K. R. Kim

Research on recruitment shows that jobseekers display positive attitudinal and behavioral responses to potential employers' corporate social responsibility (CSR), while corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) works contrariwise. However, few studies have examined how jobseekers react to companies that show the two attributes in an inconsistent way. This study investigates how jobseekers' perceptions of a company, shaped by its CSR history, are changed based on its recent CSR/CSI practices. It also examines how jobseekers' moral traits affect their perceptions of and behavioral intentions toward the company, influenced by the (in)consistency of its CSR. The results of a scenario-based experiment with 203 subjects show that jobseekers perceive a company with a strong (vs. weak) CSR history as warmer and infer that its CSR motive is genuine. However, when they obtain information about the company's recent CSI practices, they tend to perceive that the motivation of the previous CSR is not genuine and are less likely to be attracted by the company. This tendency is amplified when the jobseekers have a strong propensity to belong to ethical organizations. This research contributes to the literature on the effects of the (in)consistency of a company's CSR on its external stakeholders.

WTO는 2005. 3. 7. EC 제소의 선박산업에 대한 보조금지급에 관한 한국과 EC 간의 通商紛爭에 관 하여 패널결정을 선고하였으며, 양국의 항소포기로 인하여 4. 12. 분쟁해결기구가 동 결정을 채택하고 그 이행에 관하여 감시하고 있다. 즉, WTO는 제소국인 EC가 대한민국의 수출입은행법 및 동법 시행 령, 동 법령에 근거한, 개별적 특혜조치, 대우, 한라, 대동 등 우리 나라 주요 조선기업에 대한 특혜적 구조조정이 WTO가 허용하지 않는 금지보조금 및 조치가능보조금에 해당한다고 주장하면서 대한민국 정부를 상대로 제소한 통상분쟁과 관련하여 대부분 EC의 주장을 배척하고 일부 개별적 거래가 WTO 의 보조금 및 상계조치에 관한 협정에 위반한다는 결정을 내린 것이다. 이에 따라 WTO는 피소국인 대한민국에게 지체없이 동 일부 특혜조치 등을 철회할 것을 권고하였고, 대한민국 정부는 이를 이행할 의무를 부담하게 되었다. 본 사안을 통하여 WTO는 보조금 및 상계조치에 관한 해석론상의 많은 쟁점들에 관하여 法理的 견해 를 밝혔다. 첫째, 동일한 사실관계에 관하여 금지보조금과 조치가능보조금의 주장이 중첩적으로 가능하 고, 둘째, 전통적인 재량행위론, 즉 법령조항의 기속행위성 여부가 정부나 공공기관의 재정적 공여요건 의 충족 여부에 관한 판단의 기초를 제공하며, 셋째, 소위 SCM협정 예시목록의 법적 성격, 넷째, 재정 적 공여 요건과 특혜요건의 준별, 다섯째, 중대한 손상요건과 관련하여 보조금 해당요건과 국내 상계관 세부과조치의 준별, 여섯째, 보조금해당 여부의 판단에 있어 ‘ 동종물품요건’ 의 적용문제, 일곱째, 조치가 능보조금의 태양으로서 가격유지 및 왜곡된 가격인하의 개념 및 보조금요건충족과의 문제 등이 그것이 다. 본 논문은 우리의 주요 수출산업인 조선산업과 관련하여 이러한 쟁점들에 대한 WTO 결정의 의미 를 검토하였는바, 국제통상규범과 관련하여 향후의 무역분쟁에 대한 대비에 일조할 수 있었으면 한다.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.

The following provides to facilitate a better understanding of Niche doctoral programs, which was elaborated on the frequency of major institutions within the doctoral program listings. While no definitive ranking unlike the college rankings and programs is available, we are able to conjecture the breadth of doctoral programs for the list institutions. Others on instant sense may see in a mild aura of college or program strength. Then, they may refer to A/B/C tables below the Niche Doctoral Rank, whose focus runs solely on the availability and breadth of programs.

The major research universities in the United States had been investigated for the doctoral ranking of 2022 College Factual. The investigation had been performed as best as possible for the accuracy of data, but never be perfect nor exhaustive. Suggestion and advice are truly welcome (Kiyoung Kim, Professor of Law and Public Policy, College of Law and Social Studies, Chosun University, Gwang-ju, South Korea. I plan that the data would be used for the next research publication. The institutions had been ordered alphabetically.

The global economy has showed progress in terms of a new reign of multilateral cooperation represented by the World Trade Organization (WTO). On the other hand. regional integration creates economic benefits as illustrated by the creation of the EU and NAFTA. East Asia has also seriously pursued prospects for economic integration. producing considerable successes thus far. A Free Trade Agreement is a useful tool to assist in this evolution of trade relations. and South Korea. one of the major economies in East Asia. is uniquely situated to play a significant role in future negotiations. From this perspective. this paper surveys the global structure and organization of international trade. problems of regional economic integration emphasizing East Asia. and attempts to articulate a plausible South Korean strategy.

법의 系統으로 분류할 때 사회주의 국가권을 제외하면 일반적으로 성문제정법 중심의 대륙법계와 보통법 및 법원의 판례법을 법으로 인식하는 영미법계의 兩大 法界가 존재한다. 법은 일반적으로 국가를 전제로 한 개념으로 인식되고 있으며, 따라서 사법의 경우 국가마다 자신의 私法을 가지고 있고, 국제사회의 발달과 함께 사법의 통일노력은 꾸준히 지속되어 왔다. 사법의 통일방식에는 다양한 유형이 있 고, 그 중 하나가 超國家法(Non-State Norms)의 제정을 통한 통일이다. UNIDROIT Principles와 유럽 계약법원칙은 초국가법의 제정을 통한 사법통일의 대표적 실례이다. UN계약법원칙이라고도 불리는 UNIDROIT Principles은 중세 상인법(lex mercatoria)의 현대적 부활로 불리며, 대륙법과 영미법이 조화를 이룬 잘 된 입법으로 평가받고 있고 향후 사법통일의 지표와 시금석 역할을 하고 있다. 그러나 초국가법의 제정에 의한 사법통일은 그 法源性 및 대륙법계와 영미법계의법문화적, 지적 차이, 국제사회의 현실적 여건과 통일에 있어 법기술적 문제로 인하여 국제사회의 다른 법통일 노력과 비교할 때, 여러 가지 특징을 보이고 있다. 따라서 본고는 초국가법의 의의, 법원성을 간략히 살펴보고, 사법통일 운동 내지 초국가법에 의한 사법통일의 특징을 살펴본다. 나아가 초국가법에 의한 사법통일은 대륙법계식 사법통일을 대변하므로 그에 대한 보통법국가의 비판적 기본 시각을 정리해 보고, 대륙법계식 통일의 불가피성에 관하여 논한다. 사법통일에는 많은 變數가 존재하고 그 나름대로의 특징이 존재한다. 1893년 헤이그 국제사법회의 이래 최근 UN을 중심으로 한 사법통일에의 노력에 이르기까지, 사법통일운동은 향후 많은 변수 속에서 진행될 것이다. 그리고 초국가법을 통한 사법통일운동은 그 방식, 법적 성격, 法文化的 차이로 인하여 여러 가지 특징을 보이고 있으며, 이는 사법통일의 주체가 되는 각국 정부나 이를 국제거래분쟁해결의 준거규범으로 적용하여야 하는 司法官들이 참고할 필요가 있다고 본다.

The paper aims to briefly look into the civil law remedies of CISG from the perspective of economic efficiency. It mainly illustrates the basic tools of remedies in CISG, and discusses its strengths and flaws from the standpoint of economic deals normally present in most of commercial transactions. As many literature have long contributed to the legal economic discourse, our discussion, as a matter of course, largely depends on the current stronghold, or prospect that those theories espouse. Generally, the remedies in CISG have two basic pathways addressing or penalizing the breach of contract from one party, namely specific performance and damages award. Other instruments to deal with the breach of contract cover a cure of defect, repudiation to perform a contract, additional period to perform a contractual duty, avoidance of contract and etc. This group of instruments can be classed as a privately administered remedies for our purpose of analysis. On this assumption, we can find many aspects of strengths in economic terms, but some paucity that the prescribed approach cannot properly address the best of economics between the contracting parties. This paucity comes mainly because the lawmakers normally could not pre-consider all circumstances among the individual contracting parties. For this reason, this paper argues in favor of privately administered remedies to fill the paucity of two typical remedies. Moreover, the contractual negotiation or design of contract is considered very important as the contracting parties are most informed about their best of economics besides the official lawmakers. The paper concludes with a short discussion of the electronic commerce in comparison with the traditional domestic and international commerce.

In retrospect of Hague convention on international sale of goods, the efforts had been poured in the initiative of UNCITRAL since 1968 triggering more welcome international treaty on the area of law. The efforts came to reality where the committee in action, comprised of 14 countries, concluded a final draft in 1978. In 1980, it was adopted as United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG). While the treaty is deemed a marvellous success within the purview of uniform private laws, it is also true that there arises a severe criticism. One of criticism points to imprecise and ambiguous terms CISG employs that harms the uniformity in its interpretation. However, I would support the strength of CISG that CISG can be interpreted consistently in itself in terms of its international character, which means imprecision of CISG, short coverage of hardship issues, imbalance between parties, and inept nature to commodity transactions. In support of CISG, these criticisms either overlook the intrinsic difficulties underlying production of the uniform laws or seems to be groundless on various points of views. On the other hand, the true uniform laws presuppose uniformity in the application of treaty. We can see some extent of difference in terms of the role of precedents between the common law and civil law countries. It is encouraging that the recent practice of civil law countries, including Italy, Poland, Denmark and so on, tend to cite the foreign precedents for the cases of CISG laws. Within the regime of common law countries, the rule of “stare decisis” prescribes that the national precedents should govern as binding authority while those of other common law countries function to be a persuasive authority. This means that the practice of civil law countries has considerably developed as similar to that of common law counterparts. While they seem to use foreign precedents as persuasive authority like their counterparts, or in the least accept as inspirational authority, the application of CISG grows to be made in a shared fashion for true uniform laws. This development seems to prosper at the advent of academic database as well as the contribution of CISG experts.

1995년 세계무역기구가 출범하면서 구 GATT체제와 달리 국제통상에 관한 분쟁해결절차가 대폭 정 비되었다. 逆滿場一致制의 채택, 處理時限의 명시, 국제통상에 있어 법치주의의 구체화를 위한 抗訴機 構의 설치 등 舊體制와는 매우 다른 양상을 보이고 있다. 우리의 경우 국제무역은 국가의 미래가 걸려 있는 문제이고, 세계가 경제전쟁화되고 있는 현실에서 이러한 체제변화는 우리 정부나 법률 전문가의 관심 사항이 아닐 수 없다. 이러한 맥락에서 본고는 법치주의, 사법적극주의, 심판관의 역할이라는 명 제하에 세계무역기구 항소기구체제의 성격과 문제점을 조명하고 검토한다. 세계무역기구 분쟁해결시스 템은 국내사법체제나 다른 국제사법체제와 달리 비교적 역사가 일천하나, 향후 선례의 축적에 따라서 는 국제사회에서의 법치주의 달성에 있어 하나의 典型을 제공할 수 있는 가능성이 크다. 그러나 국제 협정체제라는 본질적 한계로 인하여 항소기구가 처하고 있는 현실은 그리 쉬운 것도 아니다. 국제통상 에 있어서의 법치주의와 항소기구, 심판관의 역할문제는 매우 광범위한 문제영역에 걸쳐 있는 문제지 만, 본고에서는 먼저 세계무역기구 출범의 의의와 성격을 살펴보고, 나아가 법치주의와 사법제도, 세계 무역기구 분쟁해결시스템의 성격과 Judge-made law의 중요성, 항소기구심판권의 범위와 한계, 절차 밖의 자가 제출한 참고자료의 문제, 항소기구와 정치기관 간의 관계 및 사법적극주의 문제 등에 관하 여 몇가지 事例와 比較法史的 접근방식을 통하여 논한다.

미합중국은 하나의 국가이다. 그리고 그 國家性에 관한 법적 성격은 우리나라와 같은 단 일국가의 경우와는 달리 연방국가이다. 정치적으로나 대외관계에 있어 하나의 국가로 행동하고 국제법적으로도 하나의 국가로 취급되고 있지만, 聯邦政府와 州와의 관계에 있어 어떠한 구도로 헌법체계 내지 국가체계가 이루어져 있는가는 헌법을 연구하는 학도로서 매우 궁금한 주제가 아닐 수 없다. 이 문제는 한 두 논문으로 해결할 수 없는 매우 광범위한 학문적 문제를 함유하고 있는 것이 사실이다. 물론 그 핵심에 위치하고 있는 것은 단일국가의 경우 와 같이 연방국가의 국가구성에 관한 합의를 담고 있는 연방헌법임은 물론이고, 또 그것이 그 문제에 관한 유일한 권위이다. 이 복잡한 주제를 살펴봄에 있어 본고에서는 가장 소박하게 연방의회와 연방법원의 권한을 살펴 봄으로써 연방국가와 주간의 국가성의 문제의 일각을 해결하여 보려고 시도하였다. 쉽게 말하면 연방국가 내지 연방정부는 단일국가의 중앙정부와 같은 포괄적이고 최고인 통치권을 행사할 수 있는 것이 아니고, 주의 國家性에 배치되지 않는 한도내에서 일부의 통치권을 연방헌법으로부터 부여받고 있다. 물론 연방에 관한 사항에 관하여는 연방헌법 및 연방법의 최고성의 원칙에 따라 연방정부의 권력은 주의 권력에 우선하지만, 그 범위는 제한적이라는 것이다. 따라서 연방의회 및 연방법원의 권한의 범위를 확정하는 것은 연방국가의 통치구도를 이해하는데 있어 매우 중요하다 아니할 수 없다. 州行政府와 聯邦行政府의 권한의 문제는 각 행정부가 연방의회 및 주의회에 의하여 제정된 법률을 충실히 집행하면 되므로 연방의회의 권한을 살펴보면 그 문제는 자연히 해결되는 측면이 있다. 물론 연방대통령은 연방법률의 집행권한외에 연방헌법에 부여된 권한(예컨대 사면권, 법률안거부권 또는 국군통수권 등)을 행사할 수 있는 것은 물론이다. 따라서 연방행정부의 권한의 범위는 논의에서 제외하였다. 한편 연방법원의 권한을 본고의 대상으로 한 것은 연방대법원은 주법률에 대한 위헌심사는 물론이고, certiorari를 통하여 주의 최고법원에 대한 司法的 統制를 행한다는 점에서(따라서 연방대법원은 일반적으로 연방국가의 유지에 있어 중요한 위치를 담당하고 있다고 평가된다) 본고의 주제와 밀접한 관계가 있을 뿐만 아니라, 연방법원은 순수한 주 내부의 사법적 분규가 아닌 사항(예컨대 다른 주 시민간의 소송 등)에 관하여 사법권을 행사함으로 인하여 연방과 주의 권한의 한계점에 위치하고 있기 때문이다.

This paper explores the legal issues of embargo centering on judicial review of the trade administration. Embargo, one type of trade regulation, has a distinctive nature in that it involves an entire forestall of the importation from foreign countries. It is also distinguished from other tools of trade regulation, including anti-dumping tariffs, countervailing measure on the subsidies since it entangles with other complex considerations of diplomacy, national security, public health, and environmental policy. Therefore discretion from the trade administration, notwithstanding the president, is widely vested in that authority, who are responsible for an enforcement of the individual statute, yet can be evaded from stern control of the judiciary. Aside from the standard of review on substantial issues, judicial review relating with the embargo also entails a myriad of jurisdictional questions between the federal court and the court of international trade. In view of the U.S. role and current escalation of the trade issues in the international community, active engagement of the court as well as harmonization within the international plane need to be furthered along with the development of trade environment. For the export nations including Korea, embargo has a pounding impact on the national economy that also enhances a need for the reasonable administration of justice for the predictability and stability of the exporters.

In order for the liberalization and increase of international trade, the free trade agreement is generally deemed a most useful instrumentality within the region. Under the WTO regime, we can see that a plethora of FTA arrangements are negotiated, come into the treaty laws, as well as operate to regulate the binational or tri-national trade disputes on the regional basis. As most typical and frequented in FTAs, they usually include an arbitration and binational panel procedure as a dispute settlement mechanics. In many aspects, the procedures prescribed in most of FTAs could be apposite that most effectively and cheaply handle the disputes arising from the specific binational or trinational treaties. On the other hand, they could offer a chance to avoid the constitutional musters merely because diplomacy, international negotiation, ratification of treaties and approval of them traditionally fall within the powers of Congress or Executive under the separation of powers principle. This paper examined the legal issues as focused upon the NAFTA ch. 19, ch. 11 and US constitution. The chapters instituted the binational panel procedure dealing with the anti-dumping or counter measures as of subsidies, as well as legal dispute from the binational investment arrangements. From the consitutional viewpoint, we can be aware that the chapters could expressly contravene the Article III of original jurisdiction, Eleventh amendment of state sovereignty, and limitations of the treaty making powers inherent in the separation of powers principle. Given the overriding feature of such treaty clauses, the treaty should be ratified through the form of constitutional amendment, which requires a more stern step over most of the civilized constitutional states. The constitution is a supreme law in land, and represents a popular sovereignty as sheerly distinguished from the constitutional function of normal branches. When the special mechanics of dispute settlement may adopt an option of forum for escape, it is viewed that its unconstitutionality could yet be cured because the constitutional language of Article III original jurisdiction is considered mandatory or exclusive. I believe that the constitutional amendment procedure only could properly dispose such arrangements. While some areas of the presidential powers are deemed not subject to constitutional review as resorted upon the doctrine of political question or judicial self-restraint, the current jurisprudence gradually finds some limitations on the presidential power of foreign affairs including the treaty or war making provisions. As for a would-be treaty party of FTA, the constitutional issues raised in US is not entirely irrelevant to the Korean case ahead.

This paper intends to articulate the jurisdictional issue of the Court of International Trade(CIT), particularly dealing with a legal dispute of the Anti-dumping law. While the international trade grows to be marshaled by a new institutional arrangement of WTO dispute settlement system, the role of CIT correspondingly plays a great deal of effect on this area of laws. It is considered that both arbitrating institutions have to drive a reasonable rule over the trade issues. This is particularly so in various viewpoints. The law of USA has influenced significantly over WTO, and its take is fairly greater than other WTO members in economic terms. Under this background, I attempt to probe an attitude of CIT in dealing with jurisdictional issues including the extent of judicial activism and theoretical ground for resolving those issues while providing a comparative articulation to the general doctrine of administrative law. I also point out the significance as well as characteristics of jurisdictional issue in terms of the U. S. legal system, which, I hope, can provide a little guidance to the current Korean jurisprudence. Lastly, I stress the need for judicial reform within Korea as well as more affluent provision of legal counselling, which I think vital to accommodate a rapid development of trade environment.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.

1.The judicial system in the nations is generally considered as an important public institution to promote the liberty and social justice. The role and influence of public policy and administration can hold a considerable power in the shaping of Korean judicial system. The current literature in this field is just on legal theory, and little is known about the processes, actions and interactions of players relating with the elements of public policy studies. 2. The study’s purposes were: (a) to examine the phenomenon inherent in the public administration of Korean judicial system (b) to generate a theory on its phenotype in the national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 3. Based on the grounded theory approach as well as hermeneutics and heuristics, the kind of tools, i.e., concepts, terms, essences as well as inter-relational understanding or themes were employed. The theories and tenets generally on the elements of public policy, as stems from Sabatier & Mooney, Walzer, Habermas & Foucault, Weber &Turner, Simons, Bourdieu and so, provided the backdrop for this study. 4. Research questions focused on the policy process and actions, interactions of players within the public policy aspect of Korean judicial system and its phenotype in terms of national and comparative or interdisciplinary viewpoints. 5. Research participants consisted of a purposive sample of 30 Korean lawyers, legal historians, law professors and civic leadership who responded with the individual in-depth interviews. They were preliminarily surveyed with the written questions leading to select major occurrences or events, and deeply investigated through the interviews at next. The data collection consisted of public documentation, record, personal writings, and texts of Korean source 6. The findings indicated that the public administration of Korean judicial system in view of public policy elements is (i) unique, but sharable (ii) inevitable, but struggled, (iii) static, but transformative (iv) general, but professional. 7. Implications for positive social change include deeper understanding of Korean judicial system in terms of public policy studies and importance of public policy on its shaping.