When exporting nuclear-related items, export control is required from two perspectives: the control of “Trigger List Items” as controlled by Nuclear Supplier Groups (NSG) and the control of the “Items Subject to the Agreement” as specified in bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreements. While Trigger List Items and Items Subject to the Agreement are largely similar, there are some items where they do not overlap. Furthermore, national law for controlling each item is different. The Trigger List Items are governed by the Foreign Trade Act, and the Items Subject to the Agreement (Internationally Controlled Items) are governed by the Nuclear Safety Act. As a result, the detailed procedures and requirements for controlling each item are quite distinct. For the Trigger List Items, export license must be obtained in accordance with the Foreign Trade Act. The details such as responsible authority, the items subject to license, license requirements and procedures, penalties are specified in the Public Notice on Import and Export of Strategic Goods. For the Items Subject to the Agreement, the process and obligations set forth in bilateral agreements and related administrative agreements are fulfilled in accordance with the Nuclear Safety Act. However, in contrast to the Trigger List Items, the details for complying with the agreements are not specified legally. Since most of the Items Subject to the Agreement are fall within the category of the Trigger List Items, the obligations in accordance with the agreements are reviewed and implemented during the export license assessment process. However, if the Items Subject to the Agreement are not are fall within the category of the Trigger List Items, there is a risk of control omission. For example, this applies to cases of exporting tritium and tritium removal facilities, which are not the Trigger List Items, to Canada and Romania. Moreover, since subjects to the agreement and compliance procedures are respectively different for 29 bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreements signed with different countries, it is difficult for enterprise to recognize the appropriate procedures and obligations under the agreement by their own. The bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreements establish legal obligations between state parties while NSG are non-legally binding arrangements. Therefore, it could be even more necessary to comply strictly with the agreements. Consequently, legal improvements are required for effective implementations of Nuclear Cooperation Agreements. While it may be challenging to institutionalize details of 29 Nuclear Cooperation Agreements, it is essential to legally specify key elements such as the list of items subject to agreements, responsible authority, requirements and procedures for implement the agreement obligations, and penalties. Furthermore, domestic awareness on compliance with Nuclear Cooperation Agreements is lower compared to the system of export license for Trigger List Items. The continuous outreach is also necessary, along with institutional improvements.

대설재난은 우리나라에서 발생하는 자연재해 중 호우나 태풍과 같은 풍수해에 이어 피해규모가 큰 재해에 해당된다. 최근 기후변화에 따라 여름철의 태풍, 호우에 의한 피해와 겨울철 자연재난인 대설, 한파 등의 강도가 점차 강해지고 있다. 대설로 인해 발생하는 피해는 교통, 건축, 시설 등 다양한 부문에서 나타나며, 대설재난 관리를 위해서는 기상학 분야, 교통 분야, 건설 분야 등에서의 통합적 대응체계가 요구된다. 또한 효과적인 재난 관리를 위해서는 대설에 대해 직접적으로 다룰 수 있는 법령과 제도개선이 필요하다. 현재 우리나라의 법과 제도적 측면에서의 대설재난에 대한 대응체계가 미미하고, 대설재난에 대하여 다루고 있는 전문분야가 부족한 실정이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 재난 및 안전관리 기본법, 자연재해대책법 등 대설과 관련된 법령과 조례, 관련 계획 등 제도적 현황에 대한 검토 및 비교분석을 실시하였다. 본 연구를 통해 대설재난대응에 대한 현안 문제를 파악하고, 대설재난대응을 위한 통합적 관리방안 수립 및 제도적 개선방안에 대한 기본방향을 제시하였다.