 경험을 안정적으로 발전시켜갈 수 있었던 것도 아니었다. 그것은 필경 중국공산당이 처해 있던 역사적 여건에서는 불가피한 일이었을 것이다. 이 과정에서 두드러지게 나타난 특성은 단지 기능적인 수준에서 문서당안관리의 효율화를 추진했던 것이 아니라 것이 아니라, 오히려 중국공산당의 혁명운동에 미치는 정치적 의의에 대한 자각을 강화해가며, 혁명 정책 연구의 실증적 근거이자 또한 중국공산당 역사의 증거로서 당안재료가 갖는 가치에 주목하였던 것에서 찾을 수 있을 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제9권
• /
• pp.85-143
• /
• 1997

The main purpose of the investigation of an accident caused by aircraft is to be prevented the sudden and casual accidents caused by wilful misconduct and fault from pilots, air traffic controllers, hijack, trouble of engine and machinery of aircraft, turbulence during the bad weather, collision between birds and aircraft, near miss flight by aircrafts etc. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability for offender of aircraft accidents. Accidents to aircraft, especially those involving the general public and their property, are a matter of great concern to the aviation community. The system of international regulation exists to improve safety and minimize, as far as possible, the risk of accidents but when they do occur there is a web of systems and procedures to investigate and respond to them. I would like to trace the general line of regulation from an international source in the Chicago Convention of 1944. Article 26 of the Convention lays down the basic principle for the investigation of the aircraft accident. Where there has been an accident to an aircraft of a contracting state which occurs in the territory of another contracting state and which involves death or serious injury or indicates serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. That inquiry will be in accordance, in so far as its law permits, with the procedure which may be recommended from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO). There are very general provisions but they state two essential principles: first, in certain circumstances there must be an investigation, and second, who is to be responsible for undertaking that investigation. The latter is an important point to establish otherwise there could be at least two states claiming jurisdiction on the inquiry. The Chicago Convention also provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the state holding the inquiry must communicate the report and findings in the matter to that other state. It is worth noting that the Chicago Convention (Article 25) also makes provision for assisting aircraft in distress. Each contracting state undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable and to permit (subject to control by its own authorities) the owner of the aircraft or authorities of the state in which the aircraft is registered, to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by circumstances. Significantly, the undertaking can only be given by contracting state but the duty to provide assistance is not limited to aircraft registered in another contracting state, but presumably any aircraft in distress in the territory of the contracting state. Finally, the Convention envisages further regulations (normally to be produced under the auspices of ICAO). In this case the Convention provides that each contracting state, when undertaking a search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to the Convention. Since 1944 further international regulations relating to safety and investigation of accidents have been made, both pursuant to Chicago Convention and, in particular, through the vehicle of the ICAO which has, for example, set up an accident and reporting system. By requiring the reporting of certain accidents and incidents it is building up an information service for the benefit of member states. However, Chicago Convention provides that each contracting state undertakes collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation. To this end, ICAO is to adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with, among other things, aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents. Standards and Recommended Practices for Aircraft Accident Injuries were first adopted by the ICAO Council on 11 April 1951 pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and were designated as Annex 13 to the Convention. The Standards Recommended Practices were based on Recommendations of the Accident Investigation Division at its first Session in February 1946 which were further developed at the Second Session of the Division in February 1947. The 2nd Edition (1966), 3rd Edition, (1973), 4th Edition (1976), 5th Edition (1979), 6th Edition (1981), 7th Edition (1988), 8th Edition (1992) of the Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) of the Chicago Convention was amended eight times by the ICAO Council since 1966. Annex 13 sets out in detail the international standards and recommended practices to be adopted by contracting states in dealing with a serious accident to an aircraft of a contracting state occurring in the territory of another contracting state, known as the state of occurrence. It provides, principally, that the state in which the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint an accredited representative to be present at the inquiry conducted by the state in which the serious aircraft accident occurs. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention does not indicate what the accredited representative is to do but Annex 13 amplifies his rights and duties. In particular, the accredited representative participates in the inquiry by visiting the scene of the accident, examining the wreckage, questioning witnesses, having full access to all relevant evidence, receiving copies of all pertinent documents and making submissions in respect of the various elements of the inquiry. The main shortcomings of the present system for aircraft accident investigation are that some contracting sates are not applying Annex 13 within its express terms, although they are contracting states. Further, and much more important in practice, there are many countries which apply the letter of Annex 13 in such a way as to sterilise its spirit. This appears to be due to a number of causes often found in combination. Firstly, the requirements of the local law and of the local procedures are interpreted and applied so as preclude a more efficient investigation under Annex 13 in favour of a legalistic and sterile interpretation of its terms. Sometimes this results from a distrust of the motives of persons and bodies wishing to participate or from commercial or related to matters of liability and bodies. These may be political, commercial or related to matters of liability and insurance. Secondly, there is said to be a conscious desire to conduct the investigation in some contracting states in such a way as to absolve from any possibility of blame the authorities or nationals, whether manufacturers, operators or air traffic controllers, of the country in which the inquiry is held. The EEC has also had an input into accidents and investigations. In particular, a directive was issued in December 1980 encouraging the uniformity of standards within the EEC by means of joint co-operation of accident investigation. The sharing of and assisting with technical facilities and information was considered an important means of achieving these goals. It has since been proposed that a European accident investigation committee should be set up by the EEC (Council Directive 80/1266 of 1 December 1980). After I would like to introduce the summary of the legislation examples and system for aircraft accidents investigation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Swiss, New Zealand and Japan, and I am going to mention the present system, regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation in Korea. Furthermore I would like to point out the shortcomings of the present system and regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation and then I will suggest my personal opinion on the new and dramatic innovation on the system for aircraft accident investigation in Korea. I propose that it is necessary and desirable for us to make a new legislation or to revise the existing aviation act in order to establish the standing and independent Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation under the Korean Government.