• Maritime Security
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.55-83
• /
• 2022

For humankind, the ocean is a treasure trove of natural resources and an important area that provides major transportation routes. However, marine ecosystems are under threat amidst the global climate change crisis. This is partly due to various sources of pollution emitted from ships, shore facilities, and other sources. In response, the navies of advanced countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe have assessed such a climate change crisis as a new maritime security threat. These countries have made early efforts to prevent marine pollution from warships. These efforts have been legally embodied. This was legislation for technical and organizational structures to be practically applied in the field. Among these navies of developed countries, France has established parliamentary and intergovernmental plans to become a leader in environmental protection at the defense level, not only in the European region but throughout the world. Within this framework, the French Navy, through its internal instruction, has inclined its legal efforts to prevent marine pollution from warships. Therefore, this study examines the legislation for the prevention of marine pollution from warships within the French Navy and compares it with the marine environmental legislation applicable to the ROK Navy. It then deduces the implications for the ROK navy, which is advancing toward a Blue-Water navy.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.77
• /
• pp.5-36
• /
• 2023

In the Republic of Korea, which has adopted a strong president-centered system as a political system, comprehensive personnel verification of work ability, reputation, and misconduct for positions where the president has personnel rights is not only fundamental to the administration of the country, but is also very important for maintaining the democratic system. As the records containing the personnel verification process produced during this process also has a wide range of data on important people in the country, they themselves are very important national-level information, and there is a great possibility that they will be used as useful materials for studying current national management in future generations. Therefore, it is assumed that after the enactment of the "Act on the Management of Presidential Records" in 2007, Senior Secretary for Civil Affairs of the Office of the President, which were responsible for the personnel verification, designated a wide range of personnel verification records as presidential designated records and transferred them to the Presidential Archives. However, with the launch of the 20th government, the agency responsible for personnel verification changed from Senior Secretary for Civil Affairs of the Office of the President to the "Personnel Information Management Team" of the Ministry of Justice from June 2022, a major change occurred in the personnel verification process that had been maintained and the preservation of related records. This paper examined what personnel verification records are and how they have been preserved and managed, and proposed what issues have arisen at the record management level due to this change in the agency in charge of personnel verification, and how those issues should be resolved on a practical and institutional level.

• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.11 no.12
• /
• pp.329-341
• /
• 2020

As COVID-19 pandemic sweeps across the world, more than 45 million confirmed cases and over 1,000,000 deaths have occurred till now, and this situation is expected to continue for some time. In particular, more than half of the infections in European countries such as Italy and Spain occurred in nursing homes, and it is reported that over 4,000 people died in nursing homes for older adults in the United States. Therefore, the issues that need to be addressed after the COVID-19 crisis include finding a fundamental solution to group care and shifting to family-centered care. More specifically, it is expected that there will be ever more lively discussion on establishing and expanding hyper-technology based community care, that is, family-centered care integrated with ICT and other Industry 4.0 technologies. This poses a challenge of how to combine social security and social welfare with Industry 4.0 in concrete ways that go beyond the abstract suggestions made in the past. A case in point is the proposal involving smart welfare cities. Given this background, the present paper examined the concept, scope, and content of non-face-to-face care in the context of previous literature on the function and scope of the social security platform, and the concept and expandability of the smart welfare city. Implementing a smart city to realize the kind of social security and welfare that our society seeks to provide has significant bearing on the implementation of community care or aging in place. One limitation of this paper, however, is that it does not address concrete measures for implementing non-face-to-face care from the policy and legal/institutional perspectives, and further studies are needed to explore such measures in the future. It is expected that the findings of this paper will provide the future course and vision not only for the smart welfare city but also for the social security and welfare system in administrative, practical, and legislative aspects, and ultimately contribute to improving the quality of human life.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.