• Title/Summary/Keyword: Legal provisions

Search Result 283, Processing Time 0.019 seconds

The Applicable Laws to International Intellectual Property License Contracts under the Rome I Regulation (국제 지식재산권 라이센스 계약 분쟁의 준거법 결정 원칙으로서 로마I 규정의 적용에 관한 연구)

  • Moon, Hwa-Kyung
    • Journal of Legislation Research
    • /
    • no.44
    • /
    • pp.487-538
    • /
    • 2013
  • It is the most critical issue in recent international intellectual property licence disputes to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts. As Korea and the European Union(EU) reached free trade agreement(FTA), and the EU-Korea FTA entered into force on July 1, 2011, the FTA has boosted social, economic, cultural exchanges between the two. As a result of the increased transactions in those sectors, legal disputes are also expected to grow. This situation calls for extensive research and understanding of the choice of law principles applicable to international intellectual property license contracts in the EU. To decide the laws applicable to issues arising from international intellectual property license contracts disputes, the characterization of those issues is necessary for the purpose of applying private international law principles to them. In terms of characterization, intellectual property license contracts fall within contractual matters. In the EU, the primary rule of choice of law principles in contractual obligations is the Rome I Regulation. Because the choice of law rules, such as private international law principles, the Rome Convention(1980), and the Rome I Regulation, differ in the time of application, it is essential to clarify the time factor of related contracts. For example, the Rome I Regulation applies to contracts which were concluded as from December 17, 2009. Although party autonomy in international contracts disputes is generally allowed, if there is no choice of law agreement between the parties to the contracts, the objective test rule of private international law doctrine could be the best option. Following this doctrine, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 1 provides the governing law rules based on the types of contracts, but there is no room for intellectual property license contracts. After all, as the rule for governing law of those contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 2 should be applied and if there are countries which are more closely connected to the contracts under the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 3, the laws of those countries become the governing laws of the contracts. Nevertheless, if it is not possible to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 4 should be applied in the last resort and the laws of the countries which are the most closely connected to the contracts govern the license contracts. Therefore, this research on the laws applicable to intellectual property license contracts under the Rome I Regulation suggests more systematic and effective solutions for future disputes in which Korea and the EU countries play the significant role as the connecting factors in the conflict of laws rules. Moreover, it helps to establish comprehensive and theoretical understanding of applying the Korean Private International Law to multifarious choice-of-law cases.

A Study on Conflict-factors and Influence of the Bremen Controversy of 1905 ('브레멘 학교논쟁'(1905)의 기독교교육 갈등요인에 관한 영향사 연구)

  • Jeongdo An
    • Journal of Christian Education in Korea
    • /
    • v.74
    • /
    • pp.227-253
    • /
    • 2023
  • Purpose of the Study: This paper focuses on a significant historical event, namely the Bremen teachers' movement of 1905, which aimed to abolish religious classes in public schools. By examining an incident in the German history of religious education that remains unfamiliar to the Korean Christian Association, I aim to explore the interconnected diachronic and synchronic influences involved in this particular event. Contents and Method: The religious controversy sparked by the Bremen Teacher's movement of 1905 marked the first official call for reform towards neutral religious education in schools. Several factors contributed to this debate, including the rise of civil society in the 19th century, advancements in science and scholarship, the emergence of social democracy, and the conflict between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. This paper delves into the historical context of the controversy and analyzes its impact on the develop of religious education in Germany. As reflected in the Bremen Document, the official outcome of the Bremen Teacher's Movement, educators argued for the separation of religion and education, emphasizing that religion is a deeply personal matter. The document called for the adoption of value-neutral moral education in public schools, achieved through objective Bible-History classes. This paper explores the impact of the Bremen School Dispute of 1905 on the development of religious education in Germany. Specifically, the provisions of the Bremen State Constitution of 1948 and the German Basic Law of 1949 were influenced by the controversy, with Article 141 of the Basic Law - known as the 'Bremen Clause' - providing a legal basis for the exclusion of churches from religion-classes at Schools in Bremen. The Bible-History Classes advocated in the Bremen Documents served as the basis for the present-day Bremen religious education curriculum well known for neutral objective religion-classes. Conlusion: This study analyzes the background, content, and influence of the Bremen School Controversy, which remains relatively unknown in Korea. The findings of this study can contribute to the ongoing discussion of Christian school education in Korea, with an emphasis on maintaining a Christian identity while promoting religious publicity in the classroom.

A Study on Jurisdiction under the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions (국제항공테러협약의 관할권 연구)

  • Kim, Han-Taek
    • The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
    • /
    • v.24 no.1
    • /
    • pp.59-89
    • /
    • 2009
  • The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.

  • PDF