우리나라는 2005 년 11월에 한국항공우주연구원이 개발한 다목적실용위성 2호(아리랑 2호)를 발사하게 될 것이고 2006 년 6월에는 한국통신의 통신 방송위성 5호(무궁화 5호)가 발사될 예정이고 2007 년에는 한국항공우주연구원이 한반도의 남해안 외나로도에 건설하고 있는 "우주센타"가 준공되어 자력으로 개발한 우주발사체(KSLV-1 : 로켓)를 이용하여 국산 과학기술위성2호(100kg급의 소형)의 발사 등 우리나라에 본격적인 우주개발시대에 접어들게 된다. 따라서 우리나라의 우주개발중기계획에 따라 2010년까지 13기의 각종위성과 발사체를 개발하여 "우주센타"에서 시험발사와 발사를 자주 하게 될 것이다. 이와 같이 위성발사에 따라 예상할 수 없는 발사사고 발생될 가능성도 있게 된다. 상기위성들을 국내외에서 우주발사체(로켓)를 이용하여 발사하는 과정에서 있을지도 모르는 로켓 발사사고로 인해 지상에 있는 제3자의 인적 손해 또는 물적 손해를 입혔을 때에 선진국의 입법례와 같이 이를 신속히 해결하기 위하여 가해자와 피해자 양자 간의 공정한 책임규명, 책임한계 및 재판의 기준, 손해배상책임 등을 규정하고 우리나라의 우주개발중장기기본계획을 성공적으로 달성시키기 위하여 국내우주법의 제정이 필요로 하게 되었던 것이다. 우리나라는 우주개발을 체계적으로 진흥시키고 우주물체를 효율적으로 이용관리하기 위한 법적 제도적 틀을 마련하고, 우주개발국가로서 국제조약에 규정된 국가의무를 이행하기 위한 법적 근거를 마련하기 위하여 우주개발진흥법을 2005년 5월 31일 정부가 제정 공포하여 동법 부칙에 의거 6개월 후인 2005년 12월 1일부터 시행하게된다. 본 논문에서는 우주개발진흥법의 제정을 계기로 현재 세계도처에서 발생되고 있는 우주사고의 특성과 사례, 우주개발진흥법을 제정하는데 계기가 되었던 4개의 우주관계 국제조약과 세계 각국의 국내우주관계법의 입법례((1)미국,(2)러시아, (3)영국, (4)독일, (5)프랑스, (6)캐나다, (7)일본, (8)스웨덴 (9)오스트레일리아, (10)브라질, (11)노르웨이, (12)남아프리카, (13)아르헨티나, (14)칠레, (15)우크라이나)를 소개한 후 우리나라 우주개발의 실적과 현황 및 전망 및 우주개발진흥법의 입법배경과 경위 및 주된 내용, 2005년 8월 19일 과학기술부가 입법 예고한 우주개발진흥법 시해령 안과 시행규칙안의 주요내용, 앞으로의 과제로서 우리나라 우주관계기구의 개혁 등 순서로 설명하였다. 본 논문의 핵심이 되는 사항인 앞으로의 과제로서 우주관계기구의 개혁의 문제는 필자가 과학기술부의 우주관계 담당부서의 기구개혁과 한국항공우주연구원의 기구를 확대 개편하여 한국항공우주개발공사(가칭)의 설립을 제안하는 이유는 각종위성 및 발사체의 개발지연과 우주센터의 건립이 지연되지 않도록 하고 앞으로 우주개발중기계획에 따라 각종위성 및 발사체의 개발이 2010년까지 당초 정한 목표 년도에 완성시키어 우리나라의 우주산업을 세계10위권 내에 조기에 진입시키고자 하는데 그 목표가 있는 것이다.
한국(韓國)과 일본(日本)의 항공법(航空法)은 주로 공법적(公法的)및 행정규제적(行政規制的)인 규정(規定)들로 조성(構成)되어 있음으로 항공기사고가 발생하였을 때에 항공안전인(航空運送人)의 손해배상책임(損害暗慣責任)의 한계(限界), 배상가액(暗慣價額) 책임소멸시기(責任消滅時期), 재판관할지(裁判管轄地 )등을 규정하는 사법적(私法的)인 규정은 한 조문도 들어가 있지 않음으로 손해배상청구사건(損害暗慣請求事件)을 처리히는데 있어 재판의 기준이 없어 항공소송사건(航空訴認事件)의 해결은 지연되고 있어 당사자(當事者)간(원(原) 피고(被告)간)의 분쟁은 더욱 심화되고 있는 것이 오늘날의실정이다. 국제항공안전(國際航空運送)의 사법적(私法的)인 법률관계는 바르샤바조약(條約) 헤이그의정서(議定書), 과다하라조약(條約), 1966년(年)의 몬트리올 항공사(航空社)간의 협정(協定), 몬트리올3개 추가의정석(追加議定書)와 몬트리올 제(第)4의정석(議定書), 몬트리올조약(條約)및 개정(改正)로마조약(條約) 등에 의하여 어느 정도 해결될 수 있지만 국내항공안전(國內航空運送)의 사법적(私法的)인 법률관계에 대하여서는 한국(韓國)과 일본(日本)은 법률에 아무런 규정이 없음으로 항공운송약관(航空運送約款)또는 민상법(民商法)등에 의하여 처리되고 있다. 그러나 항공운송약관(航空運送約款)의 일부조항이 무효결정(無效決定)또는 무효판정(無效判決)이 선고되어 문제가 제기된바 있다. 이와 같은 문제점을 해결하기 위하여서는 항공기사건(航空機事故)에 의한 분쟁당사자 간의 책임한계(責任限界)를 정하여 재판(裁判)의 기준을 정하기 위한 법을 만들어 재판(裁判)의 공정성, 신속성, 간편성을 도모할 수 있는 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임에 관한 국내입법으로 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"의 제정(制定)이 무엇보다도 필요하다고 본다. 이와 같은 문제의 해결과 가해자(加害者)와 피해자(被害者)간의 책임한계(責任限界)를 명확하게 정하기 위하여 현행(現行) 상법(商法)또는 항공법(船空法)을 개정하여 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 민사책임에 관한 규정을 삽입하는 것이 오랜 시일이 소요되어 가능하지 않을 때에는 신속한 해결을 위하여 항공가사건(航空機事件)의 분쟁당사자간의 책임한계(責任限界)및 법률관계(法律關係)를 규정한 새로운 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"을 특별법의 형태로 입법하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 이와 같은 점을 고려하여 이 논문(論文)에서는 우리나라 항공운송(航空運送)의 현황과 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 민사책임(民事責任)에 관한 세계각국(世界各國)의 입법예(立法例) ((1)영국(英國), (2)미국(美國), (3)캐나다, (4)유럽연합(聯合)(EU), (5)독일(獨逸), (6)프랑스, (7)이탈리아, (8)스페인, (9)스위스, (10)오스트레일리아, (11)일본(日本), (12)중국(中國), (13)대만(臺灣), 북한(北韓))에 관한 내용(內容)을 분석(分析) 소개(紹介)한 후 우리나라 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임(責任)에 관한 운송약관(運送約款)의 문제점, 그 동안의 항공안전법계약법할안(航空運送法契約法試案)의 퇴진경위(推進經緯)와 항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 운송계약책임(運送契約責任)과 불법행위책임(不法行爲責任)등 둘 다 포함시킨 새로운 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"의 입법(立法)의 필요성(必要性)과 이유(理由)등 입법론(立法論)을 제시하였다. 앞으로 이 입법론(立法論)에 따라 항공안전법계약법시안(航空運送法契約法試案)을 작성할 때에 규정할 주(主)된 내용(內容)은, (1)이 법(法)의 입법목적(立法目的), (2)적용범위(適用範圍), (3)"항공수화물(航空手倚物)", "항공화물(船空貨物)", "항공운송(航空運送)", "항공운송인(航空運送人)", "항공사고(航空事故)", "계산단위(計算單位)(SDR)" 등의 개념정립, (4)여객항공권(旅客械空卷), 수화물표(手倚物票)또는 항공운송상(航空運送狀)의 기재사항, (5)항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임원칙(責任原則)및 책임원칙(責任原則) (6)피의자(被害者)의 기여과실(寄與過失)에 기인되는 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임감면, (7)면책특약(免責特約)의 금지, (8)항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임한도(責任限度)의 적용배제(wilful misconduct), (9)소(訴)의 명의(名義), (10)순차운송)(順次運送)의 법률관계, (11)운송인(運送人)의 사용인(이행보조자)에 대한 책임, (12)수화물(手倚物)및 화물(貨物)의 멸실 등의 통지의무, (13)항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 소(訴)를 제기(提起)하는 기한(期限), (14)계약운송인이외(契約運送人以外)의 실제운송인(實際運送人)에 의하여 행하여진 항공운송(航空運送)의 법률관계(實際運送人의 책임(責任)등), (15)항공기(航空機)의 추락 또는 파편의 낙하에 의한 지상(地上)제(第)3자(者)에게 입힌 인적(人的)또는 물적손해(物的揚害)에 대한 배상책임 불범행위책임(不法行寫責任)등), 항공운송상(航空運送狀)또는 화물손해(貨物損害)에 관한 추정적효력(prima facie evidence)의 인정, 항공화물(航空貨物)의 처분청구권의 인정, 제(第)3자(者)에 대한 청구권(구상권(求償權)), 전도금(前渡金)의 지급, 부합운송(複合運送), 중재제도(仲裁制度)의 도입, 항공보험(航空保險), 재판관할지(裁判管轄地), 항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 제소(提訴)의 소멸시기(消滅時期)(제척(除斥)) 등이 있다.
러시아 상트페테르부르크의 에르미타주 박물관 3층 맨 우측에는, 세계 유수의 실크로드 미술 컬렉션을 상설전시하는 "중앙아시아실"이 자리 잡고 있다. 20세기 초 실크로드를 학술조사한 러시아의 코즐로프(Pyotr Kozlov), 베레조프스키(Mikhail Berezovsky), 올덴부르그(Sergey Oldenburg) 등에 의해 수집된 고고 미술품 들이다. 에르미타주 박물관 소장의 방대한 이들 유물은 그 대강을 파악할 수 있도록 지역별로 분류하여 공개중이며, 이제까지 독일과 프랑스, 영국, 네덜란드, 한국, 일본 등에서 개최된 특별전시를 통해 그 일부를 소개하기도 하였다. 그리고 러시아 실크로드 탐험대의 성과물을 종합적으로 공개한 대형 기획전시
Just before the Korean War, the total number of the North Korean troops was 198,380, while that of the ROK(Republic of Korea) army troops 105,752. That is, the total number of the ROK army troops at that time was 53.3% of the total number of the North Korean army. As of December 2008, the total number of the North Korean troops is estimated to be 1,190,000, while that of the ROK troops is 655,000, so the ROK army maintains 55.04% of the total number of the North Korean troops. If the ROK army continues to reduce its troops according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the total number of its troops will be 517,000 m 2020. If North Korea maintains the current status(l,190,000 troops), the number of the ROK troops will be 43.4% of the North Korean army. In terms of units, just before the Korean War, the number of the ROK army divisions and regiments was 80% and 44.8% of North Korean army. As of December 2008, North Korea maintains 86 divisions and 69 regiments. Compared to the North Korean army, the ROK army maintains 46 Divisions (53.4% of North Korean army) and 15 regiments (21.3% of North Korean army). If the ROK army continue to reduce the military units according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of ROK army divisions will be 28(13 Active Division, 4 Mobilization Divisions and 11 Local Reserve Divisions), while that of the North Korean army will be 86 in 2020. In that case, the number of divisions of the ROK army will be 32.5% of North Korean army. During the Korean war, North Korea suddenly invaded the Republic of Korea and occupied its capital 3 days after the war began. At that time, the ROK army maintained 80% of army divisions, compared to the North Korean army. The lesson to be learned from this is that, if the ROK army is forced to disperse its divisions because of the simultaneous invasion of North Korea and attack of guerrillas in home front areas, the Republic of Korea can be in a serious military danger, even though it maintains 80% of military divisions of North Korea. If the ROK army promotes the plans in [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of military units of the ROK army will be 32.5% of that of the North Korean army. This ratio is 2.4 times lower than that of the time when the Korean war began, and in this case, 90% of total military power should be placed in the DMZ area. If 90% of military power is placed in the DMZ area, few troops will be left for the defense of home front. In addition, if the ROK army continues to reduce the troops, it can allow North Korea to have asymmetrical superiority in military force and it will eventually exert negative influence on the stability and peace of the Korean peninsular. On the other hand, it should be reminded that, during the Korean War, the Republic of Korea was attacked by North Korea, though it kept 53.3% of troops, compared to North Korea. It should also be reminded that, as of 2008, the ROK army is defending its territory with the troops 55.04% of North Korea. Moreover, the national defense is assisted by 25,120 troops of the US Forces in Korea. In case the total number of the ROK troops falls below 43.4% of the North Korean army, it may cause social unrest about the national security and may lead North Korea's misjudgement. Besides, according to Lanchester strategy, the party with weaker military power (60% compared to the party with stronger military power) has the 4.1% of winning possibility. Therefore, if we consider the fact that the total number of the ROK army troops is 55.04% of that of the North Korean army, the winning possibility of the ROK army is not higher than 4.1%. If the total number of ROK troops is reduced to 43.4% of that of North Korea, the winning possibility will be lower and the military operations will be in critically difficult situation. [Military Reform Plan 2020] rums at the reduction of troops and units of the ground forces under the policy of 'select few'. However, the problem is that the financial support to achieve this goal is not secured. Therefore, the promotion of [Military Reform Plan 2020] may cause the weakening of military defence power in 2020. Some advanced countries such as Japan, UK, Germany, and France have promoted the policy of 'select few'. However, what is to be noted is that the national security situation of those countries is much different from that of Korea. With the collapse of the Soviet Unions and European communist countries, the military threat of those European advanced countries has almost disappeared. In addition, the threats those advanced countries are facing are not wars in national level, but terrorism in international level. To cope with the threats like terrorism, large scaled army trops would not be necessary. So those advanced European countries can promote the policy of 'select few'. In line with this, those European countries put their focuses on the development of military sections that deal with non-military operations and protection from unspecified enemies. That is, those countries are promoting the policy of 'select few', because they found that the policy is suitable for their national security environment. Moreover, since they are pursuing common interest under the European Union(EU) and they can form an allied force under NATO, it is natural that they are pursing the 'select few' policy. At present, NATO maintains the larger number of troops(2,446,000) than Russia(l,027,000) to prepare for the potential threat of Russia. The situation of japan is also much different from that of Korea. As a country composed of islands, its prime military focus is put on the maritime defense. Accordingly, the development of ground force is given secondary focus. The japanese government promotes the policy to develop technology-concentrated small size navy and air-forces, instead of maintaining large-scaled ground force. In addition, because of the 'Peace Constitution' that was enacted just after the end of World War II, japan cannot maintain troops more than 240,000. With the limited number of troops (240,000), japan has no choice but to promote the policy of 'select few'. However, the situation of Korea is much different from the situations of those countries. The Republic of Korea is facing the threat of the North Korean Army that aims at keeping a large-scale military force. In addition, the countries surrounding Korea are also super powers containing strong military forces. Therefore, to cope with the actual threat of present and unspecified threat of future, the importance of maintaining a carefully calculated large-scale military force cannot be denied. Furthermore, when considering the fact that Korea is in a peninsular, the Republic of Korea must take it into consideration the tradition of continental countries' to maintain large-scale military powers. Since the Korean War, the ROK army has developed the technology-force combined military system, maintaining proper number of troops and units and pursuing 'select few' policy at the same time. This has been promoted with the consideration of military situation in the Koran peninsular and the cooperation of ROK-US combined forces. This kind of unique military system that cannot be found in other countries can be said to be an insightful one for the preparation for the actual threat of North Korea and the conflicts between continental countries and maritime countries. In addition, this kind of technology-force combined military system has enabled us to keep peace in Korea. Therefore, it would be desirable to maintain this technology-force combined military system until the reunification of the Korean peninsular. Furthermore, it is to be pointed out that blindly following the 'select few' policy of advanced countries is not a good option, because it is ignoring the military strategic situation of the Korean peninsular. If the Republic of Korea pursues the reduction of troops and units radically without consideration of the threat of North Korea and surrounding countries, it could be a significant strategic mistake. In addition, the ROK army should keep an eye on the fact the European advanced countries and Japan that are not facing direct military threats are spending more defense expenditures than Korea. If the ROK army reduces military power without proper alternatives, it would exert a negative effect on the stable economic development of Korea and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsular. Therefore, the desirable option would be to focus on the development of quality of forces, maintaining proper size and number of troops and units under the technology-force combined military system. The tableau above shows that the advanced countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, and Austria spend more defense expenditure per person than the Republic of Korea, although they do not face actual military threats, and that they keep achieving better economic progress than the countries that spend less defense expenditure. Therefore, it would be necessary to adopt the merits of the defense systems of those advanced countries. As we have examined, it would be desirable to maintain the current size and number of troops and units, to promote 'select few' policy with increased defense expenditure, and to strengthen the technology-force combined military system. On the basis of firm national security, the Republic of Korea can develop efficient policies for reunification and prosperity, and jump into the status of advanced countries. Therefore, the plans to reduce troops and units in [Military Reform Plan 2020] should be reexamined. If it is difficult for the ROK army to maintain its size of 655,000 troops because of low birth rate, the plans to establish the prompt mobilization force or to adopt drafting system should be considered for the maintenance of proper number of troops and units. From now on, the Republic of Korean government should develop plans to keep peace as well as to prepare unexpected changes in the Korean peninsular. For the achievement of these missions, some options can be considered. The first one is to maintain the same size of military troops and units as North Korea. The second one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea in terms of military force index. The third one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea, with the combination of the prompt mobilization force and the troops in active service under the system of technology-force combined military system. At present, it would be not possible for the ROK army to maintain such a large-size military force as North Korea (1,190,000 troops and 86 units). So it would be rational to maintain almost the same level of military force as North Korea with the combination of the troops on the active list and the prompt mobilization forces. In other words, with the combination of the troops in active service (60%) and the prompt mobilization force (40%), the ROK army should develop the strategies to harmonize technology and forces. The Korean government should also be prepared for the strategic flexibility of USFK, the possibility of American policy change about the location of foreign army, radical unexpected changes in North Korea, the emergence of potential threat, surrounding countries' demand for Korean force for the maintenance of regional stability, and demand for international cooperation against terrorism. For this, it is necessary to develop new approaches toward the proper number and size of troops and units. For instance, to prepare for radical unexpected political or military changes in North Korea, the Republic of Korea should have plans to protect a large number of refugees, to control arms and people, to maintain social security, and to keep orders in North Korea. From the experiences of other countries, it is estimated that 115,000 to 230,000 troops, plus ten thousands of police are required to stabilize the North Korean society, in the case radical unexpected military or political change happens in North Korea. In addition, if the Republic of Korea should perform the release of hostages, control of mass destruction weapons, and suppress the internal wars in North Korea, it should send 460,000 troops to North Korea. Moreover, if the Republic of Korea wants to stop the attack of North Korea and flow of refugees in DMZ area, at least 600,000 troops would be required. In sum, even if the ROK army maintains 600,000 troops, it may need additional 460,000 troops to prepare for unexpected radical changes in North Korea. For this, it is necessary to establish the prompt mobilization force whose size and number are almost the same as the troops in active service. In case the ROK army keeps 650,000 troops, the proper number of the prompt mobilization force would be 460,000 to 500,000.