본 논문은 냉전기 1959년부터 재일조선인 북한송환 후의 인권 문제와 관련하여 비정부 행위자에 초점을 맞추어 NGO ‘모두 모이자’의 설립자인 가와사키 대표의 활동을 분석하였다. 본 연구는 ‘모두 모이자’ 설립 후 2015년부터 현재까지의 가와사키 대표의 활동을 신문 기사 등의 1차 자 료를 통해 냉전기 재일조선인 북한송환 이후의 인권 문제에 대한 구체적 인 분석을 하여 기존연구의 공백을 보완하였다. 본 논문은 다음의 두 가 지 점을 제시한다. 첫째, 1959년에 시작되었던 재일조선인 북송문제는 끝난 것이 아니며, 여전히 우리가 계속 풀어야만 하는 역사적 문제이다. 둘째, 재일조선인 북송사업 이후 관련자들의 인권 증진을 위하여 ‘모두 모이자’는 국가 행위자가 접근하기 어려운 부분에서 큰 활약을 했으며 계속하여 다양한 노력을 하고 있다. 특히 ‘모두 모이자’의 가와사키 대표 의 재일조선인 북한송환 피해자들의 인권 증진을 위한 여러 활동은 한국 과 일본을 넘어 전 세계적으로 재일조선인 북한송환의 피해를 알리는 계 기가 되었다.

The article provides a general description of liability for administrative offenses under the PRC legislation. It considers general principles of responsibility for administrative offenses, the system of bodies that impose administrative penalties, the system of administrative penalties and the procedures for imposing them. The authors determine how well it is possible to strike a balance between public and private interests in the legislation on administrative penalties. “Legality” is declared as a basic principle of administrative liability in the PRC. In this article, the authors have concluded that the principle of legality has a rather specific content. Administrative offenses and penalties are not codified in China but are dispersed in a significant amount of laws and regulations. This approach ensures the existence of a fairly dynamic system of administrative measures which guarantee a proper order in the rapidly developing Chinese economy. At the same time, this approach carries a risk of abuse of power by public bodies and excessive state intervention in the life of individuals.

The US has huge interests in Hong Kong. In 1992, a few years before China resumed its sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, the US adopted the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. The keynote of the Act is to enhance the cooperation with and maintain the treatment to Hong Kong. This tune has changed in the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, which is obviously the response of the US to widespread protests in Hong Kong arising from the Extradition Bill proposed by the Government of Hong Kong SAR. The new law includes several negative elements. It marks a change in the US policy towards Hong Kong and furthermore represents a change in the US policy towards China. The new law should not merely be understood as the US’s support for democracy and human rights in Hong Kong. Instead, it should be considered as a major leverage which the US may maneuver to engage a rising China.

The nexus between science and human rights are intertwined in many ways. Though the acknowledgment in international law have been available for decades, the right to savor the fruits of scientific advancement and its applicability has gained just small recognition of the human rights from the international community. A human rightsbased approach to science, technology, and development endeavors a concern for human rights at the heart of the international community facing with critical global challenges. Thus, the paper initially discusses the relevant international human rights instruments including laws, regulations, declarations, conventions and provides a thorough analysis. The doctrinal and qualitative study of the paper presents human rights approaches in order to show insight on the ethical implications of new technologies and investigate how policy can compete with briskly advancing science. The paper also recommends the international community to promote regulatory processes that can help in blocking the disputes by securing an equilibrium between human rights and science.

This article aims to introduce and critically analyze the jurisprudence and its application in the UPP case in South Korea with reference to the ECtHR case law. In this controversial case, the CCK decided to dissolve the UPP and, without any basis in positive law, disqualify five National Assembly members affiliated with it. It is argued that when the CCK attempted to articulate the principle of proportionality that the ECtHR case law has firmly developed in this field and to apply it to this case, standards governing the dissolution of political parties were distorted at least in two ways. First, it substituted ‘social need’ for “pressing social need.” Second, it deliberately omitted the requirement of ‘sufficient imminence.’ In addition, the reasoning of the majority of eight justices based upon the rule of evidence in civil proceedings can also be criticized for being too abrupt to be justified in this highly controversial case of constitutional importance.

Healing for the Jeju 4.3 survivors and families progressed significantly after the work of the 2000 National 4.3 Committee and the 2005 Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Acting on these investigatory organizations’ recommendations and the expressed desires of the Jeju people, the Korean government began a healing process that included a presidential apology, a government-sponsored museum and an extensive public memorial and gravesite for known victims—albeit without individual reparations. American and Korean scholars also point to the United States’ partial responsibility for Jeju 4.3 and its lack of participation in redress efforts. Acknowledgment of the United States’ historical role in Jeju 4.3 by the Korean and U.S. governments today may be one of the crucial next steps toward genuine reparatory justice for the Jeju people and for Korean society. It may also bolster U.S. legitimacy globally as a democracy actually (and not just professedly) committed to humanrights.The United States grounds its global moral authority as a democracy in its stated commitment to human rights. But a genuine commitment entails acknowledging and actively repairing the damage caused by its participation in human rights atrocities—even decades ago. Its legitimacy as a democracy depends upon doing so—and after two damaging wars the United States needs to bolster its moral authority internationally. If America under President Obama, with its security pivot toward Asia, is to reclaim full legitimacy as a democracy committed to human rights, if there is to be complete social healing for the Jeju 4.3 survivors and families and for the Korean government and people—if the “han,” the deep sense of suffering from injustice, is to be lightened—then the United States needs to mutually and actively engage in the reconciliation process. The time is now.

현대사회는 어느 나라를 막론하고 사회 각계각층에서 인권에 대한 관심이 지대하다. 인권이 사회적 관계 속에서 형성되는 권리이기에 강자보다는 사회적 약자인 취약계층에서 인권문제가 제기되어 왔다. 인구 고령화로 인해 ‘보호(요양)’를 요하는 노인인구의 수가 날로 급증함에 따라 노인의 인권문제가 더욱 중요하게 고려되어야 하는 시점이다. 그런데 우리 사회는 아직 노인을 의존적인 존재로 보는 시각이 대다수이고, 노인을 권리를 가진 존재로 보는 시각은 정계와 일부 학계에서나 미약하게 존재하고 있을 뿐 아직 일반적이지 않다. 이에 본 논문은 노인의 인권에 대한 보다 새로운 인식과 확장에 기여함을 목적으로 노인인권과 관련된 국제규약들을 살펴보았다. 특히 노인을 위한 유엔원칙에서 제시한 독립, 참여, 보호, 자기실현, 그리고 존엄을 기준으로 우리나라 정책이 얼마나 노인의 인권보장을 제도화하고 있는지를 점검하였다. 그 결과 우리나라의 노인인권의 제도적 발전측면은 상당히 진전된 모습을 보이고 있었다. 우선 노인의 권리와 관련하여 노인복지법, 장애인․노인․임산부등의편의증진보장에관한법률, 노인장기요양보험법, 고령친화산업진흥법, 저출산․고령사회기본법, 기초노령연금법, 그리고 고용상연령차별금지및고령자고용촉진법 등의 여러 법제도가 마련되어 갖가지 노인의 권리를 규정하고 있다. 독립, 참여, 존엄, 그리고 의외로 자기실현에 대해서도 비교적 권리보장규정이 잘 되어있었다. 그러나 ‘보호’원칙의 측면은 가장 민감한 부분임에도 그 수준에 있어서 여전히 사회적 관심과 정책적 제고의 노력이 미흡한 측면이 있다. 앞으로 시설이용이 날로 증가할 것임에 시설에서의 노인의 자유와 사생활 보호, 나아가 자신이 받는 보호와 자신의 삶의 질을 결정하는 자기결정 등의 보호원칙에 대한 관심과 제도적 마련에 보다 많은 이론화와 정책결정가들의 노력이 필요하다고 본다.