한ㆍ중ㆍ일 FTA체결에 대비한 원산지 관련법 통일화 방안 연구

김석철(Suk-Chul Kim) 한국관세학회 2009 관세학회지 Vol.10 No.4

In this study, main tasks for the standardization of the related raw of origin will be described like below. First of all, in case of non preferential items, according to the Foreign-trade-law, Ministry of Knowledge Economy in Korea is the main ministry is currently leading the negotiation with other relevant ministries and making the comprehensive framework. In case of the preferential items, according to the Customs-law, Korea Customs Service is managing the origin of items. However, in case of China, the director legislated the ordinance of the origin of export cargo and the relevant ministries are managing them In case of Japan, Customs service is managing the rule of origin according to the Customs-law. The thing is that the two foreign countries are not comprehensively managing the rule of origin and therefore, they urgently have to build up the framework for the rule of origin like Korea. Second of all, the main purpose of the rule of origin in Korea is to manage, to prohibit the import and export, to keep the fair trade and to protect the customers. However, China aims to confirm the origin country in order to carry out the rule of origin. Japan aims to manage standard of origin decision for management of preferential origin. Each country has different purpose for the rule of origin. To pursue the common market among three countries, each of us manages the rule of origin, aiming comprehensively to manage non preferential items and preferential items, to keep the fair trade and to protect the customers. Third of all, Korea, Japan and China differently defined items for the management of origin. It's because they have different manageable purposes. We have to unify the purpose and defined items of the rule of origin. Fourth of all, when we consider the table 3 of standard of origin for judgement, Korea, Japan and China have different criteria. Therefore, we have to set up the same criteria for the actual operation. Fifth of all, Korea, Japan and China differently manage to indicate the origin. It's mainly because Japan and China are insufficient to keep the fair trade and to protect the customers. To make the common market among three countries is the core goal for Korea, Japan and China FTA. That's why we have to hurry up to establish the standard for the management of the rule of origin. Sixth of all, the punishment level for the rule is the key indicator to express the achievement of common missions. Comparing with Korea, Japan and China relatively have the weak punishment regulations and have to improve these rules. Beyond what I listed up, there would be a lot of tasks to improve the standardization. However, I summarized the priority tasks. Korea, Japan and China will have bigger portion in the world wide economy if free trade deal among three countries is contracted. As the necessity of this FTA is important, I hope that this thesis would help. There are a lot of improvement opportunities to strengthen the standardization and I win keep going it.

미술사에서의 독창성

조인수(Cho, Insoo) 한국미술사교육학회 2014 美術史學 Vol.- No.28

미술사 연구에서 “독창성(originality)”은 오랫동안 중요한 문제로 여겨져왔다. 예술의 독창성에 대한 이론적 탐구는 미술사 보다는 미학에서 주로 이루어졌다. 미학에서 독창성은 창의성(creativity)과 더불어 예술의 기본 특성으로 간주되기에 이에 대한 철학적이고 인식론적 접근이 시도되었다. 반면 미술사에서는 이를 본격적으로 다루기보다는 역사 속에서 구체적인 사례를 연구하면서 개별 작가나 작품에 대하여 독창성을 언급하는 방식이었다. 이 글에서는 서양과 동양의 미술사에서 독창성이란 문제가 어떻게 다루어졌는지를 비교해 보고, 현재 전개되고 있는 미술의 경우를 예로 들면서 독창성이 어떤 의미를 지니는 지를 살펴본다. 미술에서 완전한 새로움을 기대하는 것은 모더니즘의 유산인데, 이를 다시 생각해 보는 것은 중요한 의미를 지닌다. 서양 고대인들에게 예술은 창조성과는 거리가 먼 것이었다. 예술가는 아름다움을 만들어 내는 것이 아니라 발견해 내는 역할을 담당하는 것이었다. 따라서 모방을 뜻하는 그리스어 “미메시스”는 오랫동안 중요한 개념이 되었다. 중세에는 무(無)의 상태에서 유(有)를 만들어내는 창조란 것은 신의 영역에 속하는 것을 가리키게 되었고, 인간에게는 해당되지 않는 것이었다. 이렇게 미술가는 창조하는 것이 아니라 모방하는 것이라는 관점은 르네상스 시대에도 지속되었고, 모방이론의 중요성은 정점에 도달했다. 창조와 독창성에 대한 인식의 변화는 낭만주의가 본격적으로 등장한 19세기에 이루어졌다. 고전주의와 달리 낭만주의는 기계적 모방에 의한 복제를 낮게 평가했고, 예술을 단순한 모방을 넘어서는 창조라고 인식하기 시작했다. 낭만주의에서는 자아만이 독창성의 근원이 된다. 낭만주의와 마찬가지로 모더니즘 역시 이미 존재하고 있는 관습을 반복하지 않고, 기존 위계질서를 전복시키려고 한다. 서양 미술의 사례를 통해서 살펴보았을 때 독창성이란 사회적으로 구성되는 것이라고 할 수 있다. 사회적, 문화적, 경제적, 제도적, 역사적, 성적 조건에 따라 독창성을 다르게 규정할 수 있는 것이다. 한편 동양의 고대 화론을 살펴보면 독창성과 관련하여 지속적으로 논의해 왔음을 발견할 수 있다. 처음에 중요했던 것은 “일격(逸格)”이라는 개념이다. 신품(神品), 묘품(妙品), 능품(能品)으로 그림의 품격을 나누었고, 그 밖에 통상적인 법에 구애받지 않는 것으로서 일격을 두었다. 창의적이고 독창적인 요소를 별개의 범주로 구분한 것이다. 이후에 독창성에 해당하는 용어로 많이 사용된 것은 낯설다는 “괴(怪)”, 다르다는 “이(異)”, 기묘하다는 “기(奇)” 등이 있다. 특히 명말청초에 해당하는 17세기에는 기(奇)가 많이 사용되었다. 기(奇)는 기존의 분류에 속하지 않고, 이전과는 확연하게 다르며, 화가 자신만의 특징을 갖추고 있다는 의미로 쓰였음을 알 수 있다. 동기창(董其昌, 1555-1636)은 “정(正)”과 대비되는 것으로 “기(奇)”를 중요시했고, 기묘함의 예술적 가치에 대하여 긍정적이었다. 조선에서도 강세황(姜世晃, 1712-1791)이나 김정희(金正喜, 1786-1856)의 경우에 “기(奇)”를 강조했다. 21세기에 독창성의 문제를 다시 생각해 보게 만드는 좋은 사례를 중국선전(深?)의 다펀유화촌(大芬油畵村)에서 찾아 볼 수 있다. 이곳에서는 연간 500만점 이상의 유화를 제작하여 수출하고 있다. 대부분이 서양미술사에서 유명한 작품들의 복제화로서 다펀유화촌의 사례는 독창성에 대한 오래된 고정관념을 깨준다. In the field of art history, “originality” has long been an important issue. A theoretical examination of the creativity of art has been taken mainly in aesthetics rather than in art history. Aestheticians considered originality together with creativity as the basic characteristics of art, and they attempted philosophical and epistemological approach. On the contrary, art historians have tried to explain specific cases about the originality of the individual artists and artworks. Searching for the newness in art is a crucial feature of modernism, and it is a significant task to rethink the myth of originality. This article based on a comparative point of view explores how the East and the West deal with the issue of originality in art history. The ancient Western people considered that art has nothing to do with creativity because they believed that artists are not to create but to find beauty. “Mimesis” meaning imitation in Greek was an important concept for a long time. In the Middle Ages, people believed that the creation which means making something from nothing is the realm of God. The idea that artists’ mission is not creating but imitating continued in the Renaissance period. The perception of originality and creativity began to change with the emergence of Romanticism in the 19th century. Unlike Classicism, Romanticism devaluated a mechanical imitation as replication and recognized art as creation beyond mere imitation. Only the self is the source of creativity in Romanticism. Likewise, Modernism also refused customary repetition and tried to overthrow the hierarchy of art. The thorough examination of the ancient East Asian art theory reveals that the concept of originality has a long tradition. In the early period, the term of “untrammeled (yil 逸格)” played an important role in the discourse of originality. The categories of inspired (sin 神品), excellent (myo 妙品) and capable (n?ng 能品) are established. Beside them, the “untrammeled” is listed. It is not placed blow but considered as an independent category with its creative and innovative elements. In the later periods, originality is used in several different words that are “strange (koe 怪)”, “uncommon (yi 異)”, “original (ki 奇)” and so on. In the 17th century, ki (Ch. qi 奇) gained popularity. Ki does not belong to the traditional classification and means evidently different with its own sense of strangeness. Dong Qichang (董其昌, 1555-1636) highly valued ki as contrasted with “proper (Ch?ng 正).” To him, ki was positive about the artistic creation. Korean literati painters, such as Kang Se-hwang (姜世晃, 1712-1791) and Kim Ch?ng-h?i (金正喜, 1786-1856), also emphasized ki. In the 21st century, Dafen Oil Painting Village in Shenzhen becomes a good case to think of originality. Most of the famous works of Western art history are copied here and exported to all over the world. More than five million paintings are produced every year. The Dafen case raises many important questions for creativity and breaks old stereotypes of copying. From the above examples, it is clear that creativity is being socially constructed, and originality is defined differently according to the prescribed social, cultural, institutional and gender conditions.

UCP 600에서의 원본서류와 사본의 수리요건에 관한 연구

허재창(Huh Jae Chang) 한국무역상무학회 2008 貿易商務硏究 Vol.38 No.-

  It is a basic rule in the credit law that original documents are required unless otherwise stipulated by the credit. Due to modern technology enabling documents to be produced in many ways it may not always to decide whether a document is original or a photocopy.<BR>  In consideration of modern technology and the advent of new methods of document production, ICC has drawn up the provisions on original documents in Article 22 (b) of UCP 400 for the first time. The equivalent provision in UCP 500 is Article 20 (b).<BR>  As a result of many queries to ICC Banking Commission on what constitutes an "original" documents under UCP 500 and several court cases in connection with original documents, the ICC Banking Commission has issued Decision on original documents in July 1999. Based on this Decision, the ICC dealt it in Article 17 under UCP 600 which came into force on July 1, 2007.<BR>  There are some changes, replacements and new provisions of UCP 600 concerning original documents and copies.<BR>  Importers, exporters, insurance companies, other third parties and, above all, banks should pay attention to some changes and implications of UCP 600 concerning original documents and copies.<BR>  The purpose of this paper is to examine the provisions on original documents and copies under UCP 600.<BR>  For this purpose, firstly this study deals with the relative provisions on original documents and copies under pre-UCP 600. Secondly this study considers the provisions on original documents and copies under UCP 600. Thirdly this study compares the provisions under pre-UCP 600 with the provisions under UCP 600. Finally this study analyzes the cases decided both home and abroad in connection with original documents.<BR>  This paper contribute to help the parties to letters of credit to understand the provisions on original documents and copies under UCP 600.

Visualization of the Origin of the Vertebral Arteries with Color Doppler Sonography

Seok-Hwan Yoon(윤석환) · Won-Hong (이원홍) · Dae-Hyung Lee(이대형) 대한방사선과학회(구 대한방사선기술학회) 2009 방사선기술과학 Vol.32 No.1

배경/목적 : 경추골동맥 기시부의 동맥경화증은 경추기저 국소빈혈증의 위험인자 중 하나이기 때문에 경추 골동맥 기시부를 확인해야 할 필요가 있다. 색도플러 초음파검사에 의한 경추골동맥 기시부의 관찰 및 평가는 기술적으로 어려움이 있으며, 특히 왼쪽 기시부는 더욱 그렇다. 이 연구의 목적은 색도플러 초음파검사 시경추골동맥 기시부의 관찰률을 높이는 것이다. 대상 및 방법 : 경동맥을 포함한 경추골동맥의 색도플러 초음파검사가 198명에 대해 시행되었다. 경추골동맥 기시부를 다른 혈관의 기시부와 더 쉽게 구분하기 위해 목 윗부분의 경추동맥에서부터 쇄골하동맥 측으로 검사를 시행하였다. 검사 기술적으로 경추골동맥 기시부가 바로누운자세의 자연스러운 위치에서 관찰되지 않을 경우, 초음파 트랜스듀서를 쇄골 측으로 밀고, 그래도 관찰되지 않을 경우 다른 손으로 어깨를 밀어 관찰을 시도하였다. 경추골동맥 기시부의 깊이와 위 세 가지 방법 및 그에 따른 관찰률을 확인하기 위하여, 검사된 초음파 영상에서 관찰된 경추골동맥 기시부의 위치를 3.0 cm 이하와 그 이상으로 구분하였다. 결 과 : 오른쪽 경추골동맥 기시부는 97%, 왼쪽 경추골동맥 기시부는 92%에서 관찰되었다. 3.0 cm 이하 에서 관찰된 오른쪽 경추골동맥 기시부 중 자연스러운 자세, 트랜스듀서 밀기, 그리고 어깨 밀기에서 관찰된 경우는 각각 98.6%, 1.4%, 그리고 0.0%이었다. 그리고 3.0 cm 보다 더 깊은 위치에서 관찰된 오른쪽 경추골동맥 기시부 중 자연스러운 자세, 트랜스듀서 밀기, 그리고 어깨 밀기에서 관찰된 경우는 각각 81.2%, 14.6%, 그리고 4.2%이었다. 3.0 cm 이하에서 관찰된 왼쪽쪽 경추골동맥 기시부 중 자연스러운 자세, 트랜스듀서 밀기, 그리고 어깨 밀기에서 관찰된 경우는 각각 85.4%, 10.7%, 그리고 3.9%%이었다. 그리고 3.0 cm 보다 더 깊은 위치에서 관찰된 오른쪽 경추골동맥 기시부 중 자연스러운 자세, 트랜스듀서 밀기, 그리고 어깨 밀기에서 관찰된 경우는 각각 55.7%, 30.4%, 그리고 13.9%이었다. 결 론 : 경추골동맥의 색도플러 초음파검사에서 그 기시부가 바로누운자세의 자연스러운 위치에서 관찰되지 않을 경우, 초음파 트랜스듀서를 쇄골 측으로 밀거나 그래도 관찰되지 않을 경우 다른 손으로 어깨를 밀어 관찰을 시도한다면, 관찰률을 좀더 높일 수 있을 것으로 사료된다. Background/aim : Atherosclerotic disease at the origin of the vertebral arteries is one of the risk factors for vertebrobasilar ischemic disease. Assessment and visualization of the origin of the vertebral arteries with color doppler sonography is a non-trivial task. The aim of this study is to increase the visualization rate of the origin of the vertebral arteries with color doppler sonography. Materials and Methods : Color doppler sonography for the vertebral arteries in cluded carotid arteries was performed to 198 patients. We first examined the vertebral artery in the upper neck in the direction of the subclavian artery to distinguish its origin more easily. If the vertebral artery origin was not visualized in natural position, the examiner pushed the transducer toward a clavicle or pushed the shoulder of patient by the other hand. The technical methods for visualization of the vertebral artery origin were classified into three grades: natural position, pushing the transducer, and pushing the shoulder of patient according to the depth (3.0 cm and shallower, deeper than 3.0 cm) of the origin. Results : The origin of the vertebral arteries could be visualized in 97% on the right and in 92% on the left. The origin of the vertebral arteries could be visualized in 98.6%, 1.4%, and 0.0% in natural position, pushing the transducer, and pushing the shoulder of patient, respectively, at shallower than 3.0 cm on the right side. The origin of the vertebral arteries could be visualized in 81.2%, 14.6%, and 4.2% in natural position, pushing the transducer, and pushing the shoulder of patient, respectively, at deeper than 3.0 cm on the right side. The origin of the vertebral arteries could be visualized in 85.4%, 10.7%, and 3.9% in natural position, pushing the transducer, and pushing the shoulder of patient, respectively, at shallower than 3.0 cm on the left side. The origin of the vertebral arteries could be visualized in 55.7%, 30.4%, and 13.9% in natural position, pushing the transducer, and pushing the shoulder of patient, respectively, at deeper than 3.0 cm on the left side. Conclusion : If the examiner pushes the transducer toward a clavicle or pushes the shoulder of patient by the other hand, when the vertebral artery origin during the color doppler sonography is not visualized in natural position, visualization rate of the origin of the both vertebral arteries is increased.

신용장 및 보증서 원본 관련 판례분석

박세운(Sae-woon Park),정두식(Doo-sig Jung) 한국국제상학회 2012 國際商學 Vol.27 No.1

It is indisputable that mail credits and mail guarantees are regarded as original in themselves. However, it is controversial whether teletransmitted credits or guarantees are regarded as original. If an advising bank prints the teletransmission and advises to the beneficiaries the teletransmission accompanied by a covering letter, then it can be regarded as an original. But it can be disputable when the advising bank just advises the teletransmission online after checking the apparent authenticity only. There is a law case that a telefaxed copy can not be regarded as original even if it may in a certain circumstances qualify as an operative credit instrument. Such confusion regarding the original as such can be attributed to the lack of definition of the original credits in a uniform rule. Besides, a failure to present original L/C or guarantee when the presentation of its original L/C or guarantee is required may cause refusal in some law cases and international standards banking practices. Thus, when presentation of original is required in L/C or guarantee, the beneficiary should ask either to delete the condition or to add a condition that the issuing bank may provide a replacement or waive any requirement that the original be presented when an original is lost. Other possible remedy would be to have the lost document declared invalid by the court. The drawback is that the procedure for such a declaration takes at least six months, so it is unlikely that a court order will be obtained before L/C or the guarantee expires.

주자의 역학에 나타난 원(元)에 관하여

백은기 범한철학회 2008 汎韓哲學 Vol.50 No.3

Generally Originality means ultimate good, the long span of time, spring, equality and liberty. Chu Hsi Regard Originality as a divinity word. literally he maintained that Originality means greatness. In case four virtue, Chu Hsi interpreted Originality as Love. In the ontological view, Chu Hsi thought that Originality means not only Greatness Chi but also the origin of Chi. He also thought a apart of stream of Chi. In addition to Originality means Origin of Life as well as basis of virtue of heaven. In the epistemological view, Chu Hsi thought we can understand the real meaning of Originality. but we can’t explain the Originality in word. but we can know the sign of Originality in the beginning of matter. In the value view, Chu Hsi thought that Originality means not only ultimate good but also the condition of becoming superior. Chu Hsi thought that Originality means the beginning of Human as well as the totality of Human. Without Originality, he thought that Human would have disappeared in the world. As a result, He asserted that Originality means the Essence of I Ching. So those who wate to be a good leader must have Originality as a the virtue. 원(元)은 점사에서, 원기(元氣)로, 최고의 善으로, 시간의 단위, 자유와 평등 등으로 이해되었다. 일반적으로 원이 점사(占辭)일 경우에는 ‘대(大)’ 즉 ‘크다’의 의미이고, 사덕(四德)일 경우에는 인(仁)으로 해석한다. 첫째, 존재론적으로 원(元)은 원기이다. 원은 기(氣)의 시원이며, 원은 기의 흐름의 한 부분이다. 또한 원은 생명의 시원이다. 둘째, 인식론적․방법론적으로 원은 앎의 대상이다. 셋째, 가치론적으로 원은 최고의 선(善)이고, 인간의 시원이며 전체라고 파악한다. 그래서 주자는 원(元)이 없으면 세계는 사라질 것이라고 단언한 것이다. 아울러 주자는 이 원이 인간사회의 리더를 위한 덕목이라고 말한다.

한·미 FTA하에서 원산지증빙서류의 기록유지요건과 원산지검증 사례연구

권순국(Soon-Koog Kwon) 한국무역연구원 2017 무역연구 Vol.13 No.3

The KoreažUS FTA has shown significant results in terms of trade in goods, trade in services, investment and job creation. Any importer, exporter, or producer shall preserve the documents evidencing origin stipulated as necessary for the verification of origin and the application of preferential tariffs pursuant to the Korea-US FTA. If the customs authority of any contracting state requests the submission of the documents evidencing origin, any importer, exporter, or producer shall submit it. The purpose of this study is to examine the legal standard and origin verification cases on record keeping requirements of documents evidencing origin under the Korea-US FTA. In order to achieve the purpose of this study, this paper uses the literature research and case analysis on the documents evidencing origin. Results of this paper is to provide several implications for companies that utilize the Korea-US FTA. Therefore, the Korean companies need to do the following: identify the origin verification criterion under the Korea-US FTA, submit the documents evidencing origin stipulated in the Korea-US FTA and the Act on Special Cases of the Customs Act for the Implementation of FTA, correct the Harmonized System (HS) code and preserve the documents evidencing origin for applications of FTA preferential tariffs, manage the documents evidencing origin against origin verification, and comply with the origin criterion on fungible goods and materials under the Korea-US FTA.

일러스트레이션의 ORIGINALITY(작가 고유의 표현)에 관한 연구

장범순 한국일러스트레이션학회 2009 일러스트레이션 포럼 Vol.10 No.21

21세기 정보화시대 매스 미디어의 발달로 인해 현대인에게 다양한 정보가 넓은 전달 범위와 빠른 속도로 전달되고 있다. 특히 전달 효과 면에서 뛰어난 시각언어인 일러스트레이션은 사회성과 대중성이란 특성으로 인해 각종 매체에서 활발하게 활용되고 있지만 표현 제작과 전달에만 급급한 나머지 독창적인 표현기법과 스타일을 확보하는 방법론 연구에 대해서는 미진한 실태이다. 본 논문을 통하여 일러스트레이션의 특성과 Originality (작가고유의 표현)의 개념을 고찰하고 표현재료나 도구 그리고 스타일이 테마 또는 메시지와 어떻게 조화되어 독창적인 작품이 탄생되었으며 Originality를 확보하는데 미술사조의 영향을 어떻게 받았는지 살펴보았다. 시대의 흐름에 순행하는 일러스트레이션의 역할을 위해 일러스트레이션의 특성과 Originality의 관계를 규명하며, 일러스트레이션의 생명이라고 할 수 있는 개성과 독자성의 본질을 밝혀내고자 조형성과 전달성에 부합하는 차별화된 고유성을 기준으로 발상유형을 추출하였다. 미술사를 이끌어간 대가들의 작품과 거장 일러스트레이션의 작품들을 발상유형에 따라 분류하여 분석해보았으며 Originality 개발 방안으로 Personal Work 개념의 중요성을 제시함으로 학계와 교육, 그리고 실무 현장에서 필요로 하는 독창적이고 고유한 일러스트레이션 표현 방법의 기반을 마련하고자 했다. In the 21st century, computerization age make the advancement of mass-media, therefore various informations are delivered to the moderns with broad delivery pace and high speed. Especially illustration part(visual language) which has tremendous communication effect in delivery is used in various mass-media actively because of the sociality and popularity. But the research of methodology which can establish the creative expression techniques and style is very poor, because we think only of making expression and delivery. The purposes of this study are as follows : First, we examine the concept of characteristics of illustration and originality(illustrator's original presentation method). And we study when original work of art is born, how the expressive material, tool and style theme are harmonized with theme and message. And that point, we look into how the thought of art is influenced to the establishment of originality. Second, to find out the role of illustration which can going in order the time, we examine the relationship between characteristics of illustration and originality. Third, to find out the nature of individuality and originality which can say the soul of illustration, we analyze the type of idea according to the differentiated originality which is coincided with plasticity and power of communication. In this process, we analyze the great master's (who lead the art history) and great illustrator's work concentrated on the type of expression method of originality. Finally, we presented the importance of the personal work concept for development plan of originality. Ultimately, we can make the base of creative and original illustration expression method which is needed in the academic, educational and practical illustration field.

헌법해석과 원의주의의 쟁점

김민배 헌법재판소 2016 헌법논총 Vol.27 No.-

미국에서는 헌법해석의 방법론을 둘러싼 논쟁이 치열하다. 원의주의는 사법부의 헌법 해석을 원의에 따르도록 하여, 법원에 대한 통제를 목적으로 한 논의였다. 그러나 헌법해석을 둘러싼 논쟁에는 그 배경과 역사, 상호이해관계, 개인과 국가의 대립, 집단과 집단, 정부와 국민, 현재 권력과 미래권력과의 대립 등이 내재되어 있다. 헌법해석의 방법으로 긴 생명력을 유지하고 있는 원의주의론이 가장 영향력을 갖고 있는 곳은 미국이다. 미국에서는 건국 당초부터 헌법 제정자의 의도를 둘러싼 논란이 있었다. 연방대법원은 헌법의 최고 법규성 및 사법권 조항에서 사법심사권을 도출하고 있다그러나 그 반작용으로 과거의 구속 내지 죽은 자에 의한 기속이라는 문제가 제기되었다. 그리고 그것은 원의주의가 죽은 헌법과 살아있는 헌법이라는 논쟁으로 이어지는 발단이 되었다. 보크는 원의로부터의 접근만이 헌법 재판, 민주적 정당성, 그리고 미국 공화정체제의 구상에 일치한다고 했다. 그렇다면 원의로부터의 접근이란 어떤 것인가. 보크에 의하면 헌법은 정해진 절차에 의한 것이 아니면 일반적으로 바꿀 수 없는 룰로 생각한다. 우리들의 동의에 의해 제정법이 수정되거나 폐기되어야 하고, 헌법은 제5조에 정해진 절차에 따라 수정된다는 것이다. 법이나 헌법에 일정한 변경 절차가 존재한다는 것은 법관에 의해 변경되어서는 안된다는 것을 의미하는 것이라고 한다. 보크에 따르면 헌법은 다수파의 의사와 개인의 자유를 어떻게 조정하느냐는 방법적 딜레마를 안고 있다. 이때 사법부가 개인의 자유를 지키는 역할을 할 것으로 기대한다. 하지만 법관이 헌법을 떠나 자유롭게 판단하게 되면 그 자체가 법이 되어 버리고, 민주 정치의 틀을 무너뜨리게 된다고 한다. 그래서 법관의 재량을 통제할 필요가 있다는 것이다. 그러나 최근 미국의 헌법 학계에서는 원의주의론이 새로운 전개를 보이고 있다. 일부 이론적 수정을 거쳐서 다시 살아나고 있다. 전통적 원의주의와는 다소 차별화된 측면을 포함하고 있는 신원의주의가 그것이다. 신원의주의는 종래의 원의주의와 달리 헌법 제정자의 의도를 고집하지 않고, 조문의 의미를 중시하는 것으로, 시대의 변화에도 대응할 수 있다는 주장에 바탕을 두고 있다. 그것은 조문을 축으로 하면서도 추상적 원의를 설정하여 고전적 원의주의보다는 보편성 있는 해석론을 전개하고 있다. 하지만 원의주의의 핵심인 원의를 확대시키고 있다는 우려도 있다. . 한편 미국에서 헌법해석과 관련한 원의주의 논쟁이 헌법운동 내지는 정치세력화의 수단이 되고 있다는 점은 매우 흥미롭다. 따라서 원의주의적인 헌법해석을 시대착오적이라거나 낡은 헌법해석 방법으로 평가하는 것은 성급하다. 헌법해석의 방법으로서 원의주의는 기본적 인권은 물론 정치적 제도에 대해 영향을 미친다는 점에서 끊임없이 질문하고 검토해야 할 중요한 주제이다. 또한 민주주의와 헌법해석의 새로운 가능성을 우리들에게 묻고 있기 때문이다. 본 연구에서는 원의주의가 올바른 헌법이론인지 아니면 사법소극주의가 올바른 법원의 태도인지 여부에 초점을 두고 있지 않다. 그 보다는 미국 헌법해석의 핵심을 이루고 있는 전통적 원의주의의 원형에 대해 관심이 있다. 특히 보크의 원의주의론은 이론적 차원에서 뿐만 아니라 실천적 차원에서도 관심이 있다. 이를 분석하기 위해 브레스... What is originalism. Originalists believe that judges should interpret the Constitution to mean what it was understood to mean at the time it was ratified. In fact, many originalists argue, originalism is the only approach deserving of the name interpretation. Judges employing other approaches don’t mine the Constitution for meaning, as interpretation implies. Originalism may now be the most popular version of constitutional theory in the legal academy. It has been endorsed by well-known conservative scholars such as R. Bork, P. Brest, M. Ferry. It is also advocated by well-known originalist jurists such as Antonin Scalia. Bork’s theory of constitutional interpretation uses a variety of examples from finding the meaning of the written constitutional text, the search for original historiography, and nonoriginalist precedents. As a method of constitutional interpretation in the United States, originalism has a long history. It has been prominently advocated from the very first debates over constitutional meaning. Originalism regards the discoverable meaning of the Constitution at the time of its initial adoption as authoritative for purposes of constitutional interpretation in the present. Theories of original meaning are based on implicit assumptions of public knowledge about relevant constitutional provisions. This is most obvious in relatively simple formulations of theory, which interpret original meaning in terms of “what the public of that time would have understood the words to mean,” as Bork. The old originalism flourished from the 1960s through the 1980s. As the Warren Court’s rights revolution became increasingly controversial in the late 1960s, critics of the Court frequently recurred to original intent to ground their disagreement with the Court’s innovative rulings, Warren Court’s expansion of individual rights, especially those of criminal defendants. The new originalism offers a different variation on this basic theory than the old originalism. The new originalism has flourished since the early 1990s. It is more comprehensive and substantive than the old. It is more concerned with providing the basis for positive constitutional doctrine than the basis for subverting doctrine. The new originalism is focused less on the concrete intentions of individual drafters of constitutional text than on the public meaning of the text that was adopted. Originalist methods of constitutional interpretation were understood as a means to that end. Originalism was thought to limit the discretion of the judge. Originalism would also insist that those are interpretive questions to be discovered through historical investigations. These points also suggest what originalists should explicitly admit: interpretation requires judgment. I want to focus on the Brest, Bork. and Ferry theory. My focus here is on old originalism within academic constitutional theory. In this study, in particular, it was studied attention of constitutional interpretation and old Originalism. And I studied the issue over the attention of the legitimacy of judicial review, the dead hand, commitment to the Constitution, and the politicization of the court. As conclusion, I examined the re-discovery and a new flow of Originalism.

Problems of the Rules of Origin in the EU and the NAFTA : the Need to Expedite Completion of WTO Work for Harmonization

柳炳云 법무부 2004 통상법률 Vol.- No.57

Today, determining "where a product comes from" is very difficult when raw materials and parts cross the globe to become components of goods that may become in turn the components of other goods that are manufactured in many plants in several different countries. Moreover, the different rules of origin around the world are really varied and complicated. Many of the major trading countries have more than one set of preferential rules, as well as more than one set of non-preferential rules. Present various and complicated rules of origin may provoke lots of unnecessary trade controversies and obstacles to international trade, as well as increased transaction costs. To date, the WTO has not implemented a uniform regime for the harmonized rules of origin, which was scheduled to be accomplished within three years after the initiation of the harmonization work program. Thus far, countries have used different rules with different criteria to determine the origin of certain goods. Accordingly, they have sometimes experienced severe incompatibility problems as well as the use of the rules as disguised barriers to international trade. The work program for the harmonized rules of origin was to be initiated as soon as the completion of the Uruguay Round. The work would be conducted by a Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) in the WTO and a technical committee (TCRO) under the auspices of the Customs Cooperation Council in Brussels According to the schedule, the harmonized rules should have been completed by July 1998. While, some substantial progress has been achieved in the CRO and the TCRO, the work program for the harmonization could not be finalized within the estimated deadline. In December 2000, the General Council Special Session agreed to set, as the new deadline for the completion of the remained work, the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference at least by the end of 2001. The WTO, however, did not meet this deadline, even though it has by now largely completed the work with the exception of a few outstanding issues. The official reason for continued delay by the WTO was that the work was turned out to be more complicated than anticipated and several time extensions were required. However a look into the proceedings reveals a strong incentive for the established regional blocs, such as the EU and NAFTA, not to agree with the harmonized rules of origin. The established regional blocs enjoin advantages under the present regime of various and independent rules of origin. Sometimes, the use of rules of origin has a protectionist effect benefiting domestic industries. Thus although rules of origin may not be explicitly used for protectionist purposes, there is unavoidably a restrictive effect which discourages external source, and to a degree, free trade. Until the completion of the harmonization program, WTO members are required to ensure that their rules of origin are transparent that they do not have restricted, distorted or disruptive effects on international trade. Rules of origin must also be administered in a consistent and reasonable manner, and based on a positive standard. It is anticipated that rules of origin clearly define what criteria establish origin rather than what do not In reality, however, these guidelines are too weak to check the abuse of rules of origin as disguised protectionist measures. Because of the incentives not to agree to the harmonized rules of origin, the EU and the NAFTA member counties, especially the United States, are not actively pursuing completion of the work program for the harmonization. Even though the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin seeks to have its members comply with neutrality and transparency principles in implementing their rules of origin, rules of origin (including changing criteria in the rules) could be used for raising barriers to international trade, especially for the policies of major regional blocs, such as the EU and NAFTA. The examples are 1) lack of transparency in implement of the rules; 2) discretionary interpretation of the criteria in the rules; 3) complexity of the rules; 4) sudden and significant change of a criteria in the rules; 5) presumption of circumvention 6) denial of standing to challenge decisions regarding origin and 7) restrictions and the increase of restrictions on third country inputs. The restrictive effects of rules of origin could be drastically reduced by the establishment of a world-wide harmonized system governing rules of origin. Therefore, rapid completion of the WTO Work for Harmonization is very important Harmonization will further the ultimate objectives of the WTO and neutralize the trade disadvantages of nations which are not members of significant RTAs.