• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.121-143
• /
• 2007

The law of Jus Rerem of China enacted on March 16, 2007 came into force from October 1st, 2007. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem. This means that all three nations of Northeast Asia have formally and substantially similar legal terms and conceptions. Therefore, they will be reciprocally influenced on the legal matters related Jus Rerem. In the year 1949 when China, as a communist country, was originally established without the private ownership system, the law of Jus Rerem was not introduced. Since the reform and the open-economy policy in the year 1978 came into force, it has become important that newly acknowledged private property has been stipulated by the law of Jus Rerem. Arbitration Law of China is enacted on August 31th, 1994 and came into force from September 1st, 1995. It is a basic law which rules Chinese arbitration system. China has enacted the law of Jus Rerem, "conformed with the 21st century", by solving a lot of issues in dispute. A socialistic idea, a traditional Chinese idea and realistic conditions of the market economy were integrated into the law of Jus Rerem. It would have a very good effect on the growth and prosperity of China.

• Korea Real Estate Review
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.77-90
• /
• 2014

With the purpose of preventing improper development on the national land, the land development permission system which is performed from 2002 has meaning as a type of limiting the property right, but modification on the details of traditionally understood land ownership is inevitable. Also, releasing the development prohibit on the land not only stop in recovering the freedom for land development, but also can be interpretated as a cause of forming the land development right, therefore the purpose of this study is to develop this into a real right. When we look at the development activity permission as a form of limiting the property right, constitutional problems of basis for that limit and compensation demand can occur. However, that limit can be recovered or relieved through permitting the development activity, therefore the compensation problem can be solved. Due to the development activity permission system, the land development right was separated from the land ownership to be communalized, and now, the land ownership only has condition use right left and don't have the future condition change right in principle, therefore modifying the traditional concept of land ownership is inevitable. By the virtue of the land ownership authority, the land development permission system must have the property to separate the development right as the independent right to be authorized of its legitimacy. Without these properties, the land development permission system cannot satisfy the social necessity of the land development right and its discussion under the category of the land ownership limit theory can't be deviated. In the existing "Civil Law" or in the Land Regulation Law system, there are many difficulties and limits in generalizing the land development right as a real right. Therefore, it is considered that by establishing a social law idea of Framework Act on the Land to characterize the land right theory in the real right theory, the land development permission system or the development right theory should be studied and developed independently and systematically.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.29-65
• /
• 2012

Der neue strukturelle Ansatz der Kommbination eines Rahmen$\ddot{u}$bereinkommens und eines ausr$\ddot{u}$stungsspezifischen Sonderprotokolls bedingt einen neuen organisatorischen Anstz f$\ddot{u}$r die Zusammenarbeit zwischen internationalen Organisationen bei der Schaffung von internationalem Einheitsprivatrecht. So haben hier zwei internationale Organisationen gemeinsam die Verantwortung f$\ddot{u}$r einmultilaterales $\ddot{U}$bereinkommen $\ddot{u}$bernommen: auf der einen Seite UNIDROIT als die internationale Organisation, die generell f$\ddot{u}$r die Vereinheitlichung des Privatrechts kompetent ist; auf der anderen Seite ICAO als die f$\ddot{u}$r die private Luftfahrt zust$\ddot{a}$ndige internationale Organisation. Dieses neue, f$\ddot{u}$r die Luftfahrzeugausr$\ddot{u}$stung praktizierte organisatorische Modell eines joint venture zweier internationaler Organisation bei der Einheitsrechtsetzung, namlich die Betreuung eines allgemeinen privatrechtsvereinheitlichenden Rahmens$\ddot{u}$bereinkommens durch UNIDROIT und die Wahrnehmung der sektorspezifischen Belange in einem ausr$\ddot{u}$stungsspesifischen Sonderprotokoll durch die jeweils zust$\ddot{a}$ndige internationale Spezialorganisation, hat bereits f$\ddot{u}$r die Sektoren der Eisenbahn- und Weltraumausrustung Schule gemacht. Das in Kapstadt beschlossene v$\ddot{o}$lkervertragliche Regelungswerk hat erstmals ein einheitsrechtliches - grunds$\ddot{a}$atzlich weltweite Geltung anstrebendes - Sicherungsrecht geschafen. Dies kann f$\ddot{u}$r die Sachenrechtsintergration einen $\ddot{a}$hnlichen Durchbruch bedeuten, wis das Wiener UN-kaufrechts$\ddot{u}$bereinkommen von 1980 f$\ddot{u}$r das Schuldvertragsrecht. Voraussetzung daf$\ddot{u}$r ist allerdings die juristische Qualit$\ddot{a}$t und Praxisgerechtigkeit des Regelungswerkes und - insbesondere - das Funktionieren des Registersystems. Von wesentlicher Bedeutung f$\ddot{u}$r den Erfolg des $\ddot{U}$bereinkkommens wird auchsein, ob es Rechtssicherheit zu gew$\ddot{a}$hrleisten vermag.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.571-610
• /
• 2013

The current patent system is more often used for defensive purposes to exclude others' use or as a means to hold unfair strong positions in negotiations rather than for the original purpose as the dissemination and active use of useful technology. An injunction together with a damage is an important remedy for patent infringements. However, unlike a claim for damages, injunctions do not require the subjective requirement of intent and negligence or the occurrence of loss. If the validity of the patent and the fact of infringement are confirmed, automatically injunctions are issued without consideration of other circumstances. So a patent holder would exclude others' use and have a powerful position in negotiations because of injunctions for patent infringements. Therefore, those injunctions for patent infringements should be flexibly restricted according to cases under the premise to ensure fair compensation for the patent owner, rather than absolutely admitting injunctions for patent infringements like now. If then, it would serve the use of a useful technology and industrial development as the purpose of the patent system. First of all, judgments for preliminary injunctions should be strict and by deliberate decision on the merits permanent injunctions should be determined. In addition, it is needed that court's discretion possible to considerate 'the need for an injunction'. When the courts judge 'the need for an injunction', 'whether a patent holder has implemented a patent invention, the possibility of monetary compensation and the ability of the infringer for damages, a patent holder's intent to license and whether an injunction has been used as a weapon of negotiation, the proportion of patent technology in the entire products, the characteristics of patent technology and the possibility of patent invalidity, the competitive relationship for market share, the public interests and gains and losses between the parties and so on' should be considered. After these judgements, if 'the need for an injunction' is not approved, a patent owner would be protected by post-monetary compensation. However, because damages are related to illegal conducts in the past, in the case that an injunction is restrained, measures to ensure the legal implementation in the future are needed. It is primarily desirable that reasonable royalty is estimated throughout private negotiations between parties, but if agreement between the parties does not occur, patent owner should be able to claim the royalty for future.