지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article explores the characteristics of the regulation of health and safety at work(the RHSW) of korea in comparison to that of the United Kingdom. To this end, it firstly compares between the personal scope of the regulation of health and safety at work in the context of its historical development. Secondly, it explores who the duty bear of the RHSW is in both of the countries. Thirdly it evaluates recent development of the regulation of the fatal industrial accidents in both of the countries.
This comparative-law study finds that the personal scope of the RHSW of Korea has been substantially modified to cover all the people working in the same workplace. As a result, this article argues that the RHSW of both of the countries are similar in terms of the personal scope and that Korea is differentiated from the countries from which it inherited the RHSW, such as Germany and Japan.
Furthermore this article concludes that, irrespective of the assimilation of the personal scope of the RHSW, both of the two countries have maintained the difference in the main duty bearer of the RHSW. Whereas corporations are the main duty bearer in the RHSW of the UK, natural person are the main duty bearer in the RHSW of Korea. This difference is derived from the structural difference of the criminal law in those countries. This article suggests that the ineffectiveness of criminal sanction of the RHSW of Korea is partly due to the fact that the duty bearer of the RHSW as a natural person is not able to be specified and the officers of corporations are rarely identified as a duty bearer in the application of the RHSW of Korea.
Lastly, this article demonstrates that the recent regulation of the fatal industrial accidents in both of the two countries is the mixture of the similarity and the difference of the RHSW in terms of its personal scope and the duty bearer. As a result, on the one had, the new duty secure safety and heath by a chief officer in the Serious Accident Punishment Act(the SAPA) is similar to features of “the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management”. On the other hand, no duty similar to the new duty in the SAPA is not found in the UK as it is positive and imposed upon the chief officer of corporations.
This comparative-law study finds that the personal scope of the RHSW of Korea has been substantially modified to cover all the people working in the same workplace. As a result, this article argues that the RHSW of both of the countries are similar in terms of the personal scope and that Korea is differentiated from the countries from which it inherited the RHSW, such as Germany and Japan.
Furthermore this article concludes that, irrespective of the assimilation of the personal scope of the RHSW, both of the two countries have maintained the difference in the main duty bearer of the RHSW. Whereas corporations are the main duty bearer in the RHSW of the UK, natural person are the main duty bearer in the RHSW of Korea. This difference is derived from the structural difference of the criminal law in those countries. This article suggests that the ineffectiveness of criminal sanction of the RHSW of Korea is partly due to the fact that the duty bearer of the RHSW as a natural person is not able to be specified and the officers of corporations are rarely identified as a duty bearer in the application of the RHSW of Korea.
Lastly, this article demonstrates that the recent regulation of the fatal industrial accidents in both of the two countries is the mixture of the similarity and the difference of the RHSW in terms of its personal scope and the duty bearer. As a result, on the one had, the new duty secure safety and heath by a chief officer in the Serious Accident Punishment Act(the SAPA) is similar to features of “the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management”. On the other hand, no duty similar to the new duty in the SAPA is not found in the UK as it is positive and imposed upon the chief officer of corporations.
목차
국문초록
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 보호대상
Ⅲ. 의무주체
Ⅳ. 중대재해의 규율
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-24-02-089256015