솔더 페이스트를 이용한 스크린 프린팅 공정 해석

서원상,민병욱,김종호,이낙규,김종봉,Seo, Won-Sang,Min, Byung-Wook,Kim, Jong-Ho,Lee, Nak-Kyu,Kim, Jong-Bong 한국마이크로전자및패키징학회 2010 마이크로전자 및 패키징학회지 Vol.17 No.1

In this study, analyses on the stencil printing using solder paste were carried out. The key design parameters in the stencil printing process are printing conditions, stencil design, and solder paste properties. Among these parameters, the effects of physical properties of solder paste such as viscosity, surface tension, and contact angle on the stencil printing process were investigated. The analyses were performed for simple geometry and boundary conditions. In the analysis, solder paste was pushed into a stencil hole by pressure instead of printer pad. Considering the geometry and computational efficiency, axisymmetric analyses were adopted. A commercial software (COMSOL), which is well known in the area of micro-fluids analysis, was used. From the results, it was shown that viscosity of solder paste had an effect on the filling speed, while surface tension and contact angle had an effect on the filling shape. 본 연구에서는 솔더 페이스트를 이용한 프린팅 공정의 해석에 대해 연구를 수행하였다. 스텐실 프린팅 공정의 설계에서 중요한 인자는 프린팅 조건, 스텐실 설계, 그리고 솔더 페이스트의 물성 등이다. 본 연구에서는 이 인자들 중에서, 솔더 페이스트의 점도와 표면장력, 그리고 솔더 페이스트와 스텐실 사이의 접촉각이 프린팅 공정의 성능에 미치는 영향을 해석을 통해 파악하였다. 실제 해석에 앞서 압력에 의해서 솔더 페이스트가 스텐실에 채워지는 단순화된 형상과 조건으로 해석을 수행하였다. 해석은 마이크로 유동의 해석에 많이 이용이 되고 있는 상용 소프트웨어인 콤솔(COMSOL)을 이용하였고 축대칭으로 해석하였다. 해석 결과, 솔더 페이스트의 점도는 충진률에 큰 영향을 줌을 알 수 있었고 표면장력과 접촉각은 충진되는 형상에 영향을 줌을 알 수 있었다.

국제환경법상 우리나라의 법적 지위 -선진국과 개도국의 구분을 중심으로-

서원상 ( Won Sang Seo ) 한국환경정책평가연구원 2007 환경정책연구 Vol.6 No.4

한 국가의 환경오염이 정치적 경계선에 불과한 국경에 한정되지 않고 인접국 또는 지구의 환경에 직·간접적인 영향을 미치기 때문에, 역으로 지구환경보호에 관한 국제적 논의결과는 곧바로 국내 환경법과 환경정책에 영향을 미치게 된다. 국제환경법은 ‘차별적 공동책임’이라는 원칙하에 선진국과 개발도상국 간의 차별적인 의무체계를 형성하고 있다. 차별적 공동책임은 모든 국가에게 공동의 환경보호책임을 확인하면서도 지구환경문제에 대한 선진국과 개발도상국 간의 역사적 책임의 차이와 환경문제를 다룰 수 있는 경제적·기술적 능력의 차이를 인정하여 국제의무를 차별화한다는 것이다. 그 예로써 선진국의 개발도상국에 대한 환경기술이전과 재정지원 등이 논의되어 왔다. 문제는 우리나라의 지위이다. 선진국과 개발도상국의 지위에 따른 국제환경의무의 차이만큼이나 우리 나라의 국제적 환경정책 또한 달라질 것이기 때문이다. 그 어느 국제법도 선진국과 개발도상국의 구분 기준을 명확히 확립하지 못하였다. WTO는 개발도상국 지위결정을 자기선택에 맡기고 있으며, 국제환경법에서는 협상능력에 따라 그 지위가 좌우되곤 한다. 결국 일반국제법 차원에서 우리나라의 지위가 고정될 수없으며, 정부는 선진국 또는 개발도상국의 지위를 전략적 차원에서 선택할 수 있다. 우리나라가 스스로 개발도상국임을 주장하여 국제의무의 부담을 줄이는 것도 좋은 선택일 수 있겠지만, 각종 경제지표 및 환경오염지표에서 10위권을 유지하고 있는 우리나라의 규모에 비추어볼 때 우리나라의 현실은 선진국에 가깝다고 보여진다. 친환경기술 및 상품의 개발이라는 적극적 정책이 개도국 주장이라는 방어적 정책보다 우선이다. Because the result of environmental pollution of one state is not limited to the national border but spills over into neighboring countries or global environment either directly or indirectly, international discussions on environment are crucial in domestic environmental law and policy. International environmental law demands differential obligation between developed and developing countries in the principle of ``common but differentiated responsibility``. The common but differentiated responsibility is the principle that draws distinction between developed and developing countries about global environmental issues, while recognizing the common responsibility of environmental protection for all nations. Environmental technology transfer or financial support from developed countries to developing countries, for example, has been discussed. The problem is the status of Korea. Korea`s international environmental policy will be different by the distinction of responsibility for international environmental protection according to the status of developed and developing countries. International communities have never established a clear standard distinguishing developed from developing countries in any international laws. The WTO entrusts each country to decide whether it is a developing country or not. In the international environmental law, the status of a country is determined by the ability to negotiate. The status of Korea, thus, cannot be fixed in general international law. Rather, the Korean government is able to choose its own status strategically. It can be a policy choice to insist that Korea`s developing country so as to reduce the burden of international responsibility. But, considering an economic indicator and environmental pollution indicator at which Korea ranks about 10th, the reality of Korea is much closer to a developed country. Positive policies such as development of environment-friendly technologies and products should be preferred to defensive assertion of developing country.

NF-κB 조절을 통한 오매추출물의 항염효과 및 작용기작에 관한 연구

서원상(Won-Sang Seo),오한나(Han-Na Oh),박우정(Woo-Jung Park),엄상용(Sang-Young Um),이대우(Dae-Woo Lee),강상모(Sang-Mo Kang) 한국생물공학회 2014 KSBB Journal Vol.29 No.1

NF-κB is a transcriptional factor which is involved in many biological processes including immunity, inflammation, and cell survival. Many investigators studied on the mechanism involved in activation of NF-κB signalling pathway via ubiquitination and degradation of IκB regarding skin disease. Some specific molecules including Akt, MEK, p38 MAP Kinase, Stat3, et al. represent convergence points and key regulatory proteins in signaling pathways controlling cellular events such as growth and differentiation, energy homeostasis, and the response to stress and inflammation. Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation has many adverse effects on skin, including inflammation, alteration in the extracellular matrix, cellular senescence, apoptosis and skin cancer. Prunus mume, a naturally derived plant extract, has beneficial biological activities as blood fluidity improvement, anti-fatigue action, antioxidative and free radical scavenging activities, inhibiting the motility of Helicobacter pyolri. Previous reports on various beneficial function prompted us to investigate UVB-induced or other immunostimulated biological marker regarding P. mume extract. P. mume extract suppresses UVB-induced cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression in mouse skin epidermal JB6 P+ cells. The activation of activator protein-1 and nuclear factor-κB induced by UVB was dose-dependently inhibited by P. mume extract treatment. This results suggest that P. mume extracts might be used as a potential agents for protection of inflammation or UVB induced skin damage.

우주잔해의 국제법적 규제

서원상(SEO WON-SANG) 성균관대학교 비교법연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.2

The reason that we can not leave the international matter of space debris unsettled is because we have launched a multipurpose satellite,Ari-rang No. 1, which is currently undetectable and lost. Considering the legal analysis of space debris problem based on space law and public international law, it is practically difficult to solve out just by defining the responsibility either of the actor or of the launching state. If the space debris problem is not only a matter of an individual state, it should be managed by the participation and cooperation of the global community. Therefore, we should discuss whether there is a legal basis to lead the states to participate in the space activity. Secondly, if the precautionary elimination of space debris is pertinent to overcome the limits of an ex post facto responsibility, we should focus on discussing whether there is a legal basis to charge with responsibility on the developed countries where they have technical capacities to remove the debris. Because the space orbit is entitled to all human beings, the resolution of space debris problem demands a common responsibility as a whole. Thus, in order to resolve the problem, we may expect not only on treaties but also on applicable legal principles. In addition, these principles must be recognized by the states to form as international law. Therefore, it is evident that "common heritage of mankind" and "sustainable development" provide an essential key to solve the problem. However, it is still obscure that whether there is a possibility to impose differential and burdensome responsibilities between developed countries, the dominant actors, and developing countries, the peripheral actors. Under the principle of sovereignty and equality, international law conceded with sacrifice by modifying the classical definition of "sovereignty" into a modern terminology in order to settle current international disputes. Particularly, the typical examples are not only international economic law, human rights law, environmental law, and the law of sea after the World War Ⅱ, but also space law. Although, it is difficult to enforce obligations and responsibilities on all states in a short term, the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility" is expected to provide an important clue to lead a participation and mutual agreement from both developed and developing countries.

국제환경법상 차별적 공동책임

서원상(Seo Won Sang) 국제법평론회 2006 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.24

차별적 공동책임의 원칙은 지구환경보호에 대한 모든 국가의 참여를 촉구하되, 그들의 책임에 있어서는 역사적 책임, 기술 능력, 미래의 환경적 필요 및 모든 국가의 개발에 대한 필요 등을 고려하여 차별성을 인정하자는 것이다. 다시말해서 지구환경문제에 대한 선진국과 개발도상국간의 역사적 책임의 차이와 환경문제를 다룰 수 있는 경제적ㆍ기술적 능력의 차이를 인정하고, 국제환경법 규범의 발전과 적용 및 해석에 있어서 개발도상국들의 특별한 요구가 반드시 고려되어야 한다는 것이다. 차별적 공동책임 원칙은 내용상 두 가지 요소를 담고 있다. 하나는 국내적ㆍ지역적ㆍ세계적 환경보호는 지구상 모든 국가들의 공동책임이고, 또 하나는 각국의 특별한 환경문제의 해결에 직면하였을 경우에 경제적ㆍ사회적ㆍ기타 정황의 차이와 특히 환경위협의 방지ㆍ제거ㆍ통제 등에 관한 책임능력의 차이를 고려하여 국가간의 책임과 역할을 차별화시켜야 한다는 것이다. 즉, 역사적 환경손상의 책임과 환경손상 방지 및 회복조치의 능력에 초점을 두어 책임을 이원화하는 것이다. 이처럼 환경보호책임의 공동 책임과 차별적 책임이라는 두 가지 내용을 포함하고 있지만, 그 주요 쟁점은 후자에 있다. 차별적 공동책임은 지구환경보호를 위하여 국가의 의무와 책임을 차별화하고 있는데, 주권평등이라는 대원칙의 예외라 할 수 있는 ‘차별화’를 개별 원칙으로서 받아들여야 하는 법적 타당성이 문제된다. 주권평등이라는 대원칙을 근간으로 형성된 국제법질서에도 이미 수많은 예외가 존재고 있는데, 법철학 및 개별 법분야에서 형식적 평등을 수정하는 실질적 평등 및 형평의 개념이 발전되어 왔고, 국제법적으로도 국제기구의 표결제도, 조약의 유보, 핵규제, 심해저, 국제인권법과 국제경제법상 개도국우대 등의 실례를 찾아볼 수 있으며, 이러한 차별의 목적, 대상, 내용 등으로부터 차별적 공동책임의 차별의 정당성을 뒷받침할 수 있다. 대부분의 국제환경협약에서 공통적으로 찾아볼 수 있는 차별적 공동책임의 예로서 환경기술의 이전과 재정지원을 꼽을 수 있다. 기술이전은 지적재산권과의 대립을 예정하고 있고, 재정지원은 일부 선진국에게 큰 부담이 되기 때문에 선진국 그룹과 개발도상국 그룹의 대립이 계속되고 있다. 그러나 이념이 아닌 경제력을 중심으로 재편되고 있는 국제사회에서, 선진국과 개발도상국의 대립은 비단 국제환경법 분야만이 아니므로, 차별적 공동책임 원칙은 현실 국제질서 및 국제법을 이해하는데 필요한 논점이라 할 수 있다. The Principle of ‘Common but differentiated responsibility’ evolved from the notion of the ‘common heritage of mankind’ and is a manifestation of general principles of equity in international law. The principle recognizes historical differences in the contributions of developed and developing States to global environmental problems. Despite their common responsibilities, important differences exist between the stated responsibilities of developed and developing countries. The Rio Declaration states: “In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.” Similar language exists in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, parties should act to protect the climate system on the basis of equality and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Differentiated responsibility therefore aims to promote substantive equality between developing and developed States within a regime, rather than mere formal equality. The aim is to ensure that developing countries can come into compliance with particular legal rules over time. Differential responsibility does result in different legal obligations. The techniques available in differentiated responsibility include ‘grace period’ or delayed implementation and less stringent commitments. In recent interpretation of WTO laws, there is movement towards an obligation to consider the particular economic, social and environmental situation of developing countries when adopting environmental measures. The WTO dispute settlement panel in Shrimp case expressly mentioned the principle of common but differential responsibilities its conclusions. Technology transfer in the environmental field constitutes the most interesting differential mechanism currently used as it directly contributes to developing countries capacity to implement their international obligations while serving environmental goals. By its very nature technology transfer is usually a process which involves mainly the private sector. This is due to the fact that usually protected by intellectual property rights. Together with technology transfer, environmental financial mechanisms constitute an easily identifiable indicator of commitments towards the effective realization of differential treatment measures. In the respect, the GEF constitutes the single most important contribution towards the implementation of differential treatment measures in the environmental field. While the future of common but differentiated responsibility as a differential treatment in international law is fraught with uncertainty, its further development seems probable. Indeed, if positive developments in common but differentiated responsibility can occur in the difficult context of international trade law, it is likely that progress in the field of international environmental law will be forthcoming.

기후변화에 대한 역사적 책임

서원상(Seo, Won Sang) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2012 法學硏究 Vol.37 No.-

역사적 책임은 현재의 기후변화가 산업화 과정에서 이루어진 개발행위 및 환경오염행위로부터 기인한 것이며, 산업화의 수혜자이자 과거 환경오염의 주체인 선진국이 환경오염에 대한 역사적 책임을 부담하여야 한다는 것을 의미한다. 이 개념은 선진국에게만 온실가스감축의무를 부여하고, 개도국에 대한 기술이전과 재정지원을 의무화하는 타당근거로 기능하였다. 그러나 포스트-교토 협상과정에서 부속서Ⅰ 국가들의 탈퇴, 비준거부, 의무감축 거부의 원인이 되기도 하였다. 과거에 환경오염행위를 금지하는 법규범이 없었기 때문에, 역사적 책임에 근거한 차별적 의무부여를 불법행위책임의 법리로 귀속시킬 수는 없다. 따라서 역사적 책임이 일부 국가에게만 법적 의무를 부과하는 방식으로 적용되는 것은 옳지 않다. 그러나 오염자부담원칙으로서 역사적 책임을 이해한다면, 기후변화의 사후 대응 및 사전 예방에 필요한 비용의 배분에 있어 역사적 책임을 기준으로 선진국과 개도국에게 차별적으로 의무감축량, 재원조성의 규모, 기술 개발 및 이전 의무의 배분을 논의할 수 있다. 또한 역사적 책임은 세대간 형평의 기초 위에 세대내 형평을 추구하는 것으로서, 선진국과 개도국 간의 의무 차별화의 명분을 제공해 준다. 도하 당사국총회는 2020년부터 선진국과 개도국 모두 의무감축을 수락하는 새로운 기후변화체제의 출범을 목표로, 구체적인 협상을 2015년까지 마무리하기로 결정하였다. 새로운 체제의 출범을 위해서는 역사적 책임의 개념을 통하여 당사국의 감축 및 비용부담의 의무를 형평에 맞게 분배할 수 있어야 할 것이다. Developing countries emphasized that developed countries have historical responsibility to climate change. UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol accepted different obligation of reduction GHG between AnnexⅠ States and non-AnnexⅠ States. In the COP 18, Parties have decided that the length of the second commitment period will be 8 years from 2013, and agreed to speedily work toward a universal climate change agreement covering all countries from 2020. However, some industrialized AnnexⅠ States such as China, India and Brazil have denied because of historical responsibility of developed countries. Some non-AnnexⅠ States such as USA, Canada, Japan, and Russia have denied their compulsory reduction emission because of developing countries’ denial of their obligation. We must review concept of historical responsibility in order to agree new climate change scheme covering all countries. Historical responsibility is not ‘state responsibility’ in public international law because countries had no legal binding obligation to protect environment in the past. We can understand concept of historical responsibility as polluter pays principle. Polluter Pays principle is not legal principle to decide responsibility or liability of stats but economical-political principle to distribute costs for recovery of polluted environment. Historical responsibility include concept of equity as inter-generational and intra-generational equity. We are not supposed to understand historical responsibility as the ground for exemption of developing countries’ obligation. But we can use historical responsibility as the basis for differentiation of each country’s duties according to their historical contribution to climate change, capability of finance and technology.

유한요소해석을 이용한 디스크 커플링의 토크전달 능력에 대한 연구

서원상(Won Sang Seo),김성묵(Sung Muk Kim),김종봉(Jong-Bong Kim) Korean Society for Precision Engineering 2013 한국정밀공학회지 Vol.30 No.11

국제법상 '환경난민'에 대한 인권 기반적 접근

서원상(Seo Won Sang),이준서(토론자) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2009 환경법과 정책 Vol.3 No.-

Environmental refugees are persons who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their traditional homelands because of what are primarily environmental factors of unusual scope. Environmental refugees have three types such as ‘environmental refugees caused by their country’, ‘environmental refugees caused by foreign country’, and ‘climate refugees’. The first question is whether international refugee law can protect ‘environmental refugees caused by their country’ or not. The definition of refugee set at 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees(hereinafter Refugee Convention) request three composing elements such as ‘persecution’, ‘to conform to one of five reasons of persecution’ and ‘persons being outside the country of his nationality or his former habitual residence’. Unfortunately, environmental refugees can not fill the first and second elements of Refugee Convention's definition. Another legal solution for environmental refugees is the ‘Human Rights Based Approach’. A human rights-based approach is not only about expanding people’s choices and capabilities but above all about the empowerment of people to decide what this process of expansion should look like. Adopting a human rights based approach may not necessarily change what we do, but it will raise questions about how we do it. As we con-sider and adopt a human rights based approach to environmental refugees, it is possible to focus on their human rights disturbed and remedy to them as a victim. A principle of ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibility’(hereinafter CDR) is necessary to solve problem of ‘Climate Refugees’. It has no legal subject responsible to cause the problem. differential responsibility of CDR does result in different legal obligations which is acceptable to each states, and request international material cooperation.

국제법상 원칙, 규범, 규칙의 법적 의의

서원상(Seo Won Sang) 국제법평론회 2011 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.33

The most general and fundamental moral precept underlying law is principle. For the purposes of this argument, we shall assume that a principle is a moral precept of a general nature that has no definitive factual content but is applicable to many fact situations as a standard upon which to judge possible applications of the law. Principles can be moral, legal, or both. If a principle becomes more widely accepted as a standard of social cooperation and legal decisionmaking, then one can define it as a norm of action. The sociological character of a norm is built upon the normative pedigree of its core principle. A norm might be said to have more concrete or specific content than a principle but must also have a wider acceptance by the community, as the basis for the creation of a valid positive law, and by the institutions, which are called on to apply that law over time. Rules are ground level law, and they are the most concrete stage in the concept hierarchy we have laid out. Rules create specific rights, obligations, and responsibilities that states must respect and fulfill under international law. While a right or obligation may arise from a number of norms based upon an even greater number of principles, the rules sort out the balance and create the law.

다문화사회의 법적 기반에 관한 소고 -국제인권법을 중심으로-

서원상 ( Won Sang Seo ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2011 法學硏究 Vol.21 No.1

The Korea which has been proud of ``a racially homogeneous nation``, becomes to multicultural society state. The Korea has various Acts on foreigners, migrant workers and multicultural families, such as the Fundamental Act on Treatments of Foreigners in the Korea, the Act on Support to Multicultural families, (Korean) Nationality Act and Immigration Control Law. National policies and laws for multicultural society in the Korea have been carried out in separate Administrative Departments respectively with competitive and overlapped policies each other. The highly anticipated ``The Fundamental Act on the Multicultural Society Integration`` disappeared as a step of draft. Korean Acts on the multicultural society are mostly soft-provisions have not legal force or compulsory measure-, and have too narrow ranges of application on object of law. So we need to seek the standard for interpretation, application or legislation of Korean Acts on multicultural society. I studied substance of international human rights law, such as the ``Charter of the United Nations``, the ``Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights``, the ``International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights``, the ``International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination``, the ``Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief’, the ``Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities``, the ``International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families``, the ``Convention relating to the Status of Refugees``, and the ``Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons``.