위반된 의무의 성격에 따른 구분 접근법의 모색

학위논문 (박사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 법과대학 법학과, 2019. 2. 이재민.The issue of State succession is defined as the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory. When all or part of territory is transferred to another State due to acquisition or loss of territory, the legal effect of State succession concerns the extent of transmission of the rights and obligations which had been owed by the predecessor State with regard to the territory transferred. Until recently, stidies on State succession have been usually made with regard to the types or categories of State succession and several subjects about which the codification had been already completed, i.e., succession to treaties, debt and assets, and nationality. State succession to responsibility that had not been covered by the existing documents on State succession, however, are gaining interests since the Institute of International Law adopted the resolution on State succession to international responsibility in 2015 and the UN International Law Commission started the work of codification on the same issue in 2017. Traditionally, the predominant views on the question whether there is succession to responsibility were mostly negative. Such a negative succession rule was based on the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona , which is closely related to the Roman law concept that ex delicto liability does not pass from the cujus to the heirs. It was also founded on the idea that a State is only responsible for its own internationally wrongful acts and not for those committed by the predecessor State which has different international legal personality. With the adoption of the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility, however, questions were raised on the non-succession rule based on the personal nature of torts, because mental elements including "fault" became a condition to be dealt only in terms of the primary obligation and was separated from the establishment of State responsibility. Also, there occurred opinions which claimed that there are events where the succession to responsibility should be admitted on the basis of human rights and/or the necessity for remedy of victims. According to ILC, it is time to assess new developments in State practice and jurisprudence related to the succession of States responsibility. Moreover, ILC is trying to adopt a general rule on succession to responsibility based on the idea that certain secondary obligations are transferable to a successor State. This means that ILC is executing the codification process focusing on the types or categories of the State succession without making any distinctions on the nature of the rights and obligations involvedby considering the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility as a starting point of the discussion on succession to responsibility. Nonetheless, it is questionable whether the codification work could be successfully completed without considering the nature of the rights and obligations violated. This is because internationally wrongful acts are related to various areas of international obligations and transferability of responsibility is closely related to the violated obligation. Is it possible to say that there is no difference in dealing with succession to contractual responsibility on the one hand and delictual responsibility on the other? Analyses on State practice show that most States resolve the issue of responsibility occurred before State succession by negotiation, and, unlike traditional non-succession doctrine, most successor States tend to assume responsibility. In this respect, ILC's conclusion on the existence of succession to responsibility is correct. Such successions, however, were transferred by voluntary adoption of successor States. And the assumed responsibilities were mostly related to financial or economic injuries occurred by nationalization or confiscation. Only few cases were related to personal injuries and it is difficult to find cases which show succession to responsibility arising from international crimes which has long been considered to be political rather than legal. This seems to be the result of the difference in historical backgrounds of the development of State responsibility for different rights and obligations. Therefore studies on succession to responsibility needs to make clear distinction between transferable and non-transferable State responsibilities. Even in cases where the type of succession calls for succession to responsibility, reconsideration may be required depending on the nature of rights and obligations violated. A classical example of transferable State responsibility would be cases where an individuals rights have been violated by States actions in violation of international law. Considering the growing importance of individuals rights within the realm of international law, it would not be acceptable to allow previously granted individuals rights not to be guaranteed as a result of succession. Successor States should guarantee that personal injuries triggered by predecessor States' internationally wrongful acts be remedied to the extent that the rights related are guaranteed in their own Constitution. It is skeptical, however, that responsibilities arising from the so-called international crimes, i.e., genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of attack, ect. can be categorized as transferable responsibility. State responsibilities deriving from international crimes are representative examples of serious violations of jus cogens which are dealt differently in the 2001 ILC Articles on State responsibility. Nevertheless, further developments are required with regard to the scope of jus cogens violation and the way how to regulate them. Furthermore, the fact that "fault" is one of the requirements to hold States responsible for international crimes prevents the established responsibilities from being transferred to the successor States because of its subjective characteristics of the wrongfulness. Therefore, it would be difficult to categorize State responsibilities arising from international crimes to be transferable. Ironically, some of the most serious violations of human rights are caused by international crimes that are categorized as non-transferable. However, such problems should not be resolved through the doctrine of succession to responsibility solely because of the severity of the violation. During State succession process, related State parties usually negotiate the terms for succession and include the agreed terms in a treaty. The content of such treaty are not limited to the boundary of the law of State responsibility, and issues triggered by international crimes will usually be treated very importantly and solution to the problem will have to be included in the treaty. It is illegitimate to develop norms and doctrines in areas where State practice and international norms have not yet been developed sufficiently. It is more important to enhance legal legitimacy in dealing with the issue of transferability of responsibility by distinguishing responsibilities in accordance with the rights and obligations violated.국가승계란 영토의 국제관계에 대한 책임에 있어 한 국가가 다른 국가 를 대체하는 것으로 정의된다. 영토의 취득 또는 상실로 인해 영토의 일 부 또는 전부가 다른 국가로 이전되는 경우 그 이전의 대상이 된 영토와 관련하여 선행국이 가지고 있던 권리·의무가 어느 범위에서 승계국에 이전 되는지가 국가승계의 법적 효과의 문제이다. 국가승계 시 권리·의무의 변 동과 관련하여 주로 국가승계의 유형 및 이미 성문화 작업이 완료된 승계 관련 협약상의 주제 즉, 조약의 승계, 재산 또는 부채의 승계, 그리고 국 적의 승계 등을 중심으로 국가승계에 관한 논의가 이루어졌다. 그러나 2015년에 국제법학회에서 선행국의 국제위법행위로 인한 국가책 임의 승계 문제에 관한 결의가 채택되고, ILC에서도 2017년부터 책임승계 에 관한 조약화 작업을 시작하면서 국가책임의 승계에 관한 논의에 관심 이 집중되고 있다. 국제위법행위로 인한 국가책임의 문제는 현존하는 승계 관련 국제문서만으로는 규율되지 아니하며, 전통적으로는 그에 대한 승계 를 부정하는 것이 일반적인 시각이었다. 이러한 승계부정의 시각은 주로 인적 소권은 인격의 소멸과 더불어 사라진다( actio personalis moritur cum persona )는 로마법상의 관념에 기초하였으며, 국가는 오직 자신의 행위에 대해서만 책임을 질 뿐 타국이라고 할 수 있는 선행국의 행위에 대하여는 책임을 지지 아니한다는 관념에 입각하였다. 그러나 2001년 국 가책임법 초안의 채택으로 고의나 과실이라는 주관적 속성의 문제가 1차 규칙상의 논의대상으로 구분되면서 일신전속성에 입각한 책임승계 부정론 에 의문이 제기되었다. 또한 인권이나 피해자 구제의 측면에서 국가책임의 승계를 주장하는 견해들이 등장하였다. ILC는 최근의 국가실행이나 사법기구 판결에서 국가책임의 승계 경향이 확인되며, 선행국의 국제위법행위로 야기된 2차의무는 승계가 가능하다는 전제 하에 책임승계에 관한 일반적인 법규칙을 도출하고자 시도하고 있다. 즉, 2001년 국가책임법 초안을 책임승계에 관한 논의의 출발점으로 삼아 모든 국제의무위반 행위는 위반된 의무의 성격에 관계없이 국가책임법 초안에 상정된 2차규칙으로서의 국가책임을 야기하며 승계의 대상이 된다는 시각에 입각하여 논의를 전개하고 있다. 이에 국가승계에 관련되는 여느 주제들에 대한 접근방식과 마찬가지로 국가승계의 유형에 편중하여 논의 를 진행하고 있다. 그러나 국가책임 성립의 기초가 되는 국제위법행위는 다양한 의무영역 의 문제에 관계되며 국가책임의 승계 가능성에 대한 판단은 위반된 의무 의 성격과 밀접한 관련을 가진다. 가령 선행국의 양허계약위반책임을 승계 하는 문제와 소위 국제범죄로 분류되는 고도의 불법행위 책임을 승계하 는 문제가 동일선상에서 판단될 수 있는 문제인가? 실제 국가승계를 경험한 국가들의 실행을 살펴보면 관련 국가들 간 합 의를 통해 국가승계 이전에 발생하였던 국가책임의 문제를 해결하고, 합의 과정에서 선행국의 국제위법행위로 인한 책임을 온전히 부정하기보다는 인수하는 경향을 보인다. 이러한 측면에서 국가책임의 승계 경향이 확인된 다는 ILC의 분석 결과는 어느 정도 타당성이 인정된다. 그러나 인수된 책 임의 내용은 주로 국유화나 수용 등으로 인한 재정적, 경제적 피해의 문제 에 관계되며 개인의 생명 또는 신체의 침해에 관한 책임인수 사례는 많지 않은 것으로 확인된다. 게다가 전통적으로 국제법적 해결과제라기보다는 정치적 협상의 대상으로 파악되어 온 국제범죄행위에 대한 책임승계의 문 제는 관련사례를 발견하기 어렵다. 이처럼 책임승계의 사례가 일부 국제의 무위반의 경우에 국한되어 나타나는 것은 책임승계 논의의 기초가 되는 국가책임의 처리방식이 위반된 의무의 유형에 따라 달리 발전되어 왔기 때문인 것으로 보인다. 생각건대 위반된 국제의무의 성격에 따라 승계되는 책임과 승계 불가능 한 책임을 구분하여 고찰할 필요가 있다. 그리하여 국가승계의 유형상 책 임승계가 가능한 경우라 하더라도 국제의무의 성격에 따라 승계가능성에 대한 재고가 요구된다. 승계가 가능한 대표적 국가책임은 국제위법행위가 개인의 권리침해에 관련되는 경우이다. 국제법상 개인의 권리 보장에 대한 관념이 공고해진 오늘날의 국제법 현실에서 국가주권의 변화에 따라 개인 의 권리에 대한 보장여부가 달라진다는 것은 불합리하다. 승계국은 최소한 헌법상 인정되는 기본권의 보장범위 내에서는 권리구제가 이루어질 수 있 도록 개인의 권리 침해에 관련되는 국제위법행위로 인한 국가책임을 승계 하는 것이 타당하다. 그러나 제노사이드, 인도에 반한 죄, 전쟁범죄, 침략범죄 등 소위 국제 범죄로 인한 국가책임까지도 국가승계의 대상으로 분류할 수 있을 것인지 는 회의적이다. 국제범죄로 인한 국가책임은 강행규범의 중대한 위반에 관 련되며, 국가책임법 초안 상 강행규범의 중대한 위반에 대한 국가책임의 문제가 여느 국제위법행위에 대한 책임과 상이하게 다루어지고 있음에도 국제법적 규율 범위 및 방식에 있어 여전히 발전이 요구되는 상황이다. 게다가 국제범죄에 대한 국가책임의 성립여부 판단에는 고의성이 요구되어 그에 대한 국가책임을 승계하는 것은 일신전속성의 측면에서 문제가 있다. 따라서 국제범죄행위에 대한 책임을 국가승계의 대상으로 분류하기는 어 려운 것으로 보인다. 승계불가능한 책임으로 분류되는 국제범죄행위 책임은 아이러니하게도 사실상 가장 중대한 인권침해의 원인이 되는 국가책임의 문제에 해당한다. 그러나 단지 피해자 구제를 위하여 국가승계법의 법리상 승계가 불가능한 국가책임에 대해 국가승계를 인정하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 국가승계 이후 국가책임을 승계하는 문제는 모든 관련요소들에 대한 비교형량을 통해 형 평한 결과를 실현하기 위한 과정이다. 형평의 원칙은 피해자뿐 아니라 새 로운 법인격을 갖고 탄생한 신생국의 입장에 대한 고려도 아울러 요구한다. 국제위법행위로 인한 피해자의 입장에 대한 고려에만 경도되어 실제 책임 이행의 주체가 되는 승계국의 수인 가능 범위를 넘어서는 불합리한 결론 이 도출되어서는 아니 될 것이다. 생각건대 국제범죄 행위로 인한 피해자 구제의 문제를 무리하게 국가책 임의 승계에 관한 법리로 다룰 필요는 없다. 국가승계시 국가들은 관련 국 가들과의 협약 체결을 통해 자신들의 권리와 의무에 대하여 합의할 수 있 으며, 그러한 합의의 내용이 반드시 국가책임법의 틀 내에서 이루어져야 하는 것은 아니다. 이러한 협정을 논의하고 협상하는 과정에서 관련국들은 자신들의 다양한 국제법상의 의무를 상정하게 될 것이고 그 중 국제범죄로 인한 책임의 문제를 처리하는 문제는 중요한 협상 과제가 될 것이다. 국제범죄로 인한 국가책임의 문제를 불승계 대상으로 분류하더라도 이 같 은 방식을 통해 피해자 구제의 문제는 해결 가능하다. 현존 국제법이나 국 가실행에서 충분히 숙고되지 아니한 내용을 무리하게 규범화하기 보다는 국제의무위반의 성격에 따라 구분하여 접근함으로써 책임승계 문제에 관 한 법리적 타당성을 제고하는 것이 타당하다.제1장 서론 ················································································1 제1절 문제의 제기 ···············································································1 제2절 관련 연구 현황 ········································································4 제3절 연구의 목적 및 방향 ······························································7 제2장 국가책임의 승계에 관한 국제법의 변화 ··········10 제1절 국가승계와 국가책임의 승계 ·············································10 I. 국가승계의 의의 ·····················································································10 II. 국가승계에 관한 국제문서··································································12 III. 국가책임의 승계 ··················································································16 제2절 전통적 견해: 책임승계 부정론 ·········································17 I. 이론적 근거 ·····························································································17 1. 일신전속성 및 국가주권평등원칙 ·················································17 2. 국적계속원칙 미충족의 문제···························································21 II. 사법기구 판결························································································22 1. 책임승계 자체가 문제된 경우 ·························································22 (1) Robert E. Brown 중재사건 ·······················································22 (2) Hawaiian Claims 중재사건 ·······················································27 2. 국적계속원칙이 문제된 경우: Saldutiskis Railway Co. 사건········31 3. 평가·······································································································35 제3절 새로운 견해: 책임승계 가능성의 인정 ···························38 I. 이론적 근거 ·····························································································38 1. 국가책임법 초안 채택과 객관적 책임원칙 도입 ·························38 2. 보론: 국적계속원칙의 예외 인정 ·················································43 II. 사법기구 판결························································································45 1. Lighthouses 중재사건······································································45 2. Croatian Genocide 사건 ···································································47 III. 규범화 논의의 등장············································································53 제3장 책임승계 관련 국가실행 및 사법기구 판결 ····56 제1절 국가실행 ···················································································56 I. 분리독립···································································································56 1. 동독 (1949년 - 1990년) ···································································56 2. 구소련 분열 ·························································································58 II. 신생독립국 ······························································································65 III. 영토일부이전 ························································································66 IV. 국가통합(Uniting of States) ·····························································69 1. 통일(unification): 통일아랍공화국 ·················································69 2. 통합(incorporation): 통일독일 ·························································72 V. 해체 ·········································································································77 1. SFRY ···································································································77 2. UAR 해체 ···························································································81 VI. 인수된 책임의 한계 ············································································81 제2절 사법기구 결정 ········································································84 I. 국제재판소 판결 ·····················································································84 1. 영토일부이전: Lighthouses 중재사건···········································84 (1) Claim No.12a ················································································84 (2) Claim No.11 ················································································86 (3) Claim No.4: 자치정부 책임의 승계 인정 ·······························87 (4) 사안에 따른 책임승계 판단의 필요성····································89 2. 해체: Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros 사건···············································90 (1) 당사자 주장 ··················································································91 (2) 재판소 판결 ··················································································92 II. 유럽인권재판소 판결: Bijelić v. Montenegro and Serbia 사건····94 1. 승계유형: 분리독립···········································································94 2. 사실관계 ·······························································································95 3. 인권조약의 자동승계 ·········································································97 4. 책임승계의 근거: 인권조약의 특수성과 자치성 요건 ···············98 III. 국내재판소 판결: Mwandinghi v. Minister of Defence 사건······102 1. 승계유형: 신생독립국 ·····································································102 2. 나미비아 헌법 제140조 제3항 ·······················································104 3. 법원의 판결 ···················································································106 (1) 사건개요······················································································106 (2) 헌법 제140조 제3항의 해석 및 적용 ····································107 (3) 헌법 제145조 관련 추가적 논점 ············································112 IV. 의의 및 한계 ······················································································116 제3절 책임승계 사례에서 확인되는 위반된 의무의 유형 ···117 I. 국가 간 협정 체결의 경우 ·································································118 1. 국가승계 당사국 간 협약 체결 ···················································118 2. 일괄보상협정의 체결 ·······································································119 II. 사법기구를 통한 해결 ········································································125 1. 국가 대 국가의 청구 제기·····························································125 2. 유럽인권재판소 및 국내법원 사례···············································127 III. 소결 ······································································································127 제4장 국제법 규범화 논의의 양상 및 한계 ···············129 제1절 국가책임의 승계에 관한 규범화의 필요성 ··················129 I. 국가책임법과 국가승계법 사이의 공백···········································129 II. 현존 국가승계법상의 흠결································································133 1. 현존 협약들과 책임승계의 관계 ···················································133 2. 1983년 협약의 적용범위와 한계···················································135 III. 책임승계의 법리 도입을 통한 보충 필요성·································138 제2절 국제법위원회의 조약화 작업 ···········································143 I. 조약화에 관한 각국의 상반된 입장 ·················································143 II. 2017년 1차 보고서··············································································144 1. 개관·····································································································144 2. 국가책임의 승계 가능성 ·································································145 3. 기 체결된 국가승계 관련 협약들과의 관계 ·······························146 4. 조약화될 규칙의 성격·····································································147 III. 제69차 회기 위원회 회의 결과 ······················································150 IV. 2018년 2차 보고서 ············································································151 제3절책임승계에관한원칙과예외 : IIL 결의와ILC 작업의비교고찰····154 I. 원칙과 예외 ···························································································154 1. 원칙·····································································································154 2. 예외·····································································································156 (1) 지속적 성격을 가지는 위반행위에 대한 책임 ····················157 (2) 선행국 영토단위의 행위 책임 ················································160 (3) 영토관련성이 있는 경우의 책임············································162 III. 국가승계유형에 따른 구분······························································167 1. 분리독립 ·····························································································167 2. 신생독립국·························································································168 3. 영토일부의 이전 ·············································································170 4. 국가통합 ·····························································································171 5. 국가해체 ···························································································172 제4절 한계: 위반된 의무의 성격에 따른 구분의 부재 ········174 I. IIL결의 채택 과정상의 지적과 2차규칙 항변 ································174 II. 국가책임법 초안상 1, 2차규칙의 혼재···········································179 III. 국가책임법 초안 제55조와 다양한 특별법체제의 존재 ············184 IV. 소결 ······································································································190 제5장 국가책임의 승계에 관한 이분법적 접근법 ····193 제1절 위반된 의무의 성격에 따른 구분접근의 필요성 ·······193 I. 형평의 실현 ···························································································194 1. 서설·····································································································194 2. 1983년 협약상 형평의 원칙 ···························································196 3. 국가책임의 승계와 형평한 고려요소 ···········································202 II. 국가책임의 성격과 승계가능여부 판단의 불가분성····················207 1. 2001년 국가책임법 초안: 국제범죄 개념의 삭제 ·····················207 2. 강행규범 및 대세적 의무 위반에 대한 책임·····························209 3. 국제불법행위 책임의 승계불가능성 ·········································214 제2절 승계되는 책임의 유형 및 책임승계의 근거 ················216 I. 개인의 권리침해와 책임승계의 근거 ···············································216 1. 국제법상 사인의 권리 보호···························································216 2. 사적권리침해책임 승계의 근거 ·····················································219 (1) 기득권 존중 원칙 ······································································219 (2) 부당이득금지 원칙 ····································································223 3. 신체적 침해책임의 승계 ·································································228 II. 조약위반 책임의 승계 ······································································234 제3절 승계 불가능한 책임의 유형 및 근거 ····························238 I. 국제범죄행위 책임 ···············································································238 II. 책임승계 부정의 근거 ······································································239 1. 관련 사례의 부재 ·············································································239 2. 개인의 국제형사책임 이행 ·····························································244 3. 일신전속성·························································································246 (1) 국제범죄행위와 고의 또는 과실의 관계 ·······················

Analysis for Scalable Coding of Quality-Adjustable Sensor Data

학위논문 (박사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 전기·컴퓨터공학부, 2014. 2. 신현식.Machine-generated data such as sensor data now comprise major portion of available information. This thesis addresses two important problems: storing of massive sensor data collection and efficient sensing. We first propose a quality-adjustable sensor data archiving, which compresses entire collection of sensor data efficiently without compromising key features. Considering the data aging aspect of sensor data, we make our archiving scheme capable of controlling data fidelity to exploit less frequent data access of user. This flexibility on quality adjustability leads to more efficient usage of storage space. In order to store data from various sensor types in cost-effective way, we study the optimal storage configuration strategy using analytical models that capture characteristics of our scheme. This strategy helps storing sensor data blocks with the optimal configurations that maximizes data fidelity of various sensor data under given storage space. Next, we consider efficient sensing schemes and propose a quality-adjustable sensing scheme. We adopt compressive sensing (CS) that is well suited for resource-limited sensors because of its low computational complexity. We enhance quality adjustability intrinsic to CS with quantization and especially temporal downsampling. Our sensing architecture provides more rate-distortion operating points than previous schemes, which enables sensors to adapt data quality in more efficient way considering overall performance. Moreover, the proposed temporal downsampling improves coding efficiency that is a drawback of CS. At the same time, the downsampling further reduces computational complexity of sensing devices, along with sparse random matrix. As a result, our quality-adjustable sensing can deliver gains to a wide variety of resource-constrained sensing techniques.Abstract i Contents iii List of Figures vi List of Tables x Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation 1 1.2 Spatio-Temporal Correlation in Sensor Data 3 1.3 Quality Adjustability of Sensor Data 7 1.4 Research Contributions 9 1.5 Thesis Organization 11 Chapter 2 Archiving of Sensor Data 12 2.1 Encoding Sensor Data Collection 12 2.1.1 Archiving Architecture 13 2.1.2 Data Conversion 16 2.2 Compression Ratio Comparison 20 2.3 Quality-Adjustable Archiving Model 25 2.3.1 Data Fidelity Model: Rate 25 2.3.2 Data Fidelity Model: Distortion 28 2.4 QP-Rate-Distortion Model 36 2.5 Optimal Rate Allocation 40 2.5.1 Rate Allocation Strategy 40 2.5.2 Optimal Storage Configuration 41 2.5.3 Experimental Results 44 Chapter 3 Scalable Management of Storage 46 3.1 Scalable Quality Management 46 3.1.1 Archiving Architecture 47 3.1.2 Compression Ratio Comparison 49 3.2 Enhancing Quality Adjustability 51 3.2.1 Data Fidelity Model: Rate 52 3.2.2 Data Fidelity Model: Distortion 55 3.3 Optimal Rate Allocation 59 3.3.1 Rate Allocation Strategy 60 3.3.2 Optimal Storage Configuration 63 3.3.3 Experimental Results 71 Chapter 4 Quality-Adjustable Sensing 73 4.1 Compressive Sensing 73 4.1.1 Compressive Sensing Problem 74 4.1.2 General Signal Recovery 76 4.1.3 Noisy Signal Recovery 76 4.2 Quality Adjustability in Sensing Environment 77 4.2.1 Quantization and Temporal Downsampling 79 4.2.2 Optimization with Error Model 85 4.3 Low-Complexity Sensing 88 4.3.1 Sparse Random Matrix 89 4.3.2 Resource Savings 92 Chapter 5 Conclusions 96 5.1 Summary 96 5.2 Future Research Directions 98 Bibliography 100 Abstract in Korean 109Docto

Odontoclast and osteoclast formation in rats with ligature-induced periodontitis

Odontoclasts and osteoclasts resorb tooth root and alveolar bone, respectively. Many studies have focused on osteoclast formation in periodontitis, but effect of periodontitis on odontoclast formation is not clearly clarified. In this study, we observed formation of odontoclasts as well as osteoclasts in rats with ligature-induced periodontitis. To induce periodontitis, ligatures were placed around the first molars in left mandibles of rats. Rats were sacrificed at days 1, 3, and 10 after ligation. After tartrate resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining in mandible section, the number of TRAP-positive odontoclasts and osteoclasts were histologically counted along the root and the alveolar bone surfaces of tooth, respectively. Odontoclasts increased until day 10 in mesial and furcation root surface, but did not increase in distal root surface. When compared odontoclast formation to osteoclast formation in mesial surface, osteoclasts peaked at day 3, and then decreased gradually, whereas odontoclasts were continuously increased until day 10. The number of odontoclasts was lower than that of osteoclasts before and after periodontitis induction. These indicate that periodontitis increased formation of odontoclasts as well as osteoclasts, but odontoclast formation occurs slower and weaker than that of osteoclasts.ope

Root resorption in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats with ligature-induced periodontitis

To determine the effect of diabetes on root resorption in periodontitis, we investigated odontoclast formation and root resorption in diabetic rats with periodontitis. Odontoclast formation was observed in three groups of F344 rats: Controls (C) were normal rats without diabetes or periodontitis; the periodontitis (P) group had mandibular first molars to be ligatured; the periodontitis with diabetes (PD) group was intravenously administered streptozotocin (50 mg/kg) to induce diabetes and had mandibular first molars to be ligatured. On days 3, 10, and 20 after ligature, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) expression, odontoclast formation, and root resorption areas were evaluated by immunohistochemistry, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase staining, and hematoxylin and eosin staining, respectively. The PD group showed frequent urination, weight loss, and hyperglycemia. Numbers of TNF-α- and RANKL-positive cells were higher in the P and PD groups than in the C group. It was more prevalent in PD group on day 3. Odontoclast formation was greater in the P and PD groups than in the C group on days 3 and 10, then decreased to same level as the C group by day 20. Root resorption in the PD and P groups showed increases on days 3 and 10, respectively, compared to the C group. These results suggest that diabetes may transiently increase root resorption on day 3 with high expression of TNF-α and RANKL after periodontitis induction. This study could aid the understanding of root resorption in diabetic patients with periodontitis.ope

Bile Duct Stricture and Intrahepatic Cystic Formation after Abdominal Injury due to Child Abuse: A Case Report

A 6-year-old male who lived with a mother in a single-parent family was referred to the emergency room with multiple traumas. There was no specific finding on CT scan of the other hospital performed 55 days before admission. However, CT scan at the time of admission showed common bile duct (CBD) stenosis, proximal biliary dilatation and bile lake formation at the segment II and III. Endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage was performed, but the tube had slipped off spontaneously 36 days later, and follow-up CT scan showed aggravated proximal biliary dilatation above the stricture site. He underwent excision of the CBD including the stricture site, and the bile duct was reconstructed with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy. Pathologic report of the resected specimen revealed that the evidence of trauma as a cause of bile duct stricture. While non-iatrogenic extrahepatic biliary trauma is uncommon, a level of suspicion is necessary to identify injuries to the extrahepatic bile duct. The role of the physicians who treat the abused children should encompass being suspicious for potential abdominal injury as well as identifying visible injuries.ope

Inhibitory Effect of SPA0355, a Thiourea Analogue, on Inflammation and Alveolar Bone Loss in Rats with Ligature-Induced Periodontitis

It has been documented that SPA0355 exerts antiinflammatory effects via the inhibition of nuclear factor-kappaB activation. In present study, we investigated the inhibitory effects of SPA0355 on periodontitis in an animal model. Periodontitis was induced by ligation of the cervix of the 1st molar in the left mandible in rats. After ligature, the rats were randomly divided into four groups and topically applied with SPA0355 (0.5, 1, and 2%) or the vehicle alone once daily for 10 days. Body weight and food intake were measured daily throughout the experimental period. At day 10 post-ligature, the infiltration of inflammatory cells and distance of the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar bone crest (ABC) in the distal area of ligatured tooth were estimated histopathologically. No changes in body weight or food intake were found between the control and SPA0355 groups. The degree of inflammation was decreased in all three SPA0355 application groups. A decrease CEJ-ABC distance was observed in the 0.5% and 1% SPA0355 groups. These results indicate that SPA0355 inhibits the infiltration of inflammatory cells and alveolar bone resorption and suggests its potential as a therapeutic agent for periodontitis.ope

인간 치주인대 섬유모세포와 줄기세포에서 Porphyromonas gingivalis 지질 다당류 자극에 의한 (–)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate의 항염효과

Dept. of Dental Science/박사Purpose: (–)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) has been reported to exert anti-inflammatory and antibacterial effects in periodontitis.However, its exact mechanism of action has yet to be determined. The present in vitro study evaluated the anti-inflammatoryeffects of EGCG on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts (hPDLFs) and human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPDLSCs) affected by bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) extracted from Porphyromonas gingivalis.Methods: hPDLFs and hPDLSCs were extracted from healthy young adults and were treated with EGCG and/or P. gingivalis LPS. After 1, 3, 5, and 7 days from treatment, cytotoxic and proliferative effects were evaluated using a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay and bromodeoxyuridine assay, respectively. And then, the gene expressions of hPDLFsand hPDLSCs were observed for interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, osteoprotegerin (OPG), receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), and RANKL/OPG using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) at 0, 6, 24, and 48 hours after treatment. The experiments were performed with the following groups for hPDLFs and hPDLSCs; 1) No treat, 2) EGCG alone, 3) P. gingivalis LPS alone, 4) EGCG+P. gingivalis LPS.Results: The 20 μM of EGCG and 20 μg/mL of P. gingivalis LPS had the lowest cytotoxic effects, so those concentrations were used for further experiments. The proliferations of hPDLFs and hPDLSCs increased in all groups, though the ‘EGCG alone’ showed less increase. In real-time PCR, the hPDLFs and hPDLSCs of ‘EGCG alone’ showed similar gene expressions to those cells of ‘no treat’. The gene expressions of ‘P. gingivalis LPS alone’ in both hPDLFs and hPDLSCs were highly increased at 6 hours for IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, RANKL, and RANKL/OPG, except the RANKL/OPG in hPDLSCs. However, those increased gene expressions were down-regulated in ‘EGCG+P. gingivalis LPS’ by the additional treatment of EGCG.Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that EGCG could exert an anti-inflammatory effect in hPDLFs and hPDLSCs against a major pathogen of periodontitis, P. gingivalis LPS.ope

Viability of the periodontal ligament cells according to preservation method and time

치의학과/석사[한글]본 연구의 목적은 치주인대세포를 냉장, 냉동 보관시 보관기간에 따른 세포 활성도를 비교하여 평가하는 것이다.생후 12개월 이상의 수컷 성견 7마리의 하악 좌우 소구치를 발거한 후 각군당 11개의 소구치 치근을 WST-1 검색에 이용하였다. 실험군은 7개군으로 대조군은 즉시 발치군이며, 4℃ 냉장고에 3일간 보관한 냉장군, 4℃ 냉장고에 일주일간 보관한 냉장군, 4℃ 냉장고에 이주일간 보관한 냉장군, 발치 후 동해방지제 처리과정을 거쳐 -196℃에서 3일간 보관한 냉동군, 발치 후 동해방지제 처리과정을 거쳐 -196℃에서 일주일간 보관한 냉동군, 발치 후 동해방지제 처리과정을 거쳐 -196℃에서 이주일간 보관한 냉동군으로 나누었다.보존액은 F medium을 사용했으며 동해방지제로 10% dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) 를 사용했다.각 실험군에 해당되는 보관기간이 지난 후 WST-1검색을 시행한 뒤 치근면을 단위면적으로 표준화하기 위해 WST-1측정값을 Eosin 염색 후 530nm 에서 측정한 흡광도 값으로 나누었다. 통계 분석을 위해 ANOVA를 시행하였으며 사후 검정으로는 Tukey 방법을 사용하였고 결과는 다음과 같다.1. WST-1 검사 결과, 냉장군의 치주인대세포 활성도는 대조군보다는 낮았으나 냉동군보다 유의성있게 높은 수치를 보였다 ( p < 0.05).2. 냉장군에서 보관기간별 치주인대세포 활성도는 3일 보관의 WST-1 값이 7일, 14일군과 비교하여 유의성있게 높은 결과를 보인 반면 (p < 0.05), 냉장 7일군과 14일군은 상호간의 유의성있는 차이를 볼 수 없었다.3. 냉동군에서 치주인대세포 활성도는 보관기간에 따라 유의할 만한 차이를 볼 수 없었다 (p < 0.05).이상의 결과로 본 연구의 범위 안에서, 치아를 2주 이하 단기 보관시에는 4℃ 냉장보관이 냉동보관보다 유리한 것으로 판단되며, 특히 3일 이내로 냉장보관을 하는 것이 치아 이식 성공률을 현저히 높힐 수 있을 것으로 사료된다. [영문]ope

Correlation between family resilience and parenting efficacy in mothers of children with biliary atresia

아동간호 전공본 연구는 아동의 희귀·난치·만성질환 중 하나인 담도폐쇄증 아동 어머니를 대상으로 가족극복력과 양육효능감 정도 및 상관관계를 파악하기 위하여 시행한 서술적 상관관계 조사 연구이다. 본 연구는 담도폐쇄증 아동 부모들의 자조모임인 담우회의 협조로 부모가 담우회에 가입하였고 자녀가 담도폐쇄증으로 치료 받고 있는 만 1~3세 아동의 어머니를 대상으로 시행되었다. 2017년 5월부터 2017년 12월까지 구조화된 설문지를 이용한 온라인 설문 조사를 실시하였고, 총 59개의 설문이 최종분석 되었다. 어머니의 가족극복력은 Sixbey(2005)가 Walsh(1998)의 가족극복력 이론에 맞게 개발한 Family Resilience Assessment Scale(FRAS)을 어머니의 양육효능감은 Gross와 Rocissano(1988)가 개발한 유아를 양육하는 어머니의 양육효능감 척도(Toddler Care Questionnaire)를 이용하여 측정하였다. 수집된 자료는 SPSS/WIN 24.0 프로그램을 이용하여 연구의 목적과 변수의 특성에 따라 기술통계, t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson`s correlation coefficient를 실시하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. 1. 담도폐쇄증 아동 어머니의 가족극복력은 가능점수 66 ~ 264점 중 192.44(±13.52)로 높게 나타났고, 영역별로는 최대 점수 4점 중 의사소통과정이 3.01(±0.22)로 가장 높았고 신념체계가 2.81(±0.25)로 낮게 나타났다. 2. 담도폐쇄증 아동 어머니의 양육효능감은 가능점수 37 ~185점에서 149.44(±10.94)로 나타났으며 영역별로는 최대 점수 5점 중 의사소통능력이 4.24(±0.37)로 가장 높았고, 두 번째로 건강하게 양육하는 능력이 4.06(±0.39)으로 나타났다. 3. 담도폐쇄증 아동 어머니의 양육효능감은 아동의 특성 중 카사이 수술 시기에 따라 통계적으로 유의미한 차이(t=2.167, p<0.05)가 있었다. 4. 담도폐쇄증 아동 어머니의 가족극복력과 양육효능감은 통계적으로 유의미한 정적인 상관관계(r=.368, p<0.01)가 있는 것으로 나타났으며, 가족극복력 하위 영역 중에서는 조직패턴(r=.391, p<0.01)과 의사소통과정(r=.353, p<0.01)이 양육효능감과 관련성이 있었고 양육효능감의 하위 영역 중 의사소통능력(r=.346, p<0.01)과 교육(r=.333, p<0.05), 발달지원(r=.302, p<0.05)이 가족극복력과 상관성이 있었다. 이상의 연구 결과를 종합하였을 때, 담도폐쇄증 아동 어머니의 가족극복력과 양육효능감은 정적인 상관관계가 있으며, 향후 이러한 관련성을 바탕으로 가족극복력과 양육효능감을 강화하고 향상시킬 수 있는 간호학적 접근 방법과 중재 방안들의 모색이 요구된다.open석

How to Facilitate Reparation in the WTO Legal System

학위논문 (석사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 법학과, 2015. 2. 이재민.국제법이란 국제사회의 법으로서 주로 국가 간의 관계를 규율하는 법이다. 그 중에서도 국제법 주체들의 국제경제와 관련된 행위를 규율하는 법규범 영역을 국제경제법이라 한다. WTO 체제는 국가들 간의 통상 관계를 규율하는 법 체제로 국제법 특히 국제경제법의 일부에 해당한다. WTO 체제가 국제법의 일부라는 측면에서 생각하면 국제법상의 제 원칙들은 WTO 체제 내에서도 제 기능을 발휘하여야 할 것이다. 그러나 WTO 체제 내에서는 국제 의무 위반이 배상 의무를 동반한다는 국제법상의 기본 원칙이 온전히 구현되고 있지 않다. 특히 국가 간 경제 교류가 활성화 되면서 실질적 경제 손실이 발생하는 경제 현실에도 불구하고 배상 원칙의 기본적 속성이라 할 수 있는 소급적 구제가 이루어지지 않는 WTO 체제의 현실은 실효적 구제의 측면에 의문을 야기한다. 이러한 현상이 나타나는 이유는 WTO 체제가 자기완비적 체제라는 인식이 존재하기 때문인 것으로 보인다. 그렇다면 자기완비적 체제란 무엇인가? 자기완비적 체제는 과연 국제법상의 원칙들이 모두 적용 배제되는 특별한 체제인 것인가? ILC가 도출한 자기완비적 체제에 관한 정의를 살펴보면 그 어떤 자기완비적 체제도 외부 체제와 단절된 채 홀로 존재하지 아니한다. 특히 자기완비적 체제와 일반국제법은 특별법과 일반법의 관계를 지니고 있어 자기완비적 체제가 명시적으로 배제(contract out)하지 아니한 일반국제법상의 원칙은 잔여법(residual law)으로서 계속 적용된다고 한다. 그러나 이처럼 명확한 결론에도 불구하고 특별법과 일반법의 경계를 어디까지로 볼 것인지의 문제는 자기완비적 체제를 수립한 조약의 해석 문제를 동반하는 쉽지 않은 과제이다. 특히 일탈에 대한 명시적 규정이 존재하지 아니하거나 일탈을 쉽게 추정할 수 없는 경우 해결은 더욱 어려워진다. WTO 대상협정은 일반국제법상의 구제방안과의 관계에 대해 침묵하고 있어 소급적 구제의 문제는 사실상 WTO 대상협정의 침묵에 대한 해석 문제로 귀결된다. 다만 침묵의 해석에 대한 WTO의 패널 및 항소기구의 태도가 일관적이지 않아 해결에 어려움이 있다. 그러나 반드시 주목해야 할 사실은 WTO 체제와 같은 특별한 체제가 조약을 기반으로 형성된 체제라는 점이다. 일반국제법으로부터 해방된 것처럼 보이는 자기완비적 체제라도 그러한 독자적인 체제의 집행을 담보하기 위해서는 일반국제법 규칙에 의존하지 아니할 수 없다. 가령 새로운 조약 체제의 성립이나 종료, 다른 조약 체제와의 관계 등의 논의는 소위 조약법이라는 규칙의 틀을 벗어날 수 없는 문제이다. 체제상의 의무 위반에 따른 결과의 문제에 있어서도 통일된 시각의 정립이 필요하다. 국제교류가 증가하고 국제법의 대상범위가 확장되는 오늘날 국제법의 제 분야에서 새로운 영역을 규율하기 위한 조약 체제가 급증하고 있다. 이러한 현실에서 법체계의 특수성 및 독자성을 강조하는 것은 국제법 전체의 안정성을 저해하기 마련이다. 이 같은 시각은 국제 재판소의 파편화 문제에 대해서도 마찬가지로 적용된다. 국제법의 전문화가 가중될수록 특별법이라는 이름하에 새로운 법체계들이 탄생하고 있고, 특별한 체계의 분쟁 해결에 관련된 사법 기구의 양적 팽창 현상은 포럼 쇼핑(forum shopping)을 야기한다. 재판소 스스로가 국제공법의 기초를 이루는 기본 원칙들을 존중하고 공동의 법철학을 공유하기 위한 책임의식을 가지는 것이 재판소의 확대에 따른 사법 체계의 파편화를 방지하고 국제법의 안정성을 담보하는 방법이 된다는 점을 인식해야 할 것이다. 이러한 관점을 바탕으로 제2장에서는 우선 일반국제법상의 구제 방안들과 WTO 체제 내에서 확인되는 구제방안을 비교하기 위해 ARSIWA의 관련 규정 및 그에 대한 주석서를 분석하고 DSU의 조항들과 비교한다. 또한 GATT/WTO 체제 하에서 소급적 구제가 인정된 예로 거론되는 판정들을 분석하여 WTO 체제 내에 배상에 관한 관행이 존재하지 않는다는 점을 확인한다. 제3장에서는 WTO 체제 내에서 소급적 구제를 구현해야 할 필요성과 관련하여 GATT에서 WTO 체제로의 전환 과정에서 체제의 대상과 목적이 변화했는지 여부 및 실효적 구제의 의미에 대해 살펴본다. 마지막으로 자기완비적 체제의 의미 및 일반국제법과의 관계에 대한 분석을 통해 WTO 체제와 일반국제법의 관계로부터 소급적 구제의 당위성이 인정된다는 점을 확인한다. 마지막으로 제4장에서는 현 WTO 체제 내에서 소급적 구제를 구현하는 것이 법리적으로 타당한 것인지 DSU 제19.1조에 대한 분석을 중심으로 살펴본다. 또한 소급적 구제를 구현하기 위한 방안으로 DSU의 개정 가능성 및 ICJ를 활용한 해결 방안에 대해 살펴본다.제1장 서론 1 제1절 연구의 목적 1 제2절 연구의 대상 및 방법 5 제2장 WTO 체제의 구제방안과 배상원칙 9 제1절 국제법상 국가책임원칙 9 1. 국가책임원칙의 성문화 9 2. WTO 체제와 국가책임원칙의 관계 12 제2절 ARSIWA와 DSU의 관련 규정 비교 17 1. 중지 및 재발방지 18 2. 배상 20 (1) 원상회복 21 (2) 금전배상 21 (3) 만족 24 3. 대항조치 25 4. 소결 28 제3절 소급적 구제에 관한 예외적 판정과 일반화의 한계 30 1. 배상원칙 30 2. GATT/WTO 관련 판정 32 (1) GATT 판정 32 (2) WTO 판정 34 1) Guatemala – Cement Ⅰ, Ⅱ 34 2) Australia – Leather Ⅱ (Article 21.5 – US) 37 (3) 추가적 논점 41 1) 조약법에 관한 비엔나협약 제31조 3항 (b): 추후 관행 41 2) 법의 지배 체제 43 제3장 소급적 구제의 필요성 및 당위성 48 제1절 WTO 체제의 변화 49 1. 개도국의 참여 증대 49 2. 구제조치의 대상과 목적의 변화 54 제2절 실효적 구제의 실현 58 1. 실효적 구제의 의미 58 2. WTO 구제방안의 흠결과 치유방안 60 제3절 일반국제법과 WTO 체제의 관계 62 1. 자기완비적 체제와 일반국제법의 관계 63 (1) 자기완비적 체제의 의미 63 1) PCIJ/ICJ 판결 63 2) 국가책임에 관한 ILC의 작업 67 3) 국제법의 파편화에 관한 ILC 스터디 그룹 보고서 69 (2) 일반국제법과의 관계 71 2. WTO 체제와 소급적 구제의 문제에 대한 적용 78 (1) WTO 체제와 소급적 구제 원칙의 관계 78 (2) WTO 체제의 적용법 81 1) DSU 관련 조항 81 2) 관할권과 적용법의 구분 85 3) 패널 및 항소기구의 입장 91 (3) WTO 협정의 침묵에 대한 해석 방식 92 (4) 소결 96 제4장 WTO 체제와 배상원칙 구현 방안 100 제1절 현 WTO 체제 내에서의 배상판정 가능성 100 1. 사법기구의 구제방안 선택 재량 100 2. DSU 제19.1조의 권고 또는 제안 101 (1) 권고(recommendation) 101 (2) 제안(suggestion) 106 3. 판정결과(findings) 및 소급적 권고의 활용 108 제2절 대안적 방안 모색 110 1. WTO 협정 개정에 관한 논의 110 (1) DSU 개정 방향 110 1) 소급 시점 111 2) 금전보상 112 (2) 정치적 현실 116 2. ICJ 활용 가능성 118 (1) ICJ의 관할권 118 (2) 관할권 중복/충돌의 가능성 119 (3) 소송물을 달리하는 경우 125 (4) ICJ에 대한 권고적 의견 요청 127 제5장 결론 129 참고문헌 134 Abstract 149Maste