일반경찰법 법리의 발전양상에 관한 개관적 연구 ― 광복 80년 동안 전개된 일반경찰법 법리들에 관한 비판적ㆍ담론적 접근을 중심으로 ― = An Overview of the Doctrinal Development of General Police Law in Korea — A Critical and Discursive Approach to the Doctrines Evolved Over the 80 Years Since Liberation —

국문 초록 (Abstract)

논문의 문제의식은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 광복 이후 한국 경찰법학은 식민지 통치경찰 체제 청산과 자유주의적 법치국가 질서 확립이라는 이중 과제 속에서 출발하였고, 초기에는 위험방지와 치안질서 유지에 한정된 예외적 공권력으로서 경찰권을 이해하는 ‘자유주의적 위험방지론(경찰소극의 원칙)’이 정당화의 중심축을 형성하였다. 둘째, 1987년 헌법 체제 이후 경찰법학은 기본권 중심 행정법 패러다임 속에서 법률유보･명확성･비례원칙 등 법치국가적 통제원리와 결합하여 위험방지 도그마틱을 정교화해 왔으며, 동시에 국가의 기본권 보호의무론의 발전은 경찰작용을 ‘국가의 내적 안전보장책임’ 실현이라는 관점에서 재인식하게 하여 정당화 구조의 외연을 확장시켰다. 셋째, 21세기 위험사회에서 테러･조직범죄･감염병･환경위험･대형재난 등 복합적 위험이 상시화되면서 전통적 ‘구체적 위험’ 중심 체계의 설명력 한계가 노정되었고, 위험의 의심･외관상 위험･위험 전단계 개입 등 새로운 위험 개념들을 둘러싼 논쟁이 일반경찰법학의 핵심 쟁점으로 부상하였다. 이러한 전개 속에서 본 논문은 (1) 실질적 경찰개념의 무용성 비판, (2) 경찰일반조항/개괄적 수권조항의 불가피성에 대한 재검토와 한국 법제의 구조적 대안, (3) ‘공공의 질서’ 개념의 헌법적 가치질서에 기초한 재정립, (4) 위험･위험의 의심･외관상 위험 및 범죄예방을 위한 위험 전단계 개입 법리의 체계적 재구성, (5) 경찰책임･경찰강제(특히 즉시강제)･경찰비용 및 손실보상 법리의 재검토를 통해, 전통적 위험방지 도그마틱을 전면 부정하기보다 그 기능과 적용 범위를 재조정하는 ‘수정적 발전’의 논리를 드러낸다. 나아가 ｢경찰관 직무집행법｣ 개정 논의와 경찰행정법적 범죄예방론 등 현안 검토를 통해, 안전과 자유의 균형을 제도적으로 매개하는 규범체계로서 경찰법의 재구성 방향을 제시한다. 결론적으로 본 논문은 경찰행정법과 질서행정법이 위험방지와 리스크 제어라는 서로 다른 관점을 가지면서도 공존･상호작용한다는 전제 아래, 이 둘을 포괄하는 상위 체계로서 ‘안전행정법’ 정립의 필요성을 논증한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The article’s central problem-setting is threefold. First, in the immediate post-liberation period, Korean police-law scholarship emerged under the dual task of dismantling the colonial “governing police” model while establishing a liberal rule-of-law order. In this phase, police power was largely understood as an exceptional public power confined to the function of hazard prevention and the maintenance of public order, and its justification was anchored in a liberal hazard-prevention doctrine (often described as the principle of a “minimal police”). Second, following the 1987 constitutional order, general police law was reconfigured within a fundamental-rights-centered administrative-law paradigm. The hazard-prevention dogmatics were refined through their tighter integration with rule-of-law control principles—most notably the principle of legality (statutory reservation), the requirement of clarity, and the proportionality principle—so that police intervention would be justified and constrained within a constitutional order of values. At the same time, the development and reception of the doctrine of the state’s positive obligations to protect fundamental rights contributed to a re-recognition of police action as a principal instrument for realizing the state’s responsibility to guarantee internal security, thereby expanding the justificatory horizon beyond ex post harm removal. Third, in the twenty-first-century “risk society,” complex and atypical threats—such as terrorism, organized crime, pandemics, environmental risks, and large-scale disasters—have become routinized, exposing the explanatory limits of a traditional intervention model centered on “concrete danger.” In response, debates over new or intensified categories—such as suspected danger, apparent danger, and pre-frontier (Vorfeld) intervention—have moved to the center of general police-law scholarship.
Against this background, the article examines and reconstructs major doctrinal pillars: (1) a critique of the (substantive) material concept of police as increasingly unhelpful for contemporary governance; (2) a re-examination of the necessity and constitutional design of general authorization clauses, including their structural alternatives within Korean law; (3) a constitutional re-articulation of “public order” grounded in the constitutional order of values; and (4) a systematic treatment of danger, suspected danger, apparent danger, and pre-frontier intervention for crime prevention. It further revisits (5) police responsibility doctrines, (6) police coercion—especially immediate coercion—and (7) the rules on police/administrative-order costs and compensation for special sacrifice. The article does not propose a wholesale abandonment of hazard-prevention dogmatics; instead, it argues for a “modified development” that preserves the rule-of-law control structure while recalibrating the scope and function of doctrines to meet the changed environment of security and risk prevention. Finally, by addressing current issues such as the revision of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers and the concretization of crime-prevention rationales within administrative police law, the article points toward a reconstruction of police law as a normative system that institutionally mediates the balance between security and freedom. In conclusion, it argues for the establishment of “safety administrative law” as an overarching conceptual framework encompassing both police administrative law and administrative order law, which—though diverging in emphasis between hazard prevention and risk governance—must co-exist and interact within a common doctrinal architecture.