유럽 지역 국가의 헌법전문에 대한 비교연구

한병호(Han Byung-Ho) 한국헌법학회 2018 憲法學硏究 Vol.24 No.2

This study aims at comparing the formal and substantial aspects constitutional preambles of forty three countries in Europe, which are classified into two groups, Eastern and Western. Almost all of them, except for England, have written Constitutions, but some of them have no preambles: Romania in Eastern Europe, and eleven countries in Western Europe. As to the formal aspects of thirty preambles, the average of file sizes is 2,264 bytes, but that of Eastern Europe doubles that of Western Europe. Most of preambles consist of the only one sentence, except for five in Eastern Europe and four in Western Europe. As to the substantial aspects of preambles, have been examined subjects of constitution-making, forms of state, and many concepts of constitutional values, such as: democracy, rule of law, freedom, equality, justice, peace, human dignity, human rights, history, religion, etc. As the subjects of constitution-making, ‘people’ or ‘representatives’(or ‘Assembly’) is referred in twenty four countries, and ‘we’ referred in eleven. As to forms of state, republic is referred in ten Eastern European and three Western European countries, but monarchy in just two Western European countries. Federalism is referred in the only one Eastern European country and two Western European countries. In ten or more European countries are referred the concepts of constitutional values, such as: freedom(or liberty), democracy, history,justice, human rights, independence, sovereignty, peace, rule of law, republic, responsibility, future generation, human dignity, equality, religion, self-determination, and welfare(or wellbeing). And most of these concepts, except religion, are referred in seven or more countries of Eastern Europe too. In Western Europe, however, list of the concepts of constitutional values, which are referred in four or more countries, lacks many above-mentioned concepts, such as rule of law, republic, responsibility, future generation, human dignity, equality, self-determination, and welfare. It is assumed that this lack dues to short preambles, many Constitutions made long ago, and many monarchies in Western Europe. In addition, it is useful to mention that several concepts familiar to European countries, especially such as human dignity, human rights, and rule of law, lacks and should be contained in the constitutional preamble of South Korea.

오세아니아 지역 국가의 헌법상 해양관할권 규정

한병호(Byung-Ho Han) 한국해사법학회 2021 해사법연구 Vol.33 No.2

이 논문에서는 성문헌법이 없는 뉴질랜드를 제외한 오세아니아 지역 13개국의 헌법에서 해양관할권이 어떻게 규율되고 있는가를 분석한다. 먼저, 연안국의 해양관할권의 전제가 되는 영토와 관련하여 헌법상 영토조항을 분석한 결과, 영토의 범위나 경계를 직접적으로 또는 적극적으로 규율하는 영토조항을 두고 있는 국가는 10개국에 이른다. 이에 비해서, 하나 이상의 해양관할권 개념을 헌법에서 언급하는 국가는 5개국에 불과하다. 영해는 4개국, 대륙붕은 3개국, 배타적 경제수역은 1개국, 내수는 5개국, 군도는 3개국의 헌법에서 언급되며, 접속수역은 전혀 언급되지 않는다. 영해․대륙붕과 배타적 경제수역의 세 가지 핵심적인 해양관할권 개념과 관련해서는, 1개국(파푸아뉴기니)의 헌법에서만 그 세 가지가 모두 언급되고, 1개국(팔라우)의 헌법에서만 두 가지(영해와 대륙붕)가 언급될 뿐이다. 나머지 3개국의 헌법에서는 한 가지만 언급될 뿐인데, 마셜제도․투발루의 헌법에서는 영해만 언급되고, 미크로네시아연방 헌법에서는 대륙붕만 언급될 뿐이다. 이들 해양관할권 개념은 4개국(미크로네시아연방․투발루․파푸아뉴기니․팔라우)의 헌법에서는 국가의 주권․관할권이 미치는 공간적 범위를 규율하기 위해서 언급되고, 2개국(마셜제도․파푸아뉴기니)의 헌법에서는 연방․중앙정부와 주․지방정부 사이에 해양관할권의 국내적 배분을 규율하기 위해서 언급되며, 1개국(파푸아뉴기니)의 헌법에서는 국가의 관할권이 미치는 해양공간과 해양자원의 소유권 귀속을 규율하기 위해서 언급된다. 해양관할권의 범위나 경계와 관련해서는, 2개국(미크로네시아연방․팔라우)의 헌법에서만 200해리의 영해 또는 해양관할권을 명시하고 있고, 1개국(투발루)의 헌법에서만 그것에 관하여 법률로 정하도록 위임하고 있을 뿐이며, 해양관할권의 범위나 경계에 관하여 조약 등 국제법에 따르도록 규정하는 국가는 없다. 헌법에서 해양관할권 개념을 언급하면서도 해양관할권의 범위나 경계에 관해서는 침묵하는 국가가 2개국(마셜제도․파푸아뉴기니)이다. 이러한 연구결과는 세계 각국의 비교연구를 거쳐 해양과 관련한 한국헌법의 개정 논의에도 시사점을 제공할 것으로 기대된다. This paper analyzes how maritime jurisdiction is regulated in the constitutions of thirteen countries in Oceania, except New Zealand, which has no written constitution. As a result of analyzing territorial provisions in the constitutions, ten countries have territorial provisions by which the extent or boundary of their own territories is directly or actively regulated. In comparison, five countries mention one or more of the concepts of maritime jurisdiction in their own constitutions: The territorial sea is mentioned in four constitutions; the continental shelf in three constitutions; the exclusive economic zone in just one constitution; the internal waters in five constitutions; and the archipelago in three constitutions. Regarding the three basic concepts of the territorial sea, the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, all three concepts are mentioned just in one constitution (Papua New Guinea), and two concepts of the territorial sea and the continental shelf are mentioned in one constitution (Palau). Only one of the three concepts is mentioned in the other three constitutions: the territorial sea in two constitutions of the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, and the continental shelf in one constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia. These concepts of maritime jurisdiction are mentioned: To regulate the spatial extent of state sovereignty and jurisdiction in four constitutions (Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, and Tuvalu); to regulate the domestic distribution of maritime jurisdiction between the federal or central government and state or local governments in two constitutions (Marshall Islands and Papua New Guinea); and to regulate the attribution of ownership of marine space and marine resources within the jurisdiction of the state in one constitution (Papua New Guinea). As to the extent or boundary of maritime jurisdiction, 200 nautical miles of territorial waters or maritime jurisdiction are stipulated in the two constitutions (Micronesia and Palau), and only one constitution (Tuvalu) entrusts it with a law. However, there are no constitutions in Oceania that prescribe that the extent or boundary of maritime jurisdiction is regulated in accordance with international laws, such as treaties. Rather, there are two constitutions of Marshall Islands and Papua New Guinea, which mention the concepts of maritime jurisdiction, but remain silent about the extent or boundary of maritime jurisdiction.

듣기능력 향상을 위한 사례연구

한병호 ( Byung Ho Han ) 한국어교육학회 1965 국어교육 Vol.- No.11

세계 각국의 헌법상 해양관할권 규정의 비교 연구

한병호(Byung-Ho Han) 한국해사법학회 2021 해사법연구 Vol.33 No.3

이 논문은 세계 각국의 헌법에서 해양관할권이 어떻게 규율되는가를 조사ㆍ분석한다. 조사대상 국가는 성문헌법전이 있는 연안국 147개국이다. 분석한 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 헌법에서 해양관할권 개념을 언급하는지 여부와 관련하여, 세계 전체로는, 67개국의 헌법에서만 하나 이상의 해양관할권 개념이 언급되고, 80개국의 헌법에서는 해양관할권 개념이 전혀 언급되지 않는다. 대륙별로는, 헌법에서 하나 이상의 해양관할권 개념이 언급되는 국가의 수가 조사대상 국가의 절반이 넘는 곳은 아메리카에서뿐이다. 따라서 헌법상 해양관할권 규율이 세계적으로 확산되어 있다고 할 수는 없다. 둘째, 헌법에서 언급되는 해양관할권 개념의 개수와 관련하여, 언급되는 개념의 평균 개수는 세계 전체로는 2.63개로서 총 6개의 절반에도 못 미친다. 대륙별로는 아메리카에서의 그러한 평균 개수가 총 개수(6개)의 절반을 상회할 뿐이다. 따라서 전반적으로 헌법상 해양관할권 규율이 별로 충실하지 못하며, 대륙별로는 특히 아시아ㆍ유럽에서 그러하다. 셋째, 세 가지 핵심적인 해양관할권 개념, 즉 영해ㆍ대륙붕과 배타적 경제수역과 관련하여, 그 셋을 모두 언급하는 경우(26개국)와 영해만을 언급하는 경우 (17개국)가 조사대상 국가(67개국)의 절반을 상당히 넘는다. 따라서 헌법상 해양관할권 규율이 비교적 체계적이라고 할 수 있다. 넷째, 헌법에서 해양관할권 개념을 사용하여 어떠한 사항을 규율하는가, 즉 해양관할권 개념의 용법 내지 쓰임새와 관련하여, 그러한 용법의 하나로서, 50개국에서는, 해양관할권의 공간적 범위를 설정ㆍ선언하기 위하여 해양관할권 개념이 사용된다. 대륙별로는, 거기에 해당하는 국가가 상대적으로 아메리카와 아프리카에서는 매우 높지만, 유럽과 특히 아시아에서는 매우 적다. 그러한 용법의 다른 하나로서, 18개국에서는, 국가조직 내에서(예컨대, 연방과 주 사이에 또는 중앙정부와 지방정부 사이에) 해양관할권을 배분하기 위하여 해양관할권 개념이 사용된다. 그러한 용법의 또 다른 하나로서, 31개국에서는, 해양공간에 존재하는 자연자원의 소유권의 귀속을 규율하기 위하여 해양관할권 개념이 사용된다. 다섯째, 해양관할권의 범위에 관하여 헌법에서 어떻게 규율하는가라는, 해양관할권의 범위에 관한 헌법상 규율 방식과 관련하여, 28개국의 헌법은 그것을 법률로 정하도록 위임한다. 27개국의 헌법은 해양관할권의 범위에 대해서 전혀 언급하지 않는다. 단지 6개국에서만 해양관할권의 범위가 직접 헌법에 의해서 설정될 뿐이다. 대륙별로는, 아시아ㆍ아프리카는 대체로 세계 전체의 경향과 비슷하지만, 아메리카의 다수 국가의 헌법은 해양관할권의 범위를 법률로 정하도록 위임하고 있다. This study investigates and analyzes how maritime jurisdiction is regulated by the written constitutions of 147 coastal countries in the world, and the results are as follows: First, as to whether or not the concepts of maritime jurisdiction are mentioned in the constitution, the concepts of maritime jurisdiction are not mentioned at all in the constitutions of 80 countries, and only one or more concepts of maritime jurisdiction are mentioned in the constitutions of 67 countries. It is only in the Americas that more than half of the countries surveyed have one or more concepts of maritime jurisdiction mentioned in their constitutions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rules of maritime jurisdiction under the Constitution are spread all over the world. Second, with respect to the number of concepts of maritime jurisdiction mentioned in the Constitution, the average number of concepts mentioned in the world is 2.63, which is less than half of the total of 6. The average number in the Americas is just over half of the total of six. Therefore, the rules of maritime jurisdiction in the constitution are not very abundant, and this is especially the case in Asia and Europe. Third, in relation to the three core concepts of maritime jurisdiction, namely, the territorial sea, the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, the number of 26 countries referring to all three and 17 countries referring only to the territorial sea is considerably more than half of 67 countries surveyed. Therefore, it can be said that regulations of maritime jurisdiction is relatively systematic in the constitution. Fourth, in relation to what matters are regulated by using the concepts of maritime jurisdiction in the Constitution, that is, in relation to the usage of the concepts of maritime jurisdiction, there are three types. As one of such uses, the concepts of maritime jurisdiction are used to establish and declare the extent or breadth of maritime space under jurisdiction in 50 countries. The number of these countries is relatively many in the Americas and Africa, but very few in Europe and especially in Asia. As another such usage, in 18 countries, the concepts of maritime jurisdiction are used to allocate maritime jurisdiction within national organizations (eg, between federal and state or between central and local governments). As the other of such usage, in 31 countries, the concepts of maritime jurisdiction are used to prescribe the attribution of ownership of natural resources existing in maritime space. Fifth, with regard to how the Constitution regulates the extent or breadth of maritime jurisdiction, with regard to the method of regulation on the extent or breadth of maritime jurisdiction, the constitutions of 28 countries entrust the laws to set it. However, the constitutions of 27 countries make no mention of the extent of maritime jurisdiction. The extent of maritime jurisdiction is set by the Constitution itself in only six countries. The cases of Asia and Africa are considerably similar to the global trend, but the constitutions of the majority of countries surveyed in the Americas mandate that the extent of maritime jurisdiction be set by laws.

아시아 지역 국가의 헌법전문에 대한 비교연구

한병호(Han, Byung-Ho) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학연구 Vol.47 No.-

This article aims at comparing the texts of the preambles of the Constitutions of forty seven countries in Asia. Israel is the only country in Asia which doesn’t have the Constitution codified in a single document. And no preambles are contained in the Constitutions of the eight countries, such as Cyprus, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen. The preambles of thirty eight codified Constitutions are examined in the formal aspects: file size, number of words and sentences. As results, the average file sizes are 2,944 bytes and the average words used in the preambles are 365 words; in twenty six Constitutions, the file sizes are less than 1,000 bytes, and words used in the preambles are less than 350 words. And there are twenty one Constitutions whose preambles consist of the only one sentence. As to the substantial aspects of the preambles, there are examined who adopt and proclaim the Constitution, and how many preambles use words whose concepts that involve the constitutional principles or contain the fundamental values, such as democracy, freedom, equality, etc. The results of such analysis are as follows: as the subject who adopt and proclaim the Constitution is expressed the word ‘people’ in twenty one preambles, ‘national assembly’ in three, and words such as king, sultan or ruler in six; as to the form of state, it is mentioned a republic in twenty preambles, but a monarchy in eight. Particularly, words with value-involved constitutional concepts, which are expressed in thirteen or more preambles, are such as: freedom, democracy, justice, peace, unity, history, prosperity, equality, rule of law, human rights. Words such as human dignity, solidarity, diversity, social state, however, are not familiar with the preambles of Asian constitutions.

대퇴골 전자부 분쇄골절에서 압박고나사와 대전자 고정 금속판을 이용한 치료

장재석(Jae Suk Chang),김기용(Kee Yong Kim),이수호(Su Ho Lee),안형선(Hyung Sun Ahn),한병호(Byung Ho Han),홍순우(Soon Woo Hong) 대한정형외과학회 1997 대한정형외과학회지 Vol.32 No.5

멀티탭을 활용한 스마트 미터링 시스템 개발

왕승민(Seung-Min Wang),김요셉(Yo-Sep Kim),오세인(Sea-In Oh),한병호(Byung-Ho Han),허헌(Heon Huh),이양희(Yang-Hee Yee),장홍순(Hong-Soon Chang) 대한전기학회 2011 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2011 No.7

에너지신산업 R&D 추진방향 정립을 위한 기술사업화 수요 트렌드 연구

김태완(Tae-Wan Kim),김수봉(Soo-Bong Kim),김진(Jin Kim),박상욱(Sang-Wook Park),이치호(Chi-Ho, Lee),박형철(Hyung Chul Park),한병호(Byung-Ho Han) 대한전기학회 2022 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2022 No.7

Mycoplasma pneumoniae의 신속 동정과 분리균의 항생제 감수성 검사

장명웅(Myung-Woong Chang),김광혁(Kwang-Hyuk Kim),박인달(In-Dal Park),강경희(Kyung-Hee Kang),공은희(Eun-Hee Kong),정만홍(Man-Hong Jung),송갑영(Gap-Young Song),조성환(Sung-Hwan Jo),조동희(Dong-Whee Cho),한병호(Byung-Ho Han),김성원(Sung 대한미생물학회 2003 Journal of Bacteriology and Virology Vol.33 No.3

Spark Plug 형상이 점화특성에 미치는 효과에 관한 연구

韓炳祜 영남이공대학 1997 論文集 Vol.26 No.-

Gap interval of spark plug have influenced on the ignition property of spark ignition system. In this paper, the author was studied that various gap interval of spark plug and opening ratio of throttle valve were affected to engine torque and spark energy. As result, following items were obtained ; 1) Engine torque were a little increased as to increasing spark gap interval. 2) Capacitive discharge energy were increased as to the increasing ignition voltage caused by large spark gap interval. 3) Inductive discharge energy were steadied at any spark gap interval caused by spark energy are increase but spark duration are decrease. 4) Total spark energy were increased as to the increasing spark gap interval and throttle valve opening ratio.