제4차 바젤협약 당사국총회 결과와 유해폐기물 교역

박원화(Won Hwa PARK) 대한국제법학회 1998 國際法學會論叢 Vol.43 No.2

우주법,정책 : EU의 우주행동강령의 의미와 평가

박원화 ( Won Hwa Park ) 한국항공우주법학회 2012 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.27 No.2

유럽연합(European Union: EU)이 2012년 6월 유엔의 우주의평화적이용위원회(COPUOS) 제 55차 회기에서 공식 제기한 우주활동의 국제 행동규범안(Draft International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities)은 그간 우주에서의 국가 활동 규범에 대한 미비한 요소들을 제시한 내용으로서 국제사회의 관심을 끌기에 충분한 내용이다. 현재 우주에서의 미비한 질서는 군비경쟁 금지, 우주쓰레기 경감 등을 통한 우주의 안전과 안보를 위한 지침, 그리고 우주활동의 정보를 참여 국가 간 교환하는 것이라고 할 수 있는 바, EU의 상기 제안은 여사한 문제들에 대한 행동 강령을 정한 것으로서 주목되는 내용이다. 2008년 말부터 시작된 EU의 제안 활동은 그간 일부 우주활동 국가들, 특히 미국과의 비공식 접촉을 통하여 접촉대상국들의 의견도 반영한 가운데 2013년 채택을 목표로 하는 자발적 이행 규범으로서 강제력을 가지고 있지는 않지만 미국은 우주에서의 군축 관련 규범 제정의 필요성에 탄력을 제공하는 계기가 될 가능성에 우려하는 가운데 현재는 방관하고 있는 입장으로 보인다. 이러한 미국의 입장은 우주에서 전략적 우위를 점하고 있다는 자국의 이익이 군축에 관한 규범의 제정으로 손상될 수 있다는 판단을 근거로 하고 있다. 이에 따라 미국은 유엔 총회에서 우주에서의 군비경쟁 방지(PAROS)에 관한 결의에 반대하고 군축회의(Conference on Disarmament: CD)에서 오랫동안 논의되어 왔던 우주에서의 군축을 촉구하는 논의의 장을 마련하는 것에 반대 하여 왔다. 중국과 러시아는 2008년 우주에서의 군축에 관한 PPWT (Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects)채택을 제안하였는 바, EU의 제안은 자신들이 제안한 PPWT의 추력을 저상시키는 내용이 되기 때문에 불편한 심정으로서 역시 소극적인 입장이다. 한편, 미국이 상기 입장의 연장선 상에서 PPWT에 반대 입장을 취하는 것은 이해하기 어렵지 않다. EU의 행동규범안은 주요 우주대국의 군사전략적 측면에서의 이해관계 때문에 그 장래가 명확치 않으나 우주쓰레기의 경감을 위하여 노력하고 우주활동의 정보를 상호교환하면서 우주에서의 안전과 안보를 보장을 통하여 가능한 우주의 평화적 이용과 탐사라는 기본 명제를 극대화 시키는 효과를 가져오는 것으로서 매우 바람직한 조치로 간주된다. 단, 동 규범안은 참여 국가들간의 협조와 연락업무를 수행하기 위하여 상설기구를 설치하도록 되어있지만 이는 기존 조직인 유엔외기권사무소(UN Office for Outer Space Affairs)가 담당하도록 할 경우 효율과 경제를 도모할 수 있을 것이다. 동 규범안에 대한 추후 구체 협상 시 여사한 내용도 논의될 것으로 보지만 EU의 우주활동의 안전과 안보에 관한 조치는 환경문제에서와 같이 국제사회를 이끌어가는 또 하나의 의미있는 기여로 평가받아야 한다. The Draft International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities officially proposed by the European Union on the occasion of the 55th Session of the United Nations Peaceful Uses of the Outer Space last June 2012 in Vienna, Austria is to fill the lacunae of the relevant norms to be applied to the human activities in the outer space and thus has the merit our attention. The missing elements of the norms span from the prohibition of an arms race, safety and security of the space objects including the measures to reduce the space debris to the exchange of information of space activities among space-faring nations. The EU`s initiatives, when implemented, cover or will eventually prepare for the forum to deal with such issues of interests of the international community. The EU`s initiatives begun at the end of 2008 included the unofficial contacts with major space powers including in particular the USA of which position is believed to have been reflected in the Draft with the aim to have it adopted in 2013. Although the Code is made up of soft law rather than hard law for the subscribing countries, the USA seems to be afraid of the eventuality whereby its strategic advantages in the outer space will be affected by the prohibiting norms, possibly to be pursued by the Code from its current non-binding character, of placing weapons in the outer space. It is with this trepidation that the USA has been opposing to the adoption of the United Nations Assembly Resolutions on the prevention of an arms race in the outer space (PAROS) and in the same context to the setting-up of a working group on the arms race in the outer space in the frame of the Conference on Disarmament. China and Russia who together put forward a draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT) in 2008 would not feel comfortable either because the EU initiatives will steal the lime light. Consequently their reactions are understandably passive towards the Draft Code while the reaction of the USA to the PPWT was a clear cut “No”. With the above background, the future of the EU Code is uncertain. Nevertheless, the purpose of the Code to reduce the space debris, to allow exchange of the information on the space activities, and to protect the space objects through safety and security, all to maximize the principle of the peaceful use and exploration of the outer space is the laudable efforts on the part of EU. When the detailed negotiations will be held, some problems including the cost to be incurred by setting up an office for the clerical works could be discussed for both efficient and economic mechanism. For example, the new clerical works envisaged in the Draft Code could be discharged by the current UN OOSA (Office for Outer Space Affairs) with minimal additional resources. The EU`s initiatives are another meaningful contribution following one due to it in adopting the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 to the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on the Climate Change) and deserve the praise from the thoughtful international community.

항공운항 시 제3자 피해 배상 관련 협약 채택 -그 혁신적 내용과 배경 고찰-

박원화 ( Won Hwa Park ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 2009 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.24 No.1

A treaty that governs the compensation on damage caused by aircraft to the third parties on surface was first adopted in Rome in 1933, but without support from the international aviation community it was replaced by another convention adopted again in Rome in 1952. Despite the increase of the compensation amount and some improvements to the old version, the Rome Convention 1952 with 49 State parties as of today is not considered universally accepted. Neither is the Montreal Protocol 1978 amending the Rome Convention 1952, with only 12 State parties excluding major aviation powers like USA, Japan, UK, and Germany. Consequently, it is mostly the local laws that apply to the compensation case of surface damage caused by the aircraft, contrary to the intention of those countries and people who involved themselves in the drafting of the early conventions on surface damage. The terrorist attacks 9/11 proved that even the strongest power in the world like the USA cannot with ease bear all the damages done to the third parties by the terrorist acts involving aircraft. Accordingly as a matter of urgency, the International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO) picked up the matter and have it considered among member States for a few years through its Legal Committee before proposing for adoption as a new treaty in the Diplomatic Conference held in Montreal, Canada 20 April to 2 May 2009. Accordingly, two treaties based on the drafts of the Legal Committee were adopted in Montreal by consensus, one on the compensation for general risk damage caused by aircraft, the other one on compensation for damage from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft. Both Conventions improved the old Convention/Protocol in many aspects. Deleting `surface` in defining the damage to the third parties in the title and contents of the Conventions is the first improvement because the third party damage is not necessarily limited to surface on the soil and sea of the Earth. Thus Mid-air collision is now the new scope of application. Increasing compensation limit in big gallop is another improvement, so is the inclusion of the mental injury accompanied by bodily injury as the damage to be compensated. In fact, jurisprudence in recent years for cases of passengers in aircraft accident holds aircraft operators to be liable to such mental injuries. However, Terror Convention involving unlawful interference of aircraft has some unique provisions of innovation and others. While establishing the International Civil Aviation Compensation Fund to supplement, when necessary, the damages that exceed the limit to be covered by aircraft operators through insurance taking is an innovation, leaving the fate of the Convention to a State Party, implying in fact the USA, is harming its universality. Furthermore, taking into account the fact that the damage incurred by the terrorist acts, where ever it takes place targeting whichever sector or industry, are the domain of the State responsibility, imposing the burden of compensation resulting from terrorist acts in the air industry on the aircraft operators and passengers/shippers is a source of serious concern for the prospect of the Convention. This is more so when the risks of terrorist acts normally aimed at a few countries because of current international political situation are spread out to many innocent countries without quid pro quo.

구주연합의 항공기 배출 규제 조치의 국제법적 고찰

박원화 ( Won Hwa Park ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 2010 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.25 No.1

The European Union(EU) has recently introduced its Directive 2008/101/EC to include aviation in the EU ETS(emissions trading system). As an amendment to Directive 2003/87/EC that regulates reduction of the green house gas(GHG) emissions in Europe in preparation for the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, it obliges both EU and non-EU airline operators to reduce the emission of the carbon dioxide(CO2) significantly in the year 2012 and thereafter from the level they made in 2004 to 2006. Emission allowances allowed free of charge for each airline operator is 97% in the first year 2012 and 95% from 2013 and thereafter from the average annual emissions during historical years 2004 to 2006. Taking into account the rapid growth of air traffic, i.e. 5% in recent years, airlines operating to EU have to reduce their emissions by about 30% in order to meet the requirements of the EU Directive, if not buy the emissions right in the emissions trading market. However, buying quantity is limited to 15% in the year 2012 subject to possible increase from the year 2013. Apart from the hard burden of the airline operators, in particular of those from non-European countries, which is not concern of this paper, the EU Directive has certain legal problems. First, while the Kyoto Protocol of universal application is binding on the Annex I countries of the Climate Change Convention, i.e. developed countries including all Member States of the European Union to reduce GHG at least by 5% in the implementation period from 2008 to 2012 over the 1990 level, non-Annex I countries which are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol see their airlines subjected to aircraft emissions reductions scheme of EU when operating to EU. This is against the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol dealing with the emissions of GHG including CO2, target of the EU Directive. While the Kyoto Protocol mandates ICAO to set up a worldwide scheme for aircraft emissions to contribute to stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, the EU ETS was drawn up outside the framework of the international Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO). Second, EU Directive 2008/101 defines `aviation activities` as covering `flights which depart from or arrive in the territory of a Member State to which the [EU] Treaty applies`. While the EU airlines are certainly subject to the EU regulations, obliging non-EU airlines to reduce their emissions even if the emissions are produced during the flight over the high seas and the airspace of the third countries is problematic. The point is whether the EU Directive can be legally applied to extra-territorial behavior of non-EU entities. Third, the EU Directive prescribes 2012 as the first year for implementation. However, the year 2012 is the last year of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol for Annex I countries including members of EU to reduce GHG including the emissions of CO2 coming out from domestic airlines operation. Consequently, EU airlines were already on the reduction scheme of CO2 emissions as long as their domestic operations are concerned from 2008 until the year 2012. But with the implementation of Directive 2008/101 from 2012 for all the airlines, regardless of the status of the country Annex I or not where they are registered, the EU airlines are no longer at the disadvantage compared with the airlines of non-Annex I countries. This unexpected premium for the EU airlines may result in a derogation of the Kyoto Protocol at least for the year 2012. Lastly, as a conclusion, the author shed light briefly on how the Korean aviation authorities are dealing with the EU restrictive measures.

우주의 군사적 이용에 관한 법적 고찰

박원화(Won-Hwa Park) 대한국제법학회 1991 國際法學會論叢 Vol.36 No.1

국내 우주활동과 관련법 소고

박원화 ( Won Hwa Park ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회 2009 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.24 No.2

The missile technology and its development in south Korea have been restrained to the limit of 180 km by America which instead provided to Korea with security protection. In the same vein, America pressured South Korea to abort its nuclear weapons program so as to prevent another possible military encounter that can easily develop into a war between South and North Korea. This restraint was a bit relaxed when South Korea joined the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 2001 whereby the limit was 300 km. The situation of South Korea is in much contrast with its neighbor, North Korea, which has fired Taepo Dong 1 and Taepo Dong 2 to put its alleged satellite respectively into the Earth orbit. The range of this rocket believed to be reaching more than 5,500 km, a range of the intercontinental ballistic missile, without any rein. South Korea that has just geared its full powers for its outer space industry, with the current space projects of putting its satellites into the low Earth orbit, will in future put its satellite into the geostationary orbit, 36,000 km above the Earth. To do so, such restraint had better be resolved. Korean space industry, as it is alike in other countries, started with putting and manufacturing sounding rockets, producing satellites but relying on foreign launching facilities, and learning launching capacities. Experiencing three time launchings of KITSAT, the current satellite projects of Korea are undertaken as follows: - Koreasat - STSAT - Komsat - MBSAT - COMS (Communication, Ocean, and Meteorological Satellite) Koreans waked up to the things of outer space in 2008 with the first Korean astronaut Li So-yeon, a lady bio systems engineer. Although the first Korean made rocket in cooperation with a Russian company to fire last August 2009 was a failure, it should be considered as an inevitable process for future endeavors. There are currently three outer space related laws of Korea: Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act 1987, Outer Space Development Promotions Act 2005, and Space Damage Compensation Act 2008. The first two stemming from the two different ministries are, however, overlapping in many aspects and have some shortcomings to be improved.

기계체조 시합 상황이 스트레스 호르몬에 미치는 영향

박원화(Park Won-Hwa),정인근(Jung In-Keun) 한국체육과학회 2006 한국체육과학회지 Vol.15 No.1

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of Gymnastics Competitive State on the Stress Hormone responses. The subjects for this study were seven Gymnastics players university students who participated in a national Gymnastics tournament. The subjects were composed to one groups: control exercise group(N=7), resistive exercise group(N=7), and control group(N=7). The subjects in the exercise performed 60min in about, four times a week at the intensity of 60~80% HRmax. The subjects in resistive exercise performed three circuits using a work-to-rest ratio of 30s : 30s three times a week on non-consecutive days at 40% of one-repetition maximum. Statistical techniques for data analysis were One-way ANOVA training times(pre, 12 weeks) and repeated measure ANOVA to determine the differences among groups. The 5% level of significance was utilized as the critical level for acceptance of hypotheses for the study. The following results were obtained from this study. Aerobic exercise resulted in significant improvements in body compositions. Lean body mass increased after training in the both groups. The insulin and leptin improved after aerobic exercise, while the insulin and leptin decreased after resistive exercise without any changes of body weight, % body fat.

시카고협약체계에서의 항공안전평가제도에 관한 연구

이구희 ( Koo Hee Lee ),박원화 ( Won Hwa Park ) 한국항공우주법학회 2013 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.28 No.1

시카고협약 일부 체약국은 자국 항공사에게 AOC(AOC and Operations Specifications)을 승인하여 발행하는 것 이외에 외국 항공사에게도 FAOC(Foreign AOC and Operations Specifications)을 발행하고 있으며 다양한 항공안전평가도 실시하고 있다. 외국 항공사에게 FAOC 승인 발행 및 항공안전평가 실시는 점차 확대되고 있는 추세로 전 세계적으로 항공안전 증진 및 항공기 사고율 감소에 기여한 공로가 크다고 볼 수 있으나, 한편으로는 승인 및 지적사항에 대한 적법성 논란 및 행정 편의를 표방하는 대표적 사례라는 지탄과 함께 감독 당국의 업무수행 능력 차이로 인하여 항공기 운항 상 불편이 초래되고 있다. 항공기 사고방지 및 효율적인 항공기 운항을 위하여 항공 안전 확보는 가장 중요한 요소 중의 하나로 타협할 수 있는 사항이 아니며, 따라서 국제항공사회는 ICAO에서 시카고협약부속서 19 Safety Management를 별도로 제정하여 2013년 말부터 적용하도록 하였다. 국제 항공 질서 확립 및 항공 안전 확보를 위하여 시카고협약 및 부속서는 체약국의 의무 및 ‘국제표준 및 권고방식(SARPs, Standards and Recommended Practices)’을 규정하고 있으며 각 체약국은 SARPs에 합당한 이행의무를 준수해야 한다. 이와 관련하여 각 체약국은 항공사의 안전운항체계를 확인하고 AOC를 승인하여 발행하며 지속적으로 관리감독 업무를 수행하고 있다. 이러한 AOC 승인 발행에 대한 ICAO 국제 표준은 체약국의 항공당국이 자국의 항공사를 대상으로 허가 및 교부하는 것으로 체약국을 운항하는 외국의 항공사에게까지 발급하도록 규정하고 있지 않으나 미국, 중국, 호주, 뉴질랜드, 몽골 등 일부 체약국은 자국 내 항공사에게 AOC 발행 뿐 아니라 외국의 항공사에게도 AOC(FAOC)를 인가하여 교부하고 있으며 이는 EASA 등으로 확대되고 있는 실정이다. AOC나 FAOC 이외에도 ICAO와 IATA는 항공당국 및 항공사 전반에 대한 항공안전평가가 있으며, 미국 및 유럽도 자국 및 회원국 등을 운항하는 외국 항공 당국 및 항공사에 대한 항공안전평가를 별도로 실시하고 그 평가 결과를 공표하면서 항공 안전 불합격으로 평가된 국가나 항공사에게는 운항 제한 등 불이익을 주고 있다. 이와 관련하여 본 논문에서는 AOC, FAOC 및 항공안전평가제도의 법적 근거 및 동향을 고찰하고 조종사비행기록부 탑재여부 등에 대한 국제 사례연구를 통하여 몇 가지 제언과 개선방안을 제시하였다. 본 논문이 현 제도의 미흡한 부분을 보완하고 불합리한 제한기준이 개선되는데 도움을 주고, 아울러 국제 표준 준수 및 항공안전 발전에 기여하길 기대한다. 항공법규 관련 합리적인 기준 수립 및 이행에 있어 가장 중요한 요소 중 하나는 시카고협약 및 SARPs에 대한 철저한 이해가 선행되어야 한다는 것이다. 법규 제정자, 연구기관, 전문가, 운영자 등 모든 관계자들의 긴밀한 협조 하에 기준 수립이 이루어질 때 항공법규 수립 및 이행에 대한 보다 실질적인 개선 및 질적 향상을 기대할 수 있을 것이다. Some contracting States of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention) issue FAOC(Foreign AOC and/or Operations Specifications) and conduct various safety audits for the foreign operators. These FAOC and safety audits on the foreign operators are being expanded to other parts of the world. While this trend is the strengthening measure of aviation safety resulting in the reduction of aircraft accident, it is the source of concern from the legal as well as economic perspectives. FAOC of the USA doubly burdens the other contracting States to the Chicago Convention because it is the requirement other than that prescribed by the Chicago Convention of which provisions are faithfully observed by almost all the contracting States. The Chicago Convention in its Article 33 stipulates that each contracting State recognize the validity of the certificates of airworthiness and licenses issued by other contracting States as long as they meet the minimum standards of the ICAO. Consequently, it is submitted that the unilateral action of the USA, China, Mongolia, Australia, and the Philippines issuing the FOAC to the aircraft of other States is against the Convention. It is worry some that this breach of international law is likely to be followed by the European Union which is believed to be in preparation for its own unilateral application. The ICAO established by the Chicago Convention to be in charge of safe and orderly development of the international civil aviation has been in hard work to both upgrade and emphasize the safe operation of aircraft. As the result of these endeavors, it prepared a new Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention with the title of “Safety Management” and with the applicable date 14 November 2013. It is this Annex and other ICAO documents relevant to the safety that the contracting States to the Chicago Convention have to observe. Otherwise, it is the economical burden due to probable delay in issuing the FOAC and bureaucracies combined with many different paperworks and regulations depending on where the aircraft is flown. It is exactly to avoid this type of confusion and waste that the Chicago Convention aimed at when it was adopted in 1944. The State of the operator shall establish a system for both the certification and the continued surveillance of the operator in accordance with ICAO SARPs to ensure that the required standards of operations are maintained. Certainly the operator shall meet and maintain the requirements established by the States in which it operate. The authority of a State stops where the authority of another State intervenes or where the former has yielded its power by an international agreement for the sake of international cooperation. Hence, it is not within the realm of the State to issue FAOC towards foreign operators for the reason that these foreign operators are flying in and out of the State. Furthermore, there are other safety audits such as ICAO USOAP, IATA IOSA, FAA IASA, and EU SAFA that assure the safe operation of the aircraft, but within the limit of their power and in compliance with the ICAO SARPs. If the safety level of any operator is not satisfactory, the operator could be banned to operate in the contracting States with watchful eyes until the ICAO SARPs are met. This time-honoured practice has been applied without any serious problems. Besides, we have the new Annex 19 to strengthen and upgrade with easy reference for contracting States. We don`t have no reason to introduce additional burden to the States by unilateral actions of some States. These actions have to be corrected. On the other hand, when it comes to the carriage of the Personal or Pilot Log Book, the Korean regulation requiring it is in contrast with other relevant provisions of USA, USOAP, IOSA, and SAFA. The Chicago Convention requires in its Articles 29 and 34 only the carriage of the Journey Log Book and some other certificates, but do not mention the Personal Log Book at all. Paragraph 5.1.1.1 of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention even makes it clear that the carriage in the aircraft of the Personal Log Book is not required on international flights. The unique Korean regulation in this regards giving the unnecessary burden to the national flag air carriers has to be lifted at once.

최대운동 중 인지적 스트레스가 혈중 β-endorphin, Norepinephrine 농도 변화에 미치는 영향

정인근(In Geun Jung),박원화(Won Hwa Park) 한국사회체육학회 2006 한국사회체육학회지 Vol.0 No.27

운동 강도에 따른 단기간의 유산소 운동이 면역 세포에 미치는 영향

김광래(Kim Kwang-Lai),박원화(Park Won-Hwa),조중연(Cho Joong-Yeon) 한국체육과학회 2008 한국체육과학회지 Vol.17 No.1

The purpose of the study was to examine changes of immunocyte made at consumption of 600kcal when taking exercise at VO2max 50% and VO2max 70%, and to suggest proper exercise intensity as well as exercise quantity to promote immune function. The subjects were conducted by 16 men and measured VO2max of each person and substituted METs at exercise intensity of both VO2max 50% and VO2max 70% in accordance with energy consumption formula to set exercise time at energy consumption of 600kcal. And, the study substituted inclination and rate at exercise intensity of both VO2max 50% and VO2max 70% that was measured at preliminary test. The author took blood samples from cardinal vein of the forearms of the subjects at energy consumption of 600 kcal immediately after exercise to conduct test with interval of 2 weeks and to exclude effects of previous tests. For data analysis, mean and standard deviation scores were calculated, and repeated measure two-way ANOVA were used. The results of the analysis was as follows : First, T cell in VO2max 70% intensity was significantly decreased compared to VO2max 50% intensity. Second, B cell in VO2max intensity group was significantly decreased compared to VO2max 50% intensity. Third, NK cell was not significantly difference between two exercise intensity. The present study indicated that for set proper exercise intensity as well as exercise quantity, common people were demanded to do mid intensity exercise not exceeding 1 hour or exercise time of each individual, within approximate 30 minutes even at high exercise intensity.