http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 안준홍 (검색결과 93 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
안준홍 한국법철학회 2010 법철학연구 Vol.13 No.3
The division into the negative concept of liberty as “the absence of interference” and the positive concept of liberty as “self-government” which Berlin has given the main role in the concepts of liberty has a classical meaning among the modern theories and debates on liberty. There are critics who suggest the single concept of liberty as one and the same triadic relation of agents, preventing conditions, and aims, or as the negative freedom which designates the positive one for its own value. However, first, the negative concept of liberty is an opportunity-concept, whereas the positive one is an exercise-concept. Secondly, we can admit both as concepts of liberty according to our ordinary and general linguistic usage. Thus, individuality and validity as a concept of liberty can be applied to both concepts. Moreover, one can argue that it does not matter whether there exists one, two or even more concepts of liberty. What is important is that there are differing concepts(or conceptions) of liberty representing different views of the man and the world. Accordingly, Berlin's two concepts of liberty are beneficial to understanding the differing positions on liberty. Berlin has accentuated the rivalry of the two concepts, but the relation between the negative and the positive liberty cannot be conceived wholly opposed to each other. Both concepts are interdependent and complementary since the negative liberty is a condition of the positive liberty whereas the positive liberty can and must be the value of the negative liberty to some extent. So a synthetic concept of liberty is the appropriate one. The debates on the concept of freedom relate to the value of freedom. The differing positions on the value of freedom may be divided broadly into two distinct categories. One category views it as a means to want-satisfaction, and the other as a condition of autonomy. In general, negative liberty relates to the former, and positive liberty relates to the latter. Berlin has found the value of freedom in the human condition in which a man transforms himself through choices among incommensurable and absolute claims. Thus, Berlin’s view can be read to belong to the want-satisfaction theory, but his unique contribution to the theory is his emphasis on the value of freedom as a condition of the human being’s self-determination. The autonomy- based doctrine of freedom allows discrimination between more valuable and less valuable freedoms, according to their contribution to the ideal of autonomy. But it cannot accept the various kinds of human lives as broadly as the want-satisfaction doctrine does. Thus, the basic value of liberty must be seen as a means to want-satisfaction. Thereafter, the autonomy theory can and should play the secondary role of making the freedoms orderly. This can be viewed as a two-step theory on the value of freedom. Article 10 of the Korean Constitution provides “Human dignity and worth”. It is the leading ideal of the constitution, and the other constitutional rights serve to guarantee it. Thus the interpretation of “human dignity and worth” relates to the debate on the value of freedom. In Korea, some autonomy-based interpretations have been raised. But according to the conclusions above-mentioned, it is appropriate to interpret the clause basically as meaning that human “self-determination” which conceives the autonomy as an option for choices and permits even irrational choices. This makes the clause more effective by permitting broader ranges of human lives to be acceptable. The autonomy can and should be the secondary criterion which makes the various human lives thus accepted orderly.
-
안준홍,정진홍,신경철,최은영,진현정,장종걸,이미숙,김계순,남미정,이관호 대한결핵 및 호흡기학회 2018 대한결핵 및 호흡기학회 추계학술대회 초록집 Vol.126 No.0
Objectives: The effects of inhaler education in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate techniques and adherence in using inhaler devices and to investigate the effects of educational intervention using inhaler in COPD patients. Methods: We prospectively enrolled COPD patients who used their particular inhaler device for more than 1 month and evaluated the efficacy of educational intervention for COPD. The intervention was 6-month education program of three visits, during which subjects were tested their inhaler technique and adherence, taught about inhaler technique face-to-face by advanced practice nurse. Inhaler technique, adherence, mMRC, COPD assessment tests (CAT), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), and feeling of satisfaction with inhaler questionnaire (FSI-10) were compared before and after education. Results: A total of 75 COPD patients performing a total of 94 inhaler devices were included in the study. 70 (93.3%) were men and the mean age was 69.3±7.0. Education significantly decreased in percentage of incorrect techniques and poor adherence (94.7% vs 51.6%, P<0.001; 16.0% vs 6.7%, P=0.04, respectively). FSI-10 for inhaler was significantly improved after education (44.2±4.6 vs 46.1±5.1, P=0.015). mMRC, CAT, EQ-5D and PHQ-9 were not significantly improved after education. Conclusions: Face-to-face inhaler technique education by advanced practice nurse significantly improved the inhaler technique, adherence and feeling of satisfaction with inhaler.
-
안준홍,이관호,정진홍,최은영,진현정,장종걸,신경철 대한결핵 및 호흡기학회 2018 대한결핵 및 호흡기학회 추계학술대회 초록집 Vol.126 No.-
Objectives: CT-guided percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB) is a well known tool for diagnosing lung lesions with high diagnostic yield and a low complication rate. This procedure is usually performed by interventional radiologists. Limited studies have been performed to describe the diagnostic yield and safety of CT-guided PTNB performed by pulmonologists. This study examined the diagnostic yield and safety of CT-guided PTNB performed by a pulmonologist in routine practice. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 239 patients who underwent CT-guided PTNB at Yeungnam University Hospital between March 2017 and April 2018. A pulmonologist performed procedures using co-axial technique with a 20-gauge needle. Results: The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the diagnosis of malig-nancy were 96.1% (171/178), 100% (46/46), 100% (171/171), and 86.8% (46/53), respectively; diagnostic accuracy was 96.9% (217/224). The overall complication rate was 33.1% (82/248). Pneumothorax, hemoptysis, and hemothorax occurred in 27.0% (67/248), 5.2% (13/248), and 0.8% (2/248) patients, respectively. Univariable analysis revealed that pneumothorax requiring chest tube insertion was a significant risk factor (odds ratio, 25.0; p<0.001) of diagnostic failure. Conclusion: CT-guided PTNB performed by an inexperienced pulmonologist is a safe procedure with high diagnostic accuracy. We achieved similar results to previously published data by interventional radiologists.
-
안준홍 한국법철학회 2011 법철학연구 Vol.14 No.3
The coherence of law, an idea which emphasizes the harmonious unity of elements of law, is popular in these days. However its content is highly contested. In building a sound model of the coherence of law, we should pay attention to the distinction between the simple and the complex conception of it as well as between the local and the global one. The simple conception deals with each principle or idea of law respectively, whereas the complex ones seek the coherent realization of various principles or ideals. Among the prominent models of coherence legal theories, MacCormick's is a local and simple one. On the other hand, Dworkin and Peczenik advocate the global and complex conceptions of coherence of law. The complex conception easily results in the global conception of the global coherence of law. However the global conception of coherence is too loose and over-comprehensive to be clearly grasped and fruitful. And the ideas of specific areas of law may be incoherent. So it would be better to give priority to the local conception of coherence of law over the global ones. 법의 여러 요소들이 서로 잘 어울려 있는 것을 내용으로 하는, 법의 정합성에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있다. 하지만 어떤 요소들이 어떻게 어울려 있는 법의 정합성을 추구해야 할지에 대하여는 여러 가지로 견해가 갈린다. 법의 정합성에 대한 관념을 이해하고 설계할 때는 특히 그 이념을 법의 개별 분야에 국한해서 추구할지 아니면 법질서 전체에 걸쳐서 추구할지, 하나의 원리나 가치를 구현하는 문제로 볼지 아니면 다수의 원리나 가치 사이의 관계에서 구현할지 하는 문제에 주목할 필요가 있다. 현대의 대표적인 정합성 법이론들을 검토하여 보면, 맥코믹은 국지적이고 단순한 정합성이론을, 드워킨은 전체적이고 복합적인 정합성이론을, 페체닉은 전체적이고 복합적인 성격이 그보다도 더 강한 정합성이론을 전개하였다. 다수의 원리나 가치를 대상으로 삼는 복합적인 정합성 관념은 전체론적 경향을 가진다. 법의 정합성을 법질서 전반을 아우르는, 여러 가지 원리나 가치의 관계에 대한 것으로 이해하면, 거기에 너무 많은 다양한 요청들을 담게 되고, 또 그 내용이 느슨하고 성기게 되어서 다른 개념들과 구별되는 고유한 내용을 담기가 어려워지고 막연하여지는 문제가 생긴다. 또, 법의 개별적인 분야에서 추구되는 가치들이 서로 정합적이지 않을 수 있다. 따라서 법의 정합성은 우선 법의 구체적인 개별 영역에서 국지적으로, 그리고 하나의 원리를 구현하고자 하는 것으로 파악하는 것이 그 개념의 고유한 내용을 알기 쉽고 실천적으로도 보다 알찬 성과를 낼 수 있어서 바람직하여 보인다.
-
-
안준홍 한국법철학회 2012 법철학연구 Vol.15 No.2
“What is law?” “Is a morally bad law not law?” These questions are related to the problem of a proper ‘point of view’ to understand law and so the key-methodological problem of jurisprudence. Today non-positivist theorists like R. Alexy and R. Dworkin maintain that the participant's, especially the judge's, point of view should be the salient perspective in jurisprudence. However, the problem of “What is law?” should be distinguished from “How should a case be adjudicated?”, “Should we (or I) obey the law and adjudication?”, and “What is a morally good law” and so on. If we lump all the fundamental questions of jurisprudence together into one and only question of “What is law?”, we would miss many important aspects and relations in law. So it is desirable to distinguish the various areas and choose proper perspectives or methodologies in each area. Further, the ‘description and conceptual analysis’ will be the proper method to tackle the problem of ‘What is law’. This is because with such a methodology we can anticipate an answer working as a common background or starting point for investigation of other areas. Thus we can say that the positivistic approach is appropriate to that problem and that a ‘bad law’ is also law, albeit a bad one. ‘법이란 무엇인가’, ‘나쁜 법도 법인가’ 하는 문제들은 어떤 관점에서 답을 하는 것이 적절할까? 현대의 대표적인 비법실증주의 이론가들은 참여자의 관점, 특히 법관의 관점에서 그 문제에 답을 하는 것이 옳다고 주장한다. 이는 무엇이 법인지는 현상을 관찰하여 기술(記述)할 것이 아니라 정치도덕적인 가치판단을 기초로 답하여야 한다고 하는 방법론에 기초한 주장이기도 하다. 하지만 ‘법이란 무엇인가’ 하는 문제는 재판을 어떻게 하여야 하는지, 법과 재판을 따라야 하는지, 좋은 법은 어떤 것인지 하는 문제들 또는 문제영역들과 구별될 필요가 있다. 그렇게 하지 않고 법의 여러 근본적인 문제들을 하나의 관점에서 하나의 방법으로 뭉뚱그려서 해결하여 답하려고 들면, 복잡한 사회적인 현상인 법의 여러 층위와 측면들을 제대로 보지 못 하게 되어서 오류를 낳고, 생산적이지 못할 위험이 있다. 이렇게 법철학의 여러 문제영역들을 구별할 때, 법이 무엇인지는 도덕적인 가치평가를 개입시키지 않고 관찰하여 기술하고 개념적으로 분석하는 방법으로 접근하는 것이 타당하다. 그럼으로써 도덕적 가치평가를 수반하거나 핵심적인 방법으로 삼는 여타 문제영역들에 접근할 기초를 마련할 수 있다. 따라서 ‘법이란 무엇인가’에 대하여는 법과 도덕을 구별하여 설명하는 법실증주의 방법으로 답하는 것이 적절하고, ‘나쁜 법’도 ‘나쁜’ ‘법’이라고 일단 답을 하는 것이 타당하겠다.
-
안준홍 한국법철학회 2016 법철학연구 Vol.19 No.1
This study aims to evaluate Ronald Dworkin’s legal theory in light of the rule of law with the objective of grasping a sound conception of the ideal. Many scholars and lawyers in Korea understand the rule of law as one that requires not only the formal conditions of law such as clarity and predictability but also the substantive elements that demand that the law be just. However, these substantive conceptions of the rule of law may result in fierce confrontations about the contents of the ideal or cynicism about the ideal itself by permitting or arousing all kinds of conflicting political or moral claims in the name of the rule of law. Further, those conceptions cause difficulties in understanding the relations between the rule of law and other fundamental constitutional ideals such as democracy and liberalism. Accordingly, there is a need to regard the formal conceptions of the rule of law as an essential part of the ideal. In Law’s Empire, Dworkin suggested his ideal model of the rule of law. There, the law is portrayed as being not limited to historical records such as legislations, precedents, or customary laws; rather, the law is portrayed as the product of interpretation of such historical records. In Law’s Empire, the ideal of integrity requires that the government treat its citizens with one voice and the law be morally coherent to the best extent possible. Judges in that empire should judge cases according to a theory of constructive interpretation which best fits in with the past political decisions of the community and construes those decisions as morally just as possible. Judges should also respect institutional constraints such as legislative supremacy and strict doctrines of precedent. Law’s Empire has problems in that it is very onerous even for judges to carry out the tasks imposed on them and the potential conflict between constructive interpretation and institutional constraints may shake the integrity of its conception of law titled “law as integrity”. In addition, it disturbs the formal elements of the rule of law by incorporating moral and political principles into the law. There is also a danger of resulting in ‘all things considered-judgements’ and ‘the rule of judges’ instead of the rule of law. The methodologies of interpretation recommended by it are teleological and totally systematic ones, which may undermine the objectivity and stability of law. These problems of Law’s Empire are inherent in the substantive conceptions of the rule of law which are very popular in these days. In order to realize the ideal of the rule of law, the formal elements or conceptions of the rule of law need to be understood and embraced as the essential and common contents of the ideal. 이 연구는 로널드 드워킨(Ronald Dworkin)의 법이론이 ‘법의 지배’ 이념을 구현하는 데 적합한지를 검토하여 그 이론을 평가하고, 아울러 이를 통하여 법의 지배의 바람직한 내용을 모색하고자 한다. 한국의 실무계와 학계는 ‘법의 지배’를 법의 명확성 및 예측가능성 등의 형식적인 요청뿐 아니라 내용적 정당성까지 요구하는 실질적인 이념으로 파악하는 경우가 많다. 하지만 이러한 실질적 법치주의는 법의 지배 이념에 서로 대립하는 여러 주장들을 담게 함으로써 그 이념의 내용을 둘러싼 격한 대결이나 그 이념 자체에 대한 냉소를 초래할 위험이 있고, 민주주의나 자유주의 등 헌정의 기본을 이루는 다른 이념들과 법치주의의 관계를 규명하기 어렵게 만든다. 그래서 형식적 법치주의를 법의 지배의 본연의 의미로 파악할 필요가 제기된다. 드워킨은 『법의 제국(Law’s Empire)』에서 자신이 생각하는 이상적인 법치국가의 모습을 제시하였다. ‘법의 제국’에서 법은 법률이나 판례 또는 관습법처럼 역사적 사실로 확인될 수 있는 자료에 그치는 것이 아니라 그것들을 해석한 결과이다. 거기서는 국가가 모든 시민을 하나의 목소리로 일관되게 대하여야 한다고 하는 통합성(integrity)이 독자적인 정치이념으로 추구되며, 법은 가능한 최고도로 도덕적 정합성을 지녀야 한다. ‘법의 제국’에서 법관은 그 공동체의 정치적 결정들에 부합하면서 그것들을 최선의 정합적인 정치도덕원리들로 구성하는 해석이론에 따라 재판을 해야 하지만, 입법부 존중, 선례구속, 개별 분야 존중과 같은 제도적 제약도 존중해야 한다. 하지만 이런 ‘법의 제국’은 법관들이라도 실천하기 어려운 과중한 과제를 부여하며, 구성적 해석방법과 제도적 제약 사이의 긴장 때문에 이론적 통합성이 떨어질 수 있다. 또한 정치도덕 원리들을 법으로 인정함으로써 법치의 형식적 요소들이 타격을 받게 되고, 법이 아니라 ‘모든 것을 고려한 판단’이 지배하게 되어 ‘법의 지배’라 하기 곤란하게 되며, 오늘날의 다원적인 사회에서는 ‘법의 지배’가 아니라 ‘법관의 지배’로 귀결될 우려가 있다. 법학방법론에서 ‘법의 제국’은 목적론적 해석과 총체적인 체계적 해석을 지지하는데, 이는 법해석의 객관적 타당성과 법적 안정성을 해칠 위험이 있으며 한국의 판례에서도 경계하는 바이다. 드워킨이 제시한 ‘법의 제국’에 담긴 이런 여러 문제점들은 실질적 법치관 일반의 문제라고 할 수 있다. 오늘날 실질적 법치주의가 광범위한 지지를 받고 있다 하더라도, 법의 지배 이념을 구현하기 위해서는 그 이념의 공통되고 본래적인 내용으로서 형식적 법치주의를 존중할 필요가 있다.
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
