‘변형적 점령’과 국제점령법의 적용

안준형(Ahn, Jun Hyeong) 국제법평론회 2018 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.51

Until the 19th century, ‘occupation’ made it possible to immediately acquire all the titles of the region by excluding the sovereignty of the territory. Until the medieval period, occupation was synonymous with ‘conquest’ or ‘exploitation’. Thus, the transfer of sovereignty through occupation included not only the territory and the public property of the country, but also all private property. However, as political and ideological changes such as the principle of balance of power, humanitarian ideology, the development of modern military organizations, and emergence of nation states, etc. appeared in the nineteenth century, the concept of traditional occupation in the same sense as conquest gradually disappeared, and the concept of occupation based on the idea of ‘t emporary control’ on the occupied territories became firmly established. Thus, ① temporality of occupation, ② the principle of the inalienability of sovereignty through sheer force, and ③ the ‘conservationist principle’ based on preservation of status quo ante in the territory were regarded as core principles of International Law of Occupation. However, the occupation of Iraq in 2003 brought a chance to trigger a debate on whether to provide adequate function as a normative framework that governs the rights and obligations of the occupant with the existing International Law of Occupation. The ‘transformative occupation that emerged in 2003 with the occupation of Iraq is that the conservationist principle, which forms the core of the International Law of Occupation, no longer meets the demands of the times, which was linked to the argument that an alternative legal system reflecting state practice should be sought. However, the existence of the occupation is not a matter of law but merely a matter of fact. No matter how denied the status of occupying power, the effectiveness of the International Law of Occupation cannot be denied in that it is enough to establish ‘effective control’ by the occupying power. Of course, it cannot be denied that recent occupation patterns have been unusual circumstances that were not envisioned at the time of the adoption of the Hague Regulations of 1907. Nevertheless, as long as the effective control test of Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 are met, the occupying power should still be seen as being bound by the International Law of Occupation.

한국전쟁기 북한의 점령과 지방사회의 변화 ― 경기도 시흥군의 사례 ―

정병준 한국근현대사학회 2012 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.62 No.-

Siheung County was occupied by North Korea during the early period of Korean War. The two and half months of occupation by North Korea reflected general aspects of North Korean occupation policies as well as particular characters of Siheung County case. The most distinguishing character of North Korean occupation policies was that North Korea aimed long-term and permanent occupation of South Korea. The occupation administration was prepared with extreme care and meticulousness by North Korea. And it was readjustment of North Korean administration system into South Korea. The restoration of county branch of Korean Labor Party(KLP), the temporary Peoples’ Committee, and social groups started shortly after the occupation of Siheung County in July 3. The administration of North Korean occupation was well organized and efficient. Second, the occupation was long time as well as long-range prepared by North Korea. The administrative officers down to the county, towns, and villages’ level were selected with the native Koreans, but the officers of core power structure such as Labor Party and Police Department were dispatched from North Korea. Third, the Sihueng County branch of KLP was very weak during the North Korean occupation period. The registered members of KLP Sihueng County branch were seventy three in August 10, 1950. And the political influence of Bodoyeonmang(National Guidance League: NGL) members was very strong in case of Suam town of Sihueng County. The KLP expelled the so called friend parties such as Social Democracy Party and Labor Peoples Party from the political scene and they deported the members of friend parties to the volunteer army for cutting their influence in the community. Fourth, the occupation authority focused on two projects, the election of Peoples’ Committee and land reform. After the accomplishment of two projects, farmers and laborers became the key figures in power structure. Fifth, the land reform in Sihueng County started in July 20 and finished in August 9. It was announced that lands of land-lords were confiscated and redistributed to the tenants and poor peasants within 20 days. Total 9,818 families and approximately 54,980 people of Siheung County were distributed the confiscated lands. It occupied 61 percent of total Siheung population. But the size of distributed lands was not sufficient for self-sufficiency. Sixth, the NGL members of Siheung County played active roles during the North Korean occupation. The occupation authorities wanted their cooperation but were suspicious of their loyalty and sincerity as a communist. Two sides managed tensed relations during the occupation.

직업 유무와 진균 감염

오상철,홍성호,조주연 순천향대학교 교수학습개발센터 2004 Journal of Soonchunhyang Medical Science Vol.10 No.3

Back ground : This study was designed to evaluate the relation fungal infection with the males and females with/without occupation and to evaluate cause of fungal infection Methods : This study was done via direct interview and KOH mount with 03 patients who are oupatients in a university hospital from July 2000 to Aprill 2001. They were divided into three groups, males with occupation, females with occupation, females withoup occupation and sudied by sex, age, duration, types of dermatophytosis, site of infection, infection in families. Results : The results were as follows 1. Fungal infection was 40% in males with occupation, 24% in females with occupation, 36% in females without occupation. 2. The site of fungal infection was the offices(42.5%), the families(30%) in men with occupation and the families(54.2%), the offices (41.7%) in females with occupation and the families(72%), the others(11.1%) in females withoup occupation. 3. The members of the families were the spouses(32.5%), the parents or children(32.5%) in men with occupation and the spouses(41.7%), the parents or children(25.0%) in females with occupation and the spouses(69.4%), the parents or children(13.9%) in females without occupation. Conclusions : In our study, the results showed no difference in the fungal infections among males with occupation, females with occupation and females without occupation. Fungal infection of females without occupation was spread in the families and by the pouse among the members of the families

한국 병탄(倂呑) 이후 35년 동안의 올바른 시대구분 명칭에 관한 연구

이일걸 간도학회 2019 간도학보 Vol.2 No.2

오늘날 우리는 1910년 ‘한국병탄’ 이후 35년 동안의 시대명칭을 학계에서 올바르게 검증하지 않고 매우 혼란스럽게 사용하여 왔다. 현재 유행되고 있는 ‘일제강점기’라는 용어에 함축된 의미에 대해서도 비판의식 없이 사용하고 있다, 광복 후 초기부터 ‘민족의 수난기’, ‘국권회복운동시기’, ‘일제시기’등으로 불렀으며, 1980년대 이후 ‘국권침탈기’ 또는 ‘민족의 저항기’로 나타났으며, 2000년대부터는 ‘일제강점기’가 빠르게 유포되었다. 그렇다면 ‘일제강점기’의 용어에는 어떤 의미가 내포되어 있는지 고찰해보자. 첫째, ‘일제강점기’는 비주체적인 용어다. 즉 우리 한국인의 역사 틀 안에서 제3자인 ‘일제’가 한국을 강점했다는 의미이다. 둘째, 일제식민사학자들이 주장하는 여러 개의 식민사관 이론 중 ‘일제강점기’에는 ‘타율성론’이라는 식민사관이 은연중 드려난다. 한국사는 고대시기부터 기자ㆍ위만 등의 외세의 식민지 지배로부터 시작되었다고 왜곡시켰다. 1910년 한국병탄후 일제에 의해 한국이 타율적인 지배를 받았음을 나타내었다. 셋째, ‘일제강점기’에는 식민사관 이론인 ‘임나일본부설’의 연장선상이라는 점이다. 즉, 신공후(神功后)ㆍ대화(大和) 남선침략(南鮮侵略) - 임나일본부 - 일제강점기로 이어진다는 점이다. 즉 20세기 초에는 ‘일제강점기’로 ‘일제’가 한국인을 지배했다는 사실을 내포하고 있다. 넷째, ‘일제강점기’에는 ‘정체성론’이라는 식민사관의 의도가 숨어있다. 즉, 한국을 정체되고 전근대적인 사회로 규정함으로써 일제의 한국침략을 정당화시키고 있다. 다섯째, ‘일제강점기’라고 부르는 것은 국제법상 무효인 ‘한국병탄조약’을 유효조약으로 둔갑시키려는 의도가 보인다. 1910년 ‘한국병탄조약’은 국가대표에 대한 강박에 의하여 체결되었으며, 또한 조약체결의 형식과 절차상의 하자(瑕疵)로 인해 불법ㆍ무효조약이다. 따라서 한국은 일본에 ‘한국병탄조약’의 무효를 외교절차에 따라 문서로 통보하지 않았다. 더구나 현재 국사편찬위원회가 이 시기의 명칭을 ‘일제강점기’로 규정하고 있다는 점이 놀라울 뿐이다. 그 결과 우리는 역사적 정체성의 혼란을 초래하였으며, 일인들은 이 시기를 ‘일본 통치하의 조선’ 또는 ‘식민지 조선’이라고 부른다. 그러므로 빠른 시기에 한국병탄조약의 무효를 서면으로 일본에 통고해야 한다. 우리 정부가 일본에 대해 ‘한국병탄조약’의 무효 및 폐기를 통보함으로써 35년 일제의 병탄이 불법행위임이 만천하에 입증되어 진다. ‘한국병탄조약’의 무효 통보로 인해 우리 한국인은 식민사관의 질곡을 벗어나는 근거와 계기를 마련해준다. 그러므로 국제법상 우리 민족의 법통성이 ‘대한제국’ ⟶ ‘대한임시정부’ ⟶ ‘대한민국’으로 계승되어진다. 또한 세칭 문제된 1920년, 1948년의 건국론의 시비문제도 해결된다. 그렇다면 비주체적이고 타율적인 ‘일제강점기’라는 용어를 대신할 가장 합당한 용어는 ‘항일투쟁시기’가 가장 타당하다. 따라서 짧은 35년의 시기를 비주체적이고 식민사관의 타율성론이 내재된 ‘일제강점기’ 용어를 퇴출시키고 주체적인 ‘항일투쟁시기’로 정립할 필요성이 있다. Up until this day, we have not been clearly used the name of the 35-year period after the Korea-Japan Annexation of 1910 as it has not been properly proved by the academia. Even the term ‘Japanese Occupation’ that we prevalently use, we use it without criticism. Following the Independence, this period was called the ‘National Suffering Period’, ‘Period of National Sovereignty Restoration Campaign’, ‘Japanese Imperial Period’, ‘Japanese Colonial Era’, and ‘Period of Anti-Japanese Revolutionary Struggle’; after 1980s, it was represented as the period of ‘Deprivation of Korean Sovereignty’ or ‘National Resistance Movement’; and after 2000 to present, use of ‘Japanese Occupation’ has rapidly spread. Then, let us think about the implications of the term ‘Japanese Occupation.’ First, the term ‘Japanese Occupation’ is a non-autonomous term. That is, it is hardly possible that the name of the period indicating the third country Japan has occupied Korea be present in our national history. It reveals that we were under Japanese rule for a short period of 35 years and that this historical period was not under our control. Although the Japanese occupation was illegal in terms of the international law, we do not need to disclose it. Second, there are several theories of the colonial history that Japanese historians of colonialism insist. Among them, a ‘theory of heteronomy’ of our history, which is the colonial history, is implicit in the ‘Japanese Occupation.’ It implies that Koreans were not the main agent, were uncivilized, and were not able to be autonomous during this period and therefore, Japan occupied Korea and Koreans were under the heteronomous rule for a short period of time. Third, the ‘Japanese Occupation’ is an extension of ‘Theory of Imna Prefectural Government.’ That is, it indicates that it was continued from Sin Gong HuㆍDae Hwa Invasion of Korea and Imna Prefectural Government to Japanese Occupation, meaning that there was the Imna Prefectural Government in the ancient South Korea and then Korea was under Japanese rule during the ‘Japanese Occupation’ in the early 20th century. Fourth, the term ‘Japanese Occupation’ also implies the "stagnation theory", which defines Korea as a static and premodern society, justifying the Japanese invasion of Korea and disguising its mission to modernize Korea. Fifth, there is a strategy of turning the invalid ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ in terms of the international law into the valid one by calling it the ‘Japanese Occupation.’ Not only the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ of 1910 was coerced into signing by the Japanese representative but also the signing form and process were flawed, and thus made the treaty null and void in terms of the international law. Therefore, it should be an abrogated treaty; however, Korea did not declare the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ of 1910 null and void by letter according to the diplomatic procedures. Moreover, it is surprising that the National Institute of Korean History defines this period as the ‘Japanese Occupation.’ Most elder historians have proclaimed that we should get rid of the colonial history, but the term ‘Japanese Occupation’ was formalized at some unknown point. As a consequence, it caused our historical identity crisis and Japanese scholars still define this period as the ‘Joseon under Japanese rule’ or ‘Colonial Joseon.’ Therefore, we should declare invalidity of the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ by letter soon. If the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ is abrogated, the Korean liberation armies- and independent armies-participated-anti-Japanese revolutionary struggle for reclaiming the sovereignty of the nation for 35 years will be the legal revolution, but not illegal. Also, it would be revealed that the Japanese rule was certainly the illegal occupation. By declaring the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ was null and void, the illegality of the 35-year period of Japanese occupation would be proved to the whole world. This would also be an opportunity to make free ourselves from the fetters of colonial history. Therefore, our legitimacy would be the Korean Empire – The Korean Provisional Government – The Republic of Korea. The so-called problems of Theory of National Foundation whether it was in 1920 or 1948 would also be solved. If so, the most appropriate term to replace the dependent and heteronomous term ‘Japanese Occupation’ would be ‘Period of Anti-Japanese Revolutionary Struggle.’ Therefore, we should throw out the term ‘Japanese Imperial Period’ in which dependency and theory of heteronomy are implied to describe the short 35-year period and establish the autonomous term ‘Period of Anti-Japanese Revolutionary Struggle.’

개정 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제37조 제3항과 제42조 제1항의 체계적·유기적 해석에 관한 연구 – 직장점거 금지범위의 외연(外延)확장과 관련하여 –

김희성(Kim, Hee-Sung) 한국비교노동법학회 2021 노동법논총 Vol.52 No.-

(1) 개정노조법에서는 기존의 제42조 1항을 그대로 유지하면서 사용자의 점유를 배제하여 조업을 방해하는 행위를 금지하는 제37조 3항을 신설함으로써 기존의 판례와 행정해석의 태도를 그대로 유지할 수 있는가에 대한 근본적인 의문이 제기되어, 본 연구에서는 개정노조법 제37조 제3항과 제42조 1항의 체계적이고 유기적인 해석을 통하여 직정점거 금지의 범위를 검토하였다. (2) 점유는 물건에 대한 사실상의 지배로서 사람의 물건에 대한 공간적 지배관계가 있어야 하는데, 그 중 중요한 것은 제3자의 간섭을 배척할 수 있는 상태에 있어야 하는 타인지배의 배제가능성일 것이다. 더욱이 어느 정도의 어느 정도의 계속성을 요하는 시간적 지배, 계속관계가 있어야 한다. 그러므로 공간적 지배나 시간적 지배 하나의 부분이라도 결여되었을 때에는 점유의 배제 내지 침탈을 의미한다고 해석해야 할 것이다. “점유를 배제하여 조업을 방해하는” 것은 사용자의 공간적 지배나 시간적 지배 하나의 부분이라도 결여되었을 때에는 점유의 배제 내지 침탈로 조업을 방해하는 것을 의미한다고 해석해야 할 것이다. (3) 쟁의행위의 본질 및 개정 노조법 제37조 3항의 입법취지를 살펴보면, 단체행동권과 비파업 근로자의 근로권, 사용자의 조업권은 모두 존중받아야 할 기본권이라는 입법취지에서 단체행동권에서 보장하는 쟁의행위의 본질을 넘어선, 즉 단순히 근로제공의 거부를 넘어선 조업방해 행위는 허용하지 않겠다는 입법자의 의사가 표현된 것이다. 따라서 기존의 직장점거의 금지의 법해석 보다는 금지의 외연(外延)이 확장될 수 있게 된다(규범목적적 해석). (4) 개정노조법 제37조 3항은 사업장시설 전반에 걸쳐 즉 시설이 일부이든 기타 주요업무에 관련되는 시설이 아니든 그 점유를 배제하여 조업을 방해하는 쟁의행위를 금지한다는 것이다. 점거대상이 되는 시설의 종류에 따라 직장점거의 허용여부를 달리 규율하고 있는 노조법 제42조 제1항의 흠결 내지 공백상태, 즉 기타 주요업무에 관련되는 시설이 아닌 곳에 대해서는 어떻게 규율해야 하는 것인가에 대해 개정노조법 제37조 제3항이 이 흠결상태를 메우게 되는 것이다. 다시 말하면 기타 주요업무에 관련되는 시설이 아닌 곳에 대해서는 ‘제37조 제3항: 노동조합은 사용자의 점유를 배제하여 조업을 방해하는 형태로 쟁의행위를 해서는 아니 된다’는 규정이 직접적 그리고 보충적으로 적용되는 것이다. 따라서 이러한 곳에 대한 점거가 사용자의 공간적 지배나 시간적 지배 하나의 부분이라도 결여되는 것으로 보여지는 경우에는 점유의 배제 내지 침탈로 조업을 방해하는 것을 의미한다고 해석되어 금지되는 쟁의행위가 된다. 이렇게 두 조항을 체계적이고 유기적으로 해석하게 되면 직정점거 금지의 외연(外延)이 확장하게 됨으로써 그나마 유일하게 쟁의행위대항수단으로서 기능할 수 있는 직장점거의 금지를 실효성있게 할 수 있게 될 것이다. (1) The amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act has newly added Article 37 (3), which prohibits acts that obstruct operations by excluding the employer’s occupation. Consequently, a fundamental question was raised concerning whether the attitude of existing precedents and administrative interpretation can be maintained. Therefore, we review the scope of prohibition of workplace occupation through a systematic and organic analyses of Article 37 (3) and Article 42 (1) of the amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. (2) Occupation refers to a de facto control over an object, and there must be a spatial domination relationship over a person’s object. What is important is the possibility of exclusion of domination by others who must be in a state that can exclude the interference of a third party. Moreover, there must be a temporal dominance and continuous relationship that require some degree of continuity. Therefore, if even one element of spatial and temporal domination is lacking, it should be interpreted as exclusion or disseizing that interferes with operations. (3) The essence of industrial actions and the legislative purpose of Article 37 (3) of the amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is that the right to collective action, the right to work of non-striking workers, and the right to work of the employer are all basic rights that must be respected. This expresses the legislator’s intention not to allow acts of obstruction of work beyond the essence of industrial actions guaranteed by the right to collective action, that is, simply refusing to provide labor. Therefore, the scope of the prohibition can be expanded compared to the existing legal interpretation of the prohibition of workplace occupation(normative interpretation). (4) Article 37 (3) of the amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act prohibits industrial actions that interfere with operations by excluding the occupation of the entire business facility, regardless of whether the facility is related or not related to other major operations. Article 37 (3) of the amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act fills the shortcoming or void of Article 42 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which regulates whether or not occupation is permitted according to the type of facility subject to occupation, regarding how to regulate facilities that are not related to other major operations. In other words, Article 37 (3), “Trade unions shall not take industrial actions in the form of obstructing operation by excluding the employer’s occupation,” applies directly and supplementarily to other facilities that are not related to major operations. Therefore, if the occupation of these facilities appears to lack even one element of the employer’s spatial and temporal dominance, it is interpreted as the exclusion or disseizing of occupation and obstruction of operation, which is a prohibited industrial action. If the two provisions are interpreted systematically and organically in this manner, the scope of the prohibition of workplace occupation is expanded, thus enabling the effective enforcement of the prohibition of workplace occupation, which is the only provision that can function as a countermeasure against industrial actions.

부산지역 여성결혼이민자의 적합 직종 개발에 관한 연구

김현숙,김희재 부산대학교 여성연구소 2016 여성학연구 Vol.26 No.1

The purpose of this paper is to develop occupation that female marriage immigrants are participating in economic activities in Busan. A process of 3 steps was performed to find such occupation. In 1 step, we analysed labour market's demands about labour force and female marriage immigrants's demands about jobs in Busan. And had founded candidate occupation that are suitable for female marriage immigrants. In 2 step, we merged proper occupation of precedent studies to occupation collected through 1 steps. In 3 step, after asking the expert opinions, we based our final 34 proper occupation for female marriage immigrants in Busan. And divided specialized occupation that can use their language skills and cultural resources and new occupation that don't need these skills and resources. Finally we suggested policy issues to increase female marriage immigrant's economic activities. 이 연구는 여성결혼이민자의 경제활동 참여를 활성화하기 위한 적합 직종 개발을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위해 첫째, 고용노동부의 워크-넷 자료를 이용하여 부산지역 노동시장의 구인수요와 여성결혼이민자의 구직 수요를 분석하여 후보 적합 직종을 선정하고, 둘째, 선행연구에서 제시된 적합 직종을 통합하여 정리하고, 셋째, 전문가의견수렴 과정을 통해 최종적으로 부산지역 여성결혼이민자의 적합 직종을 선정하였다. 이러한 과정을 거쳐 부산지역 여성결혼이민자 적합 직종을 12개 분야(중분류), 18개 분야(소분류), 34개 분야(세세분류)으로 선정하였으며, 이를 교육수준과 언어적, 문화적 자원을 활용한 특화직종과 이러한 자원과 무관한 신규직종으로 구분하여 제시하였다. 마지막으로 연구결과를 바탕으로 여성결혼이민자 경제활동 참여 활성화 방안을 제시하였다.

산업화 시기 정부와 여성단체의 ‘여성직종’ 구상과 여성들의 대응

장미현(Jang, Mi-hyun) 숙명여자대학교 아시아여성연구원 2017 아시아여성연구 Vol.56 No.2

이 연구는 1970년대 정부와 여성단체의 ‘여성직종’ 구상과 ‘여성직종’ 확대를 위해 추진한 여성직업개발사업의 전개 과정 및 그것이 일으킨 변화를 고찰한다. 여성노동력 개발 논의는 1970년대에 시작됐다. 당시 정부는 여성인력개발정책을 고려했고 공식적으로는 여성의 직업 생활을 장려했다. 그 이유는 경제개발계획에 더 많은 여성 노동력을 동원하기 위해서였다. 정부가 선정한 ‘여성직종’에는 기존의 저임금 수출산업에 해당하는 업종이 포함됐다. 고학력 여성이 진출할 ‘여성직종’의 필요도 인지하고 있었지만 고학력 여성들의 직업의식 부족에서 원인을 찾아 여성에게 책임을 전가했다. 제한적이나마 ‘여성직종’ 개발 논의가 확산됐던 것은 ‘여성직종’의 개발이 필요하다는 여성들과 여성단체의 요구가 있어서였다. 이러한 사회적 분위기 아래, ‘여성직종’ 개발에 나선 것은 YWCA와 같은 여성단체의 여성들이었다. YWCA는 ‘새로운 여성직업개발사업’을 통해 성별직종분리구조를 바꾸려했다. 이러한 목표 아래 YWCA는 기존의 ‘여성직종’은 제외하고 ‘남성직종’ 중 여성의 진출이 가능한 직종을 ‘여성직종’으로 선정했다. 이 중 도배, 페인트, 타일 분야의 훈련을 통해 각 분야 여성기능사들을 배출했다. 그 결과, 도배․페인트․타일 업종에서 일정정도 남녀 근로조건의 평등화와 작업장의 젠더 위계질서의 변화가 일어났다. 훈련을 통해 ‘남성직종’에 진출한 여성들은 작업현장의 젠더위계변화, 남성과 동등한 임금을 받는 경험에서 자부심을 느꼈다. 그리고 이들 여성들의 경험과 인식 변화야말로 1980년대 ‘여성직종’의 확대를 만들어 낸 동력이었다. This article aims to analyze “female occupation” ideas of government and female organizations, and the process of promoting “women"s vocational development projects” and the change that resulted. In the 1970s, at least formally, the government encouraged including the need for women"s labor development projects in women"s vocational lives, as part of promoting the economic development plan. The government"s “female occupation” was comprised only of an industry corresponding to the existing low-wage export industry. The government was aware of the necessity of a “female occupation” that advanced into recruiting highly educated women. But the government found the reason for the lack of job consciousness among highly educated women. Even the limited development policy of a “female occupation” was possible because women and women"s organizations said that the development of a “female occupation” was necessary, and created a social atmosphere for it. In this social atmosphere, it was women from women"s groups like the YWCA that started to develop a “female occupation.” YWCA tried to change the structure of gender occupational separation through a “New Women"s Vocational Development Project.” Unlike the government, the YWCA excluded the existing “female occupation.” Instead, the YWCA defined “female occupation” as occupations that women could enter, among “male occupations.” It trained female workers in fields such as papering, painting, and tiling. As a result, there has been a slight change in the gender hierarchy and conditions of the workplace. Through training, female participants who entered “male occupations” felt proud of their experience in the gender hierarchy, and equal pay for men and women. The change in the experience and perception of these women was the driving force behind the expansion of “female occupations” in the 1980s.

경력 추구 차이에 따른 집단 간 심리, 직무 및 경력 특성 비교: 직업변경 이직자, 동일 직업 이직자, 비 이직자를 중심으로

조지연,탁진국 한국산업및조직심리학회 2021 한국심리학회지 산업 및 조직 Vol.34 No.4

The purpose of this study is to search for variables that indicate the differences between the groups, occupation change group, same occupation turnover group, no turnover group. As a variable representing differences, it was classified into psychological variables, job-related variables, and career-related variables to investigate which characteristic variables represent differences between the occupation change group and other groups. For the study, a survey was conducted on male and female occupational workers in the early stage of their careers, divided into three groups according to the difference in career pursuit: occupation change group, same occupation turnover group, no turnover group, and data were collected from 1,002 people except for insincere responses. The results obtained through this study are as follows. First, the variables that differed between the occupation change group and no turnover group are as follows. For psychological variables, openness to experience, extroversion, growth needs, risk-taking tendency, and career-related variables were derived from protein career orientation and occupational identity. Second, the variables that differed between the occupation change group and the same occupation turnover group are as follows. The psychological variables were extroversion and risk-taking, and career-related variables were protein career orientation. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the protean career orientation, which is the value that he or she individuals pursues with the initiative in extroversion, risk sensitivity, and career when changing occupation. Based on the above results, the significance, limitations and suggestions of this study were discussed.

영토취득과 실효적 지배기준에 대한 연구

金彩炯(Chai-Hyung KIM) 대한국제법학회 2009 國際法學會論叢 Vol.54 No.2

19세기 유럽강대국들에 의한 식민지지배의 시기에 영토주권의 취득에 관한 법은 유럽의 식민지강대국들의 필요성을 고려하여 발전되었다. 그리고 유럽강대국들의 영토취득에 관한 상호간의 충돌을 피하기 위하여 1884년 개최된 베를린회의에서 실효적 지배를 강조하게 되었다. 이러한 시대 이후 국제사회의 힘의 구조가 급격히 변화하였으며 영토에 대한 권원을 규율하는 방식과 규칙도 상응한 개혁을 요구하는 변화를 겪게 되었다. 영토취득의 전통적 방식들은 이러한 방식을 만들어 낸 국제사회의 필요성과 요구를 단지 반영하므로, 이러한 전통적 방식들은 변화를 열망하는 현대의 국제공동체의 기대를 충족시키는데 적합하지가 않았다. 현대의 영토분쟁들은 분쟁영토에 대하여 국가들이 경합적인 주권을 주장하는 경우가 많다. 때로는 성과 같이 멀리 떨어진 영토가 분쟁의 대상이 되는데, 이러한 섬의 중요성은 섬의 고유의 가치보다는 자원의 이용에서 질투와 경쟁심을 불러일으킬 수 있는 주변지역의 잠재적인 자원의 거대한 가치 때문이다. 그래서 현재의 국제사회에서 필요한 것은 이러한 국제사회의 필요성에 부응할 수 있는 영토질서인 것이다. 그런데 영토에 관한 법의 전통적 질서는 국가들 간의 국경선의 안정을 위한 국가들의 요구에 부응하지 못하고 있다. 본고에서는 우선적으로 영토에 대한 권원을 확립하는 전통적인 방식을 살펴보며, 이후 영토취득의 방식으로 중요한 위치를 차지하고 있는 실효적 지배의 개념과 이러한 개념이 역사적으로 실행된 경우를 분석하였다. 그리고 20세기 초반이후 국제판결에서 실효적 지배의 기준이 어떻게 변화되어 구체적으로 적용되었는가를 검토하고, 마지막으로 도서영유권에 관한 최근의 국제판례에서 실효적 지배의 개념 및 기준이 구체적으로 적용된 판례를 분석하였다. 그런데 국제판례에서 보면 실효적 지배가 분쟁영토의 배타적인 취득을 확립하는 합법적인 수단이라는 것은 논란이 되지 않지만, 특정한 상황에서 무엇이 실효적 지배에 실제로 해당하는 가는 논란의 핵심이 되었다. 실제 분쟁영토의 실효적 지배문제가 관련된 국제재판에서 비교적 더 강력한 증거를 제시하는 국가가 분쟁영토에 대한 권원을 가진 것으로 판결이 되었다. 이러한 접근방식이 본 논문에서 분석한 실효적 지배에 관련된 고전적 국제판례와 최근의 도서영유권에 관한 국제판례에서 분명히 나타난다. The traditional prescriptions of the law of territorial acquisition developed a fluid scenario in the nineteenth century when the European powers were actively competing for acquisition of territory in foreign lands for the purpose of colonization and economic domination. Therefore, the development of the law on the acquisition of sovereignty over territory took into account. in different forms, the needs only of the European colonizing powers in their relations inter se. However, these inter se claims based on inchoate title remained ineffective until the colonizing powers acquired the necessary capabilities to back them up by acts of effective occupation. Thus, the Berlin Congress of 1884 laid a heavy stress on the requirement of effective occupation, making no distinction whether the territory was terra nullius or not, or whether it was inhabited or uninhabited. The power structure of world society since then has undergone radical changes requiring corresponding reforms in the modalities and prescriptions governing title to territory. Inasmuch as the traditional modes of acquiring territory reflect only the needs and requirements of the international society which created them, they are inadequate to meet the expectations of the contemporary international community, which aspires for change. Modern territorial disputes often involve competitive claims by states invoking possession of the disputed territory. Occasionally, isolated territories such as islands are the subject of dispute, but their importance is not so much due to the intrinsic value of the land as due to the enormous value of the potential resources in the surrounding areas generating jealously and competition in the use of the resources. Thus, what is needed is a territorial order which will be adequate to the needs of such a society. The traditional rules of the law of territory do not answer the needs of states for stability of their territories. In this paper, first of all. I review the traditional modes for establishing the title to territory, analyse the perception of effective occupation which has the important position in the modes of acquiring the sovereignty over territory and the historical practices of this perception. Thereafter I reviewed how the criteria of effective occupation is changed at the judgments by international courts and tribunals since early twentieth century and analysed after all the four judgments in which the perception and the criteria of effective occupation were applied at the recent international judgments related to the sovereignty over islands. While it is undisputed that effective occupation is a lawful mode of establishing exclusive acquisition of the disputed territory at the judgments by international courts and tribunals, the real bone of contention is about what really amounts to effective occupation in a given situation. Actually, in the proceedings about the reality of the effective occupation of the disputed territory, the one who adduced relatively stronger evidence was awarded the title to territory. This approach clearly appears at the judgments related to the effective occupation by international courts and tribunals which are analysed in this paper.

직업의 자유에 관한 헌법재판소 판례의 주요 법리 분석

권건보 아주대학교 법학연구소 2018 아주법학 Vol.12 No.2

헌법 제15조에 규정하고 있는 직업의 자유는 인간다운 삶을 영위하기 위하여 자신이 원하는 직업을 선택할 수 있고 스스로 선택한 직업을 자신의 뜻에 따라 종사할 수 있는 자유를 말한다. 이러한 직업의 자유는 인간의 자아실현의 수단인 동시에 인간다운 생존의 물질적 기반으로 인식되고 있다. 직업의 자유의 내용은 크게 좁은 의미의 직업결정의 자유와 직업수행의 자유로 나누어볼 수 있다. 이 중에서 직업결정의 자유는 `좁은 의미의 직업선택의 자유`로 표현되고, 직업수행의 자유는 `직업수행의 자유`로 헌법재판소에 의해 표현되고 있다. 하지만 헌법상 보장된 직업의 자유도 절대적인 것이 아니라 필요하고 불가피한 경우에는 헌법 제37조 제2항에 근거하여 법률로써 제한할 수 있는 것이다. 이에 따라 직업의 자유에 대한 제한의 합헌성을 심사함에 있어서 기본권 제한의 일반원칙들이 적용되어야 할 것이다. 그런데 우리 헌법재판소는 직업의 자유를 규제하는 법률에 대한 위헌심사기준으로서 과잉금지의 원칙을 적용하면서, 그 구체적 적용에 있어서 이른바 단계이론의 법리를 원용하고 있다. 단계이론은 직업선택의 자유와 전직의 자유에 비해 직업수행의 자유에 대해서는 보다 광범위한 법률상의 규제가 가능하다는 것이다. 우리 헌법재판소는 이러한 단계이론에 입각하여 직업의 자유에 대한 제한의 합헌성을 검토함에 있어서 그 심사의 강도를 단계에 따라 다르게 적용하고 있음을 볼 수 있다. 하지만 우리 헌법재판소 판례에 있어서 직업의 자유에 대한 제한의 단계를 구분하는 기준이 명확하지 않고, 과잉금지원칙을 적용함에 있어서 구체적인 심사의 강도를 일관된 흐름 속에 체계화하지 못하고 있다. 향후 직업의 자유 제한 법률의 합헌성 심사와 관련된 우리 헌법재판소의 판단 기준이 일반적인 과잉금지원칙의 적용에서 벗어나 좀 더 구체화되고 세련되게 다듬어질 필요가 있다고 본다. Article 15 of Constitution of the Republic of KOREA states that every nation shall enjoy freedom to choose an occupation. As a result, everyone has the right to carry out the freely chosen occupation. The occupation has indispensable relation to personal worth of individuals as the ground to be able to accomplish his own personality. The Freedom of Occupation can be classified roughly into two types; Freedom to choose one`s occupation and the Freedom to carry out one`s occupation. The Freedom of Occupation can be restricted pursuant to the Constitution of Korea Article 37 (2) by considering the purpose or necessity of the limitation, nature and contents of the limited occupation, The Constitutional Court of Korea partially adopted the three-step theory in restricting the Freedom of Occupation which was developed by the Constitutional Court of Germany. But the Constitutional Court of Korea could not fully applied the three-step theory and escaped hurriedly to the Principle of Proportionality because it did not fully understand the three-step theory. In addition, the Principle of Proportionality is overused by Constitutional Court of Korea in reviewing the constitutionality of the Acts restricting the Freedoms including the Freedom of Occupation.