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
Recently within many administrative agencies have been instituted official dispute resolution mechanism. Can we say that new area of administrative function is being developed, which belonged to traditional judicial function? Before evaluating this phenomenon comprehensively, we need to verify whether the various dispute resolution mechanisms share common purposes and standards. This paper inspects one of the examples: dispute resolution mechanism of the Korea Communications Commission(KCC).
KCC, as a sectoral regulator in the area of broadcasting and communication industries, provides dispute resolution services for the legal conflicts between communication service providers each other and consumers. But the specified area of disputes under the Telecommunications Business Act are involved with the enforcement of the specific regulation by the Act. One is the strict liability of telecommunications service providers for damages incurred to consumers. The other is the obligation under the ex-ante competition regulation system to make agreement to permit interconnection and share facilities and informations with other providers. Though the legal nature of such an agreement is private contract. it can be enforced by public regulatory system for it is required by the statute, But traditional regulatory tools are not effective methods to directly enforce private enterprises to make an important business contract as the government wishes.
The dispute resolution mechanism of the KCC can be seen as an regulatory enforcement tool for the interconnection obligation. It is better approach than to command directly to permit interconnection or to agree to specific conditions for interconnection both for promoting economic freedom of telecommunication industries and for assuring the speedy and fair interconnection agreement. But the present design of dispute resolution mechanism of the KCC is not effective enough to free of criticism. The FCC's complaints procedure and ADR scheme for enforcing interconnection obligation can be model for the reform of KCC mechanism. In addition to general dispute resolution procedures, it need to develop the tailored procedures for consumer disputes and interconnection disputes.
KCC, as a sectoral regulator in the area of broadcasting and communication industries, provides dispute resolution services for the legal conflicts between communication service providers each other and consumers. But the specified area of disputes under the Telecommunications Business Act are involved with the enforcement of the specific regulation by the Act. One is the strict liability of telecommunications service providers for damages incurred to consumers. The other is the obligation under the ex-ante competition regulation system to make agreement to permit interconnection and share facilities and informations with other providers. Though the legal nature of such an agreement is private contract. it can be enforced by public regulatory system for it is required by the statute, But traditional regulatory tools are not effective methods to directly enforce private enterprises to make an important business contract as the government wishes.
The dispute resolution mechanism of the KCC can be seen as an regulatory enforcement tool for the interconnection obligation. It is better approach than to command directly to permit interconnection or to agree to specific conditions for interconnection both for promoting economic freedom of telecommunication industries and for assuring the speedy and fair interconnection agreement. But the present design of dispute resolution mechanism of the KCC is not effective enough to free of criticism. The FCC's complaints procedure and ADR scheme for enforcing interconnection obligation can be model for the reform of KCC mechanism. In addition to general dispute resolution procedures, it need to develop the tailored procedures for consumer disputes and interconnection disputes.
목차
Ⅰ. 序
Ⅱ. 방송통신위원회의 재정의 법적 성격
Ⅲ. 재정의 대상인 법적 의무의 특징
Ⅳ. 재정의 내용과 법적 효력
Ⅳ. 미국의 방송통신전문규제기관에 의한 분쟁해결절차
Ⅳ. 맺는 말
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
전자사회와 IT분쟁조정법제
법학논집
2007 .01
-
소비자분쟁해결제도에 중재제도 도입가능성에 관한 연구
중재연구
2009 .01
-
한국 공공갈등의 생애주기별 특징에 대한 경험적 분석
한국사회와 행정연구
2011 .11
-
대안적(代案的) 분쟁해결수단으로서의 환경분쟁조정제도에 대한 검토
한양법학
2015 .02
-
공동주택 소비자분쟁 경감방안에 관한 연구
중재연구
2009 .01
-
국가와 지방자치단체간 새로운 분쟁해결제도의 도입방안에 관한 연구
공법학연구
2008 .08
-
Evaluation of Disputes Resolution in China and its Future
한국무역학회 국제학술대회
2000 .12
-
Identifying Effective Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for Intellectual Property Disputes in the International Context
중재연구
2015 .01
-
개별적 노동분쟁 해결제도에 관한 소고
노동법논총
2012 .04
-
소비자분쟁조정제도 전문화 및 활성화 방안
소비자문제연구
2017 .08
-
미국의 재판외 분쟁해결제도
중재연구
2004 .01
-
현행 금융 분쟁 해결제도에 관한 법적 연구
일감법학
2011 .01
-
醫療紛爭과 ADR
비교사법
2006 .03
-
한국 공공분쟁해결의 현황 및 특징：공공분쟁해결시스템 구축에의 시사점을 중심으로
분쟁해결연구
2011 .01
-
E-Commerce and Alternative Dispute Resolution
국제사법연구
2000 .12
-
캄보디아의 분쟁해결문화와 협상방식 : ADR를 중심으로
동남아연구
2018 .01
-
금융분쟁해결제도의 문제점과 개선방안
원광법학
2007 .01
-
지역분쟁 해소의 기본방향과 전략
지역연구
1996 .12
-
건설산업에서의 ADR 활성화 방안
경영법률
2008 .01
-
국경넘은 소비자 분쟁에 있어서 ODR
중재연구
2015 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-363-018846027