國會規則의 性格에 관한 몇 가지 문제

Abstract

Article 64 (1) of the Constitution provides “The National Assembly may establish the regulations of its proceedings and internal disciplines: Provided, That they are not in conflict with Act.” The writer draws several conclusions in relation of that Article in this essay. First, we should not treat the National Assembly Regulation as a mere regulatory norm the status of which is lower than legal norm, as Article 64 (1) of the Constitution uses the notion of ‘regulation’. And we should bear in mind that, though National Assembly Regulation uses the same notion of ‘regulation’ like regulations of other independent constitutional organizations such as Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, and National Election Commission, the normative status of the National Assembly Regulation is not same with those of other independent constitutional organizations. The normative status of National Assembly Regulation is law while those of the other independent organization are under-stage than law. This difference stems from the lawmaking power of the National Assembly. The National Assembly can take the legal norm instead of regulatory norm when they think fit. Secondly, if provisions of the National Assembly Regulation collide with those of a previous law, the possibility of indirect abolishment or repeal of the provisions of the law by those of the inconsistent Regulation should not be denied irrespective of Article 64 (1) of Constitution. Thirdly, Article 166 of the National Assembly Act can not be the ground of delegation to National Assembly for establishing the regulations concerning proceedings and internal disciplines, as Article 166 of the National Assembly Act provides “The National Assembly may establish the regulations concerning proceedings and internal disciplines within the scope of not contrary to the Constitution and Acts,” that Article is only a tautology of Article 64 (1) of the Constitution.