• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.3
• /
• pp.252-269
• /
• 2019

Since the inauguration of the Kim Jong-un regime in 2012, the safeguarding and management system of cultural heritage in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been changing to a form similar to that of a democratic country's legal system. In addition, the National Authority for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (NAPCH) has continuously recorded and cataloged intangible cultural heritage elements in the DPRK, listing Arirang, kimchi-making, and ssireum on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Representative List. In particular, the multinational nomination of ssireum in October 2018 is symbolic in terms of inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation for peace and reconciliation, raising expectations for the further multinational nomination of the two Koreas' intangible cultural heritage. Currently, South Korea lists 20 items on its Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, three of which are shared by various countries with multinational nominations such as falconry, tug-of-war, and ssireum. However, when comparing the process of applying for multinational nomination in the three elements that follow, it is necessary to discuss whether these cases reflect the nature of multinational nomination. In particular, in the case of ssireum, without a working-level consultation between the two Koreas to prepare an application for a multinational nomination, each applied for a single registration; these applications were approved exceptionally as a multinational nomination by the Intergovernmental Committee under the leadership of the Secretary-General of UNESCO, and no bilateral exchanges have taken place until now. This is symbolic, formal, and substantially similar to the individual listings in terms of the spirit of co-listing on the premise of mutual exchange and cooperation. Therefore, the only way to strengthen the effectiveness of the multinational nomination between the two Koreas and to guarantee the spirit of multinational nomination is to request multilateral co-registration, including the two Koreas. For this, the Korean government needs a strategic approach, such as finding elements for multilateral co-listing; accumulating expertise, capabilities, and experience as a leading country in multilateral co-listing; and building cooperative governance with stakeholders. Besides, to reduce the volatility of inter-Korean cultural exchanges and cooperation depending on political situations and the special nature of inter-Korean relations, measures should be taken toward achieving inter-Korean cultural heritage exchanges and cooperation under a multilateral cooperation system using UNESCO, an international organization.

• The Science & Technology
• /
• v.8 no.3 s.70
• /
• pp.25-26
• /
• 1975

한국과학기술정보센터(KORSTIC, 소장 김두홍)는 1980년대 후반에 완전한 자립운영을 실현하기 위한 단계적 시도로 제 1 차 5개년사업계획(1976~1980)을 수립하였다. KORSTIC은 1962년 1월 유네스코 한국위원회에서 출발했고 1964년에는 문교부 산하 사단법인으로 발족되었다. 그후 1967년에 과학기술처 산하로 이관되었으며 재단법인으로 개편하게 되었다. 1969년 한국과학기술 정보센터 육성법의 제정공포로 현 청사(건평 1,548평)에 입사, 정보자료 입수와 자료장비를 갖추면서 1974년 7만여건의 정보자료를 제공해 오고 있다고 한다. KORSTIC 5개년 사업계획의 대요를 살펴보면 ①본 센터 특유의 정보 서어비스ㆍ패턴의 정립, ②대규모 데이터ㆍ뱅크의 설치ㆍ운영 및 ③장비, 자료, 인원확충과 청사증축 등 3대 실천과제를 설정하고 있다. 이 사업이 끝나는 80년대에는 현재의 KORSTIC의 예산상 자립도 20%를 50%선까지 끌어올린 수 있게 되며, 더 나아가 이를 기초한 사업의 계속적인 확장으로 1988년에는 100% 자립하고, 1989년부터는 적자운영을 할 수 있게 한다는 것이다. 이와 같은 계획이 성공적으로 완수되며 본 센터는 그 규모나 서어비스 내용에 있어 선진국 수준까지는 미치니 못할 것이나 개발도상국의 정보 센터로서는 좋은 표본이 될 수 있을 것 같다. 따라서, 직원훈련이나 장비확보 등에 있어서 특정국가나 UN 기구 등의 원조를 받는 수원기관의 입장을 탈피하고 개발도상국들을 지원하는 원조제공기관으로 성장하게 될 것이라 한다. 동 5개년 사업기간중에 추진될 3가지 주요 사업을 그 내용별로 살펴보면 다음과 같다.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.47 no.4
• /
• pp.4-21
• /
• 2014

Korean government has taken positive policies, including making "An Basic Plan on the Conservation and Activation of the Royal Tombs of the Joseon Dynasty, UNESCO World Heritage", since 40 royal tombs of the Joseon Dynasty were inscribed as UNESCO World Heritage in 2009. However, projects utilizing the royal tombs of the Joseon Dynasty are in the beginning step and very few has been researched on those projects academically. This study analyzed total 311 projects utilizing the royal tombs of the Joseon Dynasty, which have been made by the Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea from 2009 to 2014, through the literature review and content analysis methodology. An analysis frame consists of educational, touristic, compound and industrial activation on the basis of the utilization types made by the Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea. Most projects utilizing the royal tombs of the Joseon Dynasty are in the very beginning step in terms of educational and touristic utilization. No project utilizing the royal tombs of the Joseon Dynasty in terms of industrial utilization is found. Those projects are almost similar without distinctive characteristics peculiar to each royal tombs. Most projects have been taken on the short term level and the budget size for those is not enough. Projects are mostly focused on the on-site of royal tombs with little paying attention to converging projects utilizing digital and on line techniques. Some suggestions are the followings: increase of the budget on projects utilizing the royal tombs of the Joseon Dynasty, development of content peculiar to each tomb, development of industrial projects, development of converging projects utilizing digital and on line techniques, establishment of new medium and long term plans for utilization of the royal tombs of the Joseon Dynasty and so on.

• Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology
• /
• v.11 no.4
• /
• pp.535-557
• /
• 1998

설악산국립공원은 1965년에 천연보호구역, 1970년에 국립공원 제 5호, 1982년 유네스코에 의해 생물권보존지역으로 지정된 지역이다. 우리 나라 국립공원에서는 물론 다른 자연보존지역에서도 찾아볼 수 없는 중요성이 강조된 지역이나 연간 400만명의 이용객이 집중되기도 하는 지역이다. 우리 나라 국립공원은 본래 관광개발을 위해 지정된 동기를 갖고 있어 자연생태계 및 자연경관도 중요하지만 현실적으로는 합리적인 이용도 중요하다. 그러나 지금까지 국립공원은 자연보존에 대한 관리는 도외시 한 채 이용객 집중에 의해 발생되는 도로, 시설물, 건축물, 각종 오염에 대한 대책마련도 제대로 하지 못하여 국립공원하면 국민은 '등산이나 하고 값싼 음식점과 여인숙 수준의 숙박시설이 있는 관광지'정도로 인식하고 있다. 지난 30년간 압축고도성장을 해 온 우리 나라는 국토의 자연환경이 수없이 훼손되고 또한 옥외 레크레이션활동의 증가로 환경오염이 계속 증가되었다. 설악산국립공원도 예외는 아니어서 저앗ㅇ부와 등산로 주변생태계, 계곡생태계 등이 오염되어 식물, 포유동물, 물고기, 곤충 등에 영향이 나타나고 있지만 대피소, 휴게소, 숙박시설을 중심으로 한 오염행위는 계속 늘어만 가고 있다. 이제 설악산국립공원은 거의 위기상황에 도달된 느낌이다. 이런 시기에 환경생태학회 국립공원분과위원회 회원들은 `96년 외설악 지역, `97년 내설악지역을 2년 동안 각 분야에 걸쳐 조사를 수행하였다. 지난 12년간 외부의 지원도 없이 연구비를 자체 조달하여 힘들게 국립공원 연구를 진행하여 온 일환으로 설악산국립공원 조사를 2년 동안 수행한 것이다. 이번 조사는 `96년 가을 북한공비침투로 많은 지역에 대한 출입이 통제되어 외설악연구의 일부가 누락되었음을 첨언한다. 본 글에서는 2년 동안 본 회원들이 조사한 내용에 의해 설악산 국립공원의 현황을 분석하고 관리개선 방향을 제시하였다.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.1 no.1 s.1
• /
• pp.123-153
• /
• 2001

This article addresses the 2nd Korean consensus conference on cloning that was held by the Korean National commission for UNESCO in 1999. Though previous perspectives recognized the conference as a new citizen's participatory institution. they do not consider that it contains the ideal of deliberative democracy. This article notes that the citizens participated directly and handled the important social agenda through debate in the consensus conference. The consensus conference is another democratic form derived from preference aggregating democracy in the sense that it basically depends on public judgement of the citizens. This consensus conference has the historical meaning because it is in fact the first experiment of deliberative democracy in Korea. 1) We examine the theoretical foundations of consensus conference. They are social constructionism of science, the tradition of societal debate, and deliberative democracy. 2) We explore what deliberative democracy is. It is different from aggregating preference democracy in the sense that it depends on public judgement rather than private preferences. 3) We investigate the features and meaning of deliberative democracy which has experiment on the conference. In the Consensus Conference it was observed that citizens changed their preferences and went forward to developing their view of community as a result of the process of deliberation. It can be said to confirm the significance of deliberative democracy. However, it is simultaneously an opportunity to clarify some problems of deliberative democracy. First of all, it shows that there were hierarchies within the citizens' panel as well as between the citizens' and the specialists' panels. Secondly, there are difficulties in expressing the value of life in argument or discourse. Also, we need the institutional efforts concerning future generations and nonhuman beings in the respect that cloning relates to them.