우리 헌법 제119조의 경제 질서에 대한 해석론
A Study on Economic Order of Article 119 of the Korean Constitutional Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
According to the World Bank's report published on July 7, 2010, South Korea's GDP in the previous year amounted to USD 832.5 billion (around KRW 958 trillion), ranking 15th among comparable countries. But our economic policies are still focused on growth-first and distribution-later. As Keynes pointed out, the fruits of economic growth are not distributed to all the people. Since human desire knows no bounds, satisfaction of 'absolute needs' does not stop accumulation of wealth. A human being has a thirst for satisfaction of 'relative needs' which gives one the feeling of superiority over others. Seen from this perspective, discussions on distributive justice might be able to present answers to reflective consideration of the ills of 'growth for growth's sake'. The proposition that proper distribution is possible through economic growth has not been proved despite remarkable growth of the world economy including South Korea during the past century. This results from lack of understanding of the nature of capital and human desires. Especially in South Korea, which continued with the policies of economic growth centered around Jaebeols (conglomerates) under the banner of ‘growth-first and distribution-later' regardless of the ideal of a social state which is a constitutional principle and was confronted with the Asian foreign exchange crisis of 1998 and the global financial crisis of 2008, balanced growth of the national economy and more equal distribution of wealth, the primary goals of a social state, still remain unsolved constitutional tasks. The existing of Korean Constitution is prescribed Article 119. However, it is true that the concrete meanings or normative contents of the Economic Order under the current Constitution are abstract and ambiguous compared with other constitutional principles in that the contents are too abstract and ambiguous. The state goals should be set up and proper guidelines for interpretation of the Constitution should be presented. In conclusion, we should think about the public benefit because Article 119 exist for the people.
Abstract
According to the World Bank's report published on July 7, 2010, South Korea's GDP in the previous year amounted to USD 832.5 billion (around KRW 958 trillion), ranking 15th among comparable countries. But our economic policies are still focused on growth-first and distribution-later. As Keynes pointed out, the fruits of economic growth are not distributed to all the people. Since human desire knows no bounds, satisfaction of 'absolute needs' does not stop accumulation of wealth. A human being has a thirst for satisfaction of 'relative needs' which gives one the feeling of superiority over others. Seen from this perspective, discussions on distributive justice might be able to present answers to reflective consideration of the ills of 'growth for growth's sake'. The proposition that proper distribution is possible through economic growth has not been proved despite remarkable growth of the world economy including South Korea during the past century. This results from lack of understanding of the nature of capital and human desires. Especially in South Korea, which continued with the policies of economic growth centered around Jaebeols (conglomerates) under the banner of ‘growth-first and distribution-later' regardless of the ideal of a social state which is a constitutional principle and was confronted with the Asian foreign exchange crisis of 1998 and the global financial crisis of 2008, balanced growth of the national economy and more equal distribution of wealth, the primary goals of a social state, still remain unsolved constitutional tasks. The existing of Korean Constitution is prescribed Article 119. However, it is true that the concrete meanings or normative contents of the Economic Order under the current Constitution are abstract and ambiguous compared with other constitutional principles in that the contents are too abstract and ambiguous. The state goals should be set up and proper guidelines for interpretation of the Constitution should be presented. In conclusion, we should think about the public benefit because Article 119 exist for the people.
참고문헌 (37)
- 강경근, "경제적 자유 보장과 국가의 경제제도 형성의 방향과 한계", 공법연구, 38(2), pp.1~30 (2009), 한국공법학회
- 김상겸, "한국 경제질서와 헌법상의 경제조항에 관한 연구 - 독일기본법과 관련하여 -", 한독사회과학논총, 19(4), pp.3~28 (2009), 한독사회과학회
- 김성수, "헌법상 경제조항에 대한 개정론", 공법연구, 34(4-2), pp.183~208 (2006), 한국공법학회
- 김승대, "헌법학강론(제2판)" (2012), 법문사
- 백원기, "행정학" (1984), 박영사
- 신용옥, "제헌헌법의 사회ㆍ경제질서 구성 이념", 한국사연구, (144), pp.1~40 (2009), 한국사연구회
- 양건, "헌법강의" (2012), 법문사
- 양영철, "정책이념으로서의 배분적 정의에 관한 연구", 논문집, 25(12), pp.301~322 (1987), 제주대학교
- 이극찬, "자유론" (1982), 삼성출판사
- 이병천, "대한민국 헌법의 경제이념과 제119조의 한 해석: 지배의 정당성 대 민주적 정당성", 동향과 전망, (83), pp.144~179 (2011), 한국사회과학연구회
- 이종은, "배분의 문제", 대한정치학회보, 7(1), pp.235~271 (1999), 대한정치학회
- 장영수, "헌법학" (2012), 홍문사
- 전광석, "복지국가의 기원 - 복지국가개편논의의 유형화를 위한 기초 -", 법학연구, 19(2), pp.39~75 (2009), 법학연구원
- 전광석, "한국헌법론" (2011), 집현재
- 정기방, "마르크스-레닌주의에 있어서 평등과 효율", 통일논총, 10(10), pp.97~117 (1997), 동의대학교통일문제연구소
- 정종섭, "한국헌법론" (2012), 박영사
- 최명관, "니코마코스 윤리학" (1984), 서광사
- 한수웅, "헌법학" (2012), 법문사
- 홍성방, "헌법과 경제질서", 서강법학연구, 5, pp.29~55 (2003), 서강대학교 법학연구소
- 홍종학, "친기업주의와 한국경제", 기억과 전망, (19), pp.4~34 (2008), 한국민주주의연구소
- 황경식, "사회정의의 철학적 기초" (1985), 문학과 지성
- Barker, E., "The Politics of Aristoteles", pp.362~ (1946), Oxford University Press
- Bloom, M, "The Performance Effects of Pay Dispersion on Individuals and Organization", Academy of Managerial Journal, pp.25~40 (1999)
- Bloom, M., "The Relationships Among Organizational Context, Pay Dispersion, and Managerial Turn over", Academy of Management Journal (2000)
- Blum, R., "Soziale Marktwirtschaft, in: Herders Staatslexikon, Bd. Ⅳ", pp.1242~ (1988)
- Cole, G. D. H., "History of Socialist Thought" (1956), Macmillan Co. Ltd
- Cowherd, D. M, "Product Quality and Pay Equality Between Lower-Level Employee and Top Management: An Investigation of Distributive Justice Theory", Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.302~ (1992)
- Gehlen, A., "Soziologische Voraussetzungen im gegenwärtigen Staat, 1956", pp.328~ (1968), Rechtlichkeit und Sozialstaatlichkeit
- Huber, E. R, "Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, Bd. Ⅳ", pp.978~ (1969)
- Keynes, J. M, "Essays in Persuation", Rupert Hart-Davis, pp.365~ (1931)
- Marx, K, "Selected Works" (1955), Foreign Languages Publishing House
- Muller-Armack, A., "Sozialen Marktwirtschaft, in: HdSW, Bd. Ⅸ", pp.390~ (1956)
- Nipperdey, H. C, "Die soziale Marktwirtschaft in der Verfassung der Bundesrepublik, in: Schriftenreihe der Juristischen Studiengesellschaft Karlsruhe", pp.77~ (1954), Heft
- 2, "Freie Entfaltung der Persönlichkeit, In Die Grundrechte, Bd. Ⅳ", pp.1962, Nipperdey, H. C
- Nozick, R., "Anarchy, State and Utopia" (1974), Basic Books
- Rawls, John., "A Theory of Justice, Reviced Edition" (1999), Harvard University Press
- Schramm, Th., "Staatsrecht, Bd. Ⅲ", pp.74~ (1985), Carl Heymanns