• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.385-444
• /
• 2003

Current Military Airbase Law, in an effort to promote safety of military aircraft and security of military airbase, requires an administrative agency or its empowered branch to consult with the Secretary of Defense or the commander of the airbase before they issue a certain administrative approval or decision related to the installation. Although this consultation process purports itself in simplifying what can be an protracted administrative procedure, and in unifying objectives of the military and the administrative services, such procedural requirement is vulnerable inevitability of various legal problems whenever there is a conflict of interests among civil, military, government services. Nor is there sufficient studies done by academian in the area of bureaucratic issues of administrative resolution, and certainly not in the area of the military consultation procedure. This article, with such reality in mind attempts to constructively examine 1) when a consultation application is submitted, whether the discretionary power of the commander of the affected airbase is acknowledged at the outset; 2) if the content of the consultation is deemed unlawful, whether a civilian can institute an administrative lawsuit against it; 3) problems about the subject matters of the consultation requirement within the framework of military airbase law; 4) whether the issuing administrative agency must abide by and issue approval or decision in accordance with the opinion proposed by the said commander; 5) the legal problems of the remedial measure such as an order of removal, appellate review, notion to challenge authority, and etc. in cases such as administrative agency ignoring the commanders proposal or issuing final approval or decision that is inconsistent with what was consulted and agreed upon between both parties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.57-72
• /
• 2011

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.