https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/27 Sat, 04 Jul 2026 05:14:57 GMT 2026-07-04T05:14:57Z https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/212535 Title: Mediating under the shadow of AI: Public reactions to procedural and substantive roles of AI in court-annexed mediation Authors: Park, Hai Jin Abstract: This study investigates public responses to artificial intelligence (AI) in court-annexed mediation—a setting in which disputing parties retain decision-making authority, unlike the adjudication contexts examined in prior research. Drawing on procedural justice theory, the study develops a role-based framework distinguishing between AI's procedural function (chatbot mediator) and substantive function (AI-generated settlement proposal), and tests how each role shapes fairness perceptions, perceived accuracy, and behavioral outcomes through distinct perceptual pathways. Using a web-based experiment with 1000 participants, the study also examines whether the effectiveness of transparency mechanisms depends on whether explanation types align with the role the actor plays in the mediation process. Results indicate that initial public skepticism toward AI mediation is significant but attenuates after participants engage with the process and review the settlement proposal (mixed-effects: drafted-by-AI × stage 1 ≈ 0.40; chatbot × stage 1 ≈ 0.24). AI-generated plans were judged significantly fairer (b ≈ 0.25, p < 0.05) and more accurate (b ≈ 0.22, p < 0.05) than human-drafted ones, and these perceptions mediated acceptance and satisfaction. Transparency strategies produced asymmetric effects: global (rule-level) explanations improved accuracy and acceptance only when paired with procedural AI, whereas local (case-specific) explanations backfired when combined with human-authored proposals. These findings suggest that integrating AI into mediation can enhance both efficiency and perceived legitimacy—provided that parties maintain ultimate decision control and that explanation types are matched to the AI's procedural or substantive role. Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/212535 2026-07-01T00:00:00Z https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/214240 Title: 주식회사의 내부통제시스템과 손해배상책임의 범위 Authors: 장근영 Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/214240 2026-06-12T00:00:00Z https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/213814 Title: 검찰개혁과 형사소송법 개정방향 Authors: 박찬운 Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/213814 2026-05-08T00:00:00Z https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/217901 Title: 글로벌 안보 관점에서 초국가적 조직범죄에 대한 무력행사의 적법성 검토 Authors: 김성원 Abstract: 본 연구는 글로벌 안보 관점에서 초국가적 조직범죄에 대한 무력행사의 적법성을 검토한다. 초국가적 조직범죄는 국경을 넘는 불법시장, 자금세탁, 부패, 폭력, 그리고 국가 공권력의 약화를 수반하는 글로벌 위협이며, 마약범죄는 그 대표적 유형이다. 본 연구는 조직범죄에 관한 범죄학적 접근과 UNTOC의 구조를 검토함으로써, 초국가적 조직범죄가 글로벌 안보 문제로서 국제법상 법집행 협력의 규율 대상이라는 점을 제시한다. 또한, 1961년 단일협약, 1971년 향정신성물질협약, 1988년 마약불법거래방지협약으로 구성되는 국제마약통제체제를 고려할 때, 마약범죄에 대한 국제법적 대응 역시 기본적으로 규제, 감독, 범죄화 및 국제형사사법공조에 기초할 뿐, 자위권 행사는 상정하지 않고 있다는 점을 제시한다. 이를 바탕으로 본 연구는 마약범죄 대응을 이유로 한 국제법상 무력행사의 가능성을 자위권 측면에서 비판적으로 검토한다. 마약범죄는 그 심각성에도 불구하고 UN 헌장 제51조에 규정된 자위권 발동의 전제가 되는 무력 공격을 구성하지 않으며, 적법한 자위권 행사에 요구되는 필요성과 비례성 또한 충족하기 어렵다는 점을 확인한다. 초국가적 조직범죄와 마약범죄에 대한 대응은 자위권 모델이 아니라 법집행 모델에 기초하여야 하며, 마약범죄에 대한 국제법적 대응의 방향 또한 무력행사금지원칙의 예외를 확장하는 것이 아니라 국제형사사법공조와 법집행 협력 체계를 강화하는 데 있다는 점을 강조한다.; This study examines the legality of the use of force against transnational organized crime from the perspective of global security. Transnational organized crime is a global threat involving cross-border illicit markets, money laundering, corruption, violence, and the weakening of State public authority, and drug crime is a representative form thereof. By exploring criminological approaches to organized crime and the structure of UNTOC, this study suggests that transnational organized crime, as a global security issue, is a subject regulated under international law through law enforcement cooperation. In addition, considering the international drug control regime composed of the 1961 Single Convention, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, this study suggests that the international legal response to drug crime is also basically grounded in regulation, supervision, criminalization, and international criminal justice cooperation, and does not contemplate the exercise of the right of self-defense. On this basis, this study critically examines, from the perspective of self-defense, the possibility of the use of force under international law for the purpose of responding to drug crime. It confirms that, despite its seriousness, drug crime does not constitute an armed attack, which is the prerequisite for the invocation of the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and that it is also difficult to satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality for the lawful exercise of self-defense. It stresses that the response to transnational organized crime and drug crime should be based not on the self-defense model but on the law enforcement model, and that the direction of the international legal response to drug crime lies not in expanding the exceptions to the principle prohibiting the use of force, but in strengthening international criminal justice cooperation and the framework of law enforcement cooperation. Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/217901 2026-05-01T00:00:00Z