표준특허에 기한 특허침해소송에 있어서 FRAND 확약의 법적 효력은 특허법 문제라기 보다 FRAND 확약에 관한 계약법적 해석의 문제이다. FRAND 확약의 법적 구속력을 인 정하지 않는 접근에서 표준특허권자의 과도한 권리행사 제한은 권리남용 법리에 따른 사법 적 규율 내지 경쟁법 집행을 통한 공적 규제가 강조될 수밖에 없다. 반면에 FRAND 확약에 의하여 라이선스 계약이 성립한 것으로 보는 접근은 표준특허의 문제를 계약법리에 의하여 규율하자는 접근이나 우리 민법의 청약의 요 건이나 제3자를 위한 계약 법리에 비추어 FRAND 확약을 근거로 곧바로 라이선스 계약 이 성립하였다고 보기에는 해석상 난관이 존재 한다. 본 연구는 FRAND 확약에 기하여 표준화 기구를 요약자, 표준특허권자를 낙약자 그리고 제3자인 잠재적 실시권자를 수익자로 하고 FRAND 조건으로 실시허락을 구할 권리를 제3 자에게 부여한다는 내용의 제3자를 위한 (라이 선스 계약 체결을 위한) 예약이 성립한 것으로 해석할 여지가 있다고 보았다. 이에 의하면 특 허권자와 제3자는 상호 간에 신의칙에 부합하게 성실하게 교섭하여야 할 의무가 인정되며, 이는 최종적 라이선스 계약이 아니므로 FRAND 조건 에 부합하는 실시허락을 구하는 권리를 부여한 다는 것을 내용으로 한다. 이러한 해석은 제3자 를 위한 계약 성립 및 계약 내용의 특정성에 있 어서 비교적 완화된 기준을 적용할 수 있어 우 리 법제에서 그러한 계약의 성립을 인정할 여지 가 있다. 표준특허 분쟁에 있어서 당사자의 협상에 따 른 라이선스 계약 체결을 통한 이해 조정은 가 장 부작용이 적은 시장 중심적 해결방안이다. 다 만, FRAND 확약에 따른 법률관계를 FRAND 조건에 부합하는 라이선스 계약 체결을 위한 교 섭당사자의 권리의무 관계로 보는 경우 어떠한 의무 위반이 있는 경우 계약위반의 책임 추궁이 가능한지 그리고 각 당사자 간 의무의 구체적 내용을 어떻게 판단할 것인가에 대하여 공백이 존재한다. 본 연구에서는 FRAND 의미의 문리 적 해석만으로는 충분하지 않은 상황이므로 특 허 라이선스 및 교섭관계를 규율하는 관련 법규 (민법, 특허법, 독점규제법 등)의 내용을 종합하 여 교섭당사자의 권리의무를 좀더 구체화하고자 하였다.

미국의 시민소송은 행정절차법(Administrative Procedure Act, APA)상 시민이 정부 행위의 작위와 부작위에 관해 이의를 제기할 능력 을 부여한 조항에 뿌리를 두고 있으며 개별 환경실체법을 통해 시민들에 게 정부, 그리고 직접적인 환경오염 원자를 제소할 수 있는 보다 강력한 권리로 자리매김하였으며 시민소송 제도의 활용은 환경정책의 개발과 이 행에 있어서 시민이 강력한 역할을 할 수 있게 하였다. 본고는 미국의 시민소송을 개괄하고, 시민소송이 환경법에 미친 영향을 살펴볼 것이다. Ⅱ장에서는 시민 소송과 사법심사 제도의 세 가지 유형을 살펴보고 Ⅲ장 에서는 미국 환경법상 시민소송 사례를 살펴보고 IV. 장에서는 시민소송 을 제기하기 위해 넘어야 하는 법적 장애물과 구제수단을 논할 것이다. 끝으로 결론에서는 환경정책의 집행에 적극적이고 능동적인 동반자로 서 참여할 수 있는 소송 구조의 문제점과 소송절차의 대안의 모색이 필요하며 미국 법원이 환경행정처의 정책과 집행에 영향을 미쳤던 교 훈을 참고하여 시민소송 제도의 도입과 평가가 요청된다. 지난 40년 간의 시민집행제도는 여전히 미국의 권력분립과 대의민주주의 원칙에서 논쟁의 주제이며 시민소송은 계속해서 향후 미국 환경법 제도에 걸쳐 중 요한 영향을 줄 것임에 분명하다. 우리나라의 경우 환경 침해에 대한 사 법적 구제는 대부분 불법행위로 인한 손해배상 청구 소송에 한정되어 있 어 환경 보호의 본령이라고 할 수 있는 사전 환경 침해방지는 거의 외면 되다시피 한 실정이고 이를 타파하기 위해서는 무엇보다도 현행 환경 정 책 기본법을 위시한 개별 환경법에 대한 근본적인 수술이 절실하며 그중 여기에 소개되는 시민소송 제도의 장․단점을 면밀히 검토한 뒤 가까운 시 기에 그 입법화를 과감히 추진해야 되리라고 본다.

During the Japanese Occupation of China (1931-45), countless Chinese cultural relics were simply destroyed or looted in accordance with Japan’s notorious ‘Three Alls Campaign,’ also known as ‘Burn all, loot all, and kill all’. Due to the 1972 Japan-Chian Joint Communiqué, however, the Chinese Government renounced its demand for war reparation from Japan. The question then becomes whether, when the Chinese Government renounced its claims for war reparations in a peace treaty. Chinese individuals still have a means to vindicate their rights to request restitution of Chinese cultural relics from Japan. The primary purpose of this research is to tackle two questions: First, was the taking of Chinese cultural relics during the Japanese Occupation prohibited by law? Second, can the Chinese individuals legally require the restitution of looted cultural relics? This paper handles a case of a 1300-year’s old Tang dynasty stele in Japan which has been asked to hand over to China since 2014.

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.

New national security (NNS) represents a twenty-first century’s sociological paradigm on which the law is based on and is characterized by multiple actors, wide covering, low predictability, subjective perception, dual nature, and rampant diffusion. The emergence and expansion of the NNS prompts a highly advanced perspective to the rule of law at both the national and international levels, specifically, the relationship between international and domestic law. In this context, traditional approaches, ‘international approach’ or ‘national approach,’ are insufficient, so that a new ‘managerial approach’ is thus needed. The legal practice in relation to national security of China, a rising great power, attracts close attention in the international society. Furthermore, since Chinese conception of national security has its own ‘Chinese characteristics,’ how China will enforce its national security law in the context of international law remains to be seen. The NNS will lead profound sociological transformation upon which all legal orders are based.

The “Sipadan and Ligitan” dispute was settled by the ICJ (2002), but its impact on basepoint for baseline and maritime delimitation on the Ambalat remains a contentious issue until now. Since the islands are used as basepoints by Malaysia that results in controversy between Indonesia and Malaysia. This essay will investigate the current situation over Ambalat regarding two basepoints islands for maintaining Equidistance Line in Disputed Area. It will discuss why Malaysia has no right to use the straight baseline or straight archipelagic baseline to connect the basepoints of Sipadan and Ligitan at Sabah and suggest measures to maintain equidistance line in Ambalat.

This note assesses the implications of the D.C. Circuit Court case of Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in which the court found the North Korean state responsible for the torture and unlawful killing of Kim Dong Shik, a South Korean missionary who was abducted by the North Korean government while in China. In particular, this note shows how the judgment breaks new ground by holding a state responsible for torture and unlawful killing based solely on general evidence of that country’s human rights practices, without additional information about the fate of the victim himself. This note also discusses this case’s implications for the plaintiffs themselves, and for other victims of North Korean human rights abuses.

본 연구는 하나님께서 이스라엘 공동체에게 주신 율법이 어떠한 모습으로 선교를 구현하고 있는가에 관한 것이다. 구약성경은 선교의 사상만 있다고 말하지만 율법 속에는 하나님의 속성이 잘 나타나 있다. 그리고 그것은 이스라엘 공동체가 사는 삶의 모습을 통하여 드러난다. 이스라엘 공동체에게는 인권과 인간의 존엄성을 존중하고 사회복지 등이 있음을 율법을 통해 볼 수 있다. 율법은 이스라엘 공동체의 삶을 통해 하나님의 속성을 드러내도록 주어진 것이다. 그리고 그들이 하나 님의 속성을 드러낼 수 있는 가장 좋은 방법은 ‘더불어 사는 삶’이었다. 따라서 본 연구는 먼저 율법을 통해서 이스라엘 공동체를 세 가지로 분류하였다. 그리고 ‘더불어’의 의미를 살펴본 뒤 율법과 ‘더불어 사는 삶’과의 관계성을 기술하였다. 율법은 이스라엘 공동체로 하여금 철저 하게 ‘더불어 사는 삶’을 살도록 요구하고 있는데, 그것이 곧 하나님께 순종하는 것이고 하나님의 선교를 세상에 알리는 방법이었다. 다음으로 ‘더불어 사는 삶’의 현대교회 적용을 니케아-콘스탄티노플 신조에 나타난 교회의 네 가지 표지로 적용하였다. ‘더불어 사는 삶’은 오늘과 같이 빈부의 격차 혹은 실패감과 좌절감을 느끼게 하는 시대에 매우 역동적이면서도 나눔과 섬김 그리고 배려를 알려주는 삶의 방식으로 교회 공동체가 실천해야 할 삶의 방식이다.

Every September and October, entities in the palm oil and timber industries in Indonesia conduct slash-and-burn activities over peat land, causing transboundary ‘haze’ pollution. This paper analyzes the effectiveness of various legal solutions to tackle the transboundary haze pollution. There are mainly three forms of international law, customary international law, the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze 2002 and Singapore’s extraterritorial Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014. Their effectiveness will be measured by Indonesia’s increasing willingness to take domestic enforcement measures. This paper argues that the ASEAN Agreement is the primary instrument despite its lack of sanctions as it is neutral, non-confrontational and consistent with the ‘ASEAN way.’ The Singapore Act plays a complementary role, yet its invocation may strain relations between Singapore and Indonesia. Ultimately, the three forms of international law serve as a normative and facilitative source in nudging Indonesia to take more stringent domestic enforcement measures.

This article focuses on the Korean claim for repatriation of cultural property currently located in Japan. Through an analysis of the relevant rules of international law, it demonstrates the established norm that the predecessor state is not obliged to repatriate the cultural property acquired in and exported from the annexed territory. It further shows that, even if Japan had not annexed the Empire of Korea and just occupied it, the repatriationists’ claim would not hold water, as the question has been conclusively settled by a bilateral agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea. Considering that the parties to a settlement should refrain from subsequently relitigating the matter, the author concludes that cultural property, which can be a powerful ambassador for promoting mutual understanding, should be dealt with in the framework of forward-looking cooperation, including mutual loans and possibly the creation of a multinational museum.

The Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan was signed as a result of Korea-Japan talks from October 1951 to June 1965. Article 2 of the Korea- Japan Basic Treaty stipulates the so-called “Article Related to the Former Treaties and Agreements.” A compromise was adopted with the term, “already null and void.” As regards this expression, Japan asserts that the period of Japanese occupation was once valid, while Korea maintains that it has been “fundamentally null and void.” So, the meaning does not change even if ‘already’ is inserted in the beginning. Korean cultural properties taken away to Japan during the period of Japanese occupation should all be returned to Korea, but Japan evaded the expression, ‘return’ until Korea referred to the term, ‘turn over’ as an intermediate expression between ‘return’ and ‘donation.’ The author believes that the more both sides mutually communicate with each other for universal value, the earlier they arrive at the final resolution for these issues under international law and justice.

On December 31, 2015, the ASEAN Economic Community had officially been launched. The direct impact of this policy will be on the field of Competition Law which differs from one country to another. The Competition Law plays an important role in ensuring fair and equitable business practices within the ASEAN. The ASEAN has its Regional Guidelines on Competition Policy to assist its member countries to increase their awareness about fair and equitable business practices. This policy only serves as a guideline and has not been adopted as an enforceable rule. Therefore, the business competition in the domestic market involving the ASEAN member’s company is still being regulated by each ASEAN member country. This paper examines and analyzes the role of the competition law in addressing the intra- ASEAN members’ unfair business practices and the needs for the harmonization of the competition law within the ASEAN Countries as a transition to promulgate the ASEAN Competition Law.

ASEAN’s goal of establishing a single shipping market is consistent with its desire to create a highly integrated, connected and competitive region in which cross-border, intra-ASEAN establishment and provision of shipping services is permitted. However, the measures currently being mapped out for achieving the single shipping market have not included liberalizing cabotage. This article argues that abolishing cabotage by removing the prohibition on the ASEAN ship-owners to engage in each other’s domestic shipping is a necessary requirement to fully achieve a single shipping market. It discusses the cabotage regimes in the four ASEAN States, namely Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. It highlights the vessel registration, licensing and manning requirements of each State. Further, the article discusses the regulatory provisions that exclude foreign ship-owners from domestic shipping and the scope of the exemptions from cabotage. Finally, it makes recommendations on how the disparate regulatory provisions can be harmonized through the adoption of an ASEAN agreement on cabotage.

Brexit represents a backlash against globalization and runs in parallel with Donald Trump’s presidential election. Both of these signal the rise of the nation-state and the rejection of the neoliberal vision of globalization in which national sovereignty has been increasingly dissolved. The article argues that it also has fundamental implications for Asia. In particular, China as the world’s second largest economy is playing a bigger role in the region. Furthermore, with the rise of China, Asia’s global order has become relatively fragile and multilayered in the sense that all big powers, such as the US and Japan, have their relative positions in the region simultaneously. In this regard, it would be more realistic for Asian countries to base their integration on their national sovereignty in a pragmatic way that they can maintain flexibility to the changing order of the world.

In a referendum on June 23, 2016: 51.9 percent of the British electorate voted in favor of the UK’s withdrawal (Brexit) from the EU. The reasons are varied, and many were surprised by such ‘unintended consequences.’ However, Britain is setting a new global strategy to escape the regionalism of integrated Europe by choosing traditional ‘splendid isolation.’ Nonetheless, Britain could not immediately leave the EU; it must first conclude a withdrawal agreement in accordance with the procedure in Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union. In this process, strong opposition within British society will pose great challenges, accompanying numerous other barriers to overcome. Following the Supreme Court ruling on January 24, 2017, the UK government recently completed the required parliamentary approval process before initiating Brexit negotiations with the EU. This paper concludes that Britain is indeed coupable of opting to return to nationalism based on sovereignty rather than peace, coexistence, and solidarity in Europe.

The impending British exit (Brexit) from the European Union has placed the UK’s investment policy at a crossroads. A post-Brexit UK will now have to reorganise its investment relationships with its economic partners through bespoke UK IIAs. This exercise will have to accommodate the shifting zeitgeist concerning the balance of investors’ rights and the right to regulate IIAs that is expected. This paper examines the continued relevance of the recently minted Investment Protection Chapter in the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, acknowledged by Britain’s power brokers, as a persuasive model for the UK to emulate for this purpose. This is notwithstanding the uncertainties that now surround the implementation and efficacy of the Agreement in light of Brexit and a pending decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Such emulation would ultimately make for a better Investor-State Dispute Settlement System in the UK IIAs by providing a much needed update to its old investment treaty architecture.