헌법재판을 통한 행정작용 통제－중국․대만․일본의 제도와 판례를 중심으로－
“Controlling Administrative Actions” : Constitutional Adjudication in China, Taiwan, and Japan
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The accomplishments of the Korean Constitutional Court(KCC) over the past twenty one years have been nothing short of astounding. Especially, the KCC’s power of controlling administrative actions becomes wider and stronger. The article examines the constitutional-judicial control over administrative actions in East Asian countries such as China, Taiwan, and Japan. Here, related provisions and judicial rulings in each country are heavily studied. In China, while the Soviet system of legislative control does not work efficiently, the administrative tribunal of the People’s Court, in the recent wave of “judicializing constitution law”, begins to play a significant role of scrutinizing administrative actions. In Taiwan, though the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan extend their jurisdiction and review the precedents of the Administrative Court, they cannot exercise direct control over the courts, for there is a sharp distinction between constitutional interpretation and judicial ruling. After World Was II, Japan adopted the American model of judicial review, however, the overwhelming tendency of judicial passivism prevents the courts from reviewing administrative actions. The KCC’s controlling power over administrative lawsuits goes far over the Supreme People’s Court of China and the Supreme Court of Japan, even over the Judicial Yuan of Taiwan, and its overwhelming tendency of judicial activism in controlling administrative actions should be reconsidered.
Abstract
The accomplishments of the Korean Constitutional Court(KCC) over the past twenty one years have been nothing short of astounding. Especially, the KCC’s power of controlling administrative actions becomes wider and stronger. The article examines the constitutional-judicial control over administrative actions in East Asian countries such as China, Taiwan, and Japan. Here, related provisions and judicial rulings in each country are heavily studied. In China, while the Soviet system of legislative control does not work efficiently, the administrative tribunal of the People’s Court, in the recent wave of “judicializing constitution law”, begins to play a significant role of scrutinizing administrative actions. In Taiwan, though the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan extend their jurisdiction and review the precedents of the Administrative Court, they cannot exercise direct control over the courts, for there is a sharp distinction between constitutional interpretation and judicial ruling. After World Was II, Japan adopted the American model of judicial review, however, the overwhelming tendency of judicial passivism prevents the courts from reviewing administrative actions. The KCC’s controlling power over administrative lawsuits goes far over the Supreme People’s Court of China and the Supreme Court of Japan, even over the Judicial Yuan of Taiwan, and its overwhelming tendency of judicial activism in controlling administrative actions should be reconsidered.
참고문헌 (44)
- Ginsburg, Tom, "Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases" (2003), Cambridge University Press
- 郭宇文, "論憲法審判權與專業法院審判權之區分" (2007), 國立中正大學法律學硏究所 碩士論文
- 莫紀宏, "違憲審査的理論與實踐" (2006), 法律出版社
- 司法院史實紀要編輯委員會, "司法院史實紀要(上)" (2007), 司法院
- 蘇仕君, "我國違憲審査制度之繼受－以比較法爲中心", 석사, pp.2006
- 蘇永欽, "司法院大法官審理案件法修正芻議(上․下)", pp.156~157 (2008), 月旦法學雜誌
- 呂夢顯, "大法官解釋對行政法之反射效果－以案例爲中心的初步歸納與討論", 석사, pp.2004
- 翁岳生, "我國憲法訴訟制度之展望" (2007), 中硏院法學期刊
- 王禹, "中國憲法司法化: 案例評析" (2005), 北京大學出版社
- 王振民, "中國違憲審査制度" (2004), 中國政法大學出版社
- 林子儀, "司法護憲功能之檢討－如何健全違憲審査制度." (1993), 月旦出版
- 周衛, "憲法基本權利司法救濟硏究" (2003), 中國人民公安大學出版社
- 陳愛娥, "大法官憲法解釋權之界限－由功能法的觀點出發. in: 大法官釋憲五十週年學術硏討會記錄" (1999), 司法院
- 陳怡如, "司法改革中有關違憲審査制度設計之問題探討", 軍法專刊, 52(6) (2006)
- 陳怡如, "司法院大法官有關工作權違憲審査基準之硏究", 박사, pp.2006
- 陳怡如, "司法院大法官之憲政定位與功能", 석사, pp.2000
- 蔡宗珍, "憲法解釋與訴訟權之保障－以行政訴訟爲中心.", 司法院大法官九十三年度學術硏討會: 憲法解釋與訴訟權之保障, 12(1) (2004), 司法院
- 焦洪昌, "憲法學案例敎程" (2004), 知識産權出版社
- 湯德宗, "論違憲審査制度的改進－由｢多元多軌｣到｢一元單軌｣的改制方案" (2005), 第四輯
- 胡錦光, "行政法案例分析(第二版)" (2006), 中國人民大學出版社
- 黃經綸, "論憲法法院審判權與一般法院審判權對人權保障之制度性分工－從憲法法院審判權的功能演變及憲法訴訟程序之特性出發", 석사, pp.2007
- Kamiya, Masako, "The New Code of Civil Procedure and the Introduction of Discretionary Power to Dismiss Appeals to the Supreme Court－Without Policy Implications?. in: 憲法裁判と行政訴訟" (1999), 有斐閣
- 高見勝利, "芦部憲法學を讀む" (2004), 有斐閣
- 高橋和之, "憲法判斷回避の準則", 講座 憲法訴訟, 2 (1987), 有斐閣
- 今村成和, "行政訴訟－‘司法權の限界’に關する諸學說の檢討－" (1965), 有斐閣
- 大石眞, "裁判所法成立過程の再檢討－憲法上の論点を中心として. in: 憲法裁判と行政訴訟" (1999), 有斐閣
- 藤井俊夫, "司法權と憲法訴訟" (2007), 成文堂
- 新正幸, "憲法訴訟論" (2008), 信山社
- 辻村みよ子, "憲法(第2版)" (2004), 日本評論社
- 李仁淼, "臺灣における違憲審査制の新展開－アメリカ型か、ドイツ型かという制度選擇の論爭を手がかりとして", 東アジアにおけるアメリカ憲法－憲法裁判の影響を中心に (2006), 慶應義塾大學出版會
- 井上典之, "日本から見た憲法裁判のドイツ․モデルとアメリカ․モデルの比較. in: 憲法裁判の國際的發展－日獨共同硏究シンポジウム" (2004), 信山社
- 佐藤幸治, "日本國憲法と‘法の支配’" (2002), 有斐閣
- 佐藤幸治, "憲法(第三版)" (1995), 靑林書院
- 佐藤幸治, "現代國家と司法權" (1988), 有斐閣
- 樋口陽一, "憲法と裁判" (1988), 法律文化社
- 許宗力, "臺灣における憲法裁判" (2004), 信山社
- 芦部信喜(高橋和之補訂), "憲法(第三版)" (2004), 岩波書店
- 戶松秀典, "日本の司法審査", 講座 憲法訴訟, 1 (1987), 有斐閣
- 戶松秀典, "憲法訴訟" (2008), 有斐閣
- 戶波江二, "憲法裁判の發展と日本の違憲審査制の問題點" (2004), 信山社
- 민병로, "일본의 사법심사제" (2003), 전남대학교 출판부
- 申宇澈, "중국의 ‘헌법감독’― 경제체제개혁 이후의 위헌심사제도 개선론을 중심으로 ―", 공법연구, 31(4), pp.5~5 (2003), 한국공법학회
- 이동원, "헌법재판제도에 관한 일본에서의 논의. in: 헌법재판제도의 이해", 헌법재판제도의 이해, 92 (2001), 법원도서관
- 채영호, "한국․일본․대만의 위헌심사제도에 관한 비교법적 연구－중국에서의 제도설계와 관련하여", 박사, 법학과, pp.2009