본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

정보통신 진흥 및 융합 활성화 등에 관한 특별법(소위 ‘ICT 특별법’)상 신속처리절차 및 임시허가제도의 법적 쟁점

Legal Issues on the acceleration process and the provisional approval under the Act for the promotion and convergence of ICT

2

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Generally, it’s a duty for legislator to set out the definitive legal framework for the use of a new technology. However, it is not so easy to anticipate every details of social advantages and disadvantages resulted from the technical development because of the uncertainty of complex technical developments. That’s the main reason that it comes to a regulatory deficit. In this circumstances, it’s also hard for the inventor of the new technology to decide whether the use of the new technology is legally permitted or prohibited. So, the regulatory deficit may lead to a productivity lag in ICT branch. In the light of the economic importance of ICT branch, we need to have flexible legal means supplementing the traditional way of a legislation to fill out the gap between dynamics of technological developments and the statics of the law. Here comes to a new regulatory framework, so called acceleration process in the Act for the promotion and convergence of ICT. In this process, a inventor of a new ICT technology have a petition to promote to be decided whether the new technology is legally launched in the ICT market or not. If needed, Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning(MSIP) can introduce the another additional process, i.e. provisional approval, beside the acceleration process to make a temporal rule to gather useful informations for establishing the criteria for commercialization of that technology and to test this new ICT technology in terms of harmful risk to competitors and consumers. In the end of these processes, with the results of that experiment, legislator can make better regulations for the new ICT technology. There must be several legal issues on the acceleration process and the provisional approval in practice, because this kind of legal institutions are relatively newly introduced and hardly discussed among the legal scholars. In this paper, the author have focused on some nominees to be in a controversy on the way of interpreting and applying in practice.

Abstract

Generally, it’s a duty for legislator to set out the definitive legal framework for the use of a new technology. However, it is not so easy to anticipate every details of social advantages and disadvantages resulted from the technical development because of the uncertainty of complex technical developments. That’s the main reason that it comes to a regulatory deficit. In this circumstances, it’s also hard for the inventor of the new technology to decide whether the use of the new technology is legally permitted or prohibited. So, the regulatory deficit may lead to a productivity lag in ICT branch. In the light of the economic importance of ICT branch, we need to have flexible legal means supplementing the traditional way of a legislation to fill out the gap between dynamics of technological developments and the statics of the law. Here comes to a new regulatory framework, so called acceleration process in the Act for the promotion and convergence of ICT. In this process, a inventor of a new ICT technology have a petition to promote to be decided whether the new technology is legally launched in the ICT market or not. If needed, Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning(MSIP) can introduce the another additional process, i.e. provisional approval, beside the acceleration process to make a temporal rule to gather useful informations for establishing the criteria for commercialization of that technology and to test this new ICT technology in terms of harmful risk to competitors and consumers. In the end of these processes, with the results of that experiment, legislator can make better regulations for the new ICT technology. There must be several legal issues on the acceleration process and the provisional approval in practice, because this kind of legal institutions are relatively newly introduced and hardly discussed among the legal scholars. In this paper, the author have focused on some nominees to be in a controversy on the way of interpreting and applying in practice.

참고문헌 (21)

  1. 정보통신 진흥 및 융합 활성화 등에 관한 특별법안 검토보고서(조해진 의원 대표발의), "국회미래창조과학방송통신위원회", ~ (2013)
  2. 김삼룡, "법률의 헌법적 조종요청", 헌법학연구, 9(2), pp.211~243 (2003), 한국헌법학회
  3. 김유향, "「ICT 특별법」통과와 향후 과제", 이슈와 논점, (694) (2013), 국회입법조사처
  4. 김태오, "기술발전과 규율공백, 그리고 행정법의 대응에 대한 시론적 고찰 ― 정보통신 진흥 및 융합 활성화 등에 관한 특별법(소위 ICT 특별법)상 임시허가제도를 중심으로 ―", 행정법연구, (38), pp.83~111 (2014), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
  5. 박균성, "행정법론(상) 제10판" (2011), 박영사
  6. 박영도, "실험법률에 관한 고찰", 법제, (546) (2003), 법제처
  7. 박영도, "효과지향적 입법관리 - 스위스의 사례를 중심으로-", 법제 (2006), 법제처
  8. 서원우, "행정학과 행정법의 대화", 한국행정학회 동계학술발표논문집 (1999), 한국행정학회
  9. 전훈, "보충성원칙과 실험법-지방분권을 위한 2003년 프랑스 개정헌법과 그 시점-", 한국프랑스학논집, (50), pp.557~576 (2005), 한국프랑스학회
  10. 정보통신 진흥 및 융합 활성화를 위한 법ㆍ제도 개선방안(안), "정보통신전략위원회", ~ (2014)
  11. 정준화, "ICT 융합 활성화를 위한 법ㆍ제도적 개선 방향", 이슈와 논점, (717) (2013), 국회입법조사처
  12. 이원우, "규제개혁과 규제완화: 올바른 규제정책 실현을 위한 법정책의 모색", 저스티스, (106), pp.355~389 (2008), 한국법학원
  13. 이원우, "규제행정법론" (2010), 홍문사
  14. 황창근, "ICT 특별법의 제정 의의와 발전 과제", 토지공법연구, 64, pp.465~485 (2014), 한국토지공법학회
  15. Appel, Ivo, "Staatliche Zukunftsund Entwicklungsvorsorge" (2004), Tübingen
  16. Beck, Wofgang, "Die kommunalrechtliche Experimentierklausel als Reforminstrument" (2004), LKV
  17. Kloepfer, Michael, "Gesetzgebung im Rechtsstaat", VVDStRL H, 40 (1982)
  18. Maaß, Volker, "Experimentierklauseln für die Verwaltungs und ihre verfassnungsrechtlichen Grenzen" (2001), Berlin
  19. Maurer, Hartmut, "Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht" (2011), München
  20. Schulze-Fielitz, Helmuth, "Innovation und Flexibilität des Verwaltungshandelns" (1994), Baden-Baden
  21. Schmidt-Preuß, Matthias, "Kommunikation-Technik-Recht" (2001), Berlin

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)