영국의 EU 탈퇴와 국제사법 - 불법행위에 관한 준거법 선택규칙을 중심으로 -

오석웅 한국국제사법학회 2023 國際私法硏究 Vol.29 No.1

The United Kingdom decided to withdraw from the European Union through a national referendum held on June 23, 2016, and officially withdrew from the EU on February 1, 2020, with the entry into force of the 「Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community」. The UK's withdrawal from the EU(Brexit) means that EU law no longer applies in all areas where EU law prevails, including the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. Consequently, the Rome II Regulation no longer applies to legal disputes involving the UK as a relevant party. Without the application of the Rome II Regulation, the choice of law rules for non-contractual obligations in the UK will return to its domestic legal system. Without appropriate transitional provisions, this may lead to an undesirable situation where different systems apply to the same set of facts based on the date of withdrawal. To ensure the maintenance of a functional legal framework in international legal disputes in response to such changes, the UK enacted the 「European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018」. Additionally, in relation to the choice of law rules, the UK implemented 「the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations(Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019」, which replaced the existing Rome I and Rome II Regulations with UK law. This regulation explicitly states that certain provisions of the existing Rome II Regulation continue to apply as part of UK law (UK Rome II) through modifications, ensuring the preservation of its content even after the EU withdrawal. Therefore, it is difficult to say that the UK's withdrawal from the EU has brought significant changes to the choice of law rules for torts. However, it should be noted that the UK's adoption of the Rome II Regulation as part of domestic law is based on the current legal status. EU laws, including the Rome II Regulation, can be amended in the future, and specific provisions will not automatically apply in the UK. Any amended provisions would need to be expressly adopted through UK domestic legislation. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the legal measures that the UK may take if the Rome II Regulation is amended in the future. Furthermore, the UK's withdrawal from the EU also necessitates consideration of the fact that the UK is no longer bound by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU). While the UK has chosen to retain the Rome II Regulation as part of domestic law, the absence of CJEU jurisdiction raises uncertainty about how UK courts will interpret and apply retained EU law provisions. EU legislative activities have been closely linked to CJEU case law, with the CJEU primarily responsible for interpreting EU law and providing new directions for EU legislative activities. The UK's withdrawal from the EU will inevitably remove the influence of CJEU case law on UK court decisions, and CJEU interpretations and judgments will no longer have a direct impact on UK court determinations. This also applies to the field of determining the law applicable to torts and other non-contractual obligations. While the persuasive power of CJEU rulings may still be considered to some extent, UK courts will develop their own jurisprudence in this field, and it is expected that different interpretations of the same Rome II provisions may arise between the CJEU and UK courts. This study aims to examine the application relationship between the choice of law rules for torts under the Rome II Regulation, which applied before the UK's EU withdrawal, and to review the modifications to the domestically enacted Rome II Regulation (UK Rome II) after the withdrawal.

브렉시트 이후 Global Britain 추진을 위한 영국 통상정책의 세부과제와 전망

강유덕 한국유럽학회 2017 유럽연구 Vol.35 No.2

The Brexit is a historical event which could completely change the landscape of the European integration. This paper assumes that the UK will seek for a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU and examines the trade policy of the UK after its exit from the EU at three levels: 1) UK-EU relation, 2) UK- Contracting Parties of EU's FTAs and 3) UK-Members of the WTO. During Brexit negotiation period, the UK government has to set up a new trade and economic relation with the EU and to negotiate the trade deals with the EU's trade partners of the FTAs in order to succeed in the FTAs at UK level. In addition, the UK will have to newly establish its commitment to the WTO for its tariffs, service and government procurement market. It is likely that the UK-EU negotiation would be a trade-off between UK's market access to the European Single Market and its strong preference to the sovereignty. The UK will try to obtain the market access to the EU as much as possible, while it will impose a limit to the current free movement of EU citizens to the UK labor market. In the negotiation with the third countries, the UK has to set up its commitment to the WTO and concrete negotiation plans to absorb EU's FTAs. These tasks will be considerable challenges to the UK government who doesn't have experiences of trade negotiation during more than 40 years of its membership to the EU. This change in UK-EU relations will affect Korea's relation with Europe,because Korea has implemented the FTA with the EU and Korean firms used to use the UK as a gateway to the EU market. From Korea's perspective, it will be necessary to prepare an expected negotiation for partially revising the Korea-EU FTA and Korea's future FTA with the UK. 브렉시트는 유럽통합의 움직임에 큰 변화를 줄 수 있는 역사적인 사건이다. 본 연구는 영국 정부의 발표와 같이 영국이 브렉시트 이후 EU와 포괄적 FTA를 형성한다는 전제 하에 영국 통상정책의 세부과제를 살펴보았다. 특히, 영국의 통상정책을 ① 영국-EU 관계, ②영국-FTA 체결국 관계, 그리고 ③ 영국-WTO 회원국 등 3개의 층위로 구분하여, 각 층위별 필요한 세부과제를 살펴보았다. EU 탈퇴 통보 이후 2년 동안 영국은EU와 협상을 통해 별도의 경제통상관계를 정립해야 하며, EU의 기체결 FTA를 승계하기 위해 EU의 FTA 체결국과 별도의 양자협상을 진행할 필요가 있다. 또한 관세동맹인EU로부터 탈퇴함으로 인해 WTO 체제에서 관세, 서비스 개방, 정부조달시장, 농업개방관련 양허를 재정립해야할 과제를 앉게 되었다. 영국과 EU 간의 관계는 시장접근성과 정책주권의 보호가 상쇄관계를 형성하는 가운데 협상이 이루어질 것으로 예상된다. 영국은 유럽단일시장에 대한 접근성을 최대한 보장받고자 하는 반면, 영국-EU 간의 노동이동에 대한 통제권한을 확보하고자 할 것이다. 제3국과의 통상협상에 있어 영국은 우선적으로 WTO 체제 하의 양허안을 구성함과 병행하여 EU의 기체결 FTA를 수용하기 위해 우선순위의 협상상대국을 선정, 각 FTA 별구체적인 협상전략을 마련할 필요가 있다. 이와 같은 과제는 지난 40년 이상 독자적인통상협상 경험이 없었던 영국정부에 있어 큰 부담이 될 것으로 보인다. 영국-EU 관계의 변화는 한.EU FTA가 이미 발효 중이라는 점, 다수의 한국기업들이 영국을 EU 진출을 위한 교두보로 활용해왔다는 점에서 한국의 대유럽 관계에 영향을 미칠 수밖에 없다. 한국으로서는 향후 전개될 한.EU FTA의 부분개정과 한-영FTA 체결을 위해 준비하고, 급격한 통상환경 변화에 대한 대응력을 높여야 할 필요가있다.

브렉시트 이후 영국 경제에 대한 고찰

신상협 경희대학교(국제캠퍼스) 국제지역연구원 2022 아태연구 Vol.29 No.4

Brexit meaning UK’s leaving from the EU happened on January 1, 2021. It is generally understood that Brexit has given more negative impact on the UK economy than Covid 19 Pandemic. After Brexit the ratios of EU member countries in the UK' export and import also reduced dramatically. It is quite difficult to show exactly how much negative impact Brexit has given to the UK economy. Simply because COVID-19 pandemic started in the late 2020 also hit the global economy very badly. The GDP growth of the UK reduced very rapidly after Brexit. The income of the British people also reduced. Inward foreign direct investment to the UK also reduced after Brexit. The Brexit also resulted the change of the relations between the EU and the UK in many ways. In particular, special trade relations between the TWO, which featured by the single market and customs union changed because of Brexit. In other words, the UK lost its special status as a member country of the EU. So when the UK trades with EU member countries they should take the same procedure to Non EU member countries. And the British people could not work anymore in a EU member country without a needed visa issued by the government of the EU member country where they want to work. To revitalize economy damaged by Brexit the UK government adopted new trade policy. The UK government also changed its immigration policy after Brexit in order to have more efficient labor policy, which could give economic and social benefits to the British people. Unlike the UK government’s wish, however, it seems to take more time to revitalize UK’s economy through new trade policy. And the new immigration policy resulted in a new problem, the lack of skilled workers in almost every UK industry. This situation is even creating inflation threat in the UK. Thus it seems that the UK government should continue its efforts to minimize or to stop the negative economic impact of Brexit on the UK economy. 영국의 브렉시트 전환기간이 만료되면서 영국이 2021년 1월 1일에 공식적으로 EU를 탈퇴한 이후 거의 2년이 지났다. 지난 몇 년 동안 코로나 19 팬데믹이 있었고, 미국과 중국 간의 무역전쟁으로 전 세계 무역환경이 크게 악화되었다. 또한 최근에는 러시아가 우크라이나를 침공함으로 에너지 가격이 폭등해서 세계 경제에 많은 부정적 영향을 미치고 있다. 이런 상황에서 브렉시트가 영국 경제에 미친 영향에 대한 평가는 다양하다. 영국 정부는 브렉시트가 영국 경제에 미칠 영향에 대해서 비교적 긍정적인 평가를 하고 있다. 그러나 많은 경제학자들은 앞에서 이미 언급한 부정적인 글로벌 경제 환경에서 브렉시트가 영국 경제에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 것이라고 경고하고 있다. 이렇듯 브렉시트가 영국 경제에 미친, 그리고 미칠 영향에 대하여 상이한 평가가 존재하고 있다. 국제경제 환경의 큰 변화 속에서 브렉시트가 영국 경제에 미친 경제적 영향을 단정적으로 분석하기는 어렵다. 본 논문에서 브렉시트가 영국 경제에 미친 영향에 대하여 심층 분석해 보고자 한다. 이를 위해 본 논문에서는 우선 브렉시트 이후 영국 경제의 변화, 그리고 브렉시트 이후 영국과 EU 관계에 있어서 형성된 변화, 그리고 이런 변화에 대한 영국 정부의 정책적 대응에 관해 분석한다.

The Impact of Brexit on the Art Market in the EU - Focus on the UK and France

Ki-Sik Hwang,Yi-Shan Tang 한국유럽학회 2020 유럽연구 Vol.38 No.3

2020년 1월 31일, 영국은 정식으로 유럽연합을 탈퇴했다. 영국의 예술품시장은 전체 유럽연합 시장의 약 63%를 차지하며, 브렉시트는 반드시 영국과 유럽연합의 예술품시장에 영향을 미칠 것이다. 많은 학자들이 브렉시트 이후의 국제 정세에 대해 다수의 논문을 발표 했지만, 예술품시장과 관련된 연구는 그 수가 미흡하다. 이에 본 연구는 브렉시트가 영국과 유럽연합의 예술품시장에 어떤 영향을 미치는 지를 분석하는 것을 목표로 한다. 본 연구는 브렉시트 이후, 영국과 유럽연합 간의 예술품 거래에서 발생할 수 있는 문제 및 추급권 제도에 대한 영국의 태도 변화를 분석하고 영국과 프랑스 예술품시장에 대해 비교한 후에 다음과 같은 결론을 내렸다. 영국의 경우, 브렉시트는 영국의 대(對) 유럽연합 예술품 수출을 저해하지만, 추급권과 관련된 면에서 본다면 영국이 추급권 제도를 폐지하면 영국 예술품시장을 활성화시킬 수 있으며, 이는 영국 예술품시장에 유리하게 작용할 것이다. 유럽연합의 경우, 브렉시트는 또한 유럽연합의 대(對) 영국 예술품 수출을 저해하지만, 프랑스 예술품시장에는 좋은 기회이다. 프랑스는 이번 기회를 포착하고 예술품시장의 상대적 폐쇄성 등 결함을 보완하면 영국 예술품시장과의 격차를 줄임으로써 세계 예술품시장에서의 위상을 재정립할 수 있다. The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. Brexit will have a certain impact on politics, economy, immigration, and other aspects of the UK and EU. Since the UK’s art market accounts for about 63% of the entire EU market, Brexit will undoubtedly also affect the art market. Hence the purpose of this paper is to probe into the impact of Brexit on the art market in the EU, especially in the UK and France. This paper analyzed a series of problems that may arise in the import and export of artworks between the UK and the EU after the Brexit, as well as the changes in the UK’s attitude towards the Resale Right system. Meanwhile, by comparing the UK and French art markets, the author draws the following conclusions. For the UK, Brexit represents a temporary setback in the export of artworks from the UK to the EU, but if the UK abolishes the system of the Resale Right, Brexit can activate the UK’s art market, which is undoubtedly beneficial to the UK’s art market. And for the EU, the EU’s export of artworks to the UK will also be hindered by the Brexit, but it is a good opportunity for the French art market. The French should seize this opportunity to reduce the gap with the UK’s art market and realize the repositioning in the world art market.

The Impact of the UK–Korea FTA and UK-Japan FTA on Welfare,Trade Creation, and Trade Diversion

이재득 한국무역연구원 2020 무역연구 Vol.16 No.6

Due to the UK’s Brexit, the UK and Korea established the UK-Korea FTA in 2019. However, the UK and Japan are still having ongoing negotiations for a UK-FTAFTA as of July 2020. If the UK establishes these two bilateral FTAs, it is of interest what effects these will have. This study analyzes the economic effects of the removal of import tariffs with both the UK-Korea FTAand UK-Japan FTA. Design/Methodology/Approach -  The multi-region, multi-sector standard CGE models were used as one of the main tools for assessing the economy-wide impact of trade policy changes. The model includes six (6) regions and 12 sectors, based on data from the Global TradeAnalysis Project (GTAP) database version 10, which wasreleased in September 2019. Findings -  With the removal of import tariffs between UK and Korea and between UK and Japan, while the GDPs of UK and Japan will rise, it is expected that the GDP of Korea may slightly decline since the benefit of the UK-Korea FTA will be partially offset by the UK-Japan FTA. The total welfare will increase in the UK, Korea, and Japan, and there will be very large trade creation effectsin most manufactured good sectors. Research Implications -  The UK-Korea FTAand UK-Japan FTAcan affect GDPs of the participating countries, as well as the welfare levels of not only the UK, Korea, and Japan but also those of the non-participating countries of China, the EU, and ROW. The UK-Korea FTA and UK-Japan FTA will also have trade creation effectsin the UK, Korea, and Japan, but will have trade diversion effectsin China, the EU, and ROW.

Housing Supply in the UK : Appropriate and Affordable? : 영국의 주택공급 ? 적절한가? 지불 가능한가?

Young-ha Cho 한국주택학회 2006 주택연구 Vol.14 No.2

과거 30년동안 영국의 주택정책은 신규주택의 공급보다는 기존주택에 대한 재투자와 주거비 부담을 완화시키기는데 더 많은 중점을 두어왔다. 1990년이후 특히 런던과 영국 남부지방의 주택가격의 급격한 상승은 학교교사, 간호원, 경찰요원, 소방요원 등과 같은 ‘Key worker’들의 수도권 지역에 주거할 ‘affordability’ ? 지불능력 ? 의 문제를 심각하게 악화시켰다. 그 결과 정부가 그동안 충분한 주택을 지어 왔는가, 신규주택 공급을 저해하는 요인은 무엇인가에 대한 이슈들을 다시 긴급한 정책 우선순위 위로 올려 놓았다. 이 논문은 과거 30년 동안 영국정부가 수행해 왔던 주택정책이 초래한 두 가지 실패인, 신규 주택 공급의 부족과 악화된 주거비 지불능력의 문제를 자세히 살펴보는데 촛점을 맞추었다. 2001년 영국의 신규주택 공급은 2차 세계대전 이후 가장 낮은 수준에 머물고 있다. 1990년부터 2002년 근 10년동안 신규 주택의 건설 실적은 그 전 10년 동안에 비하여 12.5%가 감소 하였다. 신규 주택 공급 수를 주택 가격 변화 추이와 비교해 보면, 1970년대의 공급은 주택 가격 상승에 맞추어 ? 느리게 라도 ? 반응 하였으나, 90년대 말에는 전혀 반응 하지 못 하였다. 영국의 주택 공급이 가격 변화에 매우 저조하게 반응하고 있음은 여러 연구결과에서 입증 되고 있다. 국제 비교연구를 보더라도 영국의 주택 공급탄력성은 미국과 독일에 비하여 매우 낮게 나타난다. 또한 GNP 대비 주택 투자 수준도 다른 EU국가들에 비하여 매우 낮다. 그러나 영국의 주택 공급 수준이 항상 이렇게 낮은 수준인것 만은 아니었다. 2차 세계대전 이후 0과 1.15 사이를 유지하다, 90년대에 영국 전역에 걸쳐 0 수준으로 하락 하였다. 특히 런던과 영국 남동부 지역은 1973년 이후 가장 낮은 수준을 유지하고있다. 그 주요 요인이 무엇인가를 살펴보면, Planning system ? 지역계획 지침 (Regional planning guidance), 구조계획(structure plan) 그리고 지역계획(local plans) ? 을 통한 주택 허가의 지연이 가장 큰 비판을 받고있다. 사실 1991년 이후 planning system 은 영국 남 동부 지역의 추가 택지 개발을 허가하지 않았다. 1980년대 후반 주택 가격 상승기에 민간 주택 개발업체가 주택 생산을 낮추었던 무책임한 행태도 암묵적으로 비판받고 있다. 이러한 기업의 영리추구 행위가 시장의 가격 자율 조정기능을 저해하는 결과를 초래 하였다. 그러나 시장 가격의 변동성(Volatility) 그 자체가 민간 업체의 생산 수준 에 직접 영향을 미치기도 함을 알 수 있다. 그 예로, 1990년 전반에 연속적인 주택가격 하락이 많은 주택 건설업체들을 도산에 이르게 함으로서, 주택 생산이 격감한 것을 그 예로 들 수 있다. 공급요인보다 주택 수요측면의 여러 요인이 주택 가격에 직접적인 영향을 미친다고 알려져 있지만, 그것으로 가격 변화 추이를 완전히 설명 하지는 못한다. 여기서 중요한 사실은 공급이 지속적으로 부족한 상황에서는 수요 요인의 증가가 직접적으로 가격 상승을 야기한다는 점이다. 또한 주택가격에 대비한 공급의 저조한 대응은 영국의 주거 안정에 부정적인 영향으로 작용하였다. 그 단적인 예로 주거비 지불능력의 악화, 특히 신규 가구의 악화된 주거비 부담 은 사회 경제적 측면에 큰 영향을 끼치고 있다. 특히 런던과 님동부 지역의 ‘Key worker’를 고용 하는데 막대한 지장을 주고있다. 주택시장에 진입하는 신규 가구들의 주택가격대비 소득비율을 보면, Major emphasis of the UK government housing policy over the last 30 years was on reinvestment in the existing stock and improvement of affordability rather than new housing supply. Rapid rising house prices since the 1990s, especially in London and the South region brought about the issue ? inability of ‘key’ workers, such as school teacher, nurse, police officer, to afford to live and work in the capital region. The consequence forced the questions of whether ‘enough’ new houses were being built and what were the constraints preventing the new building back on to the urgent policy agenda. This paper aims to explore in detail the two unsuccessful legacies ? housing undersupply and worsening affordability ? emerged from the UK government’s housing policies for the past decades. In 2001, housebuilding in the UK fell to its lowest level since the Second World War. House prices have risen particularly sharply in recent years, up by 9% per annum from 1996 to 2002. The UK real house price inflation has been higher (2.4%) than the European average (1.1%) between 1971 and 2001. There are sufficient evidences that the UK housing supply is relatively unresponsive with output increasing by proportionately less than price. International comparisons of supply elasticity suggest that supply elasticity in the UK is particularly low (0.5) than Germany (2.1) and US (1.4). Evidence also shows that UK has invested a low proportion of GDP in housing compared to other EU countries. Since 1990 the responsiveness of supply throughout the England has fallen close to zero in all regions and the South East as well as London appears to be among the least responsive since 1973. Delays in the planning system have received official criticism as a major factor which causes the low responsiveness of supply. A fundamental reason for the lack of new housing in growth areas has been the mechanisms by which regional planning guidance, structure plans and local plans have restricted the capacity to provide additional land in the south of the country, especially since 1991. Housebuilders’ undesirable behaviour in a highly volatile market resulted in lower output during the late 1980s housing boom. This is not socially responsible behaviour because it hinders the market adjustment necessary in a well functioning market. It is known that demand side factors clearly impact on price change, but they do not wholly explain the trends in UK house prices. Important point is that the lack of responsiveness of supply means that increases in demand feed directly into higher house prices. A week response of housing supply to price change has been one of the factors underlying housing instability for all tenure in UK. Housing affordability has worsened specially for new households and this has wider social and economic consequences, notably the difficulty of both public and private sectors in recruiting ‘key’ workers. The ability of first time buyers to enter the housing market, based upon income to house price ratios, has weakened. The UK government has already taken important steps to address housing supply within the Sustainable Communities Plan since 2003. The plan includes increase of housing supply especially in the fast growing area, provision of the infrastructure for the efficient delivery of additional housing, and a new approach to land supply through the reformed planning system. Under the big theme, the UK government committed to increasing housing supply. The UK government is now playing a different role as a facilitator, more depending on private sector. The new approach requires effective partnership and co?operation between a variety of public bodies and private sectors?finance institution and developer. Having considered the low responsiveness of the UK housing supply to changing demand in the past, the goal of developing sustainable communi

한국 영화산업 발전 모델로서의 영국 영화산업 연구

김창유(Kim, Tchang Yu) 동국대학교 영상미디어센터 2016 씨네포럼 Vol.0 No.23

현재 한국 영화산업은 영화의 생산과 소비에 관련된 다양한 분야들에서 모두 세계 10위 내에 자리 잡고 있을 정도로 세계 영화산업에 있어서 큰 비중을 차지하고 있다. 한편 이러한 상황에서 한국 영화산업의 지속적인 성장을 가로막는 장애 요인으로 국내 인구의 고령화, 인종 및 언어적 차원의 한계 그리고 그에 따른 국내 영화 시장 크기의 제한 등을 들 수 있으며 이와 더불어 지난 몇 년 전부터 강력하게 부각되고 있는 중국 자본의 등장과 그에 따른 시장 영향력의 확대가 새로운 국제적 이슈로 나타나고 있다. 한국 영화산업의 미래는 이러한 문제를 어떻게 대처할 수 있는 가에 따라 결정될 것이라 판단하는데 논자는 영국 영화산업을 모델로 하면서 한국 영화산업의 발전에 대한 해답을 구하고자 한다. 지난 15년 간 영국 영화산업은 국제적으로 커다란 발전을 이루어 오면서 세계 영화산업에서 상위 5개국으로 도약한 바 있다. 영국 영화산업의 전략은 우수한 전문 인력을 바탕으로 하면서 미국 할리우드와의 공동제작으로 통한 시장 확대를 도모하였을 뿐만 아니라 컬처 테스트 등으로 대표되는 인센티브 제도를 적극 가동하여 영국 내 로케이션 유치 및 제작 투자 유치를 이끌어 냄으로써 영국을 세계 영화산업의 또 다른 중심으로 만들어 나가고 있다. 세계 영화산업에서 인용되고 있는 다양한 자료와 지표들은 지난 15년간의 영국 영화산업의 엄청난 성장과 발전을 증명하고 있으며 그에 따른 고용 효과도 크게 상승함으로써 영국은 국가적으로 현재의 발전 전략을 계속 지원하려고 하고 있다. 본 논문은 제한된 시장과 인력을 바탕으로 세계 영화산업의 중심 국가로 성장한 영국 영화산업의 발전 전략과 모델을 한국 영화산업에 접목하려는 목적을 가지고 연구한 결과이며 이를 통해 한국 영화산업의 한계를 넘어서서 지속적 성장 방안을 제시하고자 한다. 한편 지난 15년간의 영국 영화산업의 발전을 대가로 할리우드에 대한 영국 영화산업의 종속이라는 새로운 문제를 직면하게 된다. 지표상으로는 영국 영화산업이 큰 성장을 이룬 듯하지만 그에 따른 과실은 모두 할리우드로 귀속되는 모순을 겪고 있으며 할리우드를 배경으로 하지 못하면 생존하지 못할 것이라는 산업적 위기감에서 벗어나지 못하고 있는 것이 영국 영화산업의 현실이다. 본 논문은 이러한 영국 영화산업과 할리우드의 관계는 한국 영화산업과 중국 자본과의 관계 설정에 있어서 현실적인 선례라고 판단하였고 이를 참고하여 한국 영화산업과 중국 자본의 관계가 지금의 영국영화산업과 할리우드 자본의 관계로 나아가서 안 될 것이라는 점을 제안한다. 한국 영화산업의 미래 지속적인 발전은 아시아를 바탕으로 하는 다양한 공동 제작, 한국으로의 로케이션 유치(단순한 공간 제공이 아니라 다양한 기술서비스들을 포함하는) 그리고 국제적인 제작 투자 유치 등에 의해 가능할 것이며 이 과정에서 중국 자본의 역할이 지대할 것으로 판단한다. 이와 더불어, 영국 영화산업의 할리우드에 대한 종속이라는 선례에서 볼 수 있듯이 한국 영화산업과 중국 자본과의 관계 설정에 따라 한국영화산업의 미래가 좌우될 것으로 판단한다. Film project planning, producing ability and preference of domestic film has positioned korea film industry on one of 10 world best film industries with US, UK, China, Japan, India, France. But korean film industry is now facing new challenges from depopulation and aging, ethnic and language barriers, and limited size of domestic market issues. And inward investment mainly from China is another issue as well. Korea film industry needs to handle these issues and find a way out to keep film industry progressing. UK film industry which is estimated at least within world best 5 might be an ideal model for korea film industry to overcome its own current issues. Last 15 years, UK film industry has done world remarkable progress by inducing co-productions, locations, inward investments into UK and then has brought positive influences on employment for film people and local/national economy. Every related indicators to estimate the industry such as film producing and consuming say that UK film industry is good enough to be success model for korea film industry. Key words for understanding UK film industry is hollywood major studios. Almost all of the film investments are coming from the studios because UK is sharing many things with US, language, culture, ethnic, history and also UK government"s film industry supporting programs like Film Tax Relief(FTR) and Cultural Test attract co-production and inward investment into UK. On the other hand, UK"s strong devotion to the studios brings another question many UK film people worry whether UK film industry is able to survive the world competition without studio back-up. This kind of UK industry issue might be possibly coming to korea film industry in near future as well. This paper intends to find success model for korea film industry in case of UK film industry and tries to suggest many related data as possible for the objective points of view.

일반 논문 : 사회적 기업 육성을 위한 정부정책의 변화: 수요견인과 공급주도 이론의 탐색적 적용

조준기 ( Jun Gee Cho ) 한국중소기업학회 2011 中小企業硏究 Vol.33 No.3

사회적 소외와 실업 등의 사회적 현안 해결을 위한 혁신의 한 방법으로 주목받아 온 사회적 기업의 성공적인 육성에 필요한 토대와 환경을 조성하고, 개별 사회적 기업의 경영역량을 강화하기 위해서는 정부의 적극적인 역할이 필수적이다. 본 논문에서는 혁신산업 육성을 위한 정부개입을 분석하는데 주로 사용되어온 수요견인-공급주도와 영향-규제의 이론을 도입하여 사회적 기업의 지속적인 성장을 위한 정부개입의 방향과 범위, 한계에 대해 보다 체계적인 접근을 모색해 보고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 사회적 기업 육성의 성공적 사례로 평가되는 영국의 정부개입 사례를 분석하고 이를 국내의 사회적 기업 육성 정책과 비교하였다. 그 결과 그간의 한국 정부의 사회적 기업 육성정책이 ``정부 주도적 공급정책`` 임을 확인할 수 있었다. 앞으로 정부 개입의 효율성을 확보하기 위해서는 사회적 기업의 수용 및 활용을 위한 수요중심적인 연구를 지원하고, 상징적이고 나열적인 지원보다 구체적인 수요영역을 설정하고 그 안에서 성장과 운영의 지속성을 확보할 수 있도록 제도화시켜야 할 것이다. Social enterprises have been regarded as an innovative solution to address impending social issues such as social exclusion, unemployment, etc. It is the government that has been expected to take an active role in developing and enhancing corporate capabilities of social enterprises. However, there has been little research on the governmental interventions on social enterprises from a systematic perspective. In an effort to explore the desirable directions, scope, and limits of governmental interventions for the successful development of social enterprises, we review a theoretic framework of demand-pull and supply-push integrated with institutional choices in exercising specific policies: influence and regulation. The theoretic framework in this study is introduced by King et al.(1994) who attempted to address various issues arisen from social changes such as economic development and technological innovation. They integrated economic theories of demand-pull and technology-push with neoinstituionalism to derive potential intervention actions by institutions on those issues. When institutions exercise those actions, they have the choice of influence and/or regulation. Influence is a persuasive approach to change practice, rules, and belief systems embedded in a society through education, articulation, and resource allocations (Kimberly 1979). On the contrary, regulation deals with social changes through conflicts, distributed decision making, and controls over the flow of capital and structure of social order (Boyer, 1988a, 1988b). From the supply-push perspective, innovation advocates support the production of artifacts. This requires provisions of scientific knowledge, investments for research and development, and the adjustment of artifacts according to market demands. Meanwhile, the school of the demand-pull perspective emphasizes users` will to adopt innovation. It is also said that the interaction between supply and demand is critical to the success of innovation and changes along the degree of technological knowledge, complementary/supplementary items, and the degree of conversion of needs to demands (David 1975; Freeman 1988; Rosenberg 1972). In the King et al.(1994)`s theoretic framework, institutions` options of choice are further segmented by supply-push and demand-pull. By placing appropriate policy actions in each segment, institutions can formulate a macroscopic policy strategy to stimulate productions of innovative artifacts and the market environment that consumes these artifacts. Policy actions presented in the theory are knowledge building, knowledge deployment, subsidy, standard setting, and innovation directive. Throughout this study, the underlying assumption of the application of King et al.(1994)`s theoretic framework is that social enterprises` operations rely on economic activities and market mechanisms. To ensure the success of social enterprises, institutions should control and manage not only social enterprises, but also the market environment. In addition, institutions must build social capacity in order to stimulate fast adoption and usage, and changes in attitude and value systems which are hard to be made without institutions` interventions. Furthermore, the incorporation of the concept of market environment and social capacity into issues of social enterprise will lead us to explore more systematic approaches to the issues of social enterprise. In these regards, we assume it is a meaningful approach to study governmental interventions on social enterprise from King et al.(1994)`s theoretic framework. We test the application of King et al.(1994)`s theoretic framework on the UK government. Action plans presented in the government archive (SEA Plan 2006) are analyzed and coded based on the definitions and instances in the theoretic framework. By promoting researches on various subjects, this analysis presents the UK government`s intentions to change social attitude toward social enterprise. These subjects range from the value and the management of social enterprise to measures for financial support, which involves modification of existing finance systems. We show that the UK government utilizes social enterprise in the health and social care service sector by offering institutional supports. We also present the systematic bottom line of the UK government policy to secure operations of social enterprise by ensuring business areas (i.e., waste strategy). Thus, we identify the goal of the UK government policy as promoting the growth of social enterprise. They do so by incorporating the pushing supply and the pulling demand of social enterprises simultaneously.. We further search for practical implications of the analysis of UK governmental policy on social enterprise by comparing it with that of the Korean government. The comparison of the two cases shows that many actions discovered in the UK government policy seem to be adopted by the Korean government as well. Compared to the UK, the Korean government focuses less on demand-side research, which increases the capability to adopt social enterprises. Especially, we could identify there is no action in the segment of regulation and demand-pull, which indicates that the Korean government has no practical policy on the creation of secure markets for services and products of social enterprises. Despite many similarities in the policy actions of both countries, we identify three major differences: subsidy, standard settings, and innovation directives. In the subsidy, the data shows that the UK government has taken relatively more actions in the segment of regulation and demand-pull than the Korean government. This indicates that the UK government allocates more resources to legally secure and ensure markets for social enterprise than the Korean government does. Meanwhile, Korea turns out to place more subsidies in the segment of influence and supply-push compared to the UK. This difference arises from the fact that the Korean government allocates more resources to direct expenses of social enterprises such as labor expense, consulting, and advisory services for operations with relatively less resources allocated in the production of market demands for services and products of social enterprises. Another difference between the intervention policies of the two countries lies in their standard settings such as enacting regulations and legislations. Compared to the UK government, the Korean government has more policy actions belonging to standard settings regarding the qualification and operations of social enterprises, which also reveal the supply-focused characteristics of the Korean government`s policy. The most conspicuous difference between the two governments are their innovation directives. Compared to the direct measures of the UK government policy that has limited focus on certain industries, the Korean government encourages the development of social enterprises in diverse areas such as future growth in the industry, as well as conversion of welfare jobs. In sum, we characterize that the Korean government`s intervention policy on social enterprise is a ``government directive supply-push`` whereas that of the UK government is relatively demand-focused. In order for the innovation to succeed, this study concludes that the Korean government policy needs to be more balanced between supply-push and demand-pull. To do so, the Korean government is suggested to promote researches on the market environment, users` attitude, and belief system. It is also required to encourage the users to actively interact with social enterprises. At the same time, the government should make sure to support the production of social enterprises. Otherwise, the goals embedded in policy actions can be merely symbolic and impractical. By doing so, the Korean government is able to assure the market environment, which will provide sustainable operations and growth of social enterprises by allocating its resources more efficiently. Throughout this study, we examined theoretic approaches to analyze government interventions for social enterprises in a systematic way, enabling us to identify differences in policy actions and to explore potential directions in the governmental policies on social enterprises. The finding of this study has limitations on generalizability in that the number of cases involved is limited. Further researches with more cases are expected to produce more generalized and practical views of governmental intervention on social enterprises.

영국과 EU: 통합과정에서 나타난 영국의 유럽회의주의 태도를 중심으로

윤성원 서강대학교 유로메나연구소 2015 통합유럽연구 Vol.6 No.1

The UK-EU relationship has been ‘awkward’ since the beginning of the Europeanintegration. While undertaking the Second World War, the UK came to perceiveitself as ‘British Us’ as opposed to ‘European Them’ while equaling ‘Germany’ to‘Europe’. The traditionally special relationship between the UK and theCommonwealth in terms of politics and economy made the UK be more aloof to theEuropean integration, and the UK was highly sensitive to its possibly loosing nationalsovereignty as the process continues and deepens. By failing to join the community,the UK has missed a good opportunity of having an influence on thedecision-making process on the European integration. The UK initiated an economicfree trade area-European Free Trade Area-to be comparable to the EuropeanCommunity with other non-EC members. However, it turned out that most of thefounding members of EFTA including the UK left the EFTA and joined the EC. Missing the good opportunity of participating in the EC, the UK has causedconflicts with the EU in key issues concerning the ‘deepening’ process of integration. The amount of national contribution initiated the conflict between the two parties. Inaddition, not only ERM and a single currency, but also Eurozone crisis in recentyears has constantly generated conflicts between them. Depending on the results of the general election in 2015, it is very likely to see the bilateral relationshipworsened as the incumbent Conservative government is very likely to hold areferendum to decide the UK membership to the EU.

영국의 해외투자 유치정책의 성공요인 분석

변재웅 한국유럽학회 2009 유럽연구 Vol.27 No.3

This paper examines a case study of the UK on the successful FDI inducement policy. Foreign companies bring new technologies, ideas and skills, as well as new investment to an economy - and there can be significant benefits for indigenous companies as suppliers and for local economies. A high level of inward investment is a sign that a country is a good place in which to do business. According to UNCTAD, the UK is the second biggest global FDI host country. UKTI is the government organisation, playing crucial role to induce foreign investment in the UK, that supports companies in the UK doing business internationally and overseas enterprises seeking to set up or expand in the UK. The UK's inward investment promotional effort combines both national and regional agencies in a co-ordinated network. UKTI has a key role in managing this network and co-ordinating the efforts of both the public and private sector partners around the UK to make the best case for ‘UK plc’. This ensures that potential investors have access to all the available help and advice they need to make the best commercial decisions. UKTI's principal objectives in the area of FDI are to attract, retain and add value to UK investment. Foreign investors are attracted by the UK's general business environment; availability of skilled labour; the strength of the R&D base and the R&D tax credit supports & incentives; the position of English as the international language of business; economic stability; the favourable tax scheme, e.g. corporation tax and personal tax, and regulatory regime; and other factors such as advanced financial institutions and SOC, and competitive education system. The UK is not only an important and valuable market in its own right but also provides a platform for reaching markets in Europe. It provides a skilled and adaptable workforce and unrivalled R&D capabilities for international businesses looking to grow. Investing companies also recognise the importance of operating in a market in which it is easy to set-up and do business. 본 연구는 성공적인 해외직접투자 성공적인 유치국으로 관심이 증대되고 있는 영국사례를 분석한다. 영국은 해외투자가 경제성장, 고용창출에 기여할 뿐 아니라 산업경쟁력을 직접⋅간접으로 강화시키는데 기여한다고 판단하고 해외투자 유치에 적극적으로 나서고 있다. 영국은 철저한 내외국기업 평등주의에 입각하고 있어 외국인투자가에 대한 차별이 없다. 주요 EU 회원국 중 가장 낮은 수준의 법인세율을 실시하여 세금 공제 전 경상이익의 30%를 보장하며, EU 최저 수준의 개인세율로 경쟁력 있는 세제환경을 제공한다. 또한 영국은 해외투자를 위한 각종 보조금제도와 지원정책을 추진하고 있으며, 지역별 투자유인 보조금 제도를 운영하고 있다. 뿐만 아니라 투자기업의 연구개발 및 교육훈련 지원의 특혜를 공여하고 있다. 또한 다양한 외국인투자 유치를 위해 보조금 지원제도, 공장부지, 건물지원 및 사회간접자본 시설지원, 외환이동 및 세제 지원, 기업규제 완화와 투자기업 보호 등의 다양한 정책을 통하여 해외투자를 유치하고 있다. 영국투자유치의 성공사례를 통하여 투자가의 요구에 부합하는 인프라 구축 등 다양한 투자유치정책, 유기적인 협력체계 구축, 산업경쟁력 창출을 위한 끊임없는 노력, 투자유치를 위한 적극적인 마케팅 전략 필요성의 시사점을 알 수 있다.