법의 명확성에 대한 개념적 고찰
A Conceptual Study on the Clarity of Law
1
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Abstract
In this article, I contribute to a philosophical explanation of some concepts and problems concerning the clarity of law. As Fuller has stated, the desideratum of clarity represents one of the most essential ingredients of legality. However, ambiguity, vagueness, and generality in legal language produce difficulties in grasping the meaning of laws and applying them. An ambiguous word has more than one meaning. A vague word has one meaning but its application is unclear in some cases. Generality, covering many things in a single term, is an inherent feature of the rule of law. Although all three can trigger some uncertainty, they have distinctive features. Ambiguity is eliminable from law, but vagueness and generality are necessary and desirable in law. However, the vagueness of law is the fundamental source of legal indeterminacy, while the appropriate level of generality of a legal term can be adjusted. A significant insight into the double characteristics of law can be gained from the fact that clarity and obscurity exist together in law. Lucid legal language is an efficient means of assisting the directive character of law, enabling subjects to understand and follow what a law requires. On the other hand, unclear language contributes to the argumentative character of law, allowing citizens and courts to seriously consider what the law tries to accomplish.
참고문헌 (30)
- 임웅, "형법상명확성의 원칙", 성균관법학, 16(1), pp.481~498 (2004), 법학연구소
- 이준일, "헌법재판소가 이해하는 명확성원칙의 비판적 재구성", 헌법학연구, 7(1) (2001)
- 김웅규, "위헌심사기준으로서의 명확성과 광범성무효의 원칙", 공법연구, 35(3), pp.1~30 (2007), 한국공법학회
- 조소영, "廣範圍性 原則(the Overbreadth Doctrine)의 憲法的 意味와 機能에 대한 一考察", 공법연구, 35(4), pp.515~544 (2007), 한국공법학회
- Erwin Chemerinsky, "Constitutional Law", pp.941~949 (2006), Aspen Publishers
- 전종익, "미국 헌법상 명확성 원칙(void for vagueness) 심사 - 미국연방최고법원 판례를 중심으로 -", 서울대학교 법학, 50(1), pp.455~481 (2009), 법학연구소
- Daniel Farber, "The First Amendment", pp.50~ (2003), The Foundation Press
- 이상돈, "새로 쓴 법이론", pp.53~62 (2005), 세창출판사
- 심헌섭, "분석과 비판의 법철학", pp.230~235 (2001), 법문사
- 김영환, "법철학의 근본문제", pp.239~287 (2008), 홍문사
- 권경휘, "비트겐슈타인의 규칙-따르기 고찰과 법이론", 법철학연구, 10(1) (2007), 한국법철학회
- 안성조, "법적 불확정성과 법의 지배 － The law is reason unaffected by desire Laws, when good, should be supreme -", 법철학연구, 10(2), pp.61~114 (2007), 한국법철학회
- 김혁기, "법의 불확정성 연구", 박사, pp.2009
- "Law and Language"[URL]
- Lon Fuller, "The Morality of Law", pp.33~94 (1964), Yale University Press
- 강구진, "법의 도덕성", pp.49~115 (1971), 법문사
- 최봉철, "풀러의 합법성론", 법철학연구, 7(2), pp.7~38 (2004), 한국법철학회
- 이봉의, "독점규제법 제3조의2 제1항 제5호 후단 “소비자이익 저해행위” 금지의 위헌성 판단 - 명확성의 원칙을 중심으로 -", 서울대학교 법학, 49(3), pp.241~280 (2008), 법학연구소
- Friedrich Hayek, "노예의 길", pp.131~ (2006), 자유기업원
- Aristoteles, "니코마코스 윤리학", pp.16~ (2006), 이제이북스
- Jeremy Waldron, "Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues", California Law Review, 82(3), pp.511~ (1994)
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, "철학적 탐구" (1993), 서광사
- Ronald Dworkin, "Indeterminacy and Law, in Positivism Today" (1996), Dartmouth Publishing
- 신동운, "법률해석의 한계" (2000), 법문사
- Ronald Dworkin, "Is There Really No Right Answer in Hard Cases?, in: A Matter of Principle", pp.119~120 (1985), Harvard University Press
- Herbert Hart, "The Concept of Law", pp.123~136 (1994), Oxford University Press
- Timothy Endicott, "Vagueness in Law" (2000), Oxford University Press
- Brian Bix, "Law, Language, and Legal Determinacy", pp.31~ (1993), Oxford University Press
- Matthew Kramer, "Objectivity and the Rule of Law", pp.109~113 (2007), Cambridge University Press
- Roy Sorensen, "Vagueness has No Function in Law", Legal Theory, 7, pp.406~407 (2001)