비교교육학과 교육법학에 있어서 교육법 연구

고전(Ko Jeon) 한국비교교육학회 2017 比較敎育硏究 Vol.27 No.6

이 연구는 교육법에 관한 비교교육학계와 교육법학계의 연구방법 및 성과를 비교하여 그 특징을 분석하고 시사점을 도출한 것이다. 우선 교육법학의 특성을 개관하고, 두 학계의 연구방법 및 성과를 비교하여 특징과 시사점을 도출하였다. 학문분야의 학문적 정체성(연구대상·방법·성과)을 대표적으로 보여주는 학술지를 분석하는 방법을 사용하였다. 이를 위해 한국비교교육학회의『비교교육연구』(1971-2017)와 대한교육법학회의 학술지『敎育法學硏究』(1988-2017)에 게재된 논문(비교육연구 30편, 지역연구 61편)을 분석했다. 주요 내용은 연구자, 연구대상 및 연구주제, 연구방법, 연구성과 측면에서 특징을 분석하였다. 연구의 인적 배경 측면에서 연구자 인력풀이 한정적이었다. 국가통(國家通)은 전문화 면에서 바람직하나 개인의 터널비전으로 인해 다양한 논의에 부정적 영향을 줄 수도 있다. 둘째, 연구주제 측면에서 한국의 교육현안과의 비교에 초점을 맞추는 국수주의가 우려되고, 국가에 따른 개념상의 차이에 주목할 필요가 있다. 비교의 대상 선정시 선진국(先進國)의 함정과 자민족중심주의(自民族重心主義; Ethnocentrism)적인 해석에 유의해야 한다. 선진국의 사례가 절대 선은 아니다. 비교의 준거 및 연구방법 측면에서 모범사례와 반면교사간의 균형을 유지해야 한다. 해당국가의 비판적 논의가 폭넓게 소개되지 못한 과제를 남겼다. 끝으로 해당 법률이 제정된 정치·경제·사회·문화적 배경(법률의 사회사)을 함께 고려하여야 한다. 그리고 어느 시기의 평균적 인식이 해당 국가를 대표하지 못한다는 한계점도 인식해야 한다. 지적 의구심(知的疑懼心)이 빈약한 비교교육 논의는 먼저 다녀온 ‘여행담’에 불과하며, 후속 연구자가 해당 국가에 대한 감성적 편견(感性的偏見)을 키우게 되는 ‘해독’이 될 수 있다. 비교교육학자의 사명은 한국 교육의 ‘우월·열등성’ 보다는 대한민국과 외국의 ‘차이·다름’을 보여주는 것이다. The purpose of this study is to analyze the characteristics and implications of the two academic field. It means The Korea Society for Educational Law(hereinafter referred to as ‘KSEL’) and Korean Comparative Education Society(hereinafter referred to as ‘KCES’). Two academic society deal with the various topic of educational law. KSEL’s journal 『The Journal of Law of Education』(1988-2017) contains 74 articles, and 『Korean Journal of Comparative Education』(1971-2017) deal with the 17 educational law issues. Both studies can be classified into 30 comparative studies and 61 regional studies. This article composed of four chapters; the significance of discussion, meaning of the academic research about educational law(in Germany, America, Japan, and Korea), research trends of educational law, and conclusion(comments and suggestions). The main characteristic of the approaching method of Education Law is to analyze a legal consciousness as well as contents of law. As a conclusion, this article suggested the five lessons through previous studies for educational law. First, Human background(pros and cons of limited researcher pool), A concentrated topic by Korean researcher’s view, Selection of comparison nations(myth of the developed countries and Ethnocentrism), Balance(model case and lesson by the opposite interpretation), and lastly Understanding of the social history of law.

그린마케팅활동에 관한 한중기업 사례분석

이인구 동중앙아시아경상학회 2014 한몽경상연구 Vol.25 No.3

본 연구는 중국소비자과 한국소비자들의 그린제품 구매에서 그린마케팅 활동이 고객만족도에 미치는 영향과 관계를 규명하기 위한 본 연구의 사전 연구로 실시한 것이다. 연구결과 한국 기업과 중국 기업 의 그린마케팅 활동에는 다소 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 한국기업들의 환경대응전략은 주로’환경경영체제(ISO 14000)의 인증’을 목적으로 이루어지고 있는 상황이다. 국제적인 환경경영 표준화와 더불어 한국에서는 환경부의 주관 아래 기업의 자율적 환경관 리를 확산시키기 위하여 ‘친환경 기업 지정제도를 도입하여 운영하고 있다. 국제환경규격이 환경관리를 효율적으로 할 수 있는 기본 요건들을 만족시키는 시스템을 구축하는데 비해 환경 친화적 기업경영체 제는 환경개선 목표의 설정 및 실행으로 직접적인 환경개선을 수행하는 것을 중심으로 하고 있다. This research focuses on how purchasing behavior of environmental friendly product affect to the consumer satisfaction. It was found there is a major difference between Korean and Chinese consumers in terms of this relationship. Korean companies prepare for ISO 14000 system voluntarily. More government control makes companies to focus on environmental friendly marketing activities. We explored several companies in Korea and China. It was found that Korean companies are becoming more aware of green global movement. Chinese firms begin to realize the importance of green marketing. These firms built consumer relationship marketing and educate consumers how green products does good for wellbeing of our environment we are living in.

‘남북한 주민이 함께 한 공감사진워크숍’ 사례 연구

김태훈 건국대학교 인문학연구원 2022 통일인문학 Vol.90 No.-

본 연구의 목적은 2020년 7월부터 약 9개월 동안 진행된 ‘남북한 주민이 함께 한 공감사진워크숍’의 사례분석으로 성과와 시사점을 도출하여 향후 비슷한 목적의 워크숍을 진행할 때 기초자료로 활용될 수 있게 하려는 것이다. 이를 위하여 이론적 배경이 되는 남북한 주민의 상호작용과 공감 중심 사진을 탐색하고, 공감사진워크숍의 기획 단계부터 최종 단계인 사진전 개최까지의 모든 과정을 세부적으로 개관하였다. 참여관찰의 방법으로 공감사진워크숍 참여자들 및 사진전 관람객들의 경험과 평가 내용을 분석하여 세 가지 시사점을 도출하였다. 공감사진워크숍은 참여자들에게 남북한 주민들을 구별하지 않고 상호 존중하며 평등하게 만나는 경험이 되었고, 사진 행위와 사진전 관람을 통해 공감의 심층적인 의미와 가치를 깨닫게 되었으며, 자신을 성찰하고 새로운 시선을 갖게 되는 계기가 되었다. 본 연구는 평범한 남북한 출신 주민 8인이 자발적으로 참여하면서 상호작용과 공감 중심 사진을 바탕으로 서로를 이해하는 과정을 실현한 최초의 사례에 대한 기초 연구의 성격으로 진행되었으며, 향후 유사한 프로그램을 기획할 때에 참고하고 활용할 수 있을 것이다. This study aims to derive results and implications through case analysis of the "Empathy Photo Workshop with North and South Korean Residents", held for about nine months from July 2020, and can be used as primary data when conducting workshops with similar purposes in the future. For this purpose, prior research related to inter-Korean interaction and empathy-oriented photography, which are the theoretical backgrounds, were explored, and the entire process from the planning stage of the empathy photo workshop to the final stage of the photo exhibition was overviewed in detail. The researchers drew three implications by analyzing the experiences and evaluations of participants and photo exhibition visitors as participatory observation methods. The Empathy Photo Workshop provided the participants an experience of meeting the residents of North and South Korea equally, respecting each other without distinction, and helped them understand the in-depth meaning and value of empathy through photography. It became an opportunity. This study was conducted like a introductory study of the first case in which eight ordinary North and South Korean residents participated voluntarily and realized the process of understanding each other based on the interaction and empathy-centered photos of the residents of South and North Korea. You can refer to it and use it when planning .

일반논문 : 형법의 해석과 적용에 있어서 규칙 따르기(Rule-Following) 논변의 의의

안성조 ( Seong Jo Ahn ) 한국경찰법학회 2006 경찰법연구 Vol.4 No.1

Ludwig Wittgenstein`s work on Rules, especially the Philosophical Investigation(PI) has been put to a variety of uses by many legal theorists in various contexts since in the early twentieth century up to present times. One wave of legal theorists employ PI in an effort to show that law is radically indeterminate. They base their arguments on Saul Kripke`s unique and influential reading of PI. This essay begins with a consideration of Kripke`s rule-skepticism which is the result of his reading of Wittgenstein`s view on rule-following, and its implications for law. Like many legal theorist such as Brian Bix, Jes Bjarup, Scott Hershovitz, Christian Zapf and Eben Moglen, this essay conclude that Kripke`s view is defective, and as such tells us little about (criminal) law. The second wave includes such kinds of legal scholars as turn to Wittenstein`s remark on rules to explain how it is that law can be determinate and also to show that law can often be applied and understood without legal interpretation. They are the views of Brian Bix, Andrei Marmor and H.L.A. Hart. Not only the rule-skeptics but also these kinds of views will be argued against in this essay, because Wittgenstein`s remarks on rules have little to offer legal theory and interpretation. That is, nothing much can be learned about legal rules or legal interpretation by attending to Wittgenstein`s remarks on rules. In short, though legal rules and Wittgenstein`s rules are aimed at wholly different phenomena, above legal theorists made mistake of criteria by using these different kinds of rules interchangeably. But this essay will accepts the Hart`s theory, the core/penumbra case distinction which is also based on the Wittgenstein`s remarks on rules. Because though Hart also seem to confuse the legal rule with Wittgenstein`s rule, but we believe that his new idea of rule of recognition can cure the theoretical defect. The distinction of core/penumbra case has an implication for criminal law in relation to mistake of law. This essay argues that the core case show the criteria where mistake of law could hardly be made, because in the core case, there would be needed no legal interpretation. Scott Hershovitz thought that he had exorcised the phantom menace of Wittgenstein from legal theory, but it would be right that the real thing he had exorcised is not Wittgenstein, but misinterpretaion of his remarks. Wittgenstein is still alive here.

생명윤리에서의 넓은 반성적 평형과 판단력

최경석 한국법철학회 2008 법철학연구 Vol.11 No.1

Wide reflective equilibrium (WRE) was first presented by John Rawls and developed by Norman Daniels. It was thought of primarily as a method for evaluating theories of justice (Rawls) or ethical theories (Daniels). Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress then considered WRE as an explicit methodology for biomedical ethics, that is, moral reasoning for the justification of moral judgments. Thus, I characterize the method of WRE as practical moral reasoning. The process of reaching a conclusion using the methods of WRE is characterized as a back-and-forth process of revision aimed at coherent comprehensive personal or group belief systems without incorrect beliefs. The question arises, however, as to whether the methods of WRE can give us determinate answers about what to do. But there must be different ways of revising beliefs depending on the exercise of judgment as a faculty of thinking. There is no algorithmic decision procedure. Some may expect a mechanical decision procedure by which to reach answers to the above questions, but this is misconceived. Our decision in unprecedented or unpredictable situations and circumstances cannot help calling for judgment. Judgment is not unique to the methods of WRE. Other methods, such as principlism and casuistry, also rely on judgment. When principlists attempt to apply moral principles to a particular case, they must decide which of their moral principles covers the case, just as a judge would have to decide which law or regulation is relevant to a given case. Because principles are abstract and general, they must be interpreted in the light of the details of the particular case. Thus, we arrive at conclusions from the interaction between universal knowledge(major premise) and particular knowledge(minor premise) in a practical syllogism. Casuists also call for the use of judgment. They usually suggest the use of analogical thinking employing paradigm cases. Similarities must be sought between a given case and paradigm cases. However, the recognition of similarity is not a mechanical procedure it requires judgment to determine which features of two cases being compared are relevant. The need for judgment implies that there are no determinate answers for resolving a conflict between two arguers following same method of reasoning. But the exercise of judgment is not a matter of mere taste or arbitrary preference. It requires its justification. There may be some principles and values to guide and regulate the exercise of judgment required in the methods of WRE. First, coherence, comprehensiveness, and the number of incorrect beliefs are not only criteria for comparing competing belief systems, but will also be values for a revision process. Second, we will pursue the maximization of coherence and comprehensiveness while minimizing revision, by revising peripheral beliefs rather than core beliefs in our belief system. Third, the efficiency of a revision process may be one of the important considerations tied to the choice of provisionally fixed beliefs. Wide reflective equilibrium (WRE) was first presented by John Rawls and developed by Norman Daniels. It was thought of primarily as a method for evaluating theories of justice (Rawls) or ethical theories (Daniels). Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress then considered WRE as an explicit methodology for biomedical ethics, that is, moral reasoning for the justification of moral judgments. Thus, I characterize the method of WRE as practical moral reasoning. The process of reaching a conclusion using the methods of WRE is characterized as a back-and-forth process of revision aimed at coherent comprehensive personal or group belief systems without incorrect beliefs. The question arises, however, as to whether the methods of WRE can give us determinate answers about what to do. But there must be different ways of revising beliefs depending on the exercise of judgment as a faculty of thinking. There is no algorithmic decision procedure. Some may expect a mechanical decision procedure by which to reach answers to the above questions, but this is misconceived. Our decision in unprecedented or unpredictable situations and circumstances cannot help calling for judgment. Judgment is not unique to the methods of WRE. Other methods, such as principlism and casuistry, also rely on judgment. When principlists attempt to apply moral principles to a particular case, they must decide which of their moral principles covers the case, just as a judge would have to decide which law or regulation is relevant to a given case. Because principles are abstract and general, they must be interpreted in the light of the details of the particular case. Thus, we arrive at conclusions from the interaction between universal knowledge(major premise) and particular knowledge(minor premise) in a practical syllogism. Casuists also call for the use of judgment. They usually suggest the use of analogical thinking employing paradigm cases. Similarities must be sought between a given case and paradigm cases. However, the recognition of similarity is not a mechanical procedure it requires judgment to determine which features of two cases being compared are relevant. The need for judgment implies that there are no determinate answers for resolving a conflict between two arguers following same method of reasoning. But the exercise of judgment is not a matter of mere taste or arbitrary preference. It requires its justification. There may be some principles and values to guide and regulate the exercise of judgment required in the methods of WRE. First, coherence, comprehensiveness, and the number of incorrect beliefs are not only criteria for comparing competing belief systems, but will also be values for a revision process. Second, we will pursue the maximization of coherence and comprehensiveness while minimizing revision, by revising peripheral beliefs rather than core beliefs in our belief system. Third, the efficiency of a revision process may be one of the important considerations tied to the choice of provisionally fixed beliefs.