• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.169-195
• /
• 2020

With the increase in air transportation, air delays are inevitable, and the damage of air consumers is also increasing. In Korea, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport announced 「the Criteria for Protection of Users of Air Transportation」, but the Criteria does not include aviation delays except Tarmac delay, but this criteria is a only public notice, not an Act. Lately, a clause about Tarmac delay was newly established as Article 61bis of the Aviation Business Act, and was enacted from May 27, 2020. The Air carriers' Tarmac delay are subject to mandatory regulations. This research showed how lawsuits were implemented for the protection of aviation consumers related to aviation delays prior to the imposition of this article. In addition, the study examined at the public law level, whether the protection rights of aviation consumers is the fundamental right under the Constitution and whether the government should be the main subjects of consumer protection. And then we studied the effect of enforcement about the Tarmac Delay Rule of the United States. This rule acts as a federal regulation. Subsequently, the Biscone case presented that it was not easy for the US court to accept a lawsuit against the passengers for tarmac delay. There are limitations in remedying the damages of airline consumers due to delays either in Korea trial or the U.S. trial. Finally it needs strengthening the penalty to secure the effectiveness of the Tarmac delay clause regulations. In order to protect airline consumers, it was proposed that the protection of aviation consumer law should be established through the revision as the Enforcement Rules of the Airline Business Act.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.17
• /
• pp.255-276
• /
• 2008

The important items, which should be considered in Private Investigation Law, can include subjects, licenses, the scope of business, qualifying examinations, and supervisory and penal provisions. The subjects of Private Investigation Law should be permitted to be both natural persons and juridical persons in terms of providing various services, but should be permitted to be juridical persons and should be administered on a license system, even in order to ensure public interests. Concretely, the introduction scope of Private Investigation Law can be regulated to include the followings: that is, investigating the whereabouts identification of runaways and missing children, investigating the personal identification, habit, way of action, motivation, whereabouts identification, real child confirmation, association, transaction, reputation, and personality of specific persons or specific groups, investigating the whereabouts identification of missing persons, owners of government-vested properties or renounced properties, investigating the whereabouts of lost properties or stolen properties, investigating the causes of fire, character defamation, slander, damage, accident, physical disability, infringement on real estate or movable property, and investigating all sorts of accidents including traffic accidents, insurance accidents, and medical malpractices. In the qualifying examination, examinees' age should be restricted to be over age 25. The person, who is exempted from its primary examination, should be restricted to be the person, who has the career of over 20 years in related fields, in consideration of its equity with other certificates of qualification. In the supervisory institution, as the policy institution is the supervisory institution in many countries including France (the police) and Japan (public security committee), so the National Policy Agency should be the supervisory institution in consideration of management aspects. In the penal regulations, especially, we should clarify the management of personal information (personal information protection, personal information management), and so should prevent the infringement of people's basic rights, and then should ensure the public interest.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.159-206
• /
• 2019

This study aims to analyze the details of the executive order of the president of the United States, which have been developed in the country's administrative system to institutionalize the guarantee of the people's right to know the classified records, as well as to protecting national secrets. This study also aims to present any implications for the development of the classified record management system of Korea. To this end, the previously issued EO concerning the classified records management were reviewed in terms of its classification, safeguard, and declassification. The analysis results showed that the EO by the president established and prescribed the special access program for national secrets, the system to exempt and suspend the automatic declassification, and the sanctions for protecting national secrets. The EO also established and prescribed the appointment system for the person with the authority to classify record, automatic declassification program, and Mandatory declassification review system, as well as the procedures for historical researcher and certain former government personal to access the classified records with the purpose of guaranteeing people's right to know. As a result, this study identified implications for the development of Korea's classified record management system, as follows : First, it is necessary to restructure the current classified record management system, by changing the operations that is dependent on the director of the National Intelligence Service to the one that is dependent on the President. Second, it is necessary to legislate a separate special law for the classified record management system. Third, a standing supervisory body should be established for the integrated management and for the consistent and routine supervision of the classified record management. Fourth, it is necessary to establish procedures to further review the classification of classified record to correct the defects of the current classification system, which has been abused and mismanaged by the national agencies and organizations that produce classified record.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.37-80
• /
• 2022

By analyzing informed consent and the refusal of emergency medical treatment (called patient dumping) under the current Emergency Medical Service Act, this study suggests that an emergency medical professional is only liable for patient dumping if their duty to protect the patient's life takes precedence over the patient's right to self-determination. In emergency medical situations, as in general medical situations, medical treatment should be performed after the emergency medical professional informs the patient about the medical treatment, including its necessity and methods, and obtains consent from the patient. Refusing or evading the performance of emergency medical services on the excuse of the informed consent not considering a waiver or alteration of informed consent requirements without reasonable reasons violates the Emergency Medical Service Act and thus makes an emergency medical professional liable to administrative disposition or criminal penalty. In other words, depending on the existence of a waiver of alteration of the informed consent, patient dumping may be established. If the patient is a minor or has no decision-making ability, and their legal representative makes a decision against the patient's medical interests, the opinion of the legal representative is not unconditionally respected. A minor also has the right to decide over their body, and the decisions of their legal representatives should be in the patient's best interests. If the patient refuses treatment, in principle, the obligation of life protection of emergency medical professionals is the top priority. However, making these decisions in the aforementioned situations in the emergency medical field is difficult because of the absence of explicit regulations regarding these exceptional problems. This study aims to organize the following precedents of the Supreme Court of Korea. The court states that, when balancing the conflicting interests between the duty to provide emergency medical service and the duty to inform is unavoidable for emergency medical professionals, they should put the duty to protect the patient's life ahead of the duty to inform if the patient's life matters. Exceptionally, when a patient has seriously considered whether they should receive treatment before the emergency medical situation, their right to self-determination can be considered equal to the obligation of emergency medical professionals to provide emergency medical treatment. This research also suggests that an amendment of the Emergency Medical Service Act should include the following. First, the criteria for determining the decision-making ability of emergency patients should consist of medical content. Second, additional consent from a medical professional is unnecessary for first-aid treatment. Finally, new provisions for emergency medical obligations for minors, new provisions for the decision standard when there are conflicting opinions about the treatment of a patient, and new penalty provisions for professionals who suspend emergency medical examinations and treatments need to be established.

• 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.