행정입법의 통제에 관한 연구
A study on the Control of the Administrative legislation
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The existing of Korean Constitution is prescribed some Articles. Art. 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provisions that “Legislative Power is shall be vested in the National Assembly.” And Art. 52 declares that “Bills may be introduced by members of the National Assembly or by the Executive.” And Art. 75 expressly mentions that “The President may issue presidential decrees concerning matters delegated to him by law with the scope specifically defined and also matters necessary to enforce laws.” And Art. 95 also states that “The Prime Minister or the head of the each Executive Minister may, under the powers delegated by law or Presidential Decree, or ex officio, issue ordinances of the Prime Minister or the Executive Ministry concerning matters that are within their jurisdiction.”Traditional view from division of powers doctrine does not allow the executive to have a legislative power. However, as modern democratic state does not draw a line between the powers and the executive obtain the democratic fairness, the line between the powers became thinner. This phenomenon results from the complexity of legislative procedures, and the promptness, the necessity and the efficiency also play a major role. However, the expanded power of the executive and increased legislative power can cause irreversible impact on the state. Increased power of the executive can endanger the division of powers doctrine and Constitutionalism. Therefore, controlling issues of legislative power in the government requires comprehensive evaluation instead of limited review of three branches. If National Assembly is controlled by multiple parties, the bills can be passed by the intention of its government instead of hands of the legislature. The control of legislative power cannot be secured by the increased power of legislature. Internal control of the executive and judiciary control can also be recommended. Internal control of the government can be considered as the self regulating tool but the increased power of the government has its own limitation. Legislative control has its own narrow view of understanding the reality and judicial control does not function as pro active control. As each state has its own individual background of legal culture and politics, one country’s success does not guarantee that of another. Nevertheless, careful review of one’s success can improve current system and establish its solid base for future of the Korean provisions-related. Also, provisions-related and legislative power precedents of the United States of America(Especially, APA) and United Kingdom(Especially, The Statutory Instrument Law) can improve Korean legal system. In conclusion, legislation of administrative should be controlled for the public benefit because such systems exist for the people.
Abstract
The existing of Korean Constitution is prescribed some Articles. Art. 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provisions that “Legislative Power is shall be vested in the National Assembly.” And Art. 52 declares that “Bills may be introduced by members of the National Assembly or by the Executive.” And Art. 75 expressly mentions that “The President may issue presidential decrees concerning matters delegated to him by law with the scope specifically defined and also matters necessary to enforce laws.” And Art. 95 also states that “The Prime Minister or the head of the each Executive Minister may, under the powers delegated by law or Presidential Decree, or ex officio, issue ordinances of the Prime Minister or the Executive Ministry concerning matters that are within their jurisdiction.”Traditional view from division of powers doctrine does not allow the executive to have a legislative power. However, as modern democratic state does not draw a line between the powers and the executive obtain the democratic fairness, the line between the powers became thinner. This phenomenon results from the complexity of legislative procedures, and the promptness, the necessity and the efficiency also play a major role. However, the expanded power of the executive and increased legislative power can cause irreversible impact on the state. Increased power of the executive can endanger the division of powers doctrine and Constitutionalism. Therefore, controlling issues of legislative power in the government requires comprehensive evaluation instead of limited review of three branches. If National Assembly is controlled by multiple parties, the bills can be passed by the intention of its government instead of hands of the legislature. The control of legislative power cannot be secured by the increased power of legislature. Internal control of the executive and judiciary control can also be recommended. Internal control of the government can be considered as the self regulating tool but the increased power of the government has its own limitation. Legislative control has its own narrow view of understanding the reality and judicial control does not function as pro active control. As each state has its own individual background of legal culture and politics, one country’s success does not guarantee that of another. Nevertheless, careful review of one’s success can improve current system and establish its solid base for future of the Korean provisions-related. Also, provisions-related and legislative power precedents of the United States of America(Especially, APA) and United Kingdom(Especially, The Statutory Instrument Law) can improve Korean legal system. In conclusion, legislation of administrative should be controlled for the public benefit because such systems exist for the people.
참고문헌 (49)
- 권영성, "헌법학원론" (2004), 법문사
- 김연태, "행정법 Ⅰ(제14판)" (2010), 법문사
- 김동희, "행정법요론" (2010), 박영사
- 김향기, "행정법개론(제9판)" (2010), 탑북스
- 박종수, "행정법신론 제14판" (2010), 박영사
- 박균성, "행정법강의" (2010), 博英社
- 박균성, "行政法論" (2010), 博英社
- 박윤흔, "「행정법강의(상)」개정30" (2009), 박영사
- 박정훈, "항고소송의 대상 및 유형", 행정소송법 개정안 공청회 자료 (2004), 대법원
- 정하중, "행정법개론" (2007), 법문사
- 홍성방, "헌법학" (2002), 현암사
- 홍정선, "행정법원론(상)제18판" (2010), 박영사
- 홍준형, "「행정법총론」제2판" (1994), 한울
- 고영훈, "행정상고시의 법적 문제점과 개선방향에 관한 연구", 공법연구, 29(1), pp.277~298 (2000), 한국공법학회
- 금태환, "미국 연방행정절차법에서의 실질적 증거 기준", 행정법연구, 18, pp.309~336 (2007), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 김남진, "행정입법의 현황과 문제점", 고시계, 41(12), pp.15~25 (1996), 고시계사
- 행정입법에 대한 의회통제의 문제점 및 개선방안, 의회에 의한 행정입법의 통제, "김용섭", 국회법제실·행정법이론실무학회, 25~61 (2004)
- 김은주, "미국 행정법에 있어서 Chevron 판결의 현대적 의의", 공법연구, 37(3), pp.311~334 (2009), 한국공법학회
- 김중권, "條文形式을 띤 告示의 처분성 인정에 따른 문제점에 관한 小考", 저스티스, (98), pp.272~291 (2007), 한국법학원
- 김철용, "행정입법통제의 과제", 고시계, 41(12), pp.91~100 (1996), 고시계사
- 김춘환, "委任立法의 限界와 國會에 의한 統制", 공법연구, 34(3), pp.51~90 (2006), 한국공법학회
- 문광삼, "미국 대통령의 법률안거부권과 거부권의 새로운 경향, In,「현대행정과 공법이론」남하서정우교수 화갑기념논문집", pp.169~204 (1991), 박영사
- 박민영, "영국의 위임입법에 관한 고찰", 법학논집, 15, pp.1~32 (1999), 청주대학교 법학연구소
- 법원행정처 헌법재판연구반, "명령·규칙의 위헌심사권에 관한 연구보고서", 저스티스, 23(2) (1990), 한국법학원
- 안동인, "영국법상의 공·사법 이원체계에 관한 연구 : 사법심사청구제도와 관련하여", 박사, pp.2009
- 안동인, "英國의 行政立法 統制", 행정법연구, 24, pp.271~304 (2009), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 梁承斗, "영국위임입법의 통제에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.1973
- 이원우, "행정입법에 대한 사법적 통제방식의 쟁점", 행정법연구, (25), pp.1~30 (2009), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 이일세, "법규명령에 대한 통제에 관한 고찰 - 영ㆍ미에서의 입법적 통제를 중심으로 -", 토지공법연구, 27, pp.323~342 (2005), 한국토지공법학회
- 임지봉, "미국헌법과 행정권", 미국헌법연구, 18(1), pp.187~218 (2007), 미국헌법학회
- 정재황, "행정입법위임과 행정입법에 관한 우리 헌법재판소의 통제, In 「현대공법학의 과제」(청담 최송화교수 화갑기념논문집)", pp.255~ (2002), 박영사
- 최정일, "독일과 미국에서의 의회에 의한 위임입법의 직접적 통제에 관한 연구 ― 동의권 유보와 입법적 거부를 중심으로 ―", 행정법연구, (21), pp.23~73 (2008), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- Cesil T. Carr, "Concerning English Administration Law" (1941), Columbia University Press
- Cesil T. Carr, "Parliamentary Supervision in Britain", N. Y. U. Law Review, 30 (1955)
- Cesil T. Carr, "Parliamentary Control of Delegated Legislation" (1956), Public Law
- "Commission on Human Right Reslution 1992", 54, 3 March 1992, annex; General Assembly Resolution 48, pp.1993, ~
- Evan J. Criddle, "Chevron's consensus", Boston University Law Review, 88 (2008)
- Frank A. Stacey, "The Government of Modern Britain" (1968), Clarendon Press
- H. W. R. Wade, "Administrative Law" (2004), Oxford
- Jan S. Oster, "The scope of judicial review in the german and U. S. administrative legal system-partⅡ", Ⅱ, 2008, pp.9(10), ~
- John E. Kersell, "Parliamentary Supervision of Delegated Legislation" (1960), Stevens& Sons
- Karl Peter Sommermann, "Verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen parlamentarischerÄnderungsvorbehalte, In Verordnungsermächtigung undDemokratieprinzip" (1997), Sepeyer
- Keith Werhan, "Principles of administrative law" (2008), Thomson & West
- 김종철, "Administrative Law and Governance in Asia: Comparative Perspectives" (2008), Routledge
- Peter P. Marra, "Have Administrative Agencies Abandoned Responsibility?", Seton Hall University Constitutional Law Journal, 7(1) (1996)
- S. H. Bailey, "Case, Materials and Commentary on Administative Law" (2005), Sweet and Mexwell
- Wade, Ragnemalm, "Strauss, Administrative Law" (2004), Oxford
- William Wade, "Administrative Law" (1961), Oxford University Press
- Wolf, Jowel, "De Smith's Judicial Review" (2007), Sweet & Maxwell