• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2011

People may operate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) thousands of miles from the drone's location. Drones were first used (like balloons) for surveillance. By 2001, the United States began arming drones with missiles and using them to strike targets during combat in Afghanistan. By mid-2010, over forty states and other entities possessed drones, many with the capability of launching missiles and dropping bombs. Each new development in military weapons technology invites assessment of the relevant international law. This Insight surveys the international law applicable to the recent innovation of weaponizing drones. In determining what international law rules govern drone use, the most salient feature is not the fact that drones are unmanned. The fact drones carry no human operator may be the most important new technological breakthrough, but the key feature for international law purposes is the type of weaponry drones carry. Whether law enforcement rules govern drone use depends on the situation and not necessarily who is operating the drone. Battlefield weapons may also be lawfully used before an armed conflict in the following situations: when initiating self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; when authorized by the UN Security Council; when a government seeks to suppress internal armed conflict; and, perhaps, when a state is invited to assist a government in suppressing internal armed conflict. The rules governing resort to force in self-defense are found in Article 51 of the UN Charter and a number of decisions by international courts and tribunals. Commentators continue to debate whether drone technology represents the next revolution in military affairs. Regardless of the answer to that question, drones have not created a revolution in legal affairs. The current rules governing battlefield launch vehicles are adequate for regulating resort to drones. More research must be undertaken, however, to understand the psychological effects of deploying unmanned vehicles and the effects on drone operators of sustained, close visual contact with the aftermath of drone attacks.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.525-551
• /
• 2017

This Article discusses the current trend of European competition damage actions focused on the recent Damage Directive and its transposition by the United Kingdom and Germany. The relevant Directive was signed into law in November 2014, and it requires the EU Member States to adopt certain measures to support competition damage actions. The required measures and principles by the Directive include right to full compensation, rebuttable presumption of harm, extensive disclosure of evidence, use of pass-on for defense and indirect purchaser suits. Although many Member States did not meet the deadline to transpose the Directive, the end of 2016, it is reported that 23 Member States have now, as of September 2017, made enactments according to the Directive. When we look at the transposition done by the United Kingdom and Germany, the revisions on their competition laws closely follow the contents of the Directive. However, it will take quite a long time before the amended provisions apply to actual cases since most of the new provisions apply to the infringement that take place after the date of the amendment. A similar situation regarding application time may happen in some other Member States. Furthermore, even if the terms of the competition laws of the Member States become similar following the Directive, the interpretations of the laws may differ by the courts of different countries. EU also does not have a tool to coordinate the litigations that are brought in different Member States under the same facts. It is true that the EU made a big step to enhance competition damage actions by enacting Damage Directive. However, it needs to take more time and resources to have settled system of competition private litigation throughout the Member States. Korea has also experienced increase in competition damage actions during the last fifteen years, and there have been some revisions of the relevant fair trade law as well as development of relevant legal principles by court decisions. Although there are some suggestions that Korea should have more enactments similar to the EU Directive, its seems wiser for Korea to take time to observe how EU countries actually operate competition damage actions after they transposed the Directive. Then, it will be able to gain some wisdom to adopt competition action measures that are suitable for Korean legal system and culture.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.571-610
• /
• 2013

The current patent system is more often used for defensive purposes to exclude others' use or as a means to hold unfair strong positions in negotiations rather than for the original purpose as the dissemination and active use of useful technology. An injunction together with a damage is an important remedy for patent infringements. However, unlike a claim for damages, injunctions do not require the subjective requirement of intent and negligence or the occurrence of loss. If the validity of the patent and the fact of infringement are confirmed, automatically injunctions are issued without consideration of other circumstances. So a patent holder would exclude others' use and have a powerful position in negotiations because of injunctions for patent infringements. Therefore, those injunctions for patent infringements should be flexibly restricted according to cases under the premise to ensure fair compensation for the patent owner, rather than absolutely admitting injunctions for patent infringements like now. If then, it would serve the use of a useful technology and industrial development as the purpose of the patent system. First of all, judgments for preliminary injunctions should be strict and by deliberate decision on the merits permanent injunctions should be determined. In addition, it is needed that court's discretion possible to considerate 'the need for an injunction'. When the courts judge 'the need for an injunction', 'whether a patent holder has implemented a patent invention, the possibility of monetary compensation and the ability of the infringer for damages, a patent holder's intent to license and whether an injunction has been used as a weapon of negotiation, the proportion of patent technology in the entire products, the characteristics of patent technology and the possibility of patent invalidity, the competitive relationship for market share, the public interests and gains and losses between the parties and so on' should be considered. After these judgements, if 'the need for an injunction' is not approved, a patent owner would be protected by post-monetary compensation. However, because damages are related to illegal conducts in the past, in the case that an injunction is restrained, measures to ensure the legal implementation in the future are needed. It is primarily desirable that reasonable royalty is estimated throughout private negotiations between parties, but if agreement between the parties does not occur, patent owner should be able to claim the royalty for future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.3-38
• /
• 2019

In 1984, Congress enacted a new measure of administrative sanctions which is a civil money penalty program for violations of Aviation Act and its implementing regulations. This civil money penalty system has been in operations in lieu of suspending or revoking certificates issued by Korean government, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. According to the rules of Aviation Business Act or Aviation Safety Act, where the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport should order an air carrier to suspend operation because of her violation under certain rules, in which case the suspension of operation is likely to cause serious inconvenience to consumers of air transport services or to harm public interest, the Minister of the department may impose an administrative monetary penalty in lieu of the suspension of operation. In this regard, airline related civil money penalties are somewhat different from those of fair trade, which is the origin of the money penalties system in Korea. Civil money penalties in the field of fair trade are imposed on executive duty violations that undermine the value of the market economy order, and focus on reimbursement of profits due to violations and compensation for unfair spending by consumers. However, in the aviation sector, breach of duty by a business operator does not simply cause the property loss of the public, but it has a direct impact on life or property of the public. In this respect, aviation penalties are more likely to be administrative sanctions or punitive measures than refunds of unfair benefits, compared to penalties in the field of fair trade. In general, civil money penalties have been highly preferred as administrative sanctions because they are subject to investigations by administrative experts and thus, efficiency can be ensured and execution is quicker than judicial procedures. Moreover, in Korea, because punitive civil damages cannot awarded by the courts, the imposition of civil money penalties is recognized as a means of realizing social justice by recognizing the legal feelings of the people. However, civil money penalties are administrative sanctions, and in terms of effectiveness, they are similar to criminal fines, which are a form of punishment. Inadequate legislation and operation of penalties imposition may cause damage to the value of Constitution. Under the above recognition, this paper has been described for the purpose of identifying the present status of the civil money penalties imposition system and operating status in the area of air transport under the laws and regulations in Korea. Especially, this paper was focused on exploring the problem and improvement direction of Korean system through the comparative study with foreign laws and regulations.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.3
• /
• pp.130-145
• /
• 2019

The palaces in South Korea are largely divided into primary palaces (法宮) and secondary palaces (離宮). In the early Joseon period, the primary palace was Gyeongbokgung Palace, and the secondary palace was Changdeokgung Palace. Additionally, there is the concept of imperial palaces (正宮). Gyeongbokgung Palace was the primary palace and the imperial palace. The topography of Gyeongbokgung is based on Mt. Baegak, which is the symbol of royal authority. The location of the palaces was chosen to highlight the king's dignity and authority. The three gates and three courts (三門三朝) were positioned on a straight line based on one axis along the ridge of Mt. Baegak to establish the legitimacy, hierarchy, and unity of the kingship. The secondary palace was built according to the demands of the king and the royal family or the political situation. It was created as a royal living space; thus, creating independent and diverse spaces along multiple axes. The primary palace was chosen to be built on the terrain of Yang, and the secondary palace was chosen to be built on the terrain of Yin; the criteria for laying buildings in the palace areas had to be different. The most important point in the formation of Joseon palaces was that the secret vital energy for the king (王氣) originated from the sacred mountain. Important elements of the palace were the secret vital energy chain of feng shui (風水氣脈) and the forbidden stream (禁川). The secret vital energy chain of feng shui was the gateway to the secret vital energy for the king, and the forbidden stream was a method of preventing the king from leaving the palace grounds. Gyeongbokgung Palace, which is on typical feng shui terrain, faithfully reflects the principles of feng shui. On the other hand, the secondary palace was built on incomplete and irregular feng shui terrain. Feng shui was part of the nature and the geography of the ruling classes in the Joseon Dynasty. By examining their geography, I believe that the perfection of traditional culture inheritance and restoration can be improved.

• Journal of Korean Historical Folklife
• /
• no.27
• /
• pp.267-361
• /
• 2008

This article traces how the modern Chinese "nation" was constructed as an "imagined community" around Huang-ti (the Yellow Emperor) in late Qing. Huang-ti was a legendary figure in ancient China and the imperial courts monopolized the worship of him. Many late Qing intellectuals appropriated this symbolic figure and, through a set of discursive strategies of "framing, voice and narrative structure," transformed him into a privileged symbol for modern Chinese national identity. What Huang-ti could offer was, however, no more than a "public face" for the imagined new national community, or in other words, a formal structure without substantial contents. No consensus appeared on whom the Chinese nation should include and where the Chinese nation should draw its boundaries. The anti-Manchu revolutionaries emphasized the primordial attachment of blood and considered modern China an exclusive community of Huang-ti's descent. The constitutional reformers sought to stretch the boundaries to include the ethnic groups other than the Han. Some minority intellectuals, particularly the Manchu ones, re-constructed the historic memory of their ethnic origin around Huang-ti. The quarrels among intellectuals of different political persuasion testify how Huang-ti as the most powerful cultural symbol became a site for contests and negotiations in the late Qing process of national construction.

• Journal of Popular Narrative
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.159-190
• /
• 2019

This paper aims to examine to the political unconsciousness of social movies that have caused social repercussions in the 2010s, and to study the social imagination of Korean films at that time. Korean Movies such as (2013), <1987>(2017) and (2017) reflect the ethos of civil society based on common sense and justice. The epic structure was the same as that of ordinary citizens, who move toward a public space (court, square) after awakening their political correctness. More than anything else, the fact that such films were based on "a historical fact" could have been a strategy to avoid censorship in the era of the blacklist. In these social films, courts and squares have become places for democracy. The conservative government of the time was tired of anti-government resistance and the politics of the square. Thus, films from directors and producers blacklisted were difficult to produce. That's why the court in the movie during this period could become a symbolic proxy for the "legitimate" reenactment of the politics of the square, which was subject to censorship and avoidance by the regime of the time. Meanwhile, the square has gradually become the main venue for political films that advocate "historic true stories." The square of the 1980s, which appeared in the movies, will be connected to the Gwanghwamun candlelight square that audiences experienced in 2017. Furthermore, it was able to reach the concept of an abstract square as an "open space for democracy." At the foundation of these works is a psychological framework that equates the trauma of the failed democratic movement of the 1980s to the trauma of the failed progressive movement of the 2010s. Through this study, we were able to see that social political films in the 2010s were quite successful, emphasizing "political correctness" and constitutional common sense. But they also had limitations as "de-political popular films" that failed to show imagination beyond the censorship of the blacklist era.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 2009

The idea of establishing an International Court of Air and Space Law (hereinafter referred to ICASL) is only my academic and practical opinion as first proposal in the global community. The establishment of the International Court of Air and Space Law can promote the speed and promote fairness of the trial in air and space law cases. The creation of an ICASL would lead to strengthening of the international cooperation deemed essential by the global community towards joint settlement in the transnational air and space cases, claims and would act as a catalyst for the efforts and solution on aircraft, satellite and space shuttle's accidents and cases and all manpower, information, trial and lawsuit to be centrally managed in an independent fashion to the benefit of global community. The aircraft, satellite and spacecraft's accidents attributes to the particular and different features between the road, railway and maritime's accidents. These aircraft, satellite and spacecraft's accidents have incurred many disputes between the victims and the air and space carriers in deciding on the limited or unlimited liability for compensation and the appraisal of damages caused by the aircraft's accidents, terror attack, satellite, space shuttle's accidents and space debris. This International Court of Air and Space Law could hear any claim growing out of both international air and space crash accidents and transnational accidents in which plaintiffs and defendants are from different nations. This alternative would eliminate the lack of uniformity of decisions under the air and space conventions, protocols and agreements. In addition, national courts would no longer have to apply their own choice of law analysis in choosing the applicable liability limits or un-limit for cases that do not fall under the air and space system. Thus, creation of an International Court of Air and Space Law would eliminate any disparity of damage awards among similarly situated passengers and shippers in nonmembers of air and space conventions, protocols, agreements and cases. Furthermore, I would like to explain the main items of the abovementioned Draft for the Convention or Statute of the International Court of Air and Space Law framed in comparison with the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Statue of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Statute of the International Criminal Court. First of all, in order to create the International Court of Air and Space Law, it is necessary for us to legislate a Draft for the Convention on the Establishment of the International Court of Air and Space Law. This Draft for the Convention must include the elected method of judges, term, duty and competence of judge, chambers, jurisdiction, hearing and judgment of the ICASL. The members of the Court shall be elected by the General Assembly and Council of the ICAO and by the General Assembly and Legal Committee of the UNCOPUOS from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the six continent (the North American, South American, African, Oceania and Asian Continent) and two international organization such as ICAO and UNCOPUOS. The members of the Court shall be elected for nine years and may be re-elected as one time. However, I would like to propose a creation an International Court of Air and Space Law in extending jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice at the Hague to in order to decide the air and space convention‘s cases. My personal opinion is that if an International Court on Air and Space Law will be created in future, it will be settled quickly and reasonably the difficulty and complicated disputes, cases or lawsuit between the wrongdoer and victims and the injured person caused by aircraft, satellite, spacecraft's accidents or hijacker and terrorists etc. on account of deciding the standard of judgment by judges of that’s court. It is indeed a great necessary and desirable for us to make a new Draft for the Convention on a creation of the International Court of Air and Space Law to handle international air and space crash litigation. I shall propose to make a new brief Draft for the Convention on the Creation of an International Court of Air and Space Law in the near future.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously arisen issues in the future.

• 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.