• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Radioactive Waste Society Conference
• /
• 2005.06a
• /
• pp.311-318
• /
• 2005

Transparency on the Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) is the key issue to enhance the public acceptance for a permanent high level radioactive repository. To approve it, all performances on TSPA through Quality Assurance is necessary. The integrated Cyber R&D Platform is developed by KAERI using the T2R3 principles applicable for five major steps in R&D's. The proposed system is implemented in the web-based system so that all participants in TSPA are able to access the system. It is composed of FEAS (FEp to Assessment through Scenario development) showing systematic approach from the FEPs to Assessment methods flow chart, PAID (Performance Assessment Input Databases) showing PA(Performance Assessment) input data set in web based system and QA system receding those data. All information is integrated into Cyber R&D Platform so that every data in the system can be checked whenever necessary. For more user-friendly system, system upgrade included input data & documentation package is under development. Throughout the next phase R&D, Cyber R&D Platform will be connected with the assessment tool for TSPA so that it will be expected to search the whole information in one unified system.

• Survey Research
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.1-38
• /
• 2005

Considering the importance of corruption index measurement model and the diffusion of popular awareness about the importance of anti-corruption, this research compared and analyzed existing corruption index measurement models. This paper has selected "Anti-Corruption Index model(ACI model)" that was developed by Seoul Development Institute and "CCEJ's Corruption Index model" which is under use by the Citizens' Coaltion for Economic Justice. These two models were analyzed in terms of appropriateness of 'the indicator and index choice method', 'the research design' and 'the use of statistical data'. This analysis shows that two models have some problems. First, at the level of indicator and index choice method, the indicators of CCEJ's corruption index model is too atomized and redundant. As not putting weight of indicator, it did not consider importance of each indicator. Citizens who evaluated the level of corruption didn't participate in the weight evaluation team, which results in failure of the model to reflect the citizens' opinion. Also, because the question about Seoul Metropolis' corruption level is not included, it is not detected difference between real corruption level and perceptive corruption level. Second, in terms of appropriateness of research design, the sample of the CCEJ' corruption index model is too small to get credibility. The objectivity of research method seems to be low because survey was performed by exit interview. In addition, 38 items are overfull in the questionnire of CCEJ's corruption index model compare to 13 items in ACI model. Also, in making up questions, the terms are redundant and unobvious. Third, in regarding with feasibility of the statistical data, the CCEJ's corruption index model uses regulation data for disciplinary punishment of 25 local governments in Seoul from 1995 to 1999. But, it is common ideas of scholars that statistical data indicates the tip of an iceberg in corruption. So for using a statistical data, it needs a data of enough quantity and has a high level credibility. In addition, objective method of giving weight is not developed. In this point of view, the use of statistical data has some limits. To solve this problem, ① objective data should be included in the indicators, ② various indicators should be developed and ③ a method of giving weight should be improved.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.159-203
• /
• 2010

Together with the development of space science outer space law has become one of the most rapidly developing branches of international law. This reflects a general realization that these new activities must be subject to reasonable legal regulation if they are to serve the peaceful purposes of mankind without undue confusion and disorder. The exploration and use of outer space introduces many novel opportunities and dilemmas, and inspired insights are needed in the development of this new resource. In particular, the settlement of space law disputes is a relatively new discussion in international law. However, the significance of the settlement of space law disputes was acknowledged in various colloquia organized by legal academicians and practitioners around the world. Analysis of the dispute settlement provisions in space agreements plainly reveals the degree to which States persist to be mistrustful of any impingement to their sovereignty. They are reluctant to submit disputes to adjudication and binding arbitration, particularly when these provisions are negotiated between States which have dissimilar political, economic and social interests and demography. However, there is a slow but clear shift in this attitude as States realize the contemporary political, economic and technical pressures necessitating the lifting of the veil of State sovereignty. The development of an effective mechanism for the settlement of disputes arising in relation to the development of the exploration and exploitation of outer space has been the subject of global study by highly qualified publicists and international institutions. The 1972 Liability Convention is the space treaty with the most elaborate provisions for dispute settlement. However, it fails to ensure binding decisions. In this point, the 1998 Taipei Final Draft Convention may be a useful instrument for further consideration on whether an independent sectorialized dispute settlement mechanism should be established. Considering these circumstances it seemed essential to take legislative action to implement a system as comprehensive as the relevant legal framework are in the Law of the Sea and International Criminal Law mechanisms for dispute settlement and conflict avoidance from outer space activities.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.137-172
• /
• 2008

The earliest safety data programs, the FDR and CVR, were electronic reporting systems that generate data "automatically." The FDR program, originally instituted in 1958, had no publicly available restrictions for protections against sanctions by the FAA or an airline, although there are agreements and union contracts forbidding the use of FDR data for FAA enforcement actions. This FDR program still has the least formalized protections. With the advent of the CVR program in 1966, the precursor to the current FAR 91.25 was already in place, having been promulgated in 1964. It stated that the FAA would not use CVR data for enforcement actions. In 1982, Congress began restricting the disclosure of the CVR tape and transcripts. Congress added further clarification of the availability of discovery in civil litigation in 1994. Thus, the CVR data have more definitive protections in place than do FDR data. The ASRS was the first non-automatic reporting system; and built into its original design in 1975 was a promise of limited protection from enforcement sanctions. That promise was further codified in an FAR in 1979. As with the CVR, from its inception, the ASRS had some protections built in for the person who might have had a safety problem. However, the program did not (and to this day does not) explicitly deal with issues of use by airlines, litigants, or the public media, although it appears that airlines will either take a non-punitive stance if an ASRS report is filed, or the airline may ignore the fact that it has been filed at all. The FAA worked with several U.S. airlines in the early 1990s on developing ASAP programs, and the FAA issued an Advisory Circular about the program in 1997. From its inception, the ASAP program contained some FAA enforcement protections and company discipline protections, although some protection against litigation disclosure and public disclosure was not added until 2003, when FAA Order 8000.82 was promulgated, placing the program under the protections of FAR 193, which had been added in 2001. The FOQA program, when it was first instituted through a demonstration program in 1995, did not contain protections against sanctions. Now, however, the FAA cannot take enforcement action based on FOQA safety data, and an airline is limited to "corrective action" under the program. Union contracts can exclude FOQA from the realm of disciplinary action, although airline practice may be for airlines to require retraining if there is no contract in place forbidding it. The data is protected against disclosure for litigation and public media purposes by FAA Order 8000.81, issued in 2003, which placed FOQA under the protections of FAR 193. The figure on the next page shows when each program began, and when each statute, regulation, or order became effective for that program.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.247-276
• /
• 2017

The protection of space asset has been new major cause of space militarization. For such purpose, it has been officially announced that a policy of deterring and denying any adversaries from accessing the outer space. Space militarization is to be conversed into a new concept of space weaponization. The USA has announced its policy of space weaponization, while China and Russia have not revealed their plan or policy. Latter States, however, have proposed a draft treaty limiting the deployment of warfare in the outer space. The terms of the Outer Space Treaty, reflecting three significant United Nations General Assembly resolutions from the 1960s, support the position that ground rules must be observed in the exploration and the use of outer space, particularly in the absence of specific space law rules. Yet the combination (and culmination) of these two approaches to the legal regulation of outer space-specific rules as and when agreed by the international community and the translation of principles developed for terrestrial regulation to outer space-still leaves much room for uncertainty and exploitation for military and strategic purposes. As space weaponization may contribute to deterring the use of weapon, it may be not against the UN Charter Article 2(4). If space weaponization might generate the space debris such that the outer space is no more available for exploration and use, it is against the proportionality principle and discrimination principle enshrined in the laws of the war. But, if the limitation upon the kind and use of space weaponization is agreed among the States, then the space weaponization may not be against the laws of the war, and be considered permissible within the rationale of limited war.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.105-134
• /
• 2008

Local opposition and protest constitute single greatest hurdle to the siting of locally unwanted land uses(LULUs), especially siting of high-level radioactive disposal not only throughout Korea but also throughout the industrialized world. It can be attributed mainly to the NIMBYism, equity problem, and lack of participation. These problems are arisen from rational planning process which emphasizes instrumental rationality. But planning is a value-laden political activity, in which substantive rationality is central. To achieve this goals, we need a sound planning process for siting LULUs, which should improve the ability of citizens to influence the decisions that affects them. By a sound planning process, we mean one that is open to citizen input and contains accurate and complete information. In other word, the public is also part of the goal setting process and, as the information and analyses developed by the planners are evaluated by the public, strategies for solutions can be developed through consensus-building. This method is called as a co-operative siting process, and must be structured in order to arrive at publicly acceptable decisions. The followings are decided by consensus-building method. 1. Negotiation will be held? 2. What is the benefits and risks of negotiation? 3. What are solutions when collisions between national interests and local ones come into? 4. What are the agendas? 5. What is the community' role in site selection? 6. Are there incentives to negotiation. 7. Who are the parties to the negotiation? 8. Who will represent the community? 9. What groundwork of negotiation is set up? 10. How do we assure that the community access to information and expert? 11. What happens if negotiation is failed? 12. Is it necessary to trust each other in negotiations? 13. Is a mediator needed in negotiations?

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.2
• /
• pp.156-179
• /
• 2020

The Preservation Decree (1933) is the basic law relevant to the conservation of cultural property of colonial Chosun, and invoked clauses from the Old History Preservation Act (1897), the Historic Scenic Sites Natural Monument Preservation Act (1919), and the National Treasure Preservation Act (1929), which were all forms of Japanese Modern Cultural Heritage Law, and actually used the corresponding legal text of those laws. Thus, the fact that the Preservation Decree transplanted or imitated the Japanese Modern Cultural Heritage Law in the composition of the constitution can be proved to some extent. The main features and characteristics of the Preservation Decree are summarized below. First, in terms of preservation of cultural property, the Preservation Decree strengthened and expanded preservation beyond the existing conservation rules. In the conservation rules, the categories of cultural properties were limited to historic sites and relics, while the Preservation Decree classifies cultural properties into four categories: treasures, historic sites, scenic spots, and natural monuments. In addition, the Preservation Decree is considered to have advanced cultural property preservation law by establishing the standard for conserving cultural property, expanding the scope of cultural property, introducing explicit provisions on the restriction of ownership and the designation system for cultural property, and defining the basis for supporting the natural treasury. Second, the Preservation Decree admittedly had limitations as a colonial cultural property law. Article 1 of the Preservation Decree sets the standard of "Historic Enhancement or Example of Art" as a criteria for designating treasures. With the perspective of Japanese imperialism, this acted as a criterion for catering to cultural assets based on the governor's assimilation policy, revealing its limitations as a standard for preserving cultural assets. In addition, the Japanese imperialists asserted that the cultural property law served to reduce cultural property robbery, but the robbery and exporting of cultural assets by such means as grave robbery, trafficking, and exportation to Japan did not cease even after the Preservation Decree came into effect. This is because governors and officials who had to obey and protect the law become parties to looting and extraction of property, or the plunder and release of cultural property by the Japanese continued with their acknowledgement,. This indicates that cultural property legislation at that time did not function properly, as the governor allowed or condoned such exporting and plundering. In this way, the cultural property laws of the Japanese colonial period constituted discriminative colonial legislation which was selected and applied from the perspective of the Japanese government-general in the designation and preservation of cultural property, and the cultural property policy of Japan focused on the use of cultural assets as a means of realizing their assimilation policy. Therefore, this suggests that the cultural property legislation during the Japanese colonial period was used as a mechanism to solidify the cultural colonial rules of Chosun and to realize the assimilation policy of the Japanese government-general.

• Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.314-322
• /
• 2008

Purpose: It is widely recognized that good quality control (QC) program is essential for adequate imaging diagnosis using gamma camera. The purpose of this study is to survey the current status of QC of gamma cameras in Republic of Korea for implementing appropriate nationwide quality control guidelines and programs. Methods: A collection of data is done for personnel, equipment and appropriateness of each nuclear medicine imaging laboratory's quality control practice. This survey is done by collection of formatted questionnaire by mails, emails or interviews. We also reviewed the current recommendations concerning quality assurance by international societies. Results: This survey revealed that practice of quality control is irregular and not satisfactory. The irregularity of the QC practice seems due partly to the lack of trained personnel, equipment, budget, time and hand-on guidelines. Conclusion: The implementation of QC program may cause additional burden to the hospitals, patients and nuclear medicine laboratories. However, the benefit of a good QC program is obvious that the hospitals can provide good quality nuclear medicine imaging studies to the patients. It is important to use least cumbersome QC protocol, to educate the nuclear medicine and hospital administrative personnel concerning QC, and to establish national QC guidelines to help each individual nuclear medicine laboratory.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.14-28
• /
• 2017

Currently, the object of conservation in heritage conservation is defined as "the value of the heritage" and the value-based management plan has been introduced. Most of traditional temples in korea have been sustained over 1000 years, which make them mixed heritages, including cultural, religious and natural heritages. Therefore, traditional temples should be managed by value-based management plans. This article aims to develop the values and assessment indicators of traditional temple areas and to evaluate the importances of the values and indicators, in order to prepare the basic materials for conserving the values of traditional temples. This study used the diverse research methods such as literature review, in-situ survey, in-depth interview, focus group interview, questionnaire survey. The results showed that the identified values and assessment indicators of traditional temple area were defined as three classes: high class value was consisted of intrinsic value and use value, middle class values were 10 (5 for intrinsic and 5 for use value). 5 middle class values belonging to the intrinsic value were religious/humanity, historical, cultural, environmental/ecological, landscape values. 5 values constituting the use value were social, educational, therapeutic, recreational, and economic values. As a low class, 102 assessment indicators were identified. 60 participants (30 buddhism people, 30 KNPS people) evaluated the importances of the developed values and indicators, using the pairewise comparison for the values and the interval scale for the indicators. It was found that both groups evaluated the use value more important than the intrinsic value and that religious/humanity, landscape, environmental/ecological, economic, recreational values were evaluated more important than the other middle class values. It was also revealed that the two groups were different in their assessments of the indicators. Based on the results, some suggestions were made to improve the management of the traditional temple areas.