• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.869-895
• /
• 2000

The US supports the Information and Communication (IC) industry as a strategic one to wield a complete power over the World Market. However, several other countries are also eager to have the support for the IC industry because the industry produces a high added value and has a significant effect on other industries. Korea is not an exception. Korea recently succeeded in the commercialization of CDMA for the first time in the world, after the successful development of TDX. Hence, it is highly likely to get tracked by the US. Although the IC industry is a specific sector of IT, there is a concern that there might be a trade friction between the US and Korea due to a possible competition. It will be very important to prepare a solution in advance so that Korea could prevent the friction and at the same time increase its share domestically and globally. It will be our important task to solve the problem with the minimum cost if the conflict arises unfortunately in the IT area. The parties that have a strong influence on the US trade policy are the think tank group and the IT-related interest group. Therefore, it would be important to have a close relationship with them. We found some implications by analyzing the case of Japan, which has experienced trade frictions with the US over the long period of time in the high tech industry. In order to get rid of those conflicts with the US, the Japanese did the following things : (1) The Japanese government developed supporting theories and also resorted to international support so that the world could support the Japanese theories. (2) Through continual dialogue with the US business people, the Japanese business people sought after solutions to share profits among the Japanese and the US both in the domestic and in the worldwide markets. They focused on lobbying activities to influence the US public opinion to support the Japanese. The specific implementation plan was first to open culture lobby toward opinion leaders who were leaders about the US opinion. The institution, Japan Society, were formed to deliver a high quality lobbying activities. The second plan is economic lobby. They have established Japanese Economic Institute at Washington. They provide information about Japan regularly or irregularly to the US government, research institution, universities, etc., that are interested in Japan. The main objective behind these activities though is to advertise the validity of Japanese policy. Japanese top executives, practical interest groups on international trade, are trying to justify their position by direct contact with the US policy makers. The third one is political lobby. Japan is very careful about this political lobby. It is doing its best not to give impression that Japan is trying to shape the US policy making. It is collecting a vast amount of information to make a correct judgment on situation. It is not tilted toward one political party or the other, and is rather developing a long-term network of people who understand and support the Japanese policy. The following implications were drawn from the experience of Japan. First, the Korean government should develop a long-term plan and execute it to improve the Korean image perceived by American people. Second, the Korean government should begin public relation activities toward the US elite group. It is inevitable to make an effort to advertise Korea to this elite group because this group leads public opinion in the USA. Third, the Korean government needs the development of a relevant policy to elevate the positive atmosphere for advertising toward the US. For example, we need information about to whom and how to about lobbying activities, personnel network who immediately respond to wrong articles about Korea in the US press, and lastly the most recent data bank of Korean support group inside the USA. Fourth, the Korean government should create an atmosphere to facilitate the advertising toward the US. Examples include provision of incentives in tax on the expenses for the advertising toward the US and provision of rewards to those who significantly contribute to the advertising activities. Fifth, the Korean government should perform the role of a bridge between Korean and the US business people. Sixth, the government should promptly analyze the policy of IT industry, a strategic area, and timely distribute information to industries in Korea. Since the Korean government is the only institution that has formal contact with the US government, it is highly likely to provide information of a high quality. The followings are some implications for business institutions. First, Korean business organization should carefully analyze and observe the business policy and managerial conditions of US companies. It is very important to do so because all the trade frictions arise at the business level. Second, it is also very important that the top management of Korean firms contact the opinion leaders of the US. Third, it is critically needed that Korean business people sent to the USA do their part for PR activities. Fourth, it is very important to advertise to American employees in Korean companies. If we cannot convince our American employees, it would be a lot harder to convince regular American. Therefore, it is very important to make the American employees the support group for Korean ways. Fifth, it should try to get much information as early as possible about the US firms policy in the IT area. It should give an enormous effort on early collection of information because by doing so it has more time to respond. Sixth, it should research on the PR cases of foreign enterprise or non-American companies inside the USA. The research needs to identify the success factors and the failure factors. Finally, the business firm will get more valuable information if it analyzes and responds to, according to each medium.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.371-405
• /
• 2004

International circulation of cultural assets involves numerous countries thereby making an approach based on international law essential to resolving this problem. Since the end of the $2^{nd}$ World War, as the value of cultural assets evolved from material value to moral and ethical values, with emphasis on establishing national identities, newly independent nations and former colonial states took issue with ownership of cultural assets which led to the need for international cooperation and statutory provisions for the return of cultural assets. UNESCO's 1954 "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" as preparatory measures for the protection of cultural assets, the 1970 "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" to regulate transfer of cultural assets, and the 1995 "Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects" which required the return of illegally acquired cultural property are examples of international agreements established on illegal transfers of cultural assets. In addition, the UN agency UNESCO established the Division of Cultural Heritage to oversee cultural assets related matters, and the UN since its 1973 resolution 3187, has continued to demonstrate interest in protection of cultural assets. The resolution 3187 affirms the return of cultural assets to the country of origin, advises on preventing illegal transfers of works of art and cultural assets, advises cataloguing cultural assets within the respective countries and, conclusively, recommends becoming a member of UNESCO, composing a forum for international cooperation. Differences in defining cultural assets pose a limitation on international agreements. While the 1954 Convention states that cultural assets are not limited to movable property and includes immovable property, the 1970 Convention's objective of 'Prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property' effectively limits the subject to tangible movable cultural property. The 1995 Convention also has tangible movable cultural property as its subject. On this point, the two conventions demonstrate distinction from the 1954 Convention and the 1972 Convention that focuses on immovable cultural property and natural property. The disparity in defining cultural property is due to the object and purpose of the convention and does not reflect an inherent divergence. In the case of Korea, beginning with the 1866 French invasion, 36 years of Japanese colonial rule, military rule and period of economic development caused outflow of numerous cultural assets to foreign countries. Of course, it is neither possible nor necessary to have all of these cultural properties returned, but among those that have significant value in establishing cultural and historical identity or those that have been taken symbolically as a demonstration of occupational rule can cause issues in their return. In these cases, the 1954 Convention and the ratification of the first legislation must be actively considered. In the return of cultural property, if the illicit acquisition is the core issue, it is a simple matter of following the international accords, while if it rises to the level of diplomatic discussions, it will become a political issue. In that case, the country requesting the return must convince the counterpart country. Realizing a response to the earnest need for preventing illicit trading of cultural assets will require extensive national and civic societal efforts in the East Asian area to overcome its current deficiencies. The most effective way to prevent illicit trading of cultural property is rapid circulation of information between Interpol member countries, which will require development of an internet based communication system as well as more effective deployment of legislation to prevent trading of illicitly acquired cultural property, subscription to international conventions and cataloguing collections.

• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.110-122
• /
• 2010

The emergence of the field of organizational buying behavior in the mid-1960’s with the publication of Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing (1967) set the stage for a new paradigm of thinking about how business was conducted in markets other than those serving ultimate consumers. Whether it is "industrial marketing" or "business-to-business marketing" (B-to-B), organizational buying behavior remains the core differentiating characteristic of this domain of marketing. This paper explores the impact of several dynamic factors that have influenced how organizations relate to one another in a rapidly increasing interdependence, which in turn can impact organizational buying behavior. The paper also raises the question of whether or not the major conceptual models of organizational buying behavior in an interdependent world are still relevant to guide research and managerial thinking, in this dynamic business environment. The paper is structured to explore three questions related to organizational interdependencies: 1. What are the factors and trends driving the emergence of organizational interdependencies? 2. Will the major conceptual models of organizational buying behavior that have developed over the past half century be applicable in a world of interdependent organizations? 3. What are the implications of organizational interdependencies on the research and practice of organizational buying behavior? Consideration of the factors and trends driving organizational interdependencies revealed five critical drivers in the relationships among organizations that can impact their purchasing behavior: Accelerating Globalization, Flattening Networks of Organizations, Disrupting Value Chains, Intensifying Government Involvement, and Continuously Fragmenting Customer Needs. These five interlinked drivers of interdependency and their underlying technological advances can alter the relationships within and among organizations that buy products and services to remain competitive in their markets. Viewed in the context of a customer driven marketing strategy, these forces affect three levels of strategy development: (1) evolving customer needs, (2) the resulting product/service/solution offerings to meet these needs, and (3) the organization competencies and processes required to develop and implement the offerings to meet needs. The five drivers of interdependency among organizations do not necessarily operate independently in their impact on how organizations buy. They can interact with each other and become even more potent in their impact on organizational buying behavior. For example, accelerating globalization may influence the emergence of additional networks that further disrupt traditional value chain relationships, thereby changing how organizations purchase products and services. Increased government involvement in business operations in one country may increase costs of doing business and therefore drive firms to seek low cost sources in emerging markets in other countries. This can reduce employment opportunitiesn one country and increase them in another, further accelerating the pace of globalization. The second major question in the paper is what impact these drivers of interdependencies have had on the core conceptual models of organizational buying behavior. Consider the three enduring conceptual models developed in the Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing and Organizational Buying Behavior books: the organizational buying process, the buying center, and the buying situation. A review of these core models of organizational buying behavior, as originally conceptualized, shows they are still valid and not likely to change with the increasingly intense drivers of interdependency among organizations. What will change however is the way in which buyers and sellers interact under conditions of interdependency. For example, increased interdependencies can lead to increased opportunities for collaboration as well as conflict between buying and selling organizations, thereby changing aspects of the buying process. In addition, the importance of communication processes between and among organizations will increase as the role of trust becomes an important criterion for a successful buying relationship. The third question in the paper explored consequences and implications of these interdependencies on organizational buying behavior for practice and research. The following are considered in the paper: the need to increase understanding of network influences on organizational buying behavior, the need to increase understanding of the role of trust and value among organizational participants, the need to improve understanding of how to manage organizational buying in networked environments, the need to increase understanding of customer needs in the value network, and the need to increase understanding of the impact of emerging new business models on organizational buying behavior. In many ways, these needs deriving from increased organizational interdependencies are an extension of the conceptual tradition in organizational buying behavior. In 1977, Nicosia and Wind suggested a focus on inter-organizational over intra-organizational perspectives, a trend that has received considerable momentum since the 1990's. Likewise for managers to survive in an increasingly interdependent world, they will need to better understand the complexities of how organizations relate to one another. The transition from an inter-organizational to an interdependent perspective has begun, and must continue so as to develop an improved understanding of these important relationships. A shift to such an interdependent network perspective may require many academicians and practitioners to fundamentally challenge and change the mental models underlying their business and organizational buying behavior models. The focus can no longer be only on the dyadic relations of the buying organization and the selling organization but should involve all the related members of the network, including the network of customers, developers, and other suppliers and intermediaries. Consider for example the numerous partner networks initiated by SAP which involves over 9000 companies and over a million participants. This evolving, complex, and uncertain reality of interdependencies and dynamic networks requires reconsideration of how purchase decisions are made; as a result they should be the focus of the next phase of research and theory building among academics and the focus of practical models and experiments undertaken by practitioners. The hope is that such research will take place, not in the isolation of the ivory tower, nor in the confines of the business world, but rather, by increased collaboration of academics and practitioners. In conclusion, the consideration of increased interdependence among organizations revealed the continued relevance of the fundamental models of organizational buying behavior. However to increase the value of these models in an interdependent world, academics and practitioners should improve their understanding of (1) network influences, (2) how to better manage these influences, (3) the role of trust and value among organizational participants, (4) the evolution of customer needs in the value network, and (5) the impact of emerging new business models on organizational buying behavior. To accomplish this, greater collaboration between industry and academia is needed to advance our understanding of organizational buying behavior in an interdependent world.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.427-468
• /
• 2015

To date, we have considered the theoretical views, the standpoint of states and the discourse within the international community such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) regarding the Air/Outer Space Boundary Question which is one of the first issues of UN COPUOS established in line with marking the starting point of Outer Space Area. As above mentioned, discussions in the United Nations and among scholars of within each state regarding the delimitation issue often saw a division between those in favor of a functional approach (the functionalists) and those seeking the delineation of a boundary (the spatialists). The spatialists emphasize that the boundary between air and outer space should be delimited because the status of outer space is a type of public domain from which sovereign jurisdiction is excluded, as stated in Article 2 of Outer Space Treaty. On the contrary art. I of Chicago Convention is evidence of the acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as an international customary law, has the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. The functionalists, backed initially by the major space powers, which viewed any boundary demarcation as possibly restricting their access to space, whether for peaceful or non-military purposes, considered it insufficient or inadequate to delimit a boundary of outer space without obvious scientific and technological evidences. Last more than 50 years there were large development in the exploration and use of outer space. But a large number states including those taking the view of a functionalist have taken on a negative attitude. As the element of location is a decisive factor for the choice of the legal regime to be applied, a purely functional approach to the regulation of activities in the space above the Earth does not offer a solution. It seems therefore to welcome the arrival of clear evidence of a growing recognition of and national practices concerning a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a large number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution to the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated and a number of countries including Russia have already advocated the acceptance of the lowest perigee boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. As a matter of fact the lowest perigee where space objects are still able to continue in their orbiting around the earth has already been imposed as a natural criterion for the delimitation of outer space. This delimitation of outer space has also been evidenced by the constant practice of a large number of States and their tacit consent to space activities accomplished so far at this distance and beyond it. Of course there are still numerous opposing views on the delineation of a outer space boundary by space powers like U.S.A., England, France and so on. Therefore, first of all to solve the legal issues faced by the international community in outer space activities like delimitation problem, there needs a positive and peaceful will of international cooperation. From this viewpoint, President John F. Kennedy once described the rationale behind the outer space activities in his famous "Moon speech" given at Rice University in 1962. He called upon Americans and all mankind to strive for peaceful cooperation and coexistence in our future outer space activities. And Kennedy explained, "There is no strife, ${\ldots}$ nor any international conflict in outer space as yet. But its hazards are hostile to us all: Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again." This speech seems to even present us in the contemporary era with ample suggestions for further peaceful cooperation in outer space activities including the delimitation of outer space.