• 한국항공운항학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2016.05a
• /
• pp.89-94
• /
• 2016

This paper is to investigate how each cases(recurrent cases) is to be classified and what each parties should prepare to solve their cases by civil law system and so on. We could find the increased volume (or quantity) of transportation by air recently and have to worry about the sky-rocketed cases of unfulfilled navigation management(aviation service) proportionately inevitably. So we knew that some cases of disputes are solved by unreasonable demand, unilateral concession or irrational decision without any logical or legal criterion, because both sides(passenger and carrier) do not recognize the situation correctly and have any preparation for the legal settlement. Therefore we should prepare the classification work and comprehend about the legal effect(fulfillment retardation of duty, fulfillment impossibility of duty and imperfect fulfillment in our civil law system) of each cases. We can grasp the legal relationship with a carrier and a passengers by the legal analysis more efficiently and save (or help) energy and time of concerned parties.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

Arbitration is the system of resolving disputes not by the adjudication of a national court but by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators. To settle disputes by arbitration, it should be concluded that the arbitration agreement which is implied that the parties agree to submit to the arbitral award about all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationships. It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the parties may agree to arbitrate disputes relating to the rights that they freely dispose of. Besides, they may have the freedom to choose arbitration as the form of a dispute resolution. Because arbitration is a private proceeding with public consequences that some types of dispute are reserved for national courts, whose proceedings are generally in the public domain. It is this sense that they may not be the object of arbitration. After all, it could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.1-35
• /
• 2013

In the 21th century, its important role in international commercial disputes has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because commercial disputes have become more complicated and varied with their quantitative increase, it is important that they be settled in a reasonable and rapid manner. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is now regarded as one of the most effective dispute resolution methods for the settling of commercial disputes and merits notice. Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution in which two parties agree to have their dispute resolved by one or more arbitrators and thereby avoid what could be costly and time-consuming court battles. Often contracts mandate that disputes be settled through arbitration. These arbitration clauses also frequently prohibit plaintiffs from banding together to bring an action on behalf of a larger class. An arbitration agreement is an agreement by parties to summit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them with respect to their defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. According to the Supreme Court, general elective arbitration clauses may be considered valid in light of all the relevant facts. Arbitration has been the subject of a great deal of research and the scope of effect in arbitration agreements is a promising avenue for future research.

• The Journal of Korean Medicine
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.58-67
• /
• 2014

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the current status of legal disputes in the Oriental medical clinics and hospitals in South Korea, and to suggest their possible solutions. Methods: Legal dispute cases advised by the Association of Korean Medicine from January 2005 to April 2012 were collected and analyzed. Results: 196 Oriental medical dispute cases were analyzed for the study. Problems in musculoskeletal system and connective tissues (37 cases) were the most common cause of Oriental medical disputes. As per treatment methods related to the dispute, acupuncture (66 cases) and herbal medicine (63 cases) were indicated as the two most common causes. The most common initial problems the patients had at the beginning of their treatment were musculoskeletal system and connective tissues problems (87 cases). Out of 196 dispute cases, only 49 were found to be the fault of Oriental medical doctors. Conclusions: This study can be used as a basis to prevent possible Oriental medical disputes. Subsequent studies should be based on a more comprehensive and extensive range of data.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.157-179
• /
• 2004

Currently major countries, including the USA, have developed and contrived to activate ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) in order to both choose effective means for dispute resolution and establish the reformation of the judicial system; thus meeting people's revamped expectations due to the rapid increase of, and diversification in, civil disputes. This is why there has been some haste in many countries to organize systems for this, so called, 'the Fundamental ADR Act' which regulates the essential structure to accelerate the use of ADR and strengthen the links with trial procedures. For example, in 1999 Germany revised it Civil Procedure Act, to allow for a pre-conciliation process in cases involving only small sums of money. Whilst, with regard to the Civil Procedure Act in France, new regulations have been introduced with regard to actions before either a suit or return to conciliation. In the United Kingdom, as far back as 1988, additions to the legal structure allowed for expansion of regulations applying to ADR. By 1999 the new ADR regulations were part of the legal structure of the UK Civil Procedure Act. The USA passed the federal law for ADR in 1998. Since then the world has tried to enact this model in UNCITRAL on international conciliation. When we consider this recent trend by the world's major countries, it is desirable that the fundamental law on ADR should be enacted in Korea also. This paper traces the object, and the regulatory content required, for the fundamental ADR law to be enacted in Korea's future. Firstly, the purpose of the fundamental ADR law is limited only to the private sector, including administrative and excluding judicial sector and arbitration, because in Korea the Judicial Conciliation of the Civil Disputes Act, the Family Disputes Act and the Arbitration Act already exist. Secondly I will I examine the regulatory content of the basic ADR Act, dividing it into: 1)regulations on the basic ideology of ADR, 2)those on the transition to trial procedures of ADR, and 3)those on the transition to ADR from trial procedures. In addition I will research the regulatory limitations of ADR.

• Electronics and Telecommunications Trends
• /
• v.38 no.6
• /
• pp.84-94
• /
• 2023

Open source has many advantages and is widely used in various fields. However, legal disputes regarding copyright and licensing of datasets and learning models have recently arisen in artificial intelligence developments. We examine how datasets affect artificial intelligence learning and services from the perspective of copyrighting and licensing when datasets are used for training models. The licensing conditions of datasets can lead to copyright infringement and license violation, thus determining the scope of disclosure and commercialization of the trained model. In addition, we examine related legal issues.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.27
• /
• pp.29-65
• /
• 2005

Northeast Asian economies have achieved high levels of growth due to a stable economic environments and economic policy reforms for free trade. As Northeast Asia has been risen as big bloc in the world and in the future in case free trade agreement could be concluded, trade volume could be increased dramatically. And it is evident that disputes will be increased in Northeast Asian economic bloc. Arbitration must be popular in resolving international commercial disputes in Northeast Asian bloc in order to increase the volume of intra-trade in the bloc. Through arbitration, the parties can have full autonomy and can resolve disputes independently, impartially and without delay. But in order for the parties to make use of arbitration in the bloc, they must be fully aware of the arbitration laws of Northeast Asian nations in view of the similarity and difference of the laws. Therefore, this paper deals with arbitral award in Northeast Asian Nations' arbitration laws in view of comparative law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 1998

Since the Start of WTO in 1995, world trade volume was substantially increased as much as over $250 billion by lifting the trade barriors This effect brought new problem of increasing disputes. Significantly an ever increasing atention is paid to the Question of means and procedures of settling such disputes by arbtration. The problem of arbitration has indeed become most popular with all those who take interest in legal aspects of international cooperation in various spheres. In practice arbitration seems to renovate its function to take over new disputes arising from electronic transaction such as internet trade. Looking at the actual use of arbitration, its merits than litigation should cover new aspect concerning new kind of claims caused by new type of transaction. The efficient procedure for dispute will help every country save loss of profit by the delay of settlment. This thesis aims to facilitate the appearence of more efficient arbitration procedure for dispute settlment system.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.36
• /
• pp.33-58
• /
• 2015

In 1996, China, Japan and the ROK all became the party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Since then, the UNCLOS has been a fundamental basis for the resolution and management of maritime disputes amongst them. However, there still remain acrimonious disputes in the region. Resources nationalism and the revival of geopolitics aggravates the disputes particularly on sovereignty over disputed islands, maritime delimitation and the legal nature of military activities in other States' Exclusive Economic Zones. Under the circumstances, why have the demands for the conclusion of a regional agreement been raised in this region? A desirable regional agreement regarding ocean affairs should be compatible with the rights and obligations under the UNCLOS, a universal norm regarding ocean affairs. This paper will propose a desirable regional agreement by adopting an incremental approach.