Taming the Beast: Confucianism as the Key to Reforming Korea’s Chaebol System for the Common Good

Note by Grace Lee

Since South Korea began its path toward industrialization after the Korean War, chaebol firms—conglomerates led by a singlefamily head, characterized by numerous affiliates and subsidiaries spanning several industries—have driven Korean economic development. Bolstered by support from the Korean government, these firms operated unchecked until the Asian Financial Crisis drew international attention on the inefficiencies and abuses of power that surrounded chaebol firms. Since the Crisis, the Korean government has endeavored to reform Korean corporate law and place greater checks on the chaebol leaders’ abuses of power. These attempts have been largely unsuccessful, however, because the Korean business and political elite use the rigid and ever-present influences of Confucianism to perpetuate unbalanced societal power structures and entrench their positions in Korean society. To achieve substantive change, rather than pushing back against Confucian ideals, policymakers must utilize traditional values to promote stricter corporate governance standards and urge managerial officers in companies to internalize these changes and encourage a similar shift in thought throughout their staff.

Download the Article

Recommended Citation: Grace Lee, Taming the Beast: Confucianism as the Key to Reforming Korea’s Chaebol System for the Common Good, 45 Fordham Int'l L.J. 155 (2021).

What’s Your Privacy Worth on the Global Tech Market?

Note by Sydney Wolofsky

The world is currently in an artificial intelligence (“AI”) arms race, whereby the first nation to develop AI will become the global super nation. That country will set the precedent for generations of future economic, technological, medical, and societal growth. While companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon have propelled the United States to the front of this race for AI dominance, corporations have over-stepped ethical norms of data gathering and processing: methods necessary for technological development. Numerous data privacy breaches have left some consumers unlikely to ever share their data willingly without some assurances of protection. Noting these corporate scandals and data’s potential for abuse, many countries have implemented data privacy laws to protect consumers. Statutes enacted for this purpose include the European Union’s ratification of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), the United States’ various local statutes, and China’s cybersecurity law (“CSL”) and its Personal Information Security Specification (“2018 Specification”). This Note argues that enacting wide-spread legislation as a means of protecting consumer data will cause more problems than it solves. Over-legislating technology will threaten innovation as tight-leashed constraints on development hinder growth. The consequences to a nation’s global stance in this race to innovate are tantamount to individuals’ privacy interests. The real battle will be treading the line between protecting citizens’ privacy while facilitating technological growth. After examining the flaws with the GDPR, the CSL, and the 2018 Specification, this Note urges the United States to enact a federally binding data privacy statute, incorporating some principles found within various pieces of legislation, that strikes a balance between protecting consumer data privacy and enabling technological innovation.

Download the Article

Recommended Citation: Sydney Wolofsky, What’s Your Privacy Worth on the Global Tech Market? Weighing the Cost of Protecting Consumer Data Against the Risk that New Legislation May Stifle Competition and Innovation During this Global, Technological Revolution., 44 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1149 (2021).