An International Cooperative Biodiversity Group (ICBG) program based at the University of Illinois at Chicago initiated its activities in 1998, with the following specific objectives: (a) inventory and conservation of of plants of Cuc Phuong National Park in Vietnam and of medicinal plants of Laos; (b) drug discovery (and development) based on plants of Vietnam and Laos; and (c) economic development of communities participating in the ICBG project both in Vietnam and Laos. Member-institutions and an industrial partner of this ICBG are bound by a Memorandum of Agreement that recognizes property and intellectual property rights, prior informed consent for access to genetic resources and to indigenous knowledge, the sharing of benefits that may arise from the drug discovery effort, and the provision of short-term and long-term benefits to host country institutions and communities. The drug discovery effort is targeted to the search for agents for therapies against malaria (antimalarial assay of plant extracts, using Plasmodium falciparum clones), AIDS (anti-HIV-l activity using HOG.R5 reporter cell line (through transactivation of the green fluorescent protein/GFP gene), cancer (screening of plant extracts in 6 human tumor cell lines - KB, Col-2, LU-l, LNCaP, HUVEC, hTert-RPEl), tuberculosis (screening of extracts in the microplate Alamar Blue assay against Mycobacterium tuberculosis
2015년 9월 UN 개발정상회의에서 Post 2015 개발의제로 '지속가능개발목표(SDGs)'가 채택됨에 따라 '지속가능성'을 문화유산과 연계한 다양한 의견과 토의가 활발히 이루어지고 있다. 그러나 굳이 SDGs를 내세우지 않아도 문화유산 보존 자체가 문화유산이 가지는 자국 문화의 독자성, 특성, 다양성 등을 영구히 유지한다는 지속가능성을 바탕으로 하고 있다. 이런 관점에서 정책이나 이론적 접근이 아닌 실제적인 문화유산 ODA 사업을 파악할 필요가 있을 것이다. 본고에서는 아시아 문화유산 ODA와 관련한 국내외 현황을 살펴보고 이를 토대로 문제점과 향후의 방향성, 과제에 대해 언급하였다. 먼저 ODA 사업이 시작된 배경이나 개념을 알아보고, 동남아시아의 대표적인 문화유산 ODA 수행국가인 일본과 중국의 사업 내용을 알아보았다. 한국의 문화유산 ODA는 라오스, 캄보디아 유적 복원을 중심으로 비교적 최근에 시작되어 아직 규모나 내용면에서 미비한 수준이다. 문화유산 ODA의 발전을 위한 과제로 다음 몇 가지 사항을 제안하고자 한다. 첫째로 아시아 문화유산의 지속가능성을 위한 ODA 사업의 장기 마스터플랜 설정이 필요할 것이다. 둘째로 여러 국가를 대상으로 하는 나열식의 단기간 사업 대신 장기적 관점에서의 선택과 집중이 필요할 것이다. 이미 잘 알려진 사업이 아닌 한국만이 할 수 있는 한국형 문화유산 ODA 모델이 필요하다. 다음으로 지속가능성과의 연계인데, 문화유산 보존은 결국 현지 관광 활성화와 같은 경제 활성화의 원동력이 되면서 현지인에게 그 혜택이 주어져야 한다. 이를 위한 가장 좋은 대안으로 현지전문가 양성을 위한 교육과 역량 강화를 제안한다. 자국의 문화유산은 자국 문화의 고유한 독자성과 특성이 반영된 산물로 자국민에 의한 복원이 최상이다. 이런 점에서 국립문화재연구소에서 실시하고 있는 ACPCS 사업은 한국 고유의 특화된 프로그램으로 역할을 담당할 것이다. 마지막으로 문화유산 ODA의 컨트롤 타워 역할을 수행할 수 있는 체계 구축이 필요하다. 정보공유와 협력체계 구축, 중복사업 방지 등을 위한 것으로, 일본의 '문화유산 국제협력 컨소시엄'은 참고할 수 있는 사례가 될 것이다.
The main purpose of the investigation of an accident caused by aircraft is to be prevented the sudden and casual accidents caused by wilful misconduct and fault from pilots, air traffic controllers, hijack, trouble of engine and machinery of aircraft, turbulence during the bad weather, collision between birds and aircraft, near miss flight by aircrafts etc. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability for offender of aircraft accidents. Accidents to aircraft, especially those involving the general public and their property, are a matter of great concern to the aviation community. The system of international regulation exists to improve safety and minimize, as far as possible, the risk of accidents but when they do occur there is a web of systems and procedures to investigate and respond to them. I would like to trace the general line of regulation from an international source in the Chicago Convention of 1944. Article 26 of the Convention lays down the basic principle for the investigation of the aircraft accident. Where there has been an accident to an aircraft of a contracting state which occurs in the territory of another contracting state and which involves death or serious injury or indicates serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. That inquiry will be in accordance, in so far as its law permits, with the procedure which may be recommended from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO). There are very general provisions but they state two essential principles: first, in certain circumstances there must be an investigation, and second, who is to be responsible for undertaking that investigation. The latter is an important point to establish otherwise there could be at least two states claiming jurisdiction on the inquiry. The Chicago Convention also provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the state holding the inquiry must communicate the report and findings in the matter to that other state. It is worth noting that the Chicago Convention (Article 25) also makes provision for assisting aircraft in distress. Each contracting state undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable and to permit (subject to control by its own authorities) the owner of the aircraft or authorities of the state in which the aircraft is registered, to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by circumstances. Significantly, the undertaking can only be given by contracting state but the duty to provide assistance is not limited to aircraft registered in another contracting state, but presumably any aircraft in distress in the territory of the contracting state. Finally, the Convention envisages further regulations (normally to be produced under the auspices of ICAO). In this case the Convention provides that each contracting state, when undertaking a search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to the Convention. Since 1944 further international regulations relating to safety and investigation of accidents have been made, both pursuant to Chicago Convention and, in particular, through the vehicle of the ICAO which has, for example, set up an accident and reporting system. By requiring the reporting of certain accidents and incidents it is building up an information service for the benefit of member states. However, Chicago Convention provides that each contracting state undertakes collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation. To this end, ICAO is to adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with, among other things, aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents. Standards and Recommended Practices for Aircraft Accident Injuries were first adopted by the ICAO Council on 11 April 1951 pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and were designated as Annex 13 to the Convention. The Standards Recommended Practices were based on Recommendations of the Accident Investigation Division at its first Session in February 1946 which were further developed at the Second Session of the Division in February 1947. The 2nd Edition (1966), 3rd Edition, (1973), 4th Edition (1976), 5th Edition (1979), 6th Edition (1981), 7th Edition (1988), 8th Edition (1992) of the Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) of the Chicago Convention was amended eight times by the ICAO Council since 1966. Annex 13 sets out in detail the international standards and recommended practices to be adopted by contracting states in dealing with a serious accident to an aircraft of a contracting state occurring in the territory of another contracting state, known as the state of occurrence. It provides, principally, that the state in which the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint an accredited representative to be present at the inquiry conducted by the state in which the serious aircraft accident occurs. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention does not indicate what the accredited representative is to do but Annex 13 amplifies his rights and duties. In particular, the accredited representative participates in the inquiry by visiting the scene of the accident, examining the wreckage, questioning witnesses, having full access to all relevant evidence, receiving copies of all pertinent documents and making submissions in respect of the various elements of the inquiry. The main shortcomings of the present system for aircraft accident investigation are that some contracting sates are not applying Annex 13 within its express terms, although they are contracting states. Further, and much more important in practice, there are many countries which apply the letter of Annex 13 in such a way as to sterilise its spirit. This appears to be due to a number of causes often found in combination. Firstly, the requirements of the local law and of the local procedures are interpreted and applied so as preclude a more efficient investigation under Annex 13 in favour of a legalistic and sterile interpretation of its terms. Sometimes this results from a distrust of the motives of persons and bodies wishing to participate or from commercial or related to matters of liability and bodies. These may be political, commercial or related to matters of liability and insurance. Secondly, there is said to be a conscious desire to conduct the investigation in some contracting states in such a way as to absolve from any possibility of blame the authorities or nationals, whether manufacturers, operators or air traffic controllers, of the country in which the inquiry is held. The EEC has also had an input into accidents and investigations. In particular, a directive was issued in December 1980 encouraging the uniformity of standards within the EEC by means of joint co-operation of accident investigation. The sharing of and assisting with technical facilities and information was considered an important means of achieving these goals. It has since been proposed that a European accident investigation committee should be set up by the EEC (Council Directive 80/1266 of 1 December 1980). After I would like to introduce the summary of the legislation examples and system for aircraft accidents investigation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Swiss, New Zealand and Japan, and I am going to mention the present system, regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation in Korea. Furthermore I would like to point out the shortcomings of the present system and regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation and then I will suggest my personal opinion on the new and dramatic innovation on the system for aircraft accident investigation in Korea. I propose that it is necessary and desirable for us to make a new legislation or to revise the existing aviation act in order to establish the standing and independent Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation under the Korean Government.