기존 형평성을 고려한 평률세제의 구축

오시진 한국재정학회(구 한국재정·공공경제학회) 2008 한국재정학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2008 No.1

본 연구는 (1)기존의 소득분배 수준의 유지,(2)균형예산 및 (3)세출제약을 고려한 평률 세제를 고안한다.방법론에 있어서 세가지 제약을 기존과 동일한 지니계수 및 외생적 세출 수준을 세입과 동일하게 하는 각각의 제약하에서 평률세제의 파라미터인 기본보조부분과 평률세율을 개인자료인 노동패널자료를 이용하여 찾는다.분석결과,그리 높지 않은 기초부분 과 평률세율이 필요함을 보였다.

하이브리드 전쟁에 대한 비판적 고찰

오시진 국제법평론회 2022 국제법평론 Vol.- No.62

How should we understand hybrid warfare, which has recently been attracting attention, in international law? Until recently, war, in terms of international law, was relatively clear. The initiation of the war could also be visually confirmed, the performers of the war were also the state, and the method of war was based on traditional military conflict. However, the appearance of the battlefield in the 21st century is different from the past. It has come to a point where it is no longer possible to say that only physical armed conflict is the only form of war. Hybrid warfare is at the center of the discourse about the emergence of a new form of warfare. When Russia annexed Crimea through a hybrid warfare in 2014, the international community paid attention to this new idea. From the perspective of international law, hybrid warfare is problematic. This is because hybrid warfare has a so-called gray zone, which is difficult for opposing countries or the international community to respond immediately. Therefore, there are areas that are difficult to approach with traditional armed conflict law or international humanitarian law. Some even argue that the rules of international law in wartime become meaningless. However, there are some points to consider whether this approach is really valid. Is international law useless in hybrid warfare? Based on previous studies related to hybrid warfare, there are parts that need to be critically considered on hybrid warfare and its discourse itself. First, there are parts that need to be separated from the existing discourses and narratives about hybrid warfare. Unlike conventional discourse, it is difficult to say that hybrid warfare is limited to a specific country. Today's war may require a change in perception, as it may have become a daily situation where hybrid elements must be considered. Second, this study points out that the reason for the occurrence of international legal problems in relation to hybrid warfare may be a problem of perception. The gray zone, legal and information warfare issues can also be approached with a shift in perception. The perspective on war has changed, and accordingly, the understanding of the exclusive legal application of the dichotomous international law on war may need to change. Rather than being immersed in the problem of distinction between peacetime and wartime, we may have to have a ‘complex perspective.’ However, this approach has a limitation. More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reinterpret and redefine the concepts of “peace” and “war.” .

국제해양법상 역사적 권리 인정 여부에 대한 고찰- 남중국해 중재판정을 중심으로 -

오시진 충북대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.29 No.2

Because of the recent South China Sea Arbitration case (PCA), the question of historical rights has risen to surface. Considering the text and the travaux préparatoires of UNCLOS, the South China Sea Arbitration case concluded that there is no room to claim for historical rights in international legal system legally. The Court decided that preexisting rights such as historical rights which is incompatible with UNCLOS cannot be recognized. The Court noted that when China ratified the UNCLOS, Chinese claim to the nine-dash-line as its historical rights were replaced by UNCLOS. However, even though it is true that the term “historical rights” cannot be found in UNCLOS, the stance of the Court is not unproblematic. It is necessary to explain further why Article 311 of UNCLOS and Article 30(3) are applied to the case of historical rights even when it has nothing to do with treaty. Moreover, the Court’s explication was not sufficient how Article 293 of UNCLOS, the dispute resolution clause, is applied to the present case. Considering such, it is necessary to scrutinize whether or not UNCLOS is a comprehensive legal system which denies the further possibility of the existence of customary law. Present study notes that the Preamble of UNCLOS explicitly states the contrary. Furthermore, previous international court’s cases do not deny the compatibility or existence of historical rights with UNCLOS.

3·1운동 시기 ‘독립’의 국제법적 의미

오시진 한국독립운동사연구소 2019 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.0 No.67

It is necessary to consider the international legal nature of the March First Movement. It is not necessary to reiterate that the March First Movement was an independence movement. Then, it is significant to analyze the legal character of “independence” because it is essential to identify what it means to claim independence. In general, the March First Movement is explained within the framework of self-determination iterated in Wilson’s Fourteen Points. Indeed, the principle of self-determination was invoked by various other nations after Wilson’s formulation. However, the principle of self-determination was only accepted as a legal norm after World War II, and it was only a political principle right after WWI. From this perspective, the independence claimed in the March First Movement could be nothing more than a political slogan. However, it is critical to distinguish the principle of self-determination from “independence.” There are two legal meaning of independence. First, the meaning of independence is the right to separate and be independent of other nations. Second, the meaning of independence is the right of independence, claiming non-interference and non-intervention. The significance of this study lies in perceiving the Provisional Government of Korea founded in 1919. If the notion of independence is interpreted as the former, the Provisional Government was a failure. However, if it is taken from the latter meaning, the endeavors could be seen in a different light. Therefore, this research attempts to delve into the legal meaning of independence in the March First Movement. It will be suggested that the idea of independence had a legal character by the time of the March First Movement, and that the notion was claimed in terms of non-interference and non-intervention. 3·1운동 자체에 대한 국제법적 성격을 고찰해볼 필요가 있다. 3·1운동의 성격이 독립운동이었다는 것은 재언할 필요가 없다. 그렇다면 ‘독립’의 법적성격에 대해서 검토해볼 필요가 있다. 일반적으로 당시 3·1운동은 Wilson의 14개조에 영향을 받았다고 설명한다. 자결원칙은 당시 전 세계에 퍼져나갔고, 많은 국가들이 이를 원용한 사례가 있다는 역사학자들의 연구가 있다. 그러나 자결권은 당시 미국이라는 승전국의 정치적 원칙에 불과하였고, 국제법으로 확립된 법규범이라고 할 수 없었다. 일반적으로 자결권의 법규범화는 제2차 세계대전 이후라고 본다. 이런 시각에서 보자면, 3·1운동의 독립 주장은 정치적 구호에 불과하다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 자결권과 독립은 같은 의미일까? 독립은 두 가지 법적 의미를 가지고 있기 때문이다. 첫째, 독립은 당시 자기결정원칙과 유사하게 ‘분리 독립’의 의미를 가지고 있다. 둘째, 독립은 ‘타국의 간섭을 배제할 독립’의 의미로도 사용된다. 이러한 법적 개념에 대한 연구는 그 파급효과가 크다. 만일 이 독립의 의미가 ‘분리 독립’이라고 한다면, 사실 임시정부는 분리 독립에 실패한 것이라 할 수 있다. 그러나 독립의 의미가 간섭 배제 차원에서의 독립이라면 상황은 다르다. 따라서 본고에서는 3·1운동 시기 주장한 독립의 법적 의의가 무엇인지에 대해서 당시 국제법적 기준에 따라 검토하고자 한다. 본고에서는 3·1운동 시기 주장한 독립의 성격이 법적성격을 갖추고 있었다고 볼 여지가 있고, 그 의미가 중의적이지만, ‘타국의 간섭으로부터 독립’의 의미가 강조된 것이라 볼 수 있다고 주장한다.

[관광산업동향] 관광산업의 경기동향: BSI(기업경기동향지수)를 중심으로

오시진 한국문화관광연구원 2022 한국관광정책 Vol.- No.90

2021년 상반기 관광산업의 임금근로자 고용동향

오시진 한국문화관광연구원 2021 한국관광정책 Vol.- No.85

샌프란시스코 강화조약 상 반식민주의 — 일본 영토의 판단기준으로써 포츠담 항복조건을 중심으로 —

오시진 한양대학교 법학연구소 2022 법학논총 Vol.39 No.4

Does Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951) set the territorial scope of Japan prior to the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) as a reference point? Compared to other peace treaties concluded after World War II, the San Francisco Peace Treaty has a peculiarity. The detailed territorial terms in Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace do not seem to have any relation to each other. This clause appears to be merely a list of matters that need to be dealt with individually. Moreover, this article does not provide clear guidelines as to how far the territory of Japan extends. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to clarify the criteria for determining the territorial scope of Japan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951). The argument of this study is that when interpreting Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, “the Potsdam surrender terms” which is the Japan’s instrument of surrender, become a binding criterion, and accordingly, 1894, the starting point of “violence and greed” presented in the Cairo Declaration, which Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration invokes, can be the standard for the scope of Japanese territory. In 1945, Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers. Therefore, this instrument of surrender is a special case of capitulation and it is legally binding regardless of the scope of its contents. In particular, it can be confirmed that the 1947 draft of the Peace Treaty tried to return Japan's territory to 1894, so it can be confirmed that the views of Roosevelt and Chiang Kai-shek were maintained until then. This part can be interpreted as reflecting the Cairo Declaration in the 1947 draft because the Potsdam Declaration was used as the standard in the “Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan” by the Far Eastern Commission in 1947. As Dulles stated at the San Francisco Peace Treaty signing conference, the Potsdam surrender terms bind the Allies and Japan. After the signing of this peace treaty, there was also a case in which Japan regarded the terms of Potsdam's surrender term as a criterion binding on Japanese territory. Accordingly, it can be said that the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration have legal effect when interpreting the scope of Japanese territory under Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. In other words, it could be said that there is an anti-colonial element in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. 샌프란시스코 강화조약(1951) 제2조는 일본 영토 범위를 청일전쟁(1894-1895)이 발발하기 이전 시기의 그것을 기준 시점으로 하고 있는가? 제2차 세계대전 이후 체결된 다른 강화조약과 비교했을 때, 샌프란시스코 강화조약은 특이점이 있다. 본 강화조약 제2조의 세부 영토 항목은 서로 아무런 관련성이 없어 보인다. 본 조항은 개별적으로 처리가 필요한 사안들을 나열한 것에 불과한 것으로 보인다. 게다가 본 조항이 일본 영토가 어디까지인지에 대한 명확한 지침을 제공하고 있지도 않다. 따라서 본 연구는 샌프란시스코 강화조약(1951)의 영토 범위의 판단기준을 밝히는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 본 연구의 주장은 조약 해석의 원칙에 따라 샌프란시스코 강화조약 제2조를 해석할 때 일본의 항복문서인 포츠담 항복조건이 구속력 있는 판단기준이 되고, 이에 따라 포츠담 선언이 원용하는 카이로 선언에서 제시하는 “폭력과 탐욕”의 시작점인 1894년이 일본 영토의 범위의 기준이 될 수 있다는 것이다. 1945년 일본이 연합국에 대해 무조건적 항복을 하였는데 이 항복문서는 일반 군 지휘관의 항복의 수준을 벗어난 무조건적 항복이기에 그 내용의 범위와 관계없이 법적 구속력이 생긴다. 한편, 본 강화조약의 1947년 초안에서 1894년으로 일본의 영토를 되돌리려 하였다는 점을 확인할 수 있다. 이 부분은 1947년 극동위원회의 “일본의 항복 후 기본방침”에서 포츠담 선언을 그 기준으로 삼고 있기에 카이로 선언이 1947년 초안에 반영되어 있다고 해석될 수 있다. Dulles가 샌프란시스코 강화조약 체결 회의에서 밝혔듯이 ‘포츠담 항복조건’이 연합국과 일본을 구속한다. 본 강화조약 체결 이후 일본도 포츠담 항복조건을 일본 영토에 구속력 있는 판단기준으로 본 사례도 있다. 이에 따라 카이로 선언 및 포츠담 선언은 샌프란시스코 강화조약 제2조 상 일본 영토의 범위를 해석할 때 법적 효력이 생긴다고 할 수 있고, 샌프란시스코 강화조약 제2조 상 일본 영토복원 시점이 1894년이라 해석될 수 있다. 즉, 샌프란시스코 강화조약에 반식민주의적 가치가 남아 있다고 할 수 있다.

4차 산업혁명시대 국제인권법상 노동권의 과제 - 비노동 인구 증가 사안을 중심으로 -

오시진 충북대학교 법학연구소 2020 과학기술과 법 Vol.11 No.2

In the era of the 4th industrial revolution, the number of jobs could decrease. This situation is not without problems in terms of international human rights law. There is an ambiguous part of what is an appropriate state duty and the right of human when it comes to the job loss on a macro level. Of course, the number of jobs may not decrease. However, even if the number of jobs is maintained to some extent, the polarization of income and knowledge of science and technology may intensify. Economic inequality itself cannot be said to be a violation of human rights, but economic inequality can become a human rights issue if it causes human rights problems such as the right to health and education. On the other hand, even if the number of jobs does not decrease due to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the number of decent jobs can be reduced. Apparently, the future society may not be captured in this way, and it will become a more complex reality. But what is certain is that the number of non-workers and the duration of non-working status will increase during the course of this change. Non-working conditions refer to various conditions that do not fall within the scope of traditional employment status. Under the current international human rights law, labor rights do not seem to reflect the non-worker’s issues. From this point of view, the future society not only causes human rights violations, but also changes the paradigm of labor rights itself and has the potential to change the basic premise or framework of human rights. There is a lack of research on how future social development directions will affect human rights. This study raises a problem in this area.

영토 개념에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 경계선 기준 영토 개념의 형성과 그 배경 -

오시진 경희대학교 법학연구소 2018 경희법학 Vol.53 No.4

The purpose of the study is to analyze the concept of territory and study the background. When there is a territorial dispute which is found in pre-modern society, it is necessary to delve into the nature of the concept of territory discussed. The commonsensical notion of territory that we use today cannot be applied to such cases disregarding the temporality and spaciality of the concept. The concept of territory may have been differently constructed within the time and space. Thus, this study attempts to verify the concept of territory and focuses on how the concept changed along the development of cartography in Western history. The research notes that the previous concept of territory was not based on boundary-line, and the line-based territorial boundary emerged at the Vienna Treaty of 1815 by applying colonial experiences in the American continent. The blank space in the then-maps was treated as terra nullius awaiting for the claim of discovery. Moreover, the legal personality of the non-Western nations beyond the boundary-line was deemed inferior. The boundary-line territory concept seems to be an integral part of the concept of the nation-state which discriminates against other kinds of political community that does not meet the criteria of the Western nation-state. The line-based concept of territory was reflected upon the jurisprudence of international law in the 19th century. 이 연구는 19세기 전후 영토의 개념의 형성과정과 그 배경을 고찰해 보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 영토분쟁 사안이 전근대 사회를 배경으로 하고 있을 시, 영토 개념의 기저에 대해 검토해 볼 필요가 있다. 오늘날 상식적으로 받아들이고 있는 영토 개념이 시공간을 초월하여 일반적으로 적용될 수 있다고 단정할 수 없기 때문이다. 시대에 따라 영토 개념을 달리 구성했을 수 있기 때문이다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 영토의 개념이 무엇이었는지 그리고 어떻게 변화하였는지에 초점을 맞추었다. 특히, 지도학의 발전으로 영토 경계의 개념이 과거와 달리 경계선의 개념으로 변화한 부분을 지적하였다. 과거에는 비배타적인 동시에 중첩적 관할권을 상정하고 있었고, 영토의 외각 경계보다 영토의 중심이 중시되었다. 변화가 국제사회에 등장한 것은 1815년 빈조약이라 할 수 있는데, 그 배경에는 아메리카 대륙에서의 식민지배 경험이 녹아 들어가 있었다. 경계선 기준 영토 개념이 국가 경계의 일환인 변경의 개념과 맞물려서 식민주의적 함의를 나타냈다. 지도에 그려진 빈 공간은 무주지 취급되었고, 경계선 밖의 비유럽국가들의 법인격이 경시되었다. 이 연구는 이러한 선형 영토 개념이 19세기에 국제법 법리로 반영되었다는 점을 지적하였다.

우주자원 활용과 우주법 체계 ‒ 외기권조약 제2조상 ‘국가 전용’ 관련 법리적 쟁점과 최근 국가들의 견해 차이를 중심으로 ‒

오시진 국제법평론회 2023 국제법평론 Vol.- No.66

This study analyzes the issues in the international space law system related to the utilization of space resources and examines the views of states to consider the implications of changes in the space law system. One of the key issues at stake is how to interpret the non-appropriation principle provision in Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which states that the outer atmosphere, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation. In this regard, scholars have generally explained that Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty precludes the assertion of sovereign rights and private ownership over outer space and celestial bodies. However, the situation has recently changed with the United States, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Japan enacting domestic legislation to recognize the possession and use of space resources, and the international community has begun to discuss space resource activities. The Artemis Accords seems to have also played a role in this discussion. Meanwhile, a number of scholarly opinions have emerged that the meaning of Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty is unclear and difficult to determine. Various discussions are underway, and the issues are summarized as follows. (1) According to the structure and wording of the Outer Space Treaty, it is difficult to determine whether a sign is included; (2) It is difficult to determine whether a private entity that is subject to state authorization and supervision can engage in appropriation; (3) The different wording of the Chinese version of the Outer Space Treaty is one of the problems to be solved; (4) There is also a debate on whether space and its resources are public goods. (5) Questions remain as to whether private entities were considered in the preparatory documents for Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty. (6) It is difficult to say that the principle of non-appropriation has become customary law. The UN COPOUS established a working group to address the issue of space resources and asked for the views of States, and some States have responded, among which the views on the non-appropriation principle in Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty can be observed. First, there is a view that the space law system neither affirms nor prohibits the appropriation of space resources. Second, there are views that there is a gap in the space law regime and that the Outer Space Treaty could be supplemented by the Artemis Agreement. Third, there is a neutral view that there are gaps in the space law system and that new legal norms are needed. Fourth, some interpret space law as denying the appropriation of space resources whatsoever. Fifth, there are views that point to or are based on the inconsistency of current state practice with the Outer Space Treaty and the normative framework.