• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.59-69
• /
• 2021

The Moon Jae-in administration insisted on reforming the prosecution for the reform of power institutions, and also tried to control the power of the prosecution through the establishment of a high-ranking public officials criminal investigation office. Then, what is the direction of the legal prosecution reform? Above all, it is a logic to drastically reduce the power of the prosecution. How to shrink it? First, it is necessary to control or check the power of prosecution and investigation that the prosecution has. Second, the key to the reform of the prosecution is perhaps to separate personnel rights from power. In order to exclude external pressure from the prosecution's personnel rights, there must be no instruction or intervention from the attorney general. To do this, the prosecutor general must go through various personnel evaluations, such as multi-faceted evaluation. Third, the essence of the High-ranking Officials Criminal Investigations Act is to deal with crimes of prosecutors, judges, police, and members of the National Assembly. It is also the core of the institutional mechanism to cover the corruption of one's family members while holding all the right to investigate, prosecution, and warrant claims, and to check the omnipresent prosecutors who have abused their right to investigate for political purposes. Then, what is necessary for the success of the high-ranking officials criminal investigation office? Above all, We think political neutrality is very necessary. The Ministry of Airborne has a very high authority of the Director. This paper intends to examine the functions and roles of the prosecution and high-ranking officials criminal investigation offices to prevent corruption. We analyzed the contents of the prosecution and the public officials criminal investigation office, and examined the limitations and problems, and the measures to control corruption in public offices.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.137-167
• /
• 2024

This study sought to explain the reasons why the civic education bill failed to be enacted as many as 13 times. What we discovered as a result of our research is, first, the absence of a legislative strategy by the minority member of the national assembly on this bills. The Citizenship Education Bill was a controversial bill with great potential for ideological conflict, and after the 19th National Assembly, this bill was promoted by a minority of a specific political party. The Democratic Party's sponsoring lawmakers did not use active legislative strategies, such as exerting influence within the party to have these bills adopted as the party's platform, or developing them into major pledges for the general and presidential elections. Second, there is a consistent passive response from civic groups as well as lawmakers who signed the bill in an unfavorable public opinion environment. During the legislative process, opposing opinions were overwhelming, including concerns about the spread of leftist ideology, waste of budget and organization, and violation of neutrality and fairness in education. In addition, the passive attitude of field teachers and civic groups, who should be in charge of civic education, also served as a background for the legislative failure. Third, due to a lack of sharing of reliable information on recent theoretical research and global policy trends among stakeholders, legislation through an agreement between the ruling and opposition parties failed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.