지속가능한 국토의 보전과 이용을 위해 토지이용규제 완화지역에 대한 모니터링이 필요하다. 이러한 토지이용규제 행위제한 완화지역을 모니터링하기 위해 2015년과 2016년의 국토환경성평가지도의 법제적평가 결과를 비교하고 평가 등급이 낮아진 지역과 2015년과 2017년의 국토환경성평가지도의 환경생태적평가 결과를 중첩하여 토지이용규제 완화지역의 모니터링 가능성을 검토했 다. 1등급에서 2등급으로 등급이 완화된 지역은 2.731km2로 전체 변화지역의 4.80%를 차지했으며, 1등급에서 3등급으로 완화된 지역은 1.050km2로 전체 변화지역의 1.85%를 차지했다. 그리고 이러한 지역의 환경생태적평가 결과를 살펴보면 법제적평가 등급이 완화되었지만 환경생태적 평가 결과 등급은 1등급으로 유지된 지역들과 환경생태적평가 등급이 향상된 일부 지역들이 나타났다. 이러한 지역의 현황을 살펴본 결과 개발 조건만 충족된다면 충분히 개발이 발생할 수 있는 기 개발지 부근의 산지 지역이 대부분을 차지했다. 따라서 이러한 지역에 대한 모니터링을 통해 무분별한 개발이 이루어지지 않도록 관리해야 할 것이며, 이러한 모니터링을 위해 국토환경성평가지도의 활용은 큰 도움이 될 것이라고 판단된다.

Regarding warships, customary rules on innocent passage and freedom of navigation codified in the UNCLOS are far from being settled among State Parties. FONOPs impose the US understanding of rules on passage and navigation in each and every sea area, forcefully implementing deregulation in order for the US to create a navyfriendly environment for its worldwide mission. By implementing another agenda of carrying out the new US policy of “Pivot to Asia,” the FONOPs in the South China Sea challenge the very heart of China’s sovereignty, and may bring about adverse effect to the process of peaceful settlement of territorial issues and maritime disputes in the South China Sea region. China believes the US FONOPs in the South China Sea are offensive to its sovereignty. Moreover, their adverse effect to the process of peaceful settlement of territorial issues and maritime disputes in the South China Sea region cannot be ignored.

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to explore and examine the effects of airline deregulation in the United States and South Korea as a comparative analysis. The study focuses on identifying the purposes of airline deregulation and analyzing its benefits and consequences. Research Design, Data, and Methodology - This is a case study, a comparative method, which analyzes and measures the benefits and disadvantages of airline deregulation in both the United States and South Korea. Results - Airline deregulation removed unnecessary and ineffective government controls, resulting in more efficient airline industries in both countries. However, the negative consequences are much greater than the benefits of airline deregulation. Conclusion - The purpose of airline deregulation was to foster an efficient and effective environment in airline industry, and cleare vidence of the positive intended effects of airline deregulation e.g., increasing domestic competition, decreasing airfare, increasing productivity, and removing unnecessary government regulations in the beginning of airline deregulation. However, the current state of airline industry in both countries depicts only the consequences of airline deregulation.