• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.189-219
• /
• 2007

Mediation is type of intervention in which the disputing parties accept the offer of the judge or a third party to recommend a solution for their controversy. Mediation differs from arbitration in being a voluntary resolution rather than a judicial procedure. Thus, the parties to the dispute are not bound to accept the mediator's recommendation. Resort to mediation has become increasingly frequent for civil disputes. Mediation has been successful in many cases of civil conflict. Mediation has become increasingly important for monetary disputes as well, particularly in damage cases. While most people consider mediation a far superior experience to court, everything I tell you a mediator should not do is something that at least one mediator I have dealt with has done to a client. In theory, a mediator should never share anything you tell him or her without your permission. In theory a mediator should not "spring" evaluations on anyone in a mediation without your permission (e.g. a mediator should never say "your case is worth \OOOO and I just told the other side that). In theory a mediator should not browbeat or threaten you. At the end, usually about 55% of the time with a good mediator in Kwangju Appellate Court in 2003, the parties reach an agreement that is in their best interests. If they decide to sign off on a signed agreement, the signed agreement is binding. I obviously feel mediation is a very good thing and the numbers and surveys bear me out. This article is written about how mediation is proceeded, what is the realities, what is the problem and what is the activating way. For this study, I research with legal sociological approach using Korean Judicial Year Boot judicial document and my experience as meditator in Kwangju District Court.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.56 no.1
• /
• pp.253-275
• /
• 2022

Niklas Luhmann is one of the most contentious and difficult theorist in sociology but follow-up studies on his theory gradually increase for recent 10 years. The purpose of this study is to observe how follow-up studies use the difficult concepts of Luhmann. Unlike previous studies, this study adopted a keyword rather than an article as the unit of analysis because keywords are linguistic constructs that can make concepts observable. The study analyzed co-occurrence of keywords in 139 articles retrieved from social sciences category in Web of Science DB. The key findings were following: the most important keywords were the name of Luhmann(Niklas Luhmann) and theory(social systems); keywords were grouped into 4 clusters(social systems theory, systems theory, legal system and political system, the significant of Luhmann's theory from the viewpoint of the history of social theory); topic terms were systems theory, communication, Autopoiesis, risk, legal system, functional differentiation, environment, social theory, sociological theory, structural coupling, systems and evolution. The significance of the study is following: the study gives keywords as useful access point for beginners of Luhmann's theory; the study proves that content analysis by keywords network can be applied to trend analysis of difficult theoretical researches.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.199-209
• /
• 2013

This study seeks to use the law sociological system model, to define the internal and external environmental changes that influence decisions of teacher appeals, and to analyze time-series trends of teacher appeals. This study analyzed appeal cases for 21 years from 1991 to examine number of lawsuits and relief rates by year. As a result, overall, in the case of the 1990s, the relief rates changed irregularly. However, after 2000, overall relief rates declined. This result was discussed to come from the societal request for responsibility of teachers and schools. It was suggested that, to achieve the original objective of appeal system for teachers, there should be a change toward the legal stability.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.25 no.8
• /
• pp.159-172
• /
• 2020

Social networking services (SNS) are developing significantly with the Internet and smartphones. It's a friendly social media, but if you think deeply about it, you'll find that it has a variety of faces. It is a communication tool between users, a medium for delivering information, an infrastructure for providing applications, and a community where people with common interests gather. In recent years, business tools, shopping and payment methods are also being swallowed. The influence of the spread of SNS on the real world is also expanding, and the work being dealt with from a sociological perspective is also increasing. Also, if you pay attention to the technical aspects of SNS, it is composed of various technical elements, such as infrastructure that handles large-scale access, user interface that supports comfortable use, and big data analysis to understand people's behavior more deeply. However, I usually use it as usual. However, if you look through SNS, you can see that the situation is surprisingly profound and multifaceted. This study began by looking at the history and current status of SNS and attempted to find its status through comparison with other media. From the point of view of relationship with society, it can be a risk and legal issue when using SNS, such as crimes using bad social media or social media. It is also necessary to comment on the activities on SNS or the guidelines established by the operators. Therefore, various legal issues on SNS will be discussed. Also, as an example of using SNS, I will introduce an example of using SNS in disaster response. From a more technical point of view, you will receive commentary on SNS's network-based technology and SNS's information use, and these articles will help you understand and use SNS safely and help you further utilize or develop SNS.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.133-143
• /
• 2003

Purpose : Amont the various issues concerning bio-ethics, the concern on euthanasia has increased along with the development of medical technology. Thus, the general public tends to have more liberal opinion. They have detail research data and real practices in US, Europe and Australia, but we lack such studies in our country. This study was undertaken to address the need of studies on the recognition of euthanasia among the public because the existing studies have been focused on the medical staff. Methods : Survey 413 people the age of 17 or more, from May to July 2000. Testify the data on the variation of demography and the recognition of euthanasia by using SAS 6.12, the statistic program. Results : 304 people (73.6%) think that euthanasia should be legislated, 156 people (37.8%) permit euthanasia to the rage of voluntary one, and 234 people (56.6%) permit passive euthanasia. When the subject of voluntary euthanasia was himself, more people whose age is 35 or more (P=0.001) responded that they will undertake euthanasia. And, on issues related to the passive euthanasia, one's educational background (P=0.046) and economic power (P=0.040) arrangement showed significant differences. When the subject of voluntary euthanasia is other people, more people whose age is 35 or more than 35 (P=0.001), whose sex is male (P=0.001), and married people (P=0.002) were for allowing the matter. For the subject of passive euthanasia, survey participant's occupation (P=0.016) created meaningful difference. More people whose age is 35 or more than 35 responded that they want voluntary euthanasia for themselves (P=0.001), and in the case when euthanasia is legislated, marital status (P=0.002) also shows meaningful difference. Passive euthanasia is permitted by the more people whose age is less than 35 for respondents other people (P=0.001), marital status show meaningful difference in case for respondent himself. In the case of legal euthanasia is more people whose age is 35 or more than 35 (P=0.001), sex is male (P=0.004) and more married people (P=0.001) responded that they want voluntary euthanasia for other people. And, age (P=0.002), sex (P=0.001), education (P=0.025) and economic power (P=0.001) show meaningful difference for case the subject of passive euthanasia. Conclusion : Most of general public responded that the legislation on euthanasia is required; and, age, education and economic power seem to have an influence on their decisions on euthanasia. Not only such a study of demographic and sociological correlation; but, various basic data on the legislation of euthanasia are needed.