• 제목/요약/키워드: the 2016 general election

검색결과 12건 처리시간 0.016초

정당 통일정책 비교 (Unification Policies of Major Parties in South Korea)

  • 김학노
    • 의정연구
    • /
    • 제22권2호
    • /
    • pp.5-52
    • /
    • 2016
  • 이 글은 주요 정당들의 통일정책을 비교 분석한다. 여러 우려와 달리, 우리정당들은 통일 문제와 관련하여 비교적 일관된 '집합적 정체성'을 갖고 있다. 먼저, 역대 정부의 통일정책에서 집권 정당의 통일정책을 유추한 결과 우리 정치사회의 양대 세력인 보수계 정당들과 민주당계 정당들 사이에 수렴 현상이나타난다. 이들 정당들은 1970년을 기점으로 북한에 대해 홀로주체적 자세에서 서로주체적 자세로 변화해왔다. 1970년 박정희 대통령의 8 15선언 이후보수계 정당 정부들이 남북한의 서로주체적 관계를 모색하고 진전시켰으며, 민주당계 정부들이 이를 이어받아서 서로주체적 부분통합으로 발전시켰다. 이명박 정부 이후 홀로주체적 자세로 후퇴하고 있지만, 아직 1970년 이전의 홀로주체적 대북자세로 회귀했다고 보기는 이르다. 다음, 현재 활동 중인 주요 정당들의 정강정책과 20대 총선 공약으로 정당 통일정책을 평면적으로 살펴본 결과, 보수계 정당(새누리당)과 민주당계 정당들(더불어민주당과 국민의당) 및 군소 진보정당(정의당) 사이에 수렴과 분기 지점을 확인할 수 있다. 모든 정당이 북한에 대해 대화와 협력에 바탕을 둔 서로주체적 자세를 견지하고 있지만, 서로주체적 자세의 정도에 있어서는 중요한차이가 있다. 새누리당은 북한의 일방적인 변화를 요구하는 홀로주체적 성격을 상당히 보인다. 정의당은 남북한의 상생을 전제로 하는 점에서 가장 서로주체적인 통합을 추구한다. 민주당계 정당들은 이들 사이에 있다. 통일 문제와관련하여 남남갈등을 극복할 길을 찾기 위해 주목할 지점이다.

가습기살균제 참사의 진행과 교훈(Q&A) (Questions and Answers about the Humidifier Disinfectant Disaster as of February 2017)

  • 최예용
    • 한국환경보건학회지
    • /
    • 제43권1호
    • /
    • pp.1-22
    • /
    • 2017
  • 'The worstest environment disaster', 'World's first biocide massacre', 'Home-based Sewol ferry disaster' are all phrases attached to the recent humidifier disinfectant disaster. In the spring of 2011, four of 8 pregnant women including 1 adult man passed away at a university hospital in Seoul due to breathing failure. Epidemiologic investigation conducted by the Korean CDC soon revealed the inhalation of humidifier disinfectant, which had been widely used in Korea during the winter, to be responsible for the disease. As well as lung fibrosis hardening of the lungs, other diseases including asthma, rhinitis, skin disease, liver disease, fetal disease or cancers have been researched for their relation with exposure to the products. By February 9, 2017, 5,342 cases had registered for health problems and 1,131 of them were already dead (20.8% mortality rate). Based on studies by government agencies and a telephone survey of the general population by Seoul National University and civic groups, around 20% of the general public of Korea has used these products. Since the market release of the first product by SK Chemical in 1994, over 7.1 million items from around 20 brands were sold up to 2011. Most of the products were manufactured by well-known large conglomerates such as SK, Lotte, Samsung, Shinsegye, LG, and GS, as well as some European companies including UK-based Reckitt Benckiser and TESCO, the German firm Henkel, the Danish firm KeTox, and an Irish company. Even though this disaster was unveiled in 2011 by the Korean government, the issue of the victims was neglected for over five years. In 2016, an unexpected but intensive investigation by prosecutors found that Reckitt Benckiser manipulated and concealed animal tests for its own brand and brought several university experts and company employees to court. The matter was an intense social issue in Korea from May to June with a surge in media coverage. The prosecutor's investigation and a nationwide boycott campaign organized by victims and environmental groups against Reckitt Benckiser, whose product had been used by more than 70% of victims, led to the producer's official apology and a compensation scheme. A legislative investigation organized after the April 2016 national election revealed the producers' faults and the government's responsibility, but failed to meet expectations. A special law for the victims passed the National Assembly in January 2017 and a punitive system together with a massive environmental epidemiology investigation are expected to be the only solutions for this tragedy. Sciences of medicine, toxicology and environmental health have provided decisive evidence so far, but for the remaining problems the perspectives of social sciences such as sociology and jurisprudence are highly necessary, similar to with the Minamata disease and Wonjin Rayon events. It may not be easy to follow this issue using unfamiliar terminology from medical and chemical science and the long, complicated history of the event. For these reasons the author has attempted to write this article in a question and answer format to render it easier to follow. The 17 questions are: Q1 What is humidifier disinfectant? Q2 What kind of health problems are caused by humidifier disinfectant? Q3 How many victims are there? Q4 What is the analysis of the 1,112 cases of death? Q5 What is the problem with the government's diagnostic criteria and the solution? Q6 Who made what brands? Q7 Has there been a recall? What is still on sale? Q8 Was safety not checked by any producers? Q9 What are the government's responsibilities? Q10 Is it true that these products were sold only in Korea? Q11 Why and how was it unveiled only in 2011 after 17 years of sales? Q12 What delayed the resolution of the victim issue? Q13 What is the background of the prosecutor's investigation in early 2016? Q14 Is it possible to report new victim cases without evidence of product purchase? Q15 What is happening with the victim issue? Q16 How does it compare with the cases of Minamata disease and Wonjin Rayon? Q17 Are there prevention measures and lessons?