• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.317-326
• /
• 2010

The respect for human dignity and worth is to purpose both the ideological premise and the guarantee of all the fundamental rights at the same time. Both freedom and rights which are necessary for obtaining those purposes should be guaranteed. "A human has dignity and worth as a human being" is that a nation exists for an individual between an individual and a nation. It declares democratic ideology. It becomes a ultimate standard to solve a problem of the interpretation of an article of a law and the effect of a law. The right to pursue one's happiness is necessary to persue one's happiness. The rights comprehensively covers even the freedom and the right without in an article of a law. It shows a positive rights like a social fundamental rights in a minimum level of a law. According to the precedent of the Constitutional Court, as the right to pursue one's happiness is in area of a common action, the free manifestation of the authoritative individuality, and self-determination in category, this study is to emphasize the importance of the right to pursue one's happiness throughout its meaning and the precedent of history legislation.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.79
• /
• pp.121-168
• /
• 2024

Record & archives management is at the heart of archival science. We must be faithful to record & archives management. However, isn't there a paradox that arises the more faithful we are to record & archives management? The paradox is that 'being a responsible manager and efficiently managing records' is rather reduces the interest in the social existence of humans who create and use such records. Why do humans produce and use records? It may be because human beings have been living with the concept of records. The concept is 'the same as the design of thoughts'. There is no need to doubt this direction because as record & archives management develops, more valuable records are preserved more systematically, and they are been served with wider scope and appropriateness. However, if we observe this situation from a human point of view rather than record & archives management, we find that humans appearing in record & archives management are limited to the object of using records. If humans are perceived differently based on the hypothesis of reviewing from the ground up, we can encounter a unique context about the relationship between humans and records or between records and humans. If it reaches the norm that human beings have dignity that cannot be transferred to anyone, have the right to pursue happiness, and must live by enjoying freedom, equality, and social basic rights, in short, if human beings are recognized from a constitutional point of view, we can newly recognize the social role and direction of records. The constitution and international human rights norms document basic human rights as the final norm and clarify that it is the duty of the state to guarantee and practice them. The social role of records from a constitutional point of view is the practice of records that proliferate basic human rights. The practice of archiving, which multiplies basic human rights, may also be a civic consciousness required of experts, but on the other hand, it can be a professional way for archival studies. If record management is a two-lane round trip, it can be said that the interaction between record management and record practice, which multiplies basic human rights, is a pioneering four-lane round trip. This article examines the practice of archiving, which has been developed in and out of record & archives management, by clearly grasping the constitutional perspective from the perspective of archival studies, and examines the social role of archival studies in this context. The social role of archival studies is to provide new linguistic rules for archiving.

• Proceedings of the KGS Conference
• /
• 2003.11a
• /
• pp.259-266
• /
• 2003

1) 연구배경 및 연구 목적 보행권 및 이동권은 인간의 기본권 중 하나이다. 지난 수십 년 간 보행약자1)들은 그들이 가진 장애 때문에 자유로이 이동하지 못하였고, 그 결과 정치적, 경제적, 사회적, 문화적으로 소외되어 온 것이 사실이다. 현실적으로, 휠체어 이용자들이 타인의 힘을 빌리지 않고 스스로의 힘으로 이동하는 것은 거의 불가능하다. (중략)

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.41 no.1
• /
• pp.15-29
• /
• 2016

Research background: Despite the visible growth in radiation usage and nuclear power development, the analysis of their relationship with fundamental rights, a subject of public concern regarding issues including the right to health, environmental rights, safety rights, the right to know, the right to development, and the right to life, is currently non-existent. Methods: By examining various fundamental rights in the context of positive laws regarding radiation and nuclear power in an idealistic perspective that guarantees the maximum degree of rights, this paper aims to propose legislative supplements that will lead to improvements in quality of life. Result and discussion: In the South Korean Constitution, radiation and nuclear power is a subject incorporating several rights, including at least 12 clauses that are directly related to fundamental rights; these constitutional rights are manifested in the various clauses of the 14 positive laws regarding radiation and nuclear power. The question on the relative importance of each fundamental right as reflected in these positive laws- whether the right to life should be prioritized or considered equal in weight to the right to health, environmental rights, the right to know, and safety rights- requires careful deliberation and is difficult to humanly resolve in the short term. Conclusion: Making policy that expands the usage of radiation and nuclear power while simultaneously preventing their associated risks is an important task for the Republic of Korea, and a proper value judgment is necessary to find a balance in its associated rights.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2019

This research examines the constitutional meaning of the right to health through reviewing the decisions of the Constitutional Court and proposed amendment of the Constitution issued by the President. This article further discusses the relationship between the right to a humane livelihood and the right to health. Health is a fundamental freedom and inalienable human right which is a prerequisite to accomplish individual's independent activity and realization of value. Thus, the government is obligated to protect and uphold the right. Article 36(3) of the Constitution delineates the government's duty to protect and fulfill the right to health. Through the interpretation of both Article 36(3) and Article 34 of the Constitution, I suggest that the right to health implies 'the right to social security for health'. The Constitutional Court has narrowly interpreted the scope of the right to a humane livelihood by defining the term as "minimum material living standards". However, it should be interpreted as 'the right to enjoy a healthy and cultural life for human dignity' and setting the level of protection is solely on the discretion of the legislative branch. Ultimately, the judicial review on the right to a humane livelihood connects with the issue of rational control for legislative discretion.

• River and Culture
• /
• v.2 no.4
• /
• pp.108-112
• /
• 2006

인간의 존엄성이 증대되고 이에 따라 행복추구권은 국민의 기본권리로 인식되고 있는 시점으로 전화하고 있고 가시적인 정량적평가외 정성적요소에 대한 평가가 곤란하므로 당연히 치수사업의 규모는 최선이 아닌 차선으로 당해지역에서 기왕에 발생한 최대값을 대상으로 하는 치수사업으로 전환이 절실하다 하겠다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Disaster Information Conference
• /
• 2023.11a
• /
• pp.230-233
• /
• 2023

우리 헌법은 인간의 존엄과 가치 그리고 행복을 추구할 권리를 보장하고 있으며, 편의증진법과 교통약자법을 통해 장애인등이 교통수단, 여객시설 및 도로 등을 비장애인들과 차별 없이 이용하여 이동하고, 도로와 대중교통수단, 공공 건축물과 주거 등 생활 필수시설에 자유롭게 접근하기 위한 접근권을 보장하고 있다. 우리나라는 이동권의 보장을 편의시설 제도라는 독자적인 체계를 통해 이루어지고 있으며, 이를 실질적으로 보장하기 위하여 장애물 없는 환경 인증 제도(BF 인증제도)를 도입하였다. 시행 15년을 맞은 BF 인증제도는 양적으로는 많은 발전을 가져왔지만, 질적으로 특정 건축물 등 일부에 대한 인증 편중 현상이 있으며 안전취약계층에 대한 재해 안전확보에 대한 고려가 포함되지 않아 부진정한 이동성과 접근성의 보장이라는 한계를 가지고 있다. 이동권 보장이 얼마나 잘 이루어지느냐는 그 나라의 사회 안전망이 얼마나 잘 갖추어져 있는지 판단하는 척도라 할 것이며, 따라서 이러한 이동권 보장은 위험상태에서의 안전한 피난을 함축하고 있으며 중첩적으로 국가의 기본권 보호 의무의 이행과 관련된다. 이에 따라 이동권과 접근권의 증진을 위한 BF 인증 규정을 안전 규범으로 보완하여 장애인과 비장애인이 사회의 일원으로서 평등한 인격적 주체로 공동체에 기여하는 안전한 사회적 환경의 조성이 긴절히 요청된다고 할 수 있다.

• Digital Contents
• /
• no.1 s.140
• /
• pp.116-121
• /
• 2005

인간이 자신의 사상과 감정을 표현하고 그것을 기록할 수 있는 도구 즉, 커뮤티케이션 미디어를 사용한 이래 인류가 누적해온 표현물에 접근함으로써 그것을 이용하고 향유하는 것이 인간 모두가 누려야 할 보편적인 권리, 즉 인강의 기본권에 속하는 것인가? 아니면 특정의 조건을 갖춘 특히 그것을 이용할 지불능력이 있는 사람에게만 주어진 특권적인 것일까? 표현물들은 어떻게 하면 보다 가치있는 것들이 더 많이 생산되고 이용되 사회 구성원들의 표현을 더욱 풍요롭게 할 수 있을 것인가? 표현의 생산과 이용이라는 순환고리에서 과연 어느쪽에 무게 중심을 두어야 사회가 표현의 풍요를 누릴수 있을 것인가? 이러한 논란은 취근 문제된 제트스트림(Z!Stream)분쟁에서도 여실히 나타났다. 이러한 분쟁사례를 바탕으로 디지털콘텐츠 관련 법적 문제를 살펴보자

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.73-84
• /
• 2019

By a comparative study of the philosophical backgrounds of universal service in Korea and the US, this research finds that Korea has paid little attention to the relations between universal service and basic human rights even though it has rapidly and successfully implemented universal service of telephone and the internet services in the past. Based on this key finding, it reaches a conclusion that Korea should adopt a new approach in implementing universal service in the future, considering the goals and contributions to the improvement of the basic human rights of universal service because economic goals have been main drivers of the implementation of universal service so far in Korea, which is not appropriate and suitable for the information society that new telecom services are rapidly emerging.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.59 no.3
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2007

Capital punishment is a system which is not finished simply as one of interim penalty but does away with one person's existence eternally. It is not only opposite to the existential humanism but also contrary to social welfare's goal like social integration. Therefore, this study tries to find out the issues related to capital punishment and further tries to draw out the rightness of capital punishment abolition by critically reviewing the capital punishment system on the basis of the value and philosophy of correctional welfare. In brief, capital punishment is possible only when we negate the inviolable fundamental right which is called life right, and deny the human life existence which surpasses space and time. As long as we can not deny the macroscopic viewpoint to search out the basis of human behavior in the social system which is called culture and society, capital punishment system is contrary to the philosophy of welfare that total society is responsible for guiding members of society to pursue self realization on the basis of value like social solidarity and human dignity. Also, it is against the objective of correctional welfare to head toward special prevention by positive correction and rehabilitation. Capital punishment system ought to be abolished properly.