본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

헌법상 정당조항의 변천

Transition Process of Party Clauses on Constitution

1

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Recently, news are filled with issues of political parties. Since Party Clauses were introduced in the 1960 Constitution, opinions are divided into a variety of events, from the problems of Requirements to cancel political parties on the Party Law that increases the barriers to entry of minority parties, to the claims of Dissolution of political parties to request for trial. At this point, it is necessary that we should consider, as a whole, the fact that Party Clauses of Article 8 of the present Constitution is defined for what. The same Article is ruled as follow: on Section 1, the freedom of establishment of political parties and the guarantee of political pluralism; on Section 2, the democracy and the necessary organization of the party; on Section 3, the protection and subsidies of the state for political parties; and on Section 4, the dissolution clause of an anti-democratic political party. By the way, at the first time, when these Party Clauses are prescribed on the 1960 Constitution, it was not defined in the Introduction as the current Constitution but together regulated in Article 13 in the provisions on freedom of expression in Chapter of rights and duties of citizens, and it is principle for political parties to protect of the nation, just placed the exceptional Party Dissolution Clauses. These points present the question of whether there is a difference in the meaning of provisions of the party in the 1960 Constitution and the current Constitution. In addition, it is specified as “the ‘free’ democratic basic order” in the preamble and Article 4 of the current Constitution, but in the 1960 Constitution, the provisions of “the ‘free’ democratic basic order” is not seen anywhere, which it is to apply a question of interpretation of the meaning that Article 8, political parties clause of the current Constitution, stipulates in the same way as “the democratic basic order” in political parties clauses of the 1960 Constitution. And, in Party Clauses of the 1960 Constitution, it was defined as unary, there are questions why is defined separately from Section 1 to 4. More and more, Countries after World War II, as a reflection against Nazi Party earlier, Fascist Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was setting up to provisions of the Constitution on the political parties since the mid-1940 Constitution, there are questions why was not so defined as this Party Clauses at the Constituent Constitution, but was defined the 1960 Constitution. In addition, in the 1960 Constitution, it was not to enforce the political party law, but in the Constitution since 1963, has been establishing a political party law. Although it is overall looked to see Party Clauses due to the recent issue of dissolution of political party, but these points raise the need to study in more detail what is meaning in our constitutional history, and led to study the transition process of Party Clauses on the Constitution of South Korea.

Abstract

Recently, news are filled with issues of political parties. Since Party Clauses were introduced in the 1960 Constitution, opinions are divided into a variety of events, from the problems of Requirements to cancel political parties on the Party Law that increases the barriers to entry of minority parties, to the claims of Dissolution of political parties to request for trial. At this point, it is necessary that we should consider, as a whole, the fact that Party Clauses of Article 8 of the present Constitution is defined for what. The same Article is ruled as follow: on Section 1, the freedom of establishment of political parties and the guarantee of political pluralism; on Section 2, the democracy and the necessary organization of the party; on Section 3, the protection and subsidies of the state for political parties; and on Section 4, the dissolution clause of an anti-democratic political party. By the way, at the first time, when these Party Clauses are prescribed on the 1960 Constitution, it was not defined in the Introduction as the current Constitution but together regulated in Article 13 in the provisions on freedom of expression in Chapter of rights and duties of citizens, and it is principle for political parties to protect of the nation, just placed the exceptional Party Dissolution Clauses. These points present the question of whether there is a difference in the meaning of provisions of the party in the 1960 Constitution and the current Constitution. In addition, it is specified as “the ‘free’ democratic basic order” in the preamble and Article 4 of the current Constitution, but in the 1960 Constitution, the provisions of “the ‘free’ democratic basic order” is not seen anywhere, which it is to apply a question of interpretation of the meaning that Article 8, political parties clause of the current Constitution, stipulates in the same way as “the democratic basic order” in political parties clauses of the 1960 Constitution. And, in Party Clauses of the 1960 Constitution, it was defined as unary, there are questions why is defined separately from Section 1 to 4. More and more, Countries after World War II, as a reflection against Nazi Party earlier, Fascist Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was setting up to provisions of the Constitution on the political parties since the mid-1940 Constitution, there are questions why was not so defined as this Party Clauses at the Constituent Constitution, but was defined the 1960 Constitution. In addition, in the 1960 Constitution, it was not to enforce the political party law, but in the Constitution since 1963, has been establishing a political party law. Although it is overall looked to see Party Clauses due to the recent issue of dissolution of political party, but these points raise the need to study in more detail what is meaning in our constitutional history, and led to study the transition process of Party Clauses on the Constitution of South Korea.

참고문헌 (40)

  1. 계희열, "헌법학(상)" (2001), 박영사
  2. 권영성, "헌법학원론" (2010), 법문사
  3. 김영명, "한국의 정치변동" (2013), 을유문화사
  4. 김철수, "한국헌법사" (1988), 대학출판사
  5. 김철수, "헌법학개론" (2007), 박영사
  6. 김철수, "헌법상의 정당조항: 정당에 관한 헌법규정의 역사적 고찰", 사법행정, 4(7), pp.8~11 (1963), 한국사법행정학회
  7. 서희경, "대한민국헌법의 탄생" (2012), 창비
  8. 성낙인, "대한민국헌법사" (2012), 法文社
  9. 한태연, "헌법" (1963), 법문사
  10. 국순옥, "자유민주적 기본질서란 무엇인가", 민주법학, 8(1), pp.125~165 (1994), 민주주의법학연구회
  11. 김경호, "부산정치파동의 본질과 정치사적 의미", 21세기정치학회보, 11(1) (2001), 21세기정치학회
  12. 김기범, "새 헌법에 있어서의 제문제: 신헌법상의 정당조항", 사법행정, 4(4), pp.7~10 (1963), 한국사법행정학회
  13. 김선택, "의원내각제적 요소와 권력분산의 효과", 법학논집, 33, pp.81~118 (1997), 고려대학교 법학연구소
  14. 김성보, "법살 50주기에 돌아보는 진보당과 조봉암의 역사의식", 역사비평, (88), pp.200~214 (2009), 역사문제연구소
  15. 金周煥, "違憲政黨解散制度에 관한 연구", 석사, 법학, pp.1990
  16. 김지형, "1956년 대선과 민주당-진보당 야당연합", 역사비평, (98), pp.88~120 (2012), 역사문제연구소
  17. 노경채, "조봉암ㆍ진보당ㆍ사회민주주의", 한국민족운동사연구, (64), pp.441~466 (2010), 한국민족운동사학회
  18. 문한동, "진보당과 진보당사건: 진보당사건이 한국정치에 미친 영향", 부산정치학회보, 5(1), pp.99~118 (1995), 21세기정치학회
  19. 박일경, "민주적 기본질서", 사법행정, 5(12), pp.35~39 (1964), 한국사법행정학회
  20. 서중석, "조봉암 진보당의 진보성과 정치적 기반", 역사비평, 1(18), pp.16~32 (1992), 역사문제연구소
  21. 송석윤, "독일헌법상 정당조항과 그 한국적 이식: 비교법사회학적 접근", 서울대학교 법학, 41(3), pp.115~146 (2001), 서울대학교 법학연구소
  22. 송석윤, "정당해산심판의 실체적 요건 - 정당해산심판제도의 좌표와 관련하여 -", 서울대학교 법학, 51(1), pp.27~65 (2010), 법학연구소
  23. 오향미, "독일 기본법의 “방어적 민주주의” 원리: 그 헌법이론적 논거의 배경", 의정연구, 17(2), pp.111~139 (2011), 한국의회발전연구회
  24. 윤세창, "헌법상의 정당조항: 개정헌법상의 정당조항", 사법행정, 4(7), pp.7~10 (1963), 한국사법행정학회
  25. 이강혁, "방어적, 전투적 민주주의의 수호", 고시연구, 31(12), pp.12~13 (2004), 고시연구사
  26. 이성환, "현행 정당해산심판절차의 문제점과 개선방향", 세계헌법연구, 10, pp.191~210 (2004), 세계헌법학회한국학회
  27. 이철호, "한국 헌법규범과 현실: 진보당사건의 현대적 조명", 법과 사회, 16(1), pp.35~53 (1999), 법과사회이론학회(구 법과사회이론연구회)
  28. 장영수, "방어적 민주주의의 이론", 고시연구, 19(9), pp.76~92 (1992), 고시연구사
  29. 전광석, "정당해산심판에 대한 헌법적 및 정치적 이해", 헌법판례연구, 13(1), pp.133~153 (2012), 한국헌법판례연구학회
  30. 정태영, "진보당의 형성과 발전", 내일을 여는 역사, 17(1), pp.22~42 (2004), 내일을 여는 역사
  31. 조현연, "죽산 조봉암, 진보당과 21세기 한국의 진보정치", 동북아연구, 15(1), pp.183~220 (2010), 경남대학교 극동문제연구소
  32. 주봉호, "조봉암과 진보당-제3의 길", 동북아시아문화학회 국제학술대회 발표자료집, 2009(10), pp.501~509 (2009), 동북아시아문화학회
  33. 한수웅, "헌법 제8조 정당조항의 규범적 의미", 중앙법학, 10(1), pp.9~62 (2008), 중앙법학회
  34. "헌법개정심의록, 제1집·제2집·제3집", 대한민국국회, ~ (1967)
  35. "제2대 제13회 제2차 국회본회의 회의록", ~
  36. "제3대 제19회 제90차 국회본회의 회의록", ~
  37. "제4대 제35회 제1차 헌법개정안기초위원회 국회상임위원회 회의록", ~
  38. "제4대 제35회 제33차 및 제34차 국회본회의 회의록", ~
  39. "제12대 제136회 제1차 국회본회의 회의록", ~
  40. "제12대 제137회 제5차 국회본회의 회의록", ~

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (17건)