메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
이상만 (원광대학교)
저널정보
원광대학교 법학연구소 의생명과학과법 의생명과학과법 제15권
발행연도
2016.1
수록면
35 - 71 (37page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The National Obligation of Protection on the Safety of Life and Body - Focusing on the Decisions of Humidifier Disinfectant Damage Case and Japan's Sennan Asbestos Case - Lee, Sang-Man In the middle of being progressed an investigation into a manufacturer and a distributor in relation to humidifier disinfectant damage, and of being reported an issue of compensation for the damage through the press, the government is showing passive attitude toward responsibility for this. By the way, PHMG/PGH, which are major components of humidifier disinfectant, were designated as toxicant in Australia's NICNAS and America's EPA in 2003. Nevertheless, our country judged that it is not toxicant and observation material based on data that were submitted by an applicant at that time of the harmful screening on humidifier disinfectant in 2003. In accordance with the regulations of the Hazardous Chemicals Control Act in those days, the government needed to decide on whether or not being harmful based on this after asking for the submission of the test certificate on oral, percutaneous or inhalation toxicity depending on exposure route according to the use. However, the government didn't implement this. As a result, a horrible result of being appeared numerous victims was caused. In Austria and Switzerland following 2006, PHMG/PGH were used only for disinfection by sterilization in a place without a person based on the findings of one university. Even disinfection was recommended a method of spraying through a machine, not a person. On the other hand, in our country, PGH and PHMG were being distributed to the general with being used as major component of humidifier disinfectant without being separated from toxicant and observation material. With reaching September of 2012 following the occurrence of a humidifier disinfectant victim, it was finally designated as toxicant pertinent to the Hazardous Chemicals Control Act. Accordingly, the primary responsibility for the occurrence of damage is naturally put in a manufacturer and a distributer. It cannot be denied the responsibility of a nation that is managing and supervising chemicals and monopolizing safety test on it. Moreover, a nation has obligation of protecting the safe of people's life and body. Thus, its responsibility cannot be considered to be small at all. Watching the progress of this case, it cannot help recalling the Decisions of the Highest Court on Sennan Asbestos Case in Japan in which the state responsibility was recognized in the recently environmental dispute case. This judgment is not what extensively recognized the state responsibility, but has great implication in that suggested the judgment standard for its illegality with firstly acknowledging the state responsibility, and in that became an opportunity of intensifying the national obligation of protection on safety of people's life and body. Hence, the aim here is to re-illuminate the state responsibility for the recently humidifier disinfectant case through the process of the decision of the Highest Court on Sennan Asbestos Case in Japan, and to suggest direction to which our country's judgment will need to advance henceforth in relation to the state responsibility in an environmental dispute case based on this.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0