The Legality of Japan’s Current Monetary Policy under International Law

John Riley 이준국제법연구원 2014 Journal of East Asia and International Law Vol.7 No.1

The Legal and Policy Implications of the US Steel Tariffs on East Asia

John Riley 이준국제법연구원 2018 Journal of East Asia and International Law Vol.11 No.1

Many are crying foul over the Trump Administration’s use of steel and aluminum tariffs, claiming that imports are not a threat to the US national security. Rather, it has been argued that the tariffs are a pretext to gain strategic advantage in unrelated trade negotiations. Members of the Trump administration have hailed subsequent trade concessions as proof that the tariffs have been successful, which, if proven, could raise a credible question as to whether the President exceeded the scope of his authority. Domestic and international challenges have already begun with the US courts being a more effective forum to the challenge the legality of the tariffs than the WTO.

A Multilateral Approach to Investor-State Dispute Settlement Issues in the Asia-Pacific Region

Riley John 이준국제법연구원 2021 Journal of East Asia and International Law Vol.14 No.1

Bilateral agreements are not the optimal solution to address modern challenges regarding the resolution of investment disputes. The time has come for multilateral agreements to define a clear procedure for resolving investment disputes and the formation of arbitration for these purposes. On November 15, 2020, ASEAN members and five regional partners signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), arguably the largest free trade agreement in history. Although the RCEP agreement defines the basic principles of legal protection of investments, it does not contain a procedure for settling disputes directly between investors and parties to the agreement, i.e., Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), but rather postpones the issue for future negotiations. Nevertheless, a majority of countries understand the importance of investment protection and have significant outward FDI that will support stronger ISDS protections within a multilateral framework. Therefore, it is recommended that in the near future member countries will come to an agreement and adopt appropriate amendments to the RCEP regarding ISDS.

An Analysis of Child Abuse Laws in Korea

John Riley 경희대학교 법학연구소 2016 경희법학 Vol.51 No.4

Despite many changes to the law in recent years, child abuse continues present significant social and legal challenges in Korea. Because the overwhelming majority of child abuse occurs within the home, it has been difficult for society to grapple with the proper balance between parental rights versus the right of children to live in a safe environment. Although child abuse has existed for centuries, its recognition and understanding by the medical and legal communities is a relatively recent phenomenon, and measures to lower the incidents of abuse varies greatly across countries. This paper seeks to analyze the development of laws designed to reduce the occurrence of child abuse from a domestic and international perspective. Part I introduces the current international definition of child abuse and its harmful effects, including an explanation of the Battered Child Syndrome (BCS), which explains the characteristics of children who have been exposed to repeated instances of abuse. Part II explains how BCS has raised public awareness of the serious plight of abused children, which has resulted in laws and protective agencies in the US, as well as the use of expert testimony in child abuse case and self-defense cases. Part III discusses the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its implementation in Korea through various legislative developments. Part IV reviews various articles of the Korea Criminal Code and suggests that certain provisions remain heavily influenced by traditional notions of Confucianism that are at odds with contemporary democratic principles. Part V analyzes several Korea Supreme Court and Constitutional Court cases that have focused on the parent-child relationship and demonstrate the judiciary's difficulty in reconciling traditional notions of filial piety while protecting equal protection regardless of one's hierarchical status within the family. Finally, Part VI suggests that Korea should continue to create and modify laws and policies that protect the rights of children to live free from abuse, eliminate statutory provisions that discriminate based on lineal heritage, and allow courts to consider BCS evidence in child abuse prosecutions, self-defense claims, and as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

LEGAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

John Riley 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2021 江原法學 Vol.62 No.-

인공 지능 (AI)은 빠르게 우리의 삶으로 들어와 인간 활동의 거의 모든 영역에 영향을 미치고 있다. 오늘날 의학, 산업, 무역, 고객 서비스 등에 있어 인공 지능 없이 일을 한다는 것은 상상하기조차 어려워졌다. 인공 지능의 효능을 보여주는 가장 인기 있는 사례 중 하나로 꼽히고 있는 무인자동차의 개발은 교통사고율을 현저히 감소시킨다는 초기 추정치가 있다. 이것의 효율과는 관계없이 AI의 오류나 시스템 결함으로 인해 발생한 많은 사고가 입증하듯 AI가 인간에게 해를 초래할 수도 있다. 소프트웨어 개발자, 자동차 제조업체 또는 운전자가 자율 주행 차량(AV)과 관련한 피해에 대해 법적 책임이 있는지의 여부가 아직 해결되지 않고 있다. 다른 많은 국가들과 마찬가지로 한국에서도 2020 년 5 월부터 시행된 자율 주행차 상용화 촉진 및 지원에 관한 법률을 도입하여 자율 주행차 사용을 규제하고 있다. 현재까지 손해 배상의 책임은 운전자에게 주어진다. 하지만 사고 당시에 차량 운전이 제조업체의 통제하에 있을 수 있어 오늘날 AV의 시대에 납득되지 않을 수 있으므로, 이것이 AV 자동차 제조업체의 큰 법적 책임으로 이어질 수도 있다. 기술이 완성되고 테스트 될 때까지는 운전자의 책임하에 주의를 기울이고 필요에 따라 운전 기능을 수행해야 하며, 안전한 날씨나 운전 상황 등이 갖춰지지 않은 불확실한 경우에는 자율주행 모드를 사용하지 않도록 해야 한다는 사실로 인해 상황이 복잡하다. AV가 인간의 통제를 덜 활용하는 수준으로 발전함에 따라 자동차 제조업체가 더 많은 책임을 져야 할 것으로 널리 생각된다. 하지만 이는 자동차의 설계 및 제조, 자동차를 조작하는 소프트웨어 시스템의 잠재적 결함에 더해 운전자의 잠재적 과실도 고려해야 하며 이러한 상호 작용으로 인한 사고의 주원인을 판단하고, 궁극적으로 사고 보상에 대한 책임 및 잠재적인 형사 책임을 결정하는 긴 프로세스가 될 것이다. 이 문서는 법적 책임에 대한 EU와 미국의 다양한 접근 방식과 기업이 불법 행위 책임으로부터 자신을 보호하기 위해 취하고 있는 조치들을 분석하고 있다. Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly entering our lives, affecting almost every area of human activity. Today it is difficult to imagine how one can do without artificial intelligence in medicine, industry, trade, customer service, etc. Perhaps one of the most popular examples demonstrating the efficacy of AI has been the development of driverless vehicles with early estimates indicating a significant reduction in automobile accidents. Regardless of its effectiveness, AI can cause harm as evidenced by many accidents caused by errors or system flaws. Whether software developers, automobile manufacturers or drivers should be legally responsible for damages involving autonomous vehicles (AV) remains unresolved. South Korea, like many other countries, has begun implementing legislation to regulate the use of autonomous vehicles, e.g., the Act on the Promotion and Support of Commercialization of Autonomous Vehicles, which went into effect in May 2020. To date, the liability for damages remains with the driver of the car. However, this model may not make sense in the age of AVs because the driving of the vehicle may be under control of the manufacturer at the time of the accident, which may result significant liability for AV manufacturers. This situation is complicated by the fact that, until the technology is perfected and tested, it is expected for the driver to remain alert and take over the driving function when necessary, and for AV not to be used in autonomous mode unless certain conditions are met, e.g., safe weather and driving conditions. Although it is widely assumed the car manufacturers will assume more liability as AVs develop to the point of utilizing less human control, this will be a long process considering potential defects in design and manufacturing of the cars, the software systems running the cars, as well as potential negligence of the driver, and how these interplay in determining the primary cause and, ultimately, the responsibility for accident compensation. This paper analyzes various approaches to liability in the EU and United States, as well as measures companies are taking to protect themselves from tort liability.

The Pharmaceutical-Related Provisions of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement

John Riley 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2011 江原法學 Vol.32 No.-

The US-Korea Free Trade Agreement Revisions Will Have Little Impact on the Balance of Trade

John Riley 서강대학교 법학연구소 2019 법과기업연구 Vol.9 No.1

In September 2018, South Korea and the United States signed a revised free trade agreement, the first bilateral trade deal negotiated by the Trump Administration. In a signing ceremony with President Moon Jae-in, President Trump touted the trade deal as a “historic milestone in trade” with significant improvements to reduce the US trade deficit with South Korea. The revisions included changes to customs procedures, the automobile industry, and pharmaceuticals, with side negotiations related to steel imports and currency valuation. Part I reviews the changes in automobiles, including the Korean government easing safety standards, emission testing and labeling requirements, and the US government extending a 25 percent tax for an additional 20 years beyond the original KORUS FTA. It concludes that while some red tape has been eliminated by the Korean government, US manufacturers do not export enough automobiles to be able to “move the needle” significantly on exports. Likewise, the 25 percent truck tax, while entirely antithetical to the principles of trade and harmful to American consumers, is also unlikely to have an immediate impact, if any, as Korean auto manufacturers do not export trucks to the US. Part II reviews the key issues affecting trade in pharmaceuticals, how those issues were addressed in the original KORUS negotiations, and which changes were made under the current revisions. It concludes that while the Korean government issued a new “Premium Pricing Policy for Global Innovative New Drugs” in late 2018, this policy applies to such a limited number of products as to have practically no affect on improving transparency on government pricing and reimbursement of patents pharmaceuticals. Part III reviews the steel and aluminum agreement entered into between the US and Korea in exchange for renegotiating the FTA. It concludes that the tactics used by the Trump Administration of using the threat of unlawful steel tariffs under the pretense of a “national emergency” set a dangerous precedent in legitimate trade negotiations. Furthermore, because Korea only accounts for approximately 10 percent of US imported steel and because the agreed upon quotas may be challenged under the WTO as a prohibited voluntary export restraint, the changes will likely have little appreciable effect on trade of steel and aluminum. Part IV concludes with a brief overview of the currency issues between the US and Korea. However, because no actual agreement was reached between the two governments, the issue remains outstanding for future negotiations. The paper concludes that while modest gains were gained in certain industries, overall the revised KORUS will have little effect on trade between the United States and South Korea.

US-China Relations in Trump’s First Term

John Riley 이준국제법연구원 2017 China and WTO Review Vol.3 No.2

The Current Status of Cryptocurrency Regulation in China and Its Effect around the World

John Riley 이준국제법연구원 2021 China and WTO Review Vol.7 No.1

미국의 비트코인 규제

존라일리 ( John Riley ) 한국금융법학회 2016 金融法硏究 Vol.13 No.3

비트코인과 이를 어느 정도로 규제해야 하는지에 대한 토론이 전 세계적으로 진행되고 있다. 미국에서는 비트코인에 대해서 전면적인 금지를 주장하는 와중에도 기본적으로 규제를 받지 않아야 하는 기술적“역작”으로 묘사되어 왔다. 그렇다면 비트코인의 기술의 어떤 점이 이러한 의견의 다양성을 야기한 것일까? 본 논문은 비트코인 현상과 그로 인한 대중에 대한 잠재적 위험을 설명하며 이 질문에 대한 해답을 찾고자 한다. 이를 위해서 비트코인과 그 배경기술에 대한 간단한 개략적 설명과 현재 토론중인 기본적인 법적 주제에 대한 서술, 그리고 최근 미국의 주 및 연방 규제에 대한 반응에 대해서 분석한다. 마지막으로 비트코인과 그 배경기술이 특히 금융서비스 부문뿐만 아니라 많은 기타 산업의 대변혁을 일으킬 잠재력을 가지고 있으며, 정부가 변화를 일으킬 수 있는 이 기술에 대해 과거 인터넷에 그랬던 것처럼 최소주의적 간섭 방침을 취해야 한다는 주장을 역설한다. Debates are proceeding across the globe regarding BitCoin and to what degree it should be regulated. In the United States, BitCoin has been hailed as a technological "tour de force" that should be left primarily unregulated, while others have called for its outright ban. So what is it about this technology that has caused such a divergence of opinion? This paper seeks to answer this question by explaining the BitCoin phenomenon and its potential risks for the public. The paper provides a brief overview of BitCoin and its underlying technologies, a description of the primary legal issues currently under debate, and an analysis of recent US state and federal regulatory responses. Finally, the paper asserts that BitCoin and its underlying technologies have tremendous potential to revolutionize not only the financial services sector specifically but many other industries as well, and that governments should take a minimalist approach, much like it did with the Internet, so as not to inhibit the development of this transformative technology.