國際慣習法上 外交的 保護制度에 관한 고찰 : 국제관습법상 외교적 보호제도에 관한 고찰

김부찬 부산대학교 법학연구소 2001 법학연구 Vol.42 No.1

國際聯合(UN)의 改革 : 사무총장의 개혁보고서를 중심으로

김부찬 濟州大學校 法과政策硏究所 1998 法과 政策 Vol.- No.4

유엔海洋法協約上 深海底紛爭解決制度

金富燦 한국해양수산개발원 1990 해양정책연구 Vol.5 No.3·4

法과 道德과의 關係

金富燦 濟州大學校 새마을硏究所 1986 새마을硏究論文集 Vol.3 No.-

This thesis is concerned with the question about the relation between law and morality, and about the legal enforcement of morality. Law and morality have been considered that they are to be distinguished conceptually from the formal point of view. But, in the substantial aspect, the close relationship between law and morality is striking. Both law and morality are social rules and lay down their normative rules which show the close parallelism brought out by the similarity of normative language. Law and morality may, and normally do, occupy much ground in common, but there is no necessary coincidence between law and morality. Apparentty there are spheres of conduct which are "not the law's business" (rechtsfreier Raum). The distinctive feature of my approach is as follows. The reason why there remains a broad territory common to law and morality is that both law and morality are concerned to impose certain standards of conduct without which human society would hardly survive and in many of these fundamental standards, law and morality reinforce and supplement each other as part of the fabric of social life. The moral code is to be reinforced by the criminal law and other sanctions imposed by the law, and the legal system may exist only to uphold the moral standards of the community to which they are applied. The moral duty to obey the law is generally accepted, and plays an important role in establishing the authority of the law and ensuring obedience to it. A conflict between legal and moral duty may have to be resolved in accordance with the dictates of the conscience of the individual and his moral courage to defy a law which he believes to be contrary to what is morally right or just.

國際投資紛爭解決制度 : 受容國과 國際企業間의 投資紛爭을 중심으로

金富燦 제주대학교 1988 논문집 Vol.26 No.1

The beat mechanism in the settlement of investment disputes is the prevention of disputes. We have to be concerned about taking the appropriate preventive measures, the stress, therefore, should be placed on the substantive points of agreement about investment between States(host, countries) and foreign private investors(Transnational Corporations:TNCs). But it seems that the possibilities for the consensus in the substantive rules of the international investment are limited by the divergent views between and among host countries and home countries(including TNCs). All efforts at international action for the protecton of investment are limited by the basic conflict between the belief of the capital-exporters(home countries and TNCs) that their property is entitled to protection under international law, and the belie of the capital importers(host countries) that foreign investment should be subject to national law. It remains true of the settlement of investment disputes. A major area in which the international framework is still deficient is the settlement of investment disputes between parties of different nationalities, especially between States and nationals of other States. From the traditional point of view, the individual can't bring up a claim on the basis of international law, and always have to turn to his home country. Host countries have insisted on the settlement of investment disputes between themselves and foreign private investors in their own tribunals, and have offered opposition to home countries'diplomatic protection on behalf of their nationals(TNCs). I think that both the arguments of home countries and those of host countries should be criticized. If the aim of internationa law is to settle the international dispute in a manner fair and just to the parties involved and to give greater securtv to the flow of international investment, it could be accompolished through the establishment of international machinery for the settlement of investment disputes. The organization of internatinoal settlement of disputes resulting from contracts between States and foreign private investors is based in particular on the comperation of the host countries concerned. The cooperation of the parties os indispensable for the build-up and the functioning of the organization of the internaional dispute settlement. The cooperation between States and foreign private investors (TNCs could be enhanced by the recognition of a certain degeree of international legal personality of the private parts. In my opinion, a solution would perhaps be to seek the application of international law on the basis of the recognition of a certain degree of international legal personality of TNCs. Such a solution could benefit social progres and development in that it enable the international economic community to define more efficiently and meaningfully the relation between both groups of international economic actors as well as thier mutual responsibilities under the aegis of international dispute settlement a a last resort. The World Bank has taken the lead in this area by establishing an associated Institution, the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID). ICSID is the most recent and promising machinery in this field. It was designed to encourage the flow of private foreign investment to the less developed countries by creating the possibility, subject to the consent of both parties, for acontracting State and a foreign private investor who is a national of another contracting State, to settle any legal dispute that might arise out of such an investment by arbitration before an impartial international forum. ICSID anticipates the view that the breach by a State of its contractual obligations towards a foreign private investor may involve international responsibility, and recognizes the procedural capacity of a foreign private investor for bring up a claim on the basis of international law. But its work thus far has been very limited mainly because of the nonparticipation of many countries, especially in Latin America on the grounds that disputes in their countries should be settled under national jurisdiction. This raises the issue how to widen the use of ICSID.

「평화의 섬」선포를 위한 모델의 설정 및 법·제도적 검토

김부찬 제주대학교 동아시아연구소 1997 東아시아硏究論叢 Vol.8 No.-

해양법상(海洋法上) 도서(島嶼)의 지위

김부찬 제주대학교 법과정책연구소 1995 法과 政策 Vol.- No.1

아시아·太平洋時代를 향한 韓·日關係展望

金富燦 제주대학교 동아시아연구소 1992 東아시아硏究論叢 Vol.3 No.-

제주특별자치도의 의의 및 자치입법권에 관한 고찰

김부찬 한국지방자치법학회 2006 한국지방자치법학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.12 No.-

한국 스포츠계의 도덕성 부재 현상에 대한 스포츠 윤리학적 접근

김부찬 한국스포츠리서치 2004 한국 스포츠 리서치 Vol.15 No.1

This paper approaches the immoral phenomenon in Korean sports world from the viewpoint of sports ethics as a part of scientific work. First of all, I referred to the existing research papers on sports ethics by the specialists majoring in sports philosophy. And then I emphasized the necessity of the approach from the viewpoint of sports ethics on that phenomenon. I made an analysis of the cause of that phenomenon and presented the ethical discussions about the interrelationship with sports and morality. Lastly I expressed my opinion on the plans to recover morality in Korean sports world. Korean sports is closely connected with the moderns' life. Sports performs a part of informing the image of nation and enterprise to the world. And the range of life sports is widely spreaded. Therefore I think that they have to recover the morality in Korean sports. This critical mind and approach has a character of scientific confrontation in the world of sports philosophy about the realistic demand.