• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.31-49
• /
• 2003

Neo-liberalism, the most influential ideology in the current world, argues for the commercialization of social security programs and for the dissolution of the interventionist welfare state. From the neo-liberal viewpoint, social services become more efficient and more advantageous for recipients, when provided by the market, not by the state. It is also argued that the welfare of all social members is best secured when the market freely operates without any interference from the state. From the neo-liberal point of view, an argument was raised to commercialize the state-administered Workers' Compensation program of Korea in the mid-1990s. This argument was faced with strong resistances from labor unions and social welfare circles, and has disappeared since the economic breakdown and the restructuring of Korean society during the late 1990s. Butr, such an argument can emerge anytime as the nee-liberal ideology become more powerful. This article aims to examine the neo-liberal argument that the privatization of social security programs, through an increases in efficiency, improves the interests of the recipients as well as the whole society. For this, this article attempts to analyze the Workers' Compensation programs of the USA, which, from state to state, are administered by the state government or by private insurance companies. This study can serve as an effective critique for the neo-liberal argument, if it finds that state-administered Workers' Compensation programs are more efficient than those managed by insurance companies. This article's another aim is to assess the controversies over the privatization of the Workers' Compensation program of Korea during the mid to late 1990s. The controversies were more about which viewpoint is right and, in most cases, lacked empirical evidence. This study shall empirically criticize the argument for the privatization of the Workers' Compensation program.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.487-538
• /
• 2013

It is the most critical issue in recent international intellectual property licence disputes to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts. As Korea and the European Union(EU) reached free trade agreement(FTA), and the EU-Korea FTA entered into force on July 1, 2011, the FTA has boosted social, economic, cultural exchanges between the two. As a result of the increased transactions in those sectors, legal disputes are also expected to grow. This situation calls for extensive research and understanding of the choice of law principles applicable to international intellectual property license contracts in the EU. To decide the laws applicable to issues arising from international intellectual property license contracts disputes, the characterization of those issues is necessary for the purpose of applying private international law principles to them. In terms of characterization, intellectual property license contracts fall within contractual matters. In the EU, the primary rule of choice of law principles in contractual obligations is the Rome I Regulation. Because the choice of law rules, such as private international law principles, the Rome Convention(1980), and the Rome I Regulation, differ in the time of application, it is essential to clarify the time factor of related contracts. For example, the Rome I Regulation applies to contracts which were concluded as from December 17, 2009. Although party autonomy in international contracts disputes is generally allowed, if there is no choice of law agreement between the parties to the contracts, the objective test rule of private international law doctrine could be the best option. Following this doctrine, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 1 provides the governing law rules based on the types of contracts, but there is no room for intellectual property license contracts. After all, as the rule for governing law of those contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 2 should be applied and if there are countries which are more closely connected to the contracts under the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 3, the laws of those countries become the governing laws of the contracts. Nevertheless, if it is not possible to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 4 should be applied in the last resort and the laws of the countries which are the most closely connected to the contracts govern the license contracts. Therefore, this research on the laws applicable to intellectual property license contracts under the Rome I Regulation suggests more systematic and effective solutions for future disputes in which Korea and the EU countries play the significant role as the connecting factors in the conflict of laws rules. Moreover, it helps to establish comprehensive and theoretical understanding of applying the Korean Private International Law to multifarious choice-of-law cases.

• Journal of Ginseng Culture
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.11-27
• /
• 2019

The Jurchens, the ancestors of the Qing Manchus, had lived scattered in Manchuria and had made their living mostly on ginseng gathering and animal hunting. Their residential areas, rich with deep forest and numerous rivers, provided great habitation for all kinds of flora and fauna, but not so proper for agriculture. Based on their activities of foraging and hunting, the Jurchens developed a unique social organization that was later transformed into the Banner System, the most distinctive Qing military institution. By the sixteenth century, that the external trade brought considerable changes to Jurchen society. A huge amount of foreign silver, imported from Japan and South America to China, first invigorated commercial economy in China proper, and later caused a huge influence on Ming frontier regions, including Manchuria. In the late sixteenth century when the tradition of foraging and hunting encountered with silver economy, the Jurchen tribes became unified after years of competition and transformed themselves into the Manchus to build the Qing empire in 1636. In 1644 the Manchus succeeded in conquering the China Proper and moved into Beijing. Even after that, the Manchu imperial court never forgot the value of Manchurii ginseng; instead, they paid great efforts to monopolize this profitable root. Until the late seventeenth century, the Qing court used the Banner System to manage Manchurian ginseng. The banner soldiers stationed in Manchuria checked unauthorized civilian entrances in this frontier and protected its ginseng producing mountains from the Han Chinese people. All the process of ginseng gathering was managed by the institutions under the direct control of the imperial court, such as the Imperial Household Department, the Butha Ula Office, and the Three Upper Banner in Shengjing. Banner soldiers were dispatched to the given mountains, collect the given amount of ginseng, and send them to the imperial court in Beijing. The state monopoly of ginseng was maintained throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries under the principle that Manchuria and its natural resources should be guarded from civilian encroachment. At the same time, Manchurian ginseng was considered as an important source of state revenue. The imperial court and financial bureau wanted to collect ginseng as much as they needed. By the late seventeenth century as the ginseng management by the banner soldiers failed in securing the ginseng tax, the Qing court began to invite civil merchants to ginseng business. During the eighteenth century the Qing ginseng policy became more dependent on civil merchants, both their money and management. In 1853 the Qing finally ended the ginseng monopoly, but it was before the early eighteenth century that wealthy merchants hired ginseng gatherers and paid ginseng tax to the state. The Qing monopoly of ginseng was in fact maintained by the active participation of civil merchants in the ginseng business.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.139-207
• /
• 2022

As various state restrictions on individual freedom were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised that excessive infringements on fundamental rights were indiscriminately permitted based on the public interest of preventing infectious diseases. Therefore, the question of how to set acceptable limits of liberty restrictions on individuals has emerged. However, since the phenomenon of infections spreading to the population is only predicted statistically, how to deal with the risk of the infected individual as a subject of legal analysis has become a problem. In the absence of a theoretical framework of legal analysis of risk, the risk of infected individuals during the pandemic was not analyzed strictly, and proportionality review of infection prevention measures was often only an abstract comparison of the importance of public interest and individual rights. Therefore, this research aims to conduct a theoretical review on how risk can be conceptualized legally in a public health crisis, and to develop a theoretical framework for proportionality review of the risk of liberty-limiting measures during a pandemic. Chapter 2 analyzes the legal philosophical concepts of risk, which are the basis for liberty restrictions during a public health crisis, and applies and extends them to the pandemic. Chapter 3 reviews previous studies related to liberty restriction measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and points out they have a limitation that specific criteria for the proportionality review of public health measures in the pandemic have not been presented. Accordingly, Chapter 3 specifies the methodological framework for proportionality review, referring to the theoretical discussion on risks in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 reviews the legitimacy of gathering restriction orders, applying the theoretical discussion in Chapter 2 and the criteria for proportionality review established in Chapter 3. In particular, Section 4 examines logic of proportionality review in judicial precedents over the ban on gathering restrictions implemented in the COVID-19 pandemic. In analyzing the precedents, the logic of proportionality review in each case is critically reviewed and reconstructed based on the theoretical framework presented in this research.

• Korea and Global Affairs
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2017

This study speculates on responses to the nuclear threats of North Korea and mutual assistance and cooperation between South Korea, the U.S. and China for the unification of the Korean Peninsula. As for the North Koreas nuclear issue and unification of the Korean Peninsula, South Korea is the subject of national division, the U.S. is a responsible country in international issues and does not have diplomatic ties with North Korea. China is a traditional socialist nation and a supporter of North Korea. As North Korea's strategic weapons including nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles are international issues, to defend against Kim Jung-Eun's unexpected acts, the three countries should actively cooperate with each other and develop countermeasures. However, with respect to the road map of the North Koreas issue, there are subtle differences between the U.S. and China in recognition of and sanctions against North Korea as a resolution of the U..N. Security Council. The U.S. has continued a deterrence policy and sanctions against North Korea based on joint threats between South Korea and the U.S. while China has showed a negative position in the process of solving the North Korean nuclear issue because of the unstable security derived from the U.S. 's intervention in the Korean peninsula. North Korea should change its diplomatic policy in a more concrete way towards world peace although it has continued trade of strategic weapons with Middle Eastern countries to maintain its political system. For example, to restart the summit talks and open multilateral security channels. Although the issue of unification of the Korean peninsula should be resolved by South and North Korea themselves, it is strange that South and North Korea depend on the logic of powerful countries for the resolution of a national problem. As for North Koreas nuclear and the Unification issues, peaceful solutions presented by South Korea seem more persuasive than the solution presented by North Korea which did not secure any international support. However, South Korea, the U.S. and China need to develop uni-directional two-tract strategies for sanctions against North Korea and talks with North Korea for peace on the Korean peninsula, and should continue to support the economic independence of North Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.147-174
• /
• 2018

The air transportation industry is a field where control and interference of the state are generalized compared to other industries. However, the premise for national intervention in the air transportation industry is the determination of the nationality of the aircraft or airline company concerned. This is because it is necessary to clarify the distinction between the domestic and foreign carriers so that they can exercise airspace sovereignty. The purpose of this paper is to compare the current status and contents of Korean law and regulations on the determination of nationality with the foreign legal system. To this end, the starting point of the discussion is to look at the history of nationality restrictions on the US air transport industry and the issues that arise in the content and operation of the system today. In addition, this paper examined the provisions of the Japanese aviation law, which is very similar to that of Korea, and then compared the current legal provisions of the United States, Japan and Korea. As a conclusion, this paper sought the direction of revision of the Korean law on the basis of the foreign status of the restriction of nationality in the air transportation industry. Compared with our law, the US and Japan are generally regarded to be more concerned with the contents of their own airline companies than those of foreigners or non-citizen. In spite of the fact that there are many laws and regulations in the United States regarding the de facto dominance of domestic airline companies by foreigners, there have been a lot of controversies in this matter. By the way, Japan has been stipulating regulations on holding companies and affiliated companies. In the global era, it would be meaningful to check the status of the nationality restrictions in the aviation industry, which is based on internationality. I hope that this study will be able to build a legal institutional basis for Korea's aviation industry development from a reasonable protectionist point of view rather than a narrow nationalism in a rapidly changing era.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.161-187
• /
• 2010

This study begins with two research interests. Firstly, there seems to be a break of research in the field of family policy in Korea which exists especially in regard to family law. Family law was originally the core of state interventions in family life, but has been neglected because of the lack of literature with comparative research methods. This shortcoming needs to be addressed. Secondly, through inquiry into the definition of family or family policy with the lens of the law, the definition of family or family policy can be correctly extended. With these two interests combined, this research tries to derive an analytical tool - maintenance community - of the law and compare some important points of the family law of Korea with those of 16 EU-countries in terms of regime classification. The method used is, firstly, to describe the subjects of family law with a focus on partnering and parenting without subjective interpretation, and secondly, to classify the countries' family-law regimes with the criteria of privacy and autonomy using cluster analysis. The results show that the countries can be classified into three clusters: Nordic (Norway and Sweden), West-Northern (Denmark, France, England, Finland, and Belgium) and Middle South (Italy, Spain, Austria, Portugal, Netherlands, Greece, Ireland, Germany, and Korea). This result can be compared to a precedent research result which showed that 21 OECD countries can be classified in three clusters according to family policy. The number of the clusters is the same as this study, but some countries belong to other clusters; for example Denmark and Finland belong to the Nordic cluster according to family policy, while they belong to the West-Northern according to family law, and Austria, Germany, and Ireland belong to the Middle-South cluster according to family law, while they belong to the Continental according to family policy. From this result we can interpret Korean family law to be in the middle range according to both criteria of privacy and autonomy like other South-European countries including some Continental countries. We can make some theoretical suggestions. The fact that both family law and family policy regimes in countries can be classified into three clusters can be interpreted to mean that there exists parallelism between family law and family policy in a broad sense. But from the fact that some countries belong to different clusters according to family law and family policy, we can say that the family policy in a country is not always consistent with family law.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.28
• /
• pp.181-205
• /
• 2011

There are various discussions about introducing private investigation in South Korea these days, and training private investigators is one of the main topics. Training private investigators, unlike other training, is required to instill expertise and ethical quality into the trainees since the major task of the investigators includes protecting the lives of the citizens as well as their properties. Therefore, many agree to the idea that systematic educational programs need to be organized to produce private investigators with expertness and morality. In this study, we explored the opinions of those who are concerned with this issue of establishing private investigation in the university education and analyzed the data by using the NVivo 2 program. The result revealed that the reasons that people supported the idea of launching private investigator services were as follows. First, there is lack of manpower to maintain peace and public order in the country. Second, the police does not intervene actively and help harmed victims unless it is a consequential incident. Third, in position to wield public power, police officers cannot get involved in civil affairs. Also, absence of an academic institution to educate private investigators and lack of the police and clients' trust in private investigation were the two biggest reasons that people approved the proposal to introduce department of private investigation in universities. The interviewees of the study believed the outlook and future direction for private investigation would change depending on the status of the licensed private investigation business bill. Before the bill passes, they thought that the work of private investigators will be performed by insurance companies, foreign private investigation businesses, domestic consulting firms, and security providers which supply similar services. On the other hand, after the bill passes, they believed that numerous private investigator corporations resembling existing security corporations will be founded in addition to the current market, and that private investigation in the academic field will also be vitalized.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.171-208
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to classify the underlying and parsimonious types of child maltreatment and examine whether the effects of risk factors on child maltreatment recurrence differ by type of maltreatment. We utilized the multiyear national administrative data from the National Child Maltreatment Information System collected by Child Protection Agency in Korea. Of 26,921 child maltreatment victims reported and substantiated on or after January 1, 2012, 1,447 children who had recurrence of child maltreatment until December 31, 2015 were selected as maltreatment recurrence group and 4,580 children who had not experienced maltreatment since first substantiation were assigned as maltreatment non-recurrence group. Latent class analysis(LCA) and latent transition analysis(LTA) were used to group children with similar maltreatment subtypes into discrete classes of child maltreatment recurrence. Logistic regression is employed to examine the association between the child maltreatment predominant types and risk factors for recurrence. Results of LCA and LTA showed four latent classes representing predominant type of child maltreatment: 'physical abuse predominant type', 'emotional abuse predominant type', 'sexual abuse predominant type', and 'neglect type'. Significant differences in the effect of risk factors among latent classes were found in child's age and gender, perpetrator's gender, family poverty, biological parent as the perpetrator, domestic violence toward partner, perpetrator's alcoholic problem, insufficient parenting skills, and out-of-home care service, Based on these findings, results suggested how the typology can be used to guide decision about who to target in prevention and intervention programs, and which features of risk factors to target. Practice and policy implications as well as further research tasks were discussed in the lights of searching for useful and important strategies to prevent recurrence of child maltreatment.

• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.53-94
• /
• 2017

Thai political regime is said to have returned to bureaucratic polity or semi-democracy. However this kind of perspective do not find the political interference of Privy Council which is a body of Monarch of Thailand. Therefore this paper tries to discover the unique traits of Thai way of constitutional monarchy which can be defined as the modern form of absolute monarchy. In short Thai way of constitutional monarchy based on network politics is contradictary to the normal constitutional monarchy whose norm is "the king reigns, but does not rule." This means Thai king is in politics not above politics in reality. Thai monarchy has interfered in diversive way in terms of mediating political conflicts and protecting the monarchy as a institution. In this process the king has been worshiped as demigod who practises the Buddhist doctrine and the centre of national integration. Even after the 6 Ocober 1976 massacre which the palace involved King Bhumibol Adulyadej's sacred position was not challenged. Rather $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ law became more draconian for status quo. Since then $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ was cited as one of the major rationale for the military coup. The 2006 coup which was triggered by the clash between network Monarchy and bourgeois polity based on Thakin network marked a surge of the $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ cases. The 2014 coup had consecutively increased the number of $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ prisoners. It can be said that the modern form of absolute monarchy in Thailand including bureaucratic polity, semi-democracy and democracy is bounded by $l{\grave{e}}se-majest{\acute{e}}$ law which network monarchy players such as military, intellectuals, Democrat Party and even some civil society groups support.