호흡기세포융합바이러스감염증 역학조사 수행절차 제안

김대순,배종면,Kim, Dae Soon,Bae, Jong-Myon 제주대학교 의과학연구소 2020 The Journal of Medicine and Life Science Vol.17 No.1

As respiratory syncytial virus(RSV) is transmitted either via directly contact with an infected case or via indirectly contaminated fomites or skin, the major preventive measures are strict hand hygiene, early detection of transmitted sources, and rapid isolation of RSV patients. Especially early detection of hidden cases is the most critical control measure when an index case was notified in a postpartum center. The Guideline of Korea Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention defines potential contacts in an epidemiologic survey as admitted newborns, parents of index cases, center's workers, and visitors for 10 days before the first diagnosis day of index case. However, it needs to classify potential contacts in more detail in order to conduct a successful survey. Authors conducted to search related literatures and appraise the evidences. Firstly, potential contacts would be classified into RSV-related symptomatic contacts(SxC) and asymptomatic contacts. And then, mother, caring workers, and visitors of the index cases among asymptomatic contacts would be defined as the asymptomatic close contacts(ASCC). Finally, the rest would be defined as the asymptomatic regular contacts(ASRC). The defined test using reverse transcription-PCR is applied to SxC and ASCC, and decision of isolation or regular activities are made according to the results. The rapid antigen detection test kits are applied to ASRC. These suggestions might be helpful to detect hidden cases earlier and prevent a further infection.

해양구조물 제작 분야의 보수용접 기법 적용현황

김대순,Kim Dae-Soon 대한용접접합학회 2005 대한용접·접합학회지 Vol.23 No.1

특집 : EU의 현주소 ; EU의 정책분석 : 유럽연합 확대와 주변지역정책

김대순 ( Dae Soon Kim ) 한국민족연구원 2006 민족연구 Vol.0 No.26

바르샤바협약과 헤이그의정서의 관계

金大淳(KIM Dae Soon),金民瑞(KIM Min-Seo),朴芝炫(PARK Ji-Hyun) 대한국제법학회 2011 國際法學會論叢 Vol.56 No.4

The Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol are both related to the responsibility of international carriage by air. Is the relationship between the two successive in nature or amendatory? If one of the two is a successive treaty relating to the same subject matter, then the Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(VCLT) could provide an applicable solution, whereas a view regarding it as an amendment of the previous convention will have to find an applicable provision for the matter at Article 40(5)(b) of the VCLT. The relationship between the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol becomes an issue when the states concerned are not parties to both, -to wit, when State A is only a party to the Warsaw Convention and State B only to the Hague Protocol. There are four different views about their relations. The first view argues that although these two conventions are separate instruments, the provisions that are not amended continue to apply, therefore leaving something to apply to both parties. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and The Korea Seoul Civil Court have taken this view, leaving a result of applying provisions that none of the case parties have consented on. The second view is of the opinion of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Korea. The Supreme Court of Korea, while applying the Hague protocol to the case, adopted the view that “the Hague Protocol is not a denunciation of Warsaw Convention making a new treaty. The Hague Protocol is a mere amendment of the Warsaw Convention.” The third view applies the Warsaw Convention because it understands the Hague Protocol as an amendment of the Warsaw Convention. Based on the presumption given by the Article 40(5)(b) of the VCLT, any State which becomes a party to a treaty after the entry into force of its amending agreement, automatically becomes a party to the original convention as well. But, as Frankowska properly pointed out, Paragraph 5 of Article 40 of the VCLT contemplates a situation where the State becomes a party to the original treaty after its amending agreement has already entered into force. When this situation occurs, the original treaty is the choice of law between States with the original treaty. Additionally, both treaties could apply when one State is a party to the original and the amended conventions as well. However, the case before the court is materially different because the State becomes a party to the amended convention only. Also, as Gardinar has noticed, Article 18 of the Hague Protocol clearly writes down the scope of the Protocol as “the place of departure and destination referred to in that Article are situated either in the territories of two parties to ‘this Protocol’...” Finally, Articles 21(2) and 23(2) of the Hague Protocol provide that the adherence to the Protocol be a party to the Convention ‘as amended by the Protocol’. The fourth view is of the opinion that the two conventions are separate instruments and that no applicable convention is available for the two parties when they respectively ratified different conventions. Articles 19 and 24(3) of the Protocol both support the interpretation of the Convention and the Protocol as one single instrument between the Parties to ‘this Protocol’. Despite appearances, the Protocol does not simply introduce amendments to the original treaty.

VLSI 설계를 위한 디지틀 통신용 타이밍 복원회로 모델링

김대순(Dae-Soon Kim),강찬형(Chan- Hyoung Kang) 대한전자공학회 1997 대한전자공학회 학술대회 Vol.1997 No.7

국제법과 국내법의 관계

김대순(KIM, Dae Soon) 국제법평론회 2012 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.35

본 논문에서는 주요 국가의 최근 판례를 중심으로 국내재판소들이 국제법의 국내적 수용 문제에 어떻게 접근하고 있는지, 어떤 변화는 감지되는지를 가늠해 보았다. 국제법의 눈으로 보면 결과는 아직 미흡하다. 근본이유는 물론 국제법과 국내법은 여전히 별개의 법체계로서 국제법은 국내법에 대해 자동적으로 혹은 그 자체로 국내법의 연원이 될 것을 요구할 수는 없다는 데에 있다. 반면에, 국제재판소에게 있어 국내법이 단지 한 개의 사실에 불과하다는 것은 세계재판소들 뿐만 아니라 국제중재재판소들도 확인하고 있다. 그러나 국제재판소들은 각 국의 재판소에 의해 해석되고 적용되는 국내법을 매우 조심해서 다루지 않으면 안된다. 기본적으로 국제법은 그 이행을 국내법과 국내기관(특히 국내재판소)에 의존하고 있기 때문이다. 국내재판소들은 여전히 헌법의 핵심가치를 수호함에 있어서는 별 양보를 보이지 않고 있다. 국제관계의 본질이 여전히 상호주의에 의존하고 있는 것을 고려하면 이를 비난만 할 수는 없다. 그러나 이것이 국제법을 이행할 국내재판소의 의무를 면제시켜 주지는 않는다. 국제법의 해석과 적용과정에서 국제법을 위반하면 소속국가는 국가책임을 부담하지 않을 수 없다. ICJ는 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State에서-ILC초안 제35조(와 제30조 (a))를 원용하여-사법부의 국제의무 위반의 경우에도 판결을 파기하는 등 원상회복 의무가 부과될 수 있음을 시사하면서, 다만 본 사건에서 결과를 달성할최선의 방법은 피고국가가 선택할 권리가 있다고 하였다. 국제법과 국내법이 상호 어떻게 교류할 것인지, 그리고 이를 위해 국제재판소와 국내재판소간에, 혹은 서로 다른 국가의 국내재판소들 상호간 司法對話(judicial dialogue)를 어떻게 확대해 나갈 것인지를 묻고, 또 고민해야 할 것이다. 법의 국제적 지배라는 암묵적 목표를 향한 국제법과 국내법의 상호교류는 계속될 것이다. International law and municipal (domestic, or national) law are separate entities, and as the result the former is not competent to require that it is as such or automatically accepted and applied on the domestic plane. On the other hand, municipal law is basically just a fact before the international courts whose mission is by definition to apply international, not municipal, law; this is confirmed by arbitral courts as well as World Courts (i.e. the PCIJ and its successor the ICJ). However, international courts must be keen of watching what is made as law within states and of hearing what the domestic courts say in interpreting and applying domestic law. For international law is very much dependent on municipal law and domestic organs (especially domestic courts) in its implementation. The survey of major national case law leads us to the conclusion that the domestic courts are still not ready to give up the autonomy of the domestic legal order as far as core values embedded in their constitutions, written or unwritten, are concerned. But this does not mean that the domestic courts are not exempt from the obligation to carry out the obligations on the states imposed by international law: if a national court breaches a certain international obligation imposed on the state of which the organ it is, international responsibility accrues to the state. The ICJ ruled in the recent decision of 3 February 2012, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy ; Greece Intervening) that even in the case of breach by a national court of an international obligation, “the State responsible is under an obligation to re-establish, by way of reparation, the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided that re-establishment is not materially impossible and that it does not involve a burden for that State out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation,” -which “rule is reflected in Article 35 of the International Law Commission’s Articles.”-but that “the Respondent has the right to choose the means it considers best suited to achieve the required result.” In this paper, it has been examined how the national courts react to the influx of international law and obligations, based on some major municipal cases; although the situation as it stands now is not so different from that as it stood in the past, national courts are treating this theme with very much caution, probably keeping in mind that they too are organs of international law in a sense. The judicial dialogue between international and national courts in the form of decisions and judgments will and should go towards the goal of the international rule of law.

조약상의 自己判斷條項의 사법심사 가능성에 관한 연구

金大淳(KIM Dae Soon) 대한국제법학회 2009 國際法學會論叢 Vol.54 No.3

조약에서 발견되는 자기판단조항의 가장 일반적인 형태는, 특정 의무규정의 이행이 자신의 “주권 혹은 (주권의 분신이라고 볼 수 있는) 안보, 공공정책, 본질적(혹은 최고의) 이익” 등을 해칠 것이라고 “(스스로) 생각, 결정, 혹은 판단”하는 경우에는 국가가 그같은 의무의 이행로부터 물러 날 수 있다고 규정하는 것이다. 이 논문은 지부티와 프랑스간 Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 사건에 대한 ICJ의 2008년 판결을 중심으로 자기판단조항의 유효성과 사법심사가능성, 그리고 그 심사기준에 대해 고찰하였다. 그 결과 다음의 몇 가지 결론에 이르렀다. 첫째, 자기판단조황은 조약 당사자들이 명시적으로 합의하여 삽입된 결과이며, 따라서 그 자체 유효성에는 의문이 없다. 다만, 조약에 첨부하는 유보나 혹은 국제분쟁해결기관의 강제관할권을 수락하는 일방적 선언에 첨부하는 자기판단조항에 대해서는 아마도 달리 생각하여야 할 것이다. 왜냐하면 -조약에 삽입된 자기판단조항의 경우와는 달리- 이들 경우에 삽입되는 자기판단조항은 국가간 합의에 기초한 것이 아니기 때문이다. 둘째, 자기판단조항에 종속되는 의무도 분명히 법적 의무이며, 따라서 사법심사의 대상이 되어야 하고 또한 대상이 된다. 셋째, 그러나, 추측컨대, 자기판단조항의 경우에는 국가는 비자기판단조항들에 비해 상대적으로 더 큰 재량적 판단의 권한을 인정받을 것이다. 넷째, 그 심사기준에 대해서는 ICJ는 신의성실(good faith)을 제시하였지만, 신의성실의 구체화방안에 대해서는 아직 이렇다 할 언급이 없다. 다섯째 그리고 끝으로, 심사기준의 불확정성(모호성)에도 불구하고, 자기판단조항도 조약법의 해석기준에 종속되며, 그 결과 자기판단조항은 그 자체 완전히 자기 판단적인 조항은 아니다. The common form of what are called self-judging clauses to be found in a wide range of treaties is to provide that if a party to a treaty considers that the performance of a certain obligation under the treaty is likely to impair its core interests including national security and public policy or ordre public, it is allowed to sit back from performing the relevant obligation. This paper deals with the validity, reviewability and standard of review of such clauses, focusing on the judgment the ICJ delivered in 2008 for the Case between Djibouti and France concerning Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. This paper provides some conclusions and/or suggestions. First, there seems to be no refuting the validity of self-judging clauses as such because they have been inserted in treaties by express and genuine consent among their parties. But there can be different thinking in case of self-judging clauses inserted in reservations to treaties or unilateral declarations which are made, for example, to accept the general compulsory jurisdiction of an international settlement agency such as the ICJ, because these are not bas ed on t he mut ual cons ent of st at es concer ned. Sec ondl y, t he obligations subject to self-judging clauses are legal obligations and by definition should be, and is, subject to judicial review. Thirdly, it may be that self-judging clauses will give parties a wider margin of appreciation than non-self-judging ones do. Fourthly, the outer limit or standard of review of self -judging clauses is good faith. Fifthly and lastly, the on-going indeterminacy of the notion of good faith does not preclude the conclusions that self-judging clauses are subject to the principles of interpretation of treaties as reflected in relevant provisons of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and that self-judging clauses are in themselves not entirely self-judging.

국제법상 긴급피난과 보상의무

김대순(KIM Dae Soon) 대한국제법학회 2010 國際法學會論叢 Vol.55 No.3

국가책임법상의 위법성조각사유의 하나인 긴급피난이 성공적으로 원용된 경우 그로 인해 피해를 입은 무고한 제3자가 보상을 받아야 하는가에 대해 국제 관습법은 확실한 해답을 제공하고 있지 않는 것으로 보인다. 국제관습법의 모호한 태도는 “(긴급피난을 포함한)위법성조각사유의 원용은 문제의 행위에 의하여 야기된 그 어떤 실질적 손질(손해)에 대한 보상의 문제(the question of compensation)를 해하지 아니한다”고 규정하고 있는 ILC국가책임초안 제27조에도 잘 반영되어 있다. 제27조의 “해하지 아니한다”는 표현은 특히 긴급 피난의 경우에 보상의무가 있을 수 있다는 가능성을 열어 두고 있을 따름이다. 그렇다면 긴급피난에 해당하는 행위라 하더라도 영향받은 당사자에게 보상의무를 동반하는 경우도 있을 수 있고 그 반대인 경우도 있을 수 있을 것이며, 나아가 비슷하거나 같은 사안에 대해 국제재판소마다 다른 결론에 이를 가능성이 있어 보인다. CMS와 LG&E 사건이 이를 잘 보여주었는데, 이들 두 사건은 모두 아르헨티나-미국 BIT에 근거하여 모두 아르헨티나를 피고로 하여 제기한 것으로, 청구인들은 모두 아르헨티나에 투자한 미국회사들이다. 이 두 사건 중에서 LG&E사건에서 재판소는 긴급피난의 항변을 수락하였고, 이와 함께 피고국을 투자자가 위기 기간중 입은 손실에 대하여 보상을 지급할 의무로부터 면제시켜 주었다. 이에 반해, CMS (및 Enron, Sempra Energy) 사건에서 각 재판소는 피고국을 긴급사태 기간 중의 책임으로부터 면제시켜 주지는 않았지만, 그럼에도 불구하고 배상액을 산정할 때 위기의 경제적 충격을 고려하였던 것이다. The customary international law seems not to have a clear answer as to whether the "innocent state" affected by a state of necessity successfully invoked by another state has the right to seek compensation. The unclear attitude of the law on this matter can be seen from Article 27(b) of the 2001 ILC Draft articles on state responsibility which states that "[t]he invocation of a circumstance precluding wrongfulness... is without prejudice to...(t)he question of compensation for any material loss caused by the act in question." The phrase "is without prejudice to" is a typical expression used in case the law has not a clear answer on a certain question, and suggests that the state of necessity can sometimes be accompanied by compensation, sometimes not. The two ICSID cases, CMS and LG&E, both of which are based on the Argentine-USA BIT, showed the contrast in dealing with the plea of necessity. The LG&E tribunal accepted the plea of necessity invoked by the respondent state, and as a result exempted the state from the duty of compensation for the loss suffered by the claimant during the proved period of necessity. By contrast, the CMS tribunal did not accept the plea of necessity on the part of the respondent state, but when calculating the amount of compensation took into consideration the severe economic crisis suffered by the state during the period in question.

개선된 전력소비 특성을 갖는 DRAM용 감지회로 설계에 관한 연구.

김대순(Dae Soon Kim),백덕수(Deog Soo Back),김태형(Tae Hyeong Kim),김환용(Hwan Yong Kim) 대한전자공학회 1990 대한전자공학회 학술대회 Vol.1990 No.11

2007년 EU 리스본조약의 개관

金大淳(Dae-Soon KIM) 대한국제법학회 2008 國際法學會論叢 Vol.53 No.1

2007년 12월 13일 EU頂上들은 리스본에 모여 이른바 “TEU와 EC설립조약을 개정하는 리스본조약”(Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community) (이하 리스본조약)과 관련 문서를 담은 최종의정서에 공식 서명하였다. 외견상 리스본조약은 EU설립조약에 유럽의 헌법이란 명칭을 부여하려던 2004년 유럽헌법제정조약의 시도가 완전히 실패하였음을 의미하는 것이지만, 그러나 유럽헌법제정조약이 시도하였던 기존조약들에 대한 개정/변화는 대부분 그대로 유지되고 있다. 특히 -유럽헌법 하의 “EU외무장관”에서 개명된-“EU외교안보정책 고등대표”, 유럽의회 의석의 배분, 유럽집행위원회 위원의 감축, EU탈퇴조항, EU의 완전한 법인격 등, 유럽헌법의 상당 부분을 사실상 차용하고 있다. 그러나 실패한 유럽헌법에 몇 가지 주요 수정이 가해졌는데, 특히 리스본조약은 -그 공식제목에서 시사하는 바와 같이- (암스테르담조약과 니스조약에 의하여 개정된 바 있는) EU의 두개의 핵심조약, 즉 ‘TEU’와 ‘EC 설립조약’(그리고 이와 더불어 ‘Euratom설립조약’)을 단지 “개정”하기 위한 것일 뿐, 마스트리히트조약에서처럼 EU를 창설하거나 유럽헌법에서처럼 새로운 EU를 수립하기 위한 것이 아니다 ; 다만, 이 과정에서 “EC‘설립’조약”은 “EU의 ‘기능’에 관한 조약”(Treaty on the Function of the European Union)으로 改名되었는데, 이것은 물론 기존의 EU가 이제 완전한 법인격을 가지며 EC는 자신의 독립된 이름과 법인격을 상실하고 EU에 흡수됨을 의미하는 것이기도 하다. 리스본조약은 각 체약국이 “각자의 헌법상의 요건에 따라” 비준되어야 한다 ; 2009년 1월 1일까지 모든 비준문서가 기탁되면 동일자에 발효한다 ; 만일 이 때까지 이 요건이 충족되지 않으면 마지막 비준문서가 기탁된 달의 다음 달 첫째 날에 발효한다. On 13 December 2007, the summit leaders of the European Union gathered in Lisbon to sign a Final Act containing what’s called “Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community”(hereinafter referred to as “Lisbon Treaty”) and related documents. Although ostensibly this confessed to the failure of what they attempted to attain in 2004 in the name of “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”(hereinafter referred to as “Constitution for Europe”), some key elements of the Constitution for Europe have been kept alive, which include the office of “High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”(which was to be called “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” under the failed Constitution for Europe). new allocation of seats of the European Parliament, reduction of the European Commissioners, withdrawal from the EU and the grant of complete personality upon the EU. But when reading the Lisbon Treaty, we cannot miss some major modifications done to the Constitution for Europe. Among others, the Constitution for Europe intended to establish a new European Union which would replace the existing EU and EC, while the Lisbon Treaty intends to simply amend again the existing ‘two core treaties’ amended already two times by the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties respectively, -to wit “Treaty on European Union” and “Treaty establishing the European Community”. However, under the Lisbon Treaty, the Treaty establishing the European Community will be renamed the “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”, which means that the European Union as it stands now will be given a full legal personality and that the European Community will lose its own name and personality. The Lisbon Treaty shall be ratified by all the Contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The target date for this is 1 January 2009. If this requirement is not met until this date, the Treaty is scheduled to come into force on the first day of the month after the last ratification instrument has been deposited.