• 인삼문화
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.21-31
• /
• 2023

우리나라의 특산품인 고려인삼은 삼국시대 이래 가장 중요한 수출품 중 하나였다. 그러나 고려 시대까지 우리 역사에서 인삼에 관한 기록은 그리 많지 않다. 본 고에서는 고려 시대의 인삼에 관한 국제 수교 및 교역 기록과 당시 출판된 것으로 알려진 의약서에 대하여 정리하였다. 고려시대에는 주변 국가인 발해, 송, 왜, 후진, 원나라와 외교적 예물로 또는 교역품으로 인삼이 활발하게 거래되었다. 주로 고려에서 주변 국가로 인삼이 수출되었지만 발해와 거란으로부터는 인삼을 외교적 예물로 받기도 하였다. 아라비아 상인은 고려의 대표적 국제무역항이었던 벽란항에 와서 인삼을 교역하였다. 몽골 침입 이후 원나라의 인삼 요구량이 지나치게 많아서 큰 사회적 문제가 되기도 하였다. 고려시대에는 『제중입효방』, 『어의촬요방』, 『향약고방』, 『삼화자향약방』, 『향약혜민경험방』, 『향약구급방』, 『비예백요방』 등 여러 의약서가 출판되었다. 『향약구급방』은 조선시대에 중간된 것이 전해지고 있으나 나머지 책들의 원본은 현재 전해지지 않고 있다. 최근 후대의 여러 의약서에 인용된 것들을 연구하여 그 일부가 복원되기도 하였다. 궁중에서 사용되었던 의약서에는 인삼을 포함한 처방의 비중이 높았던 반면 주로 평민을 위한 『향약구급방』에는 인삼 처방이 한 건도 수재(收載) 되지 않았다. 이는 당시 인삼이 매우 귀하고 고가이어서 평민이 접하기는 어려웠기 때문으로 생각된다.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제2권1호
• /
• pp.31-69
• /
• 2018

This study examines the role of science in resolving trade disputes. After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 that not only jeopardized the people of Japan, but also put the safety of an entire region at risk, the Republic of Korea (Korea) has imposed import bans as well as increased testing and certification requirements for radioactive material on Japanese food products. Japan has challenged these restrictions at the World Trade Organizations Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This study aims to explain how international trade agreements and previous DSB rulings have dealt with different scientific viewpoints provided by confronting parties. In doing so, it will contrast the viewpoints espoused by Korean and Japanese representatives, and then analyzes the most similar case studies previously ruled on by the DSB, including the case of beef hormones and the case of genetically modified crops including biotech corn, both between the United States and the European Communities (EC). This study finds that science is largely subordinate to national interests in the case of state decision-making within the dispute settlement processes, and science has largely been relegated to a supportive role. Due to the ambiguity and lack of truly decisive decisions in the Appellate Body in science-based trade disputes, this study concludes that the Appellate Body avoids taking a firm scientific position in cases where science is still inconclusive in any capacity. Due to the panel's unwillingness to establish expert review boards as it has the power to do, instead favoring an individual-based system so that all viewpoints can be heard, it has also developed a system with its own unique weaknesses. Similar to any court of law in which each opposing party defends its own interests, each side brings whatever scientific evidence it can to defend its position, incentivizing them to disregard scientific conclusions unfavorable to their position. With so many questions that can arise, combined with the problems of evolving science, questions of risk, and social concerns in democratic society, it is no wonder that the panel views scientific information provided by the experts as secondary to the legal and procedural issues. Despite being ruled against the EC on legal issues in two previous cases, the EC essentially won both times because the panel did not address whether its science was correct or not. This failure to conclusively resolve a debate over whose science is more scientific enabled the EC to simply fix the procedural issues, while continuing to enforce trade restrictions based on their scientific evidence. Based on the analysis of the two cases of disputes, Korea may also find itself guilty of imposing an unwarranted moratorium on Japan's fish exports, only to subsequently pass new restrictions on labelling and certification requirements because Japan may have much scientific evidence at its disposal. However, Korea might be able to create enough uncertainty in the panel to force them to rule exclusively on the legal issues of the case. This will then equip Korea, like the EC in the past, with a way of working around the ruling, by changing whatever legal procedure they need to while maintaining some, if not most, of its restrictions when the panel fails to address its case on scientific grounds.