Today we often call the present age as ‘Information-Oriented Society’, meaning

the ‘New Era’ that differs from movie ‘modern Times’ of Charlie Chaplinin the past.

Republic of Korea is also progressing to the road of informatization so quickly after

announcing ‘The Year of Information Communication’ in 1993. Due to the

advancement of science and technology, people can more easily have access to any

information of the entire world through computer and are able to use information in

the life, but science begets inequality between people who can access or get precious

information and people who cannot have access to or cannot get it. Information

system has changed everything such as affect human life, even the concept of the

dignity of human, which makes people reach desired information for a fortune, gold

or a nation’s wealth.

Modern human beings have been recognizing ‘Freedom of Information’ as not

only a crystal of participatory democracy, accountability and good governance but also

as status like the medulla of a fundamental human right. The developing countries as

well as advanced nations agree to a thesis that information freedom is the important part

in modern democratic society.

The topic of conversation in the changed environment is on the range of

information that citizens can access to. The scope of the access to information is on the

line of demarcation between public interest and private interest.

“The right to freedom of information refers primarily to the right to access to

information held by a wide range of governmental agencies. It reflects the principle that

public bodies do not hold information on their own behalf, but rather for the benefit of

all members of the public. Accordingly, individuals should be able to access to this

information unless there is an overriding public interest reason for denying access.”1

In the contemporary era, another aspect what we should consider is the truth ininformation. Related to the idea of freedom of information is transparency of decisionmaking

processes of government. Sometimes, nation’s administrative authority digs into

a specific part of public even individual privacy such as private life of people.

Simultaneously, the desire of people that wish to share the administrative information

holding nation etc. have begun to give a wiggle. The sharing of Administrative

information that public institution have is absolutely indispensable in the information

society.

First, in the world, Sweden that had been ready for the system of Public

information although it has no articles regarding the Right to Information like today in

theirs the constitutional law, it has been highly estimated that is settled the reasonable

system of Public information. We can say that the settlement of the reasonable system

of Public information is the key to realize the modern democracy. Second, almost

western nation carefully devotes all their strength to preparation of legislation as to

the Disclosure of Information. As a part of the endeavor, U.S.A., France, and so

on,several countrieshad begun to preparevoluntarily the Act on the Freedom of

Information.

However, In the first stage, it is difficult to fulfill strict requirement as the

modern society because of an authoritative insincerity andthe lack of consciousness

about public obligation of administrative officials. However, “when reviewing the

management condition of the disclosure of information that many different countries

executed a few years later, according to the spirit that the original act, a concrete

realization of the right to know and the positive management of the act was up to

around 90% and advanced nations are pursuing transparency and accountability”.2

Be different with states of Western Europe, in case of Asia, it is not familiar

with the Administration Information Disclosure, cause of the high administrative

authoritative thought. Japan had established the Administrative Information

Disclosure through the ordinance of the local self-government by the end of 1976. Butthe administrative decree remains conservative trend, for this reason, the Enactment

of Act on the disclosure of information hadn’t been achieved, but the Administrative

Information Disclosure Act has been established last 1999. Republic of Korea had

established an ordinance on the administrative information disclosure in the City of

Chung-Ju in 1991. The city of Chung-Ju enacted the Ordinance on Administrative

Information Disclosure earlier than japan, however, after establishing this ordinance

South Korea is enforcing “Official Information Disclosure Act”(the disclosure of the

administrative information Act of Public institution in the Republic of Korea).In this

work I would like to search for the improvement direction for settlement of the right

to information to compare and review Republic of Korea’s problem with the

administrative information disclosure act of Public institution in U.S.A., France,

Japan, so on.

An Act on the disclosure of information for materialization of realization of the

right to know is premising the general, objective organ (Public Information Committee,

etc.) of the Administrative Information Disclosure. Prevailingly, this body makes it a

rule not to limit as to the object of disclosure. However, in some cases, this act restricts

and stipulates in detail regarding the object of the disclosure of information

exceptionally in the construction of law and the managing to restrict the abuse of

excessive discretion by public officer. Furthermore, the act of this organ like the ‘Public

Information Committee’ prescribes the procedural remedy as to the concerned person

and third party for realization of right and the principle of a law governing from the

constitutional law point of view.

This Dissertation inquiries into the concept, meaning and necessity of the

disclosure of information that several countries explain, especially, it is a comparison of

the difference between the claim of information disclosure of individual and the claim

for inspection from the constitutional law point of view. I clarify the concept as to Right

to Know that bring up legal reason on the claim of information disclosure, Republic of

Korea have no clear regulation on the Constitutional Law so that there are theoretical

confrontation regarding being able to reorganize the Right to Information as Right to

Know, based on regulation of the constitutional law.

i. Scope and Objectives

I try to find that the specific information such as climate change and grain

price’s forecast using the Act on Right to information of India and ROK. As a result,

the government can prevent squandering of the national’s fiscal.In the area of politics,

this study will be some help to people that wish to improve the quality of life in the

changing environment.

New term, a ‘Post Neoliberalism’ has been introduced in my study for

explaining these phenomena.3 This suggests that key word of Right to Know will

move to the financial field. This new terminology is related to economic and

environmental issue and then, these issues might be readily settled through the

application of the disclosure of the information. The more science and technique is

going to cause the more issues connected with RTI and Government standpoint also

need to give an explanation for the concrete information to their people clearly and

transparently.This study will contribute to policy decision of India and ROK on the

side of law, Right to Know that is affected by interdisciplinary study like this.

ii. Hypothesis

For data analysis (referedon the table in this work), I had surveyed one

questionnaire with total 17 questions to 66 persons who consist of from experts in their

respective fields like a writer, the politician, public servants, activists in NGO, lawyers,

researcher, professor, doctor, teacher, economic analysts, housewives etc.. These

experts or general people access to many mass media or Government Organization for

theirs research or task or sometimes getting information need to theirs living.

These behaviors, especially environmental issue, and financial crisis in Europe

are connected with ‘Right to Know’ indirectly or directly. Furthermore, the fluctuation

of the market price in the stock market or Grain market is affecting to their future and

sometimes, it can hold sway on the definitive outcome of making decision of them. Icreate one hypothesis to connected with the RTI, what and how the ‘Climate Change’

affects the change of recognition of human being. At this moment, I studied how people

of both countries; India and Republic of Korea, through RTI make the decision daily.

Second, I supposed whether human beings will claim or do not claim to open specific

information in relation reciprocal among cognition and behavior of human being with

this climate change.

iii. Research Methodology

This paper investigates the social status of RTI in India and ROK, specifically

with regard to environmental issues, and the larger importance of the right to know

not only India and ROK but also in the world. Comprehensive analysis of the

complex issue of RTI in India definitely requires an interdisciplinary perspective

because through the word ‘know’ in RTI is also the cause of many psychological

problems in modern society. Therefore, this paper draws literature from Behavioral

Economics, Psychology, Climatology, Historical evidence, and Official Statistics

(both from the government and from Indian literature) to investigate the complex

history of RTI and climate in India. “This analysis is accomplished through a

framework of social exchange theory in organizational behavior” 4 because the

methodology used is interdisciplinary, depending on mutual cooperation among

various fields of study. Also, I endeavored to adapt not only my survey, but also

theses or doctorate and papers and treatises from journals that is officially recognized

to present evidence and refutations on my theory.

iv. Chapterization

The chapter 1 manage the historical and philosophical angle, from the public

and administrative law’s viewpoint, the right of information disclosure in global’ side, information’s several concepts, and comparison with Right to know about the

constitutional law.

The chapter 2, by the method of literature study, manages comparison of other

country act and the comparative examination with system of several countries, U.S.A.,

England, Germany, Sweden, France, and Japan, etc. In addition, this chapter is written,

“why does each country need the Public Information Act?” Moreover, it manages

matters being confused with the Disclosure of information; it is the Information that is

supplied by the discretion of administrative agency. It will explain the difference

between the disclosure of information and supplying of information that public

officials hold. The supplying of information that the administrative agency gives

certain information to people who needs information, on the contrary, the information

disclosure, when people claim the disclosure, the administrative agency should

disclose it.

The chapter 3, I will write on the necessity of the disclosure of information,

the introduce of the act on Disclosure of Information and the history of the

establishment of the act on Disclosure of Information in Republic of Korea.

Furthmore, I will explain on the obligation of public officer of Republic of Korea and

the main issues that there are in controversy. I will introducethe requirement that the

public institution can decide the non-discloserabout the disclosure claim and the

procedure for the remedies of damages incurred to the third party by complaints of the

disclosure of information. I want to seek out the proper remedial procedure of right..

The chapter 4 is explaining India’s RTI around Vivek Ramkumar’s Movement for

Right to Know, many the Supreme Court’s sentence relative to ‘The Right to Know and

Non-Government organizations as Public Authority.’ It explains on the public authority

and the role of the Cetral Information Commission and the State Inforamtion Commission.

I manage Suo moto that is prescribed in only Right to Information 2005. Furthermore I

will explain the Supreme Court’s cases related to the section and clause of India RTI and

manage the political corealtion with the section and clause of India RTI.

In the chapter 5, I will introduce the new political economic definition titled a

‘Post Neoliberalism’ in the first world. A creator of this theory is the Republic of

Korean, Indra (his nickname on the Blog), and social activist in South Korea. Namely, the first South Korean had conceptualized this neo terminology called a ‘Post

Neoliberalism’ in the world.

In the chapter 6, I will write as to how sunspot affects to human being’s

activities. This is the reason why the climate affects human being’s conscious so that

the change of human being’s conscious births the change of the act of human being,

which the change of act will affect increasing and decreasing of the claim of the right

to know. Policy makers, by this fact, can judge and prepare for that scope, objection

of opening, etc. on every claims happening in the future. Especially, this chapter

examines, through study of Behavioral Economics’ Theory, human being’s

consciousness and behaviors through the relation between weather and food, weather

and crime and increasing claim of right to know and how the curiosity or the doubt

arose. This chapter also deal with the matter on how that curiosity and wondering

arouse mind desiring to know.

Through the study, I can prove the potential significance on above-mentioned

concepts by borrowing of common archaeological data. Interdisciplinary studies

including archaeological records, the medical, so on. Few modern technologies will

make this study a particularly even more valuable.

The chapter 7 is the conclusion and sugesstion, researcher is writing a

common feature and point of differences on the RTI of India and Republic of Korea.

In this chapter, I compare Korea rule with India rule through each article and clause’s

comparison by the chart.

Researcher, in here, pursue legislative unification and diverse acceptance of

both nations through the comparison of the RTI between India and Korea and suggest

my opinion for improving of RTI. As this thesis’s limitation, not all information

always helps with decision making for policy. So we need to study and be ready for

several primary factors of information failing. I emphasize that ‘not because of the

lack of the law,’ main failure factor is the mistake of human beings like the mistake of

information by an analyst and an agency, the mistake distribution of information,

failure of consumer persuasion etc. It will show the fact that there is definitely failure

of the policy of the provide-centered not of the consumer-centered. v. Survey of Existing Literature

Anders Chydenius createdthe world’s first the Freedom of Information Act.

He was one of the most notable politicians of 18th century, Sweden-Finland. “He is

most of all remembered as an outspoken defender of freedom of trade and industry,

the Adam Smith of the North.”5 Behind Anders Chydenius’ thought and actions

“there can be seen three of the main keys to the spirit of his time: the idea of natural

rights, the natural scientific worldview, and Pietism, which emphasizes the religious

convictions of the individual”.6 These three are useful things even today.

“He experimented with new breeds of animals and plants and adopted new

methods of cultivation. In all his practicality, Chydenius was clearly representative of the

Swedish ‘Age of Utility’ with his aim of enlightening the peasantry by example.”7 Today,

this is same with it that South Korea Government have proposed ‘Plan for Creative

Economy’ to propel stable growth. “In practice around the world, this has usually meant a

statutory right on the part of the public to see certain types of recorded information held

by public authorities.”8 ‘Right to know as fundamental right has issued in Sweden since

the 18th century (citizens have the right to know - the right to access to official

documents). Freedom of information has been developing at a strong pace only recently,

but it is hardly a new concept. The roots of the FOI principle date back to the 18th Century,

the Age of Enlightenment.’9

In Sweden and Finland, 2014 is observed as the 248th Anniversary, 2016 will

see 250th Anniversary, after my this work will be approved, the Freedom of

Information legislation was adopted by the Swedish parliament in 1766. ‘The key of

the 1766 Act achieved by Anders Chydenius (1729-1803) were described in his article

censorship and the gaining of public access to government documents.Although the innovation was suspended from 1772-1809, the principle of publicity has since

remained central in the Nordic countries.’10

‘Chydenius participated actively in the Diet of 1765-66 for getting the

concrete results of an extension of the freedom of the press, which is the Ordinance on

Freedom of Writing and of the Press (1766) abolished political censorship and gave

the public access to government documents. This was the world’s first freedom of

information legislation.’11

The Official Secrets Act, 1923 in India makes all disclosures and use of

official information of a criminal offense unless expressly authorized. “But still there

is too much secrecy which is the main cause of administrative faults.”12 The

constitutional philosophy also amply supports it; nevertheless, Indian Constitution

does not specifically provide for the right to information as a fundamental right.

As today, information is wealth; hence, it is possible for us to emphasize its

equal distribution’s importance much over. “Taking a cue from this Constitutional

philosophy, the Supreme Court of India found a habitat for freedom of information in

Articles 19 (a) and 21 of the Constitutional law.”13

In case of India, Indian Court is enumerating the right to free speech and

expression that “It is heartening to notice that the highest Bench in India, while

recognizing the efficacy of the ‘right to know’ which is a sine qua non of really

effective participatory democracy raised simple ‘right to know’ to the status of a

fundamental right. In S.P. Gupta v.Union of India the court held that the right to know

is implicit in the right of speech and expression guaranteed under a Constitution in

Section 19 (1) (a). The court decided that the right to free speech and expression includes: (i) right to propagate one’s view, idea and their circulation: (ii) right to seek,

receive and impart information and idea; (iii) right to inform and be informed; (iv)

right to know; (v) right to reply; and (vi) right to commercial speech and commercial

information. Furthermore, the Court has widened the scope of getting information

from government files, by narrowly interpreting the privilege of the government to

withhold documents under section 123 of the Evidence Act. However, this judicial

creativity does not substitute for a constitutional or a statutory right to information.”14

Section 5 in RTI of India also hold back the access and the circulation as the

virtual reproduction of Section of the British Official Secrets Act, “All information

which a Crown servant learns in the course of his official duty is ‘official’ for the

purpose of Section 2, whatever its nature, whatever its original source. Consequently,

whoever receive such information, whether reporter or layperson are liable to

punishment. Both the giver and the receiver of information are liable to imprisonment

for a term which may extend to three years.”15

‘A striking difference between English and Indian government affairs, the

Attorney-General in England independently decides whether to prosecute or not.’16

‘With the judicial support, the right to information has now become a core of

public issue and there is a strong demand for the enactment of a formal law on

freedom of information’,17 although it is various restraints and exemption. The state

of Goa, since 1997, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan have legislated laws ensuring public

access to information. They submitted various drafts to an assembly for authorized

institutes like the Press Council of India that to considerate and by independent

citizens’ groups. Ultimately, Freedom of Information Act, 2002 was passed by the

consent of the President on January 6, 2003. The Act provides that any person seeking

information could approach designated authority either in writing or through

electronic media. Finally, after the Right to Infoarmation 2005 had been approved by

the parliament and had promulgated the Right to information 2005.In conclusion, I suggest that some features of a devolvement of the Right to

Know’s plan for India and to streamline execution of the right information in India.

I propose the following suggestions:

First step, the government should deregulate a complicated administrative

procedure. Indian administrative procedure needs both sign and stamp. It needs to

standardize to one side, sign or stamp. It should give public officer the duty through

compulsory that inform or transmit the Information Commissioner or organization

similar when the institution don’t hold or lack for the information.

Second, all public institutions should arrange all information to build the index

alphabetically. If so, all servants can assist themselves and improve efficiency of

service and they can find identification of the non-existence of information in rapid

and quick. Indexes should list the titles of documents subject to classification.

Third, for achieving more proactive transparency, as I commented at the first

time through the disclosure of the information, the common knowledge of all material

on the websites can make people easier to access to information through operation

minimum, simultaneously, therefore, government body should hang information that

is written on the paper on the bulletin board for the real openness.

Fourth, public officials must provide reasons in writting to the applicant while

refuse on request on some information. The reason of refusal naturally, should is

written as a definite regulation and detailed limitationin the law. Any the decisionmaking

on the non-disclosure of information must clearly state the reasons.

Simultaneously, public officers should also have proper authority, when denying to

disclose on some information, through an internal review process, should prove to

justify that do not disclose. The training program for access to information should be

instantly instructed to all officials and should endeavor to boost the level of literacy of

all people. The well-organized educational program will be a core factor that achieves

the prosperity of India.

''정보 중심의 사회''라 불리는 오늘날, 그것은 과거 모던 타임즈와는 다른 개념이다. 한국은 1993년 정보 통샌의 해이후 급속하게 정보화가 발전되가고 있다. 과학과 컴퓨터의 발전으로 그 속도는 더 빠라지고 있으며, 정보 접근도 쉬워지고 있으나 한편으로는 일반인들이 정보에 쉽게 접근하지 못하는 정보의 불평등한 면도 있다.

정보 시스템은 이러한 인간의 삶을 바꾸고 있으며, 인간 존업의 개념은 미래의 국가 부의 개념마저도 변화시키고 있다.

현대는 참여 민주주의 뿐만 아니라 책임성, 선한 정부(good governance)는 인권의 정수가 되었다. 이는 선진국뿐만 아니라 개도국에서조차 정보공개는 중요한 역할을 하고 있다.

이는 시민들의 접근권과 그 범위에 관심이 공익과 사익간의 경계선상이 어디인지에 관심을 갖게 만들고 있다.

또한 정부 관료들의 자신들이 보유한 정보에 대한 범위도 중요하게 여겨지고 있다. 본 논문은 최대한 정부는 국민의 알권리에 충실하여 가능한 정보를 공개하여야 함으르 강조하고 있다.

연구 범위로는 한국과 인도 정보공개법 (RTI)에 제한하였으며, 양국의 제한범위 공개 범위를 중심으로 비교하였다.

또한 Post- Neo Liberalism (후기 신자유주의)의 개념을 새로이 도입하였으며, 세계에서 처음으로 향후 사회변화에 대한 개념 규정을 통해, 정보 공개의 발전 측면을 예상하였으며, 일례로서 기후의 변화 정보의 공개를 과학적 데이터를 통해 재해석하여, 인류 역사에서 기후 변화가 미쳤던 효과를 분석, 인도의 기후가 오늘날 보다 과거에 더 온난화였음을 밝혔고, 이는 인구 이동을 낳았으며, 한국에서의 미세한 기온변화에서도 선거결과의 효과등을 비교연구하였다.

본 논문의 연구 방법으로 간학문적 연구 방법을 도입하여, 행동 경제학, 심리학, 역사적 사료와 증거, ㄱ후학과, 정부와 UN등의 공식적 통계 자료를 바탕으로 향후 알권리의 발전을 위해 정부의 공개범위를 넓혀야 하는 이유에 대해서 설명하였다.

구성은 1장에 서론적 설명과 역사적 발전을 설명하였고, 특히 스웨덴에서의 공공정보 공개법의 기원에 대해 언급하였다. 2장에서 세계 여러 문헌을 비교 고찰하였으며, 3장에서는 정보공개 확자읭 필요성을 4장에서는 RTI 즉 인도 정보공개법을 설명하였다.

5장에서 Post Neo Liberalism의 신개념을 도입하였으며 정의하였다. 향후 사회는 자본의 이동과 물자의 이동 인구의 이동이 동시성으로 이뤄지며 이는 기후의 영향으로 인하였다는 것을 밝혔다. 그 기후가 왜 정보공개와 광련있는지를 6장에서 태양 흑점 이론과, 행동경제학적 관점을 도입하여 설명하였으며, 인간의 이식에 어떻게 외부적 요소들이 영향을 주고 있으며 인류는 어떻게 행동을 결정 하게 되는지 그리하여 왜 알고 싶어하는 대상이 형성되며, 이를 통해 인류는 이동을 하게 되었음을 밝혔다. 이는 단순한 호김심 조차도 외부적 요소와 관련된다는 여러 논문들의 주장을 빌어서 입증하였다. 이러한 방법론을 간학문적 방법론이라 하는데 이 논문의 주된 방법론으로 차용하였다.

7장에서는 결론과 제안을 하였다. 인도 RTI 와 한국 정보공객법을 조문적으로 비교하였으며, 그 차이를 설명하였다. 본 논문의 한계로는 양국 즉 한국과 인도의 정보공개법에만 국한하였으므로 지역적 역사적으로 한계가 있음을 함께 밝히는 바이다.

또한 본 논문의 주도니 목적은 이 비교를 통해 향후 변화되는 시대에 정부와 시민 모두가 좀더 적극적으로 변화에 대해서 대응을 할 수 있는 방법을 모색하고자 함이다. 어느 한 측면에서만의 고민이 아니라 사회전방위적인 대안이 필요함을 주장하고 있으며, 인류는 현재보다 더 많이 이동할 것임을 설명하였다. 오늘날 시리아 사태는 예견될 수 있었던 것이고 이를 정부가 사전에 공지 또는 공개 하지 않음은 큰 실수라 볼 수 있다.