나고야-쿠알라룸푸르 추가의정서의 성립과정과 향후과제 -유전자변형생물체(LMO)의 환경방출사례를 중심으로-
A Study on the Establishing Process and Tasks of Nagoya-Kualalumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety -Focused on the Case of LMO's Release into Environment-
3
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
On 16 October 2010, a new international treaty, the Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, was adopted at one of the largest intergovernmental meetings ever held on the safe use of modern biotechnology. The adoption of the new treaty was generated from the end of the five-day meeting of the governing body of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (known as the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol or COP-MOP 5) and concluded six years of negotiations. The new supplementary Protocol provides international rules and procedure on liability and redress for damage to biodiversity resulting from living modified organisms (LMO). The term "liability" is normally related with the obligation under the applicable law to provide for compensation for damage resulting from an action for which that person is deemed to be responsible. Liability and redress in the context of the Protocol concerns the question of what would happen if the transboundary movement of living modified organisms (LMOs) has caused damage. The issue of liability and redress for damage resulting from the transboundary movements of LMOs was one of the themes on the agenda during the negotiation of the Biosafety Protocol. The negotiators were, however, unable to reach any consensus regarding the details of a liability regime under the Protocol. The matter was, nevertheless, considered both critical and urgent. As a result, an enabling clause to that effect was included in the final text of the Protocol. The Protocol itself is not perfect for parties to lead their legislation. There are many problems to legislate this Protocol as new act for LMO's damage. In this regard, legislator should focus on the purpose of this Protocol and deliberate its workable legal mechanism. Legislator should study distinctive features of LMO in legislation process and adopt effective civil procedure, civil liability system, buren of proving and financial security. It is anticipated that we will have amounts of obstacles in legislating this Protocol as effective and workable act for LMO's damage. However, legislator should endeavor to establish and develop this Protocol as enforcing act for the safe use of LMO and the development of modern biotechnology.
Abstract
On 16 October 2010, a new international treaty, the Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, was adopted at one of the largest intergovernmental meetings ever held on the safe use of modern biotechnology. The adoption of the new treaty was generated from the end of the five-day meeting of the governing body of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (known as the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol or COP-MOP 5) and concluded six years of negotiations. The new supplementary Protocol provides international rules and procedure on liability and redress for damage to biodiversity resulting from living modified organisms (LMO). The term "liability" is normally related with the obligation under the applicable law to provide for compensation for damage resulting from an action for which that person is deemed to be responsible. Liability and redress in the context of the Protocol concerns the question of what would happen if the transboundary movement of living modified organisms (LMOs) has caused damage. The issue of liability and redress for damage resulting from the transboundary movements of LMOs was one of the themes on the agenda during the negotiation of the Biosafety Protocol. The negotiators were, however, unable to reach any consensus regarding the details of a liability regime under the Protocol. The matter was, nevertheless, considered both critical and urgent. As a result, an enabling clause to that effect was included in the final text of the Protocol. The Protocol itself is not perfect for parties to lead their legislation. There are many problems to legislate this Protocol as new act for LMO's damage. In this regard, legislator should focus on the purpose of this Protocol and deliberate its workable legal mechanism. Legislator should study distinctive features of LMO in legislation process and adopt effective civil procedure, civil liability system, buren of proving and financial security. It is anticipated that we will have amounts of obstacles in legislating this Protocol as effective and workable act for LMO's damage. However, legislator should endeavor to establish and develop this Protocol as enforcing act for the safe use of LMO and the development of modern biotechnology.
참고문헌 (50)
- 권한용, "국제법상 사전주의 원칙의 적용과 한계", 동아법학, (46), pp.423~449 (2010), 법학연구소
- 김상천, "環境侵害의 留止請求", 재산법연구, 27(1), pp.389~427 (2010), 한국재산법학회
- 김민철, "배출권거래제 도입에 있어 법적 측면과 법경제적 측면에서의 분석 - 배출권할당을 중심으로", 환경법연구, 32(2), pp.285~315 (2010), 한국환경법학회
- 김선국, "불가항력 및 사정변경의 원칙에 관한 계약과 관련한 주요 국제적인 규범들 규정의 비교.검토 - UNIDROIT Principles, PECL 및 CISG를 중심으로", 기업법연구, 13(13), pp.229~245 (2003), 한국기업법학회
- 김종현, "제조물책임법상 제조물개념의 개정 필요성 - 1차 농산물의 편입을 위한 제조물 규정의 개정 제안", 비교사법, 16(3)통권 : 46, pp.273~299 (2009), 한국비교사법학회
- 김형배, "위험책임론,「민법학의 회고와 전망」, 민법전 시행 30주년 기념논문집, 1993 明淳龜, In 프랑스 民法上 生命 없는 物件으로 인한 民事責任- 佛蘭西 民法典 第1384 條 第1項의 適用要件을 중심으로", 저스티스, 27(2) (1994)
- 모성준, "입증책임 완화논의에 관한 법경제학적 검토", 民事法硏究, 18 (2010), 대한민사법학회
- 문상혁, "바이오의약품 사고로 인한 피해구제법리 - 제조물책임법리를 중심으로", 성균관법학, 22(3), pp.621~654 (2010), 법학연구소
- 박경재, "제조물의 결함과 입증책임", 법학연구, 48(2), pp.153~185 (2008), 법학연구소
- 박기주, "생물다양성협약의 국제적 변화와 발전", Biosafety, 통권 : 45 (2010), 한국바이오안전성정보센터
- 박기주, "유전자변형생물체(LMO)의 환경침해 우려의 법적대응-미국의 GM알팔파․사탕무 관련 소송과 생물다양성협약의 발전을 중심으로", Biosafety, 통권 : 47 (2011)
- 박영준, "환경오염배상책임보험에 관한 법적 고찰 - 관련 외국입법의 비교를 중심으로", 환경법연구, 32(3), pp.85~120 (2010), 한국환경법학회
- 박원석, "나고야 의정서 채택으로 살펴본 유전자원의 중요성", Biosafety, 통권 : 44 (2010)
- 신국미, "손해배상의 방법으로서 원상회복의 도입", 한양법학, 21(29), pp.381~410 (2010), 한양법학회
- 申有哲, "生命科學의 發達과 民事責任", 民事法學, 22 (2002)
- 신은주, "의료과오소송 입증책임론의 전개와 발전", 의료법학, 9(1), pp.9~56 (2008), 대한의료법학회
- 양천수, "전문법의 책임으로서 환경책임과 환경민사책임 : 환경책임에 대한 법이론적？법사회학적 접근", 환경법연구, 29(3), pp.259~292 (2007), 한국환경법학회
- 오정후, "환경권 침해에 터잡은 가처분 사건의 소송요건", 환경법연구, 29(2), pp.237~260 (2007), 한국환경법학회
- 왕상한, "유전자변형농산물로부터의 소비자보호를 위한 미국의 법제분석", 비교사법, 12(2)통권 : 29, pp.145~194 (2005), 한국비교사법학회
- 윤석찬, "의약품의 잠재적 위험에 근거한 위험책임", 법학연구, (22), pp.165~189 (2006), 한국법학회
- 윤효영, "환경손해의 개념 및 그에 대한 사법적 구제", 한림법학 FORM, 20
- 이동기, "환경소송에 있어서 입증책임완화에 관한 연구", 법조, 52(8)통권 : 563
- 李種永, "바이오안전성의정서의 성립배경과 내용", 法學論文集, 25(1) (2001), 중앙대학교법학연구소
- 장호민, "바이오안전성의정서의 의미와 주요내용", 경희법학, 43(1), pp.295~324 (2008), 법학연구소
- 전경운, "환경소송에서 인과관계의 입증에 관한 소고", 환경법연구, 32(2), pp.63~96 (2010), 한국환경법학회
- 鄭震明, "遺傳工學과 民事責任", 法學硏究, 11(1) (2000), 忠南大學校 法學硏究所
- 최병록, "유전자 재조합 식품의 제조물책임", 소비자학연구, 17(3), pp.113~132 (2006), 한국소비자학회
- 최상회, "유전자변형농산물의 제조물책임", 법학연구, 3(31), pp.165~186 (2008), 한국법학회
- 함영주, "환경 집단소송법 도입의 논의에 대한 검토", 민사소송, 11(2), pp.203~224 (2007), 한국민사소송법학회
- 허성욱, "기후변화시대의 에너지법", 경제규제와 법, 4(1), pp.235~253 (2011), 법학연구소
- SCIENCE ON, "GMO 논쟁상자를 다시 열다", 한겨레신문사, ~ (2010)
- 마이클 폴란, "욕망하는 식물" (2007), 황소자리
- 한국바이오안전성정보센터, "바이오안전성백서" (2009)
- Bernhard A. Koch, "Economic loss caused by genetically modified organisms: Liability and Redress for the Adventitious"
- "Presence of GMOs in Non-GM Crops", Tort and Insurance Law, 24 (2007), Springer
- Dickson, "Biodiversity and the precautionary principle : risk, uncertainty, and practice in conservation and sustainable use" (2005), Sterling
- F.H.Lawson, "Tortious liability for unintentional harm in the Common law and Civil law I, II" (1982), CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
- Fanz Werro, "The Boundaries of Strict Liability in European Tort Law" (2004), Carolina Academic Press
- Hagen, "Zur Normativitāt des Schadensbegriffs in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofes", Festschrift für Fritz Hauß, 70 (1978), Geburtstag
- Hannes Descamps, "International Documents on Environmental Liability" (2008), Springer
- Hans Pruetting, "Gegenwartsprobleme der Beweislat" (1983), Muenchen
- Julian Morris, "Defining the precautionary principle, Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle" (2000), Butterworth Heineman
- Kenneth S. Abraham, "The Liability Century" (2008), Harvard University Press
- Mackenzie, Ruth, "An Explanatory Guide to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety", pp.2003, IUCN
- Mark Wilde, "Civil Liability for Environmental Damage: A Comparative Analysis of Law and Policy in Europe and the United States" (2002), Kluwer Law Internatinal
- Monica Hinteregger, "Environmental Liability and Ecological Damage in European Law" (2008), Cambridge University Press
- Paul K. Freeman, "Manging Environmental Risk Through Insurance" (1997), Kluwer
- Peter Marburger, "Grundsatzfragen des Haftungsrechts unter dem Einfluß der gesetzlichen Regenlungen zur Produzentenund zur Umwelthaftung" (1992), AcP
- Sheila Jasanoff, "SCIENCE AT THE BAR: Law, Science and Technology in America" (1995), Havard University Press
- Susan L. Smith, "Ecologically Sustainable Development : Integrating Economics, Ecology and Law", Willamette Law Review, 31 (1995)