Earticle

It has been argued that domestic courts seem passive in the application of international law in consideration of the execution of decision, accruing to the restraint of courts. Courts have justified its reluctance to invoke human rights treaties directly for reason of non-self-executing effect of treaties. However, the doctrine of non-self-executing effect does not correspond to the explicit provision of the constitution on the relations between international law and municipal law. The constitutions of most states explicitly manifest to treaties the same status as municipal law. In the process of a treaty having domestic effect through its domestic implementation, the most significant aspect is for a treaty to be invoked and applied as a norm in the court proceeding. If the treaty is not practically applied in the court proceedings as the judicial norm, even after the accession to the treaty, the significance of accession might not eventuate in the protection of human rights of individuals.

The Council of Public Officials' Workplaces was introduced on January 1, 1999 in a transitional period before allowing public officials to join the public officials unions according to Article 33 (2) of the Korean Constitution. As the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials' Unions Act was enacted on January 27, 2005 and enforced on January 28, 2006, the basic labor rights of public officials under Article 33 (2) of the Constitution were allowed to the public officials and really exercised by them. Since then, many Workplace Councils were converted into unions or new unions were also established. Since then the Workplace Council experienced a long-term crisis of identity. The situation seems to be changing somewhat positively, after the Workplace Council is allowed to the police and fire officials who cannot join the union. At this moment it is necessary to review the restriction of membership of the Workplace Council and to re-examine the objective of the prohibition of membership of commanders and supervisors. In this article, the ground of restriction of membership of the Workplace Council shall be reviewed and questioned whether the restraint on the commanders and supervisors is necessary.

This study is developed in the following order. 1 Through the significance and theory of territorial clauses in the Korean Constitution, the academic community's discussion and attitude of precedents regarding the special nature of North Korea, the nationality of North Koreans, etc., analyzes the necessity and possibility of the police authority's invocation in future inter-Korean cooperation projects, considering the legal reality of inter-Korean relations and changes in the situation in East Asia, such as the unification of the Korean Peninsula in the future. 2 Based on the specificity of the North Korean region, the South Korean people's right to safety, public safety, order, and danger in North Korea are reviewed and the possibility is analyzed. 3 For disputes arising from inter-Korean cooperation zones, the resumption of the South-Bubu Military Commission based on the Basic Agreement between the two Koreas, among other things, the permanentization of the committee and the formation of committees in related fields are necessary. In particular, if it is the role of South Korea and civil servants to prevent and guarantee public safety, order, and physical and life risks to the Korean people in the inter-Korean cooperation area, the police authority in the inter-Korean cooperation area should be guaranteed by law and institution through cooperation with the military police through the dispatch of officials from the relevant ministries such as the National Police Agency, the National Intelligence Service, the Ministry, the Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Affairs and the relevant ministries. Furthermore, the paper concludes with the proposal of a plan on whether to invoke the investigative authority judicial matters in the inter-Korean cooperation area and the investigation cooperation relationship, and a plan for the inter-Korean police and investigation cooperation system to protect and guarantee the basic rights of South Korean citizens, businesses and organizations participating in the current inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation.

On 1979, after the sudden death of former president Park Chung-hee, the new military junta of Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo took power through a military coup on December 12, 1979 by organizing the Army Security Command. Then on May 17, 1980, Chun Doo-hwan extended emergency martial law nationwide and conducted a coup. As nationwide protests and the Gwangju Democratization Movement took place against the coup, Chun crushed the protests with military power. On August 22, 1980, Chun discharged as a four-star army general, and the following month became the 11th president of Korea with rubber-stamp electorates. Chun held his presidency until February 1988. On December 12, 1979, when Chun and Roh Tae-woo took power by coup, they imprisoned any opposing individuals and promoted themselves as high-ranking generals while ignoring military law. While Chun and Roh ignored the Awarding Law, they awarded the Order of Military Merit to whoever cooperated during the December 12 military revolt in 1979. Also, on June 20, 1980, just one month after the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement, they awarded Orders of Military Merit to their military followers. The “Order of Merit party” is not just a past incident in Korean society. Not only under Chun’s military junta, but also under later democratic governments, such overissuances took place. Even under the Roh Moo-hyun and Lee Myung-bak governments, the military held such “parties” by themselves. The “self-awards” of the military were mocked by the general public. On March 12, 2006, the Roh Moo-hyun government held a Cabinet meeting and decided to do the following : Cancel and collect 16 Orders of Military Merit from former awardees, including Chun and Roh Tae-woo, in relation to the December 12, 1979 military revolt and suppression of the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement in 1980; 􁭑 According to Article 7 of the “May 18 Democratization Movement Special Act,” cancel and collect Orders of Merit from 67 awardees, including Park Jun-byung, in relation to the suppression of the Gwangju Democratization Movement. However, until now, of the cancelled awardees, only Chun and Jang Sae-dong have returned their Orders of Military Merit to the government. What is worse, although Chun and Roh Tae-woo both received the “Grand Order of Mugungwha” after retiring from the presidency, these orders were not cancelled. This is the shape of our society. In this paper, I will examine the “Order of Merit party” and cancellations of Orders of Merit issued to Chun Doo-hwan’s new military junta. Then I will look into the situation of this period as a “struggle of memory” in our forgetful society.

The current neighbor relationship regulations in our civil law focus on water-related, and many articles were enacted 60 years ago and have been invalidated as a whole. Therefore, there is a point that is not suitable for the vertical and three-dimensional use control required according to the progress of industrialization and urbanization today. In addition, despite the emergence of a new Neighbor Relationship of Apartment Houses, the civil law of Korea did not provide a solution, so it was intensively reviewed in relation to the Neighbor Relationship of Apartment Houses. In Korea, many problems can occur between neighbors as the type of apartment housing accounts for 75% of the total. In recent years, the desire to escape from neighbor relationship has become a social problem, e.g. interfloor noise, png, companion animal, right to sunshine and view etc. Due to Corona 19, interfloor noise increased by more than 50% from the same period last year, but the reality is that dispute resolution is not easy. Conflicts related to parking are appearing in apartment houses. Although the number of vehicles owned per household is increasing, there are few places to park, and neighboring conflicts are occurring due to the dinged-my-door accident arising from “parking difficulties”. In addition, it was found that out of all households in Korea, one household out of four has companion animals. There are many disputes related to raising companion animals in apartment houses, but the procedure for resolving such disputes has not been legalized yet and is simply classified as one of the noise disputes between floors. In the case of right to view sunshine, it has been a problem for more than 30 years as a case of dispute in earnest, and now it is an era in which victims are looking for a remedy after examining the law about the blocking of sunlight and the blocking of good prospects. In light of this increasing number of disputes, Korean civil law is not playing its role, so we will review it so that it can play a role in civil law. But, there are few domestic and foreign research papers on the Neighbor Relationship of Apartment Houses, there are limitations to the research of the issue in depth. However, by studying the Neighbor Relationship of Apartment Houses in civil law, I intend to lay the foundation for solving various problems that arise among neighbors.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether the principle of Ex Post Facto can be applied in statute of limitations, a procedural rule abolishes the prosecution right in case of not being prosecuted during a certain period after criminal acts are committed. Article 13(1) of the Constitution stipulates this principle by declaring: “No citizen shall be prosecuted for an act which does not constitute a crime under the Act in force at the time it was committed.” Although it is undeniable that this principle, one of legal norms derived from the Principle of Legality which usually described as “Nulla poena sine lege” is fundamental principle of substantive criminal law, whether the same can be said for the legal rules of criminal proceedings is neither crystal clear nor actively discussed. However, since the retrospective application of suspension, extension and exclusion to statute of limitations might cause adverse outcomes to criminal defendant in many cases, whether the principle of Ex Post Facto can also be applied in these regulations is matter which is theoretically important and practically consequential. In this article, therefore, the author attempts to clarify the legal characteristics of statutes of limitation(whether it is procedural or substantive); provides analysis whether or not the regulations on suspension, extension and exclusion of it recognize the retroactive effect; introduces two Supreme Court cases regarding the subject.

It has been enacted since 2005 and completely amended in 2012 in Korea called Korean Bioethics & Safety Act("KBESA")' that is a general and basic statu te providing basic principles for researchers to protect human subjects by writi ng protocols and informed consent forms, and establishing Institutional Revie w Boards("IRBs") to protect rightsㆍsafetyㆍwelfare of human subjects. KBESA stipulates several provisons regarding how to deliberate national bioethics & s afety issues, IRBs, various types of researches, prohibition of reproductive clo ning & xenotransplantation, genetic test, administrative sanctions, and crimina l penalties, etc. as well as provisions regrading how to protect human subjects. However, there However, there are critical opinions on the current KBESA for not responding to the bioethics & safety issues properly caused by the outcomes of the rapid progress of biomedical science. Especially, the fact that the different topics, such as human subjects research, human materials research, human embryonic r esearch, gene therapy research, etc. are included in the one size fits all KBES A causes difficulties to regulate them reasonably. Also, there are many critical opinions on the matter of NBC, gene therapy research, using fresh eggs in hu man embryo research and donation for fresh eggs for research purpose, the sc ope of genetic test, etc. In order to answer these critical views, there are sugge stions as follows: 􀽰 to break KBESA into two separate statutes: KBESA as a general & basic statute describing states obligations and giving fundamental p rinciples on bioethics & safety, and KBESA as an individual statute regulating the specific topics features, to provide the real hammer powers such as su pporting staffs, office, and budgets for NBC to implement its functions properly, to set up multistage review mechanisms on protocols and add extra elements such as unique risk & benefit, longterm follow up, consideration on pregnancy, autopsy, and t he way to respond media, etc. in the informed consent form to protect human subjects in gene therapy research, to allow researchers to use fresh eggs in human embryo research and donate them for the purpose of research, to ex pand the categories of genetic test with the adequate & efficient monitoring sy stems.

Korea's outside director system was introduced in 1998 at the recommendation of the IMF after the Asian financial crisis, but outside directors are still not functioning properly even 20 years after its implementation. Following the globalization of corporate management, the Korean Commercial Law was revised three times as part of the global trend of corporate governance. The audit committee system, which consists of outside directors and major outside directors, is a universal system around the world. Companies are operating in most OECD member states, including the United States, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom and Belgium. Qualifications for outside directors are strictly restricted to those who are not the largest shareholders, major shareholders, executives and employees of the company, or spouses and lineal descendants of executives and executives who have been executives and employees within the past two years. It is intended to represent the interests of all shareholders through effective monitoring and checks on controlling shareholders and management in almost the majority of companies. As Japan entered the recession in the 1990s, it began to recognize the importance of outside directors, and the result was the revision of the Commercial Law. The Commercial Law of Japan was amended in May 2002 and has been in effect since April 2003. The revised Commercial Law allows companies to choose by operating under the existing board system or by setting up three committees of remuneration, audit and personnel committees like the United States, or with more than 50 percent of outside directors in the composition of each committee. This move by Japan is drawing attention in many areas. This is because Japan typically has a structure in which in-house directors control corporate management. It is also not easy for shareholders other than major shareholders to recommend independent and neutral figures as candidates for outside directors, both legally and in practice. In Korea, listed companies must have outside directors under the Securities and Exchange Act, which requires discussions on approval or opposition, recruitment, and utility, but no progress has been made in the interpretation and operation of the current law. Based on these problems, this study aims to compare the legislation of the outside director system between Korea and Japan on the outside director system, to identify problems that fail to faithfully perform the functions of check and supervision of major shareholders and management, and as an alternative, to seek ways to strengthen the independence and efficiency of the outside director system and to propose an alternative.

Corporations are very important and powerful actors in modern economic and commercial life. They can also make mistakes and commit crimes: corporations too need to be controlled. However, traditional models of criminal liability and punishment applicable to human beings cannot prevail. It should be addressed new punishment for culpable corporations. By the way, Corporate liability can be discussed in terms of liability falling within the ambit of (1) civil liability, (2) criminal liability. Some scholars argue in favor of civil, instead of criminal, liability. Some scholars, who believe that civil liability is better than criminal liability in regulating corporate crime, overlook the point that criminal punishment has traditionally been invoked as a symbol of retributive justice. They seem to disregard the mutually different purposes of civil and criminal laws. For example, it should be underlined that deterrence is not the unique concern of criminal law but one of its purposes. Beyond deterrence, the law is concerned, not least, with fairness between parties while instituting, in the first place, justice through criminal law. Feinberg has given a definition of punishment: ‘Punishment is a symbolic way of getting back at the criminal, of expressing a kind of vindictive resentment and it is a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation’ Traditionally, scholars support fining as a monetary sanction applicable to corporate criminal acts. Lawyers and economists look at offending corporations as ‘rational calculators’ unwilling to commit a crime if its cost will outweigh its benefits. Therefore, monetary penalties can be an important and effective corporate sanction. In this article, it is suggested that increasing the amount of fines should be imposed for a corporate crime. Also, this article stressed that Equity fine as well as income related fine system should be introduced.

Issues of GMOs and GM foods certainly entail variety of considerations ranging from environmental protection, public health, consumer’s right and protection, to the promotion of technology. Different governments, states, and regions propose their own perspective on each subject matter and the arguments arising out of those various angles are never to come to any agreement. Among those unsettled issues, “safety” concern that GM food poses on human health and the environment clearly is the heart of the matter. This article examines how to approach the problem of consumer protection concerning GMOs, especially with GM foods, by examining the trends on international regulation concerning GM foods, extracting common points between the general regulations on GM foods and regulations for consumer protection, reviewing all the options regarding the methods of protecting consumers in the area of GM foods, and discussing the outlook for the GM food regulations for consumer protection. Governments should take the lead in organizing and providing consumers with necessary information while private organizations and/or consumer agencies consistently review and verify the government-fed information, so that to build informed consumer-tele. Regarding the food safety, it is especially significant to set the safety standards that the consumers can accept and also to involve consumers in the process of formulating these standards. By doing so, it allows the consumers to make a voluntary decision on whether to accept and choose GMOs. There should be a redesign of the standard for labeling regarding the safety and hazards of GMO, and the labeling standard and method regarding the GMO safety must be reexamined in full measure through a consumer-oriented approach, to ensure consumers’ voluntary and proactive decision making.