『서울대학교 法學』의 위상과 역할

이 발표문의 제목은 그 자체가 글의 목표, 내용 및 방향 등에 대한 지시(dictation)를 내포하고 있는 것으로 판단된다. 『서울대학교 法學』은 무엇이며 그 위상은 어떠하고 역할은 무엇이며 어떠하여야 하느냐의 문제를 안고 있기 때문이다. 말할 것도 없이 제목이 던지는 문제들은 사실판단의 문제와 당위적 처방의 문제를 아우르고 있다고 판단된다. 내가 판단하는 『서울대학교 法學』지는 서울대학교라는 이름에도 불구하고 학교소식지나 종합지(예컨대 서울대학교 사람들이 쓴 논문, 시나 소설을 싣고 학교소식도 전하는 그러한 의미의 종합지)와 같은 것이 아니며, 서울대 교수들의 법학논문만을 싣는 논문집도 아니고, 혹시 서울대 교수들의 논문이 중심이라 하더라도 정기적으로 간행되는, 한국을 대표하는 권위적인 법학학술논문집인 것이다. 이러한 진술(statement)은 사실의 서술이지만 또한 이러한 진술에 걸맞는 위상을 가지고 있느냐, 그러한 역할을 수행하고 있느냐, 장차는 어떠하여야 하느냐 하는 평가적⋅당위적 질문을 포함하고 있다

A Study On Constitutionality Of The Second Capital Relocation Act

The capital relocation legislation enacted with a simple majority vote by the National Assembly in January 2004 was declared as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in October 2004 on the ground of its having violated the unwritten(customary constitutional law) part on the nation's capital of the Constitution which required an amendment to relocate capital as interpreted by the Court. Another, albeit a little down sized, capital relocation legislation(called Special Act for the Construction of Administrative Complex Town as Follow-Up Measures for Capital Relocation) was enacted equally with a simple majority vote by the National Assembly in March 2005 only in the space of three or four months following the decision of the Constitutional Court in which the first capital relocation legislation was held unconstitutional. The second legislation retains almost all the provisions of the first legislation intact with few changes including President and 6 designated ministries being exempted from relocation and with addition of a few supplementary provisions. Upon constitutional complaint, this second legislation was also put to constitutional scrutiny by the Constitutional Court recently. A study is conducted on the constitutionality of the second legislation. As a result, an argument is made here to suggest that the second legislation is also unconstitutional on the following four grounds. Firstly, the second legislation in its contents is substantially identical to the first legislation that was held unconstitutional in that it purports to relocate the substance of capital to the particularly designated area that was already ascertained as the site for new...이 논문은 서울대학교 법학발전재단 출연 법학연구소 기금의 2005학년도 연구지원비 의 보조를 받았음

The Implications of the Constitutional Court Decisions in the Political Process -Particularly with a Focus on the Recent Election-Law-Related Decisions-

The recent election-law-related decisions of the Constitutional Court in 2001, along a Branch Court of Seoul District Court's decision temporarily suspending the validity of a political party's nomination of a candidate for the National Assembly last year, make us reappreciate the functions of the Constitutional Court and the meanings of its decisions in the democratic political process. The Constitution provides specifically for the Constitutional Court separate from the Supreme Court and for its functions including that of judicial review of legislative actions, unlike the American Constitution. The Constitutional Court is so organized to conduct the following constitutionally provided functions of ① judicial review of legislation when the outcome of an ordinary court's decision-making depends on the constitutionality of the legislation; ② impeachment trial; ③ dissolution trial of a political party when the party's goals and activities violate the basic democratic order; ④ resolution of jurisdictional disputes between governmental organs; and ⑤ resolution of constitutional complaints(Verfassungsbeschwerde) filed by a citizen. The absolute majority of the Constitutional Court's work loads are, however, composed of ① and ⑤ kinds of cases whereas any ② or ③ case is non-existent in practice and only a small number of ④ cases ever filed. Theoretically the compatibility of judicial review of legislation with the principle of democratic majority rule is debated in Korea as well, albeit with much less intensity. The justification arguments for judicial review has been voiced far stronger, however, in terms of its functions of protection of the constitution including those of its contribution to democracy, particularly to democracy of the majority rule and the protection of minority with the principles of separation of power and check and balance. The justification arguments are much augmented by the very active, successful performances from its inception of the Constitutional Court in fulfilling its judicial review of legislation function, particularly compared with those of the Japanese institution of judicial review. Korea is one of the few success stories in which both political democratization and market economy have been achieved since the Second World War. Political democracy in Korea has been successful more at the macro, institutional level, however. Democratic practices are lagging behind at the micro, behavioral level. Thus, judicial intervention in political process including judicial review is significant in terms of its contribution to behavioral level democracy as well. The constitutionally envisioned in-party democracy was a powerful one of the judicially announced rationales for the branch district court's temporary injunction in party nomination case and the Constitutional Court's ruling of unconstitutionality on the National Assembly's national district case where the constitutional validity of party boss-made lists for the national district who are made national assembly members on the basis of the result of election in electoral districts alone without a second vote for party was questioned

A Search for Rational Solutions to Methological Problems in Constitutional Law Studies

This paper is composed of two thronged arguments: one for criticisms directed to the two predominantly practiced approaches to constitutional law studies; and the other for rational alternatives which are not only useful but also necessary. Foreign sources such as American and German theories, judicial decisions and other examples are widely relied on uncritically for justification of scholarly works or judicial decision-makings. Self-evidently, foreign authorities can be sources for inspiration or for persuasion but not for the kind of constitutional justification. For such a justification can be made either deductively, historically, or otherwise from the constitutional law of the nation or on the ground of scientifically based rationality. The second predominantly practiced approach to constitutional studies is a very formalistic one that is suitable perhaps for interpreting such precisely provided statutory provisions on concrete matters as the civil law, the criminal law, or administrative regulatory provisions usually proceeding from the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation. As is well-known, constitutional provisions particularly on fundamental rights and freedoms are usually open-ended, abstractly provided so that a formalistic, deductive approach cannot do the job proper for constitutional interpretation. Nevertheless, a number of the Constitutional Court's decisions can seriously be criticized as actually no more than civil or criminal decisions that were clothed in constitutional terminology, since those decisions would have been made differently if they were decided with proper constitutional interpretation methods

Professional Legal Education in the US

한국대학에서와는 달리 미국대학에서는 법학, 철학, 경영학, 도서관학 등과 같은 여러 과목들은 전문(professional)과목이라고 하여 대체로 대학원 단계에서 가르치는 과목으로 되어 있다. 그러한 만큼 우리의 학문적 호기심은 자연적으로 전문(professional)이란 무엇을 뜻하는 것인가, 전문교육은 하필이면 왜 대학원 단계에서 수행되어야 하는가 혹은 학부 단계에서 전문교육을 시킨다면 무엇이 잘못이란 말인가, 전문대학(원)을 미국에서는 대체로 Professional school이라고 부르는데 이러한 전문대학(원)의 학생들이 학부교육과정을 통하여 어떠한 자질을 지니게 되었을 것이라고 기대하는 것인가, 다른 말로 표현하면, 고등학교 졸업에 이어 곧 바로 전문대학(원)에 진학한다고 하는 경우에 이러한 학부 단계의 학생들에게는 무엇이 또는 어떠한 자질이 결여되어 있다는 것인가, 대학에서의 전문교육이란 한편으로는 대학에서의 비전문과목인 다른 전공(예컨대 정치학, 심리학, 물리학, 공학 등) 교육 및 훈련과는 어떻게 차별화 되며 다른 한편으로는 직업(vocation, trade)교육·훈련과는 어떻게 차별화 되는가와 같은 일련의 질문에 이르게 된다. 나아가 우리의 호기심은 잠시후에 살펴보려고 하는 바와 같은 이러한 질문들에 대한 미국사람들의 결론 내지 해답들이 대학의 조직·운영에 관련된 미국의 전형의 사고방식의 반영일 뿐인가 아니면 다른 나라에서도 배워야할 만한 보편적 가치를 지니는 것인가 하는 문제에까지 이른다

Legal Decision-Making and Social Sciences: With a Particular Focus on the Constitutional Court Decision Against Anti-Out-Of-School Classes Legislation

A very formalistic, legal positivist approach has been the dominant method to jurisprudence in Korea. By using Korea's Constitutional Court decision against an anti-out-of-school classes legislation (課外禁止) handed down this year and another against a Civil Law ban on a marriage between broadly defined family members bearing the same family name and the same place of origin (同姓同本禁婚) in 1997, a strong criticism is made to such a legal positivist approach by way of developing a social science based method to jurisprudence while exposing limits and pitfalls of the legal positivist approach. Our argument is that scientifically conducted research data including social science research based ones are not only useful but also necessary for jurisprudence in that they can provide an indispensible element of rationality in legal decision-making. In Korea, competition to enter a college, especially a prestigious university, is extremely keen. That competition drives many students and their parents to seek extra-curricula tutoring and commercially-run cram courses, many of which are a repetitive drilling of what is offered in regular courses at a school. Many parents feel that regular school classes are not sufficient enough for their children in preparing for college entrance. Many students feel regular classes at their school boring because they have already learned what are offered by their teacher from out-of-school classes; many of them are not attentive or even dozing at regular school classes because they are even physically tired from long after-school classes they attended in the evening the day before. In the out-of-school classes market, at the same time, the quality of instruction is determined much by the amounts of tuitions parents are paying. Naturally well-to-dos can afford to pay high tuitions to get better tutors or cram course teachers for their children while others cannot. Overall many parents feel extra-curricula classes a quite financial drain on their family. Many lower class members feel alienated by the prospect that they are an underdog even in out-of-school lessons and eventually in college entrance. Thereupon the government introduced a broad legislative ban on out-of-school classes to save regular school education and to reduce the sentiment of alienation felt by the lower class members. The Constitutional Court declared it unconstitutional, however, on the ground that it violated one's constitutional right to cultivate himself and parents' right to educate their children the way they like

6.25의 법적 조명 : 기조발제 ; 6.25 한국전쟁의 기본 성격 : 6.25전쟁의 법적 조명

금년(2000)에 꼭 50주년을 맞이하는, 우리에게 엄청난 파괴와 변화를 가져다 준 6.25戰爭(1950)이 法的인 視角에서는 우리에게 무엇인가? 그 동안 6.25전쟁의 起源이라든지 그 展開過程 등에 관한 역사학적, 정치학적 또는 군사학적 연구는 적지 아니하다고 생각한다. 그러나 6.25전쟁을 법적으로 조명한 연구는 많지 아니하다. 그나마도 그것이 국내전쟁(내란)이냐 국제적 전쟁이냐, UN군 참전의 법적 성격은 무엇이냐, 휴전협정의 법적 성격이 무엇이냐 등 국제법적인 측면의 연구였지 헌법 등 國內法的인 視角에서 연구한 것은 거의 없었다는 사실을 알게 되었다. 건국(1948)한지 채 2년도 안되어 아직 국가로서의 기틀도 잡히기 전에 밀어닥친 대규모전면전을 맞이하여 非常憲法(緊急命令이나 措置 및 戒嚴令의 宣布 등)을 가동하고 대규모의 人力과 物資를 전쟁목적을 위하여 動員하고 物價를 統制하는 등의 조치를 취하였었는데 이러한 조치들이 전부 법적 조치임은 말할 필요도 없다