입법권의 남용과 제한에 대한 연구 = A Study on the Abuse and Restriction of Legislative Powers

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

State power shall be exercised for the purpose of guaranteeing and protecting the freedom, life, property, etc. of members based on the law, as prescribed by law. In addition, the exercise of power must remain within the scope prescribed by the law, which can be said to be the principle of the rule of law. If state power exercises power beyond the scope delegated by the people, it is merely an exercise of unfounded power and for the interests of the powerful themselves. Therefore, the legitimacy of state power will be recognized if it is exercised only within the scope of the delegated and legal scope.
However, even if it is the exercise of power within the scope of the law, it is a problem if it is for the purpose of maintaining and extending the power of the power of the person or ruler and the surrounding power. The original rule of law was to protect and guarantee the freedom and rights of the people against infringement of their freedom and rights caused by abuse and abolition of power from the state. Therefore, it is the rule of law that emerged as the principle of restriction and abuse of the state's exercise of power, not in the form of law. However, formal rule of law experienced frequent violations of people's freedom and rights by the form of law, such as laws by Nazi Germany or the Soviet dictatorship in the 20th century, Park Chung-hee's Restoration Constitution, and emergency measures.
For this reason, the rule of law is now not limited to the formal aspect of the law, but has come to demand that the content be consistent with the actual definition. This can be said to be a change from formal rule of law to practical rule of law. In other words, even if state power is exercised in the form of a law, it will be difficult to be recognized as a violation of the rule of law if the law violates people's freedom and rights by law as a means of maintaining power. Therefore, according to the experience of dictatorship infringing on the freedom and rights of the people by the form of the law since the 20th century, the law should not remain formal but should be a law that is justified as a law that can protect the freedom, rights, and property of the people. There is a limit to legislative power within the scope delegated by the people, and there are clearly limitations and limitations that even if it is the exercise of power based on law, it cannot exercise power beyond the scope delegated. Therefore, legislative power should be limited to guarantee and protect the purpose of the entire community and the freedom and rights of individuals, and therefore the exercise of legislative power should have limitations.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이재상, "형법총론" 박영사 2003
• 2 이상인, "플라톤의 국가철학-[국가]에 나타난 개인-국가관계를 중심으로" 45 : 1999
• 3 이장희, "프랑스의 국가긴급권에 대한 소고" 33 (33): 2011
• 4 유주성, "프랑스 형법의 죄형법정주의" 법학연구소 31 (31): 119-142, 2014
• 5 John Locke, "통치론" 까치 2008
• 6 이정일, "토마스 아퀴나스와 헤겔의 자연법 비교" 범한철학회 (29) : 89-130, 2003
• 7 심재우, "죄형법정주의의 현대적 의의" 한국형사법무정책연구원 18 (18): 1-16, 2007
• 8 허일태, "죄형법정주의의 연혁과 그 사상적 배경에 관한 연구" 법학연구원 (35) : 115-148, 2011
• 9 홍영기, "죄형법정주의의 근본적 의미" 한국형사법학회 (24) : 1-24, 2005
• 10 이기헌, "죄형법정주의에 관한 판례 고찰" 9 : 1994
• 11 이재상, "죄형법정주의" 3 : 1983
• 12 John Rawls, "정의론" 이학사 2013
• 13 김욱, "자연법은 헌법적 효력을 갖는가?" 한국헌법학회 19 (19): 123-151, 2013
• 14 원상철, "자연법론의 흐름과 법실증주의 비교검토(A Comparative on the Natural Law Thought and Law Actualism)" 17 : 2004
• 15 김삼웅, "일제와 닮은 유신시대 ‘막걸리 보안법’ 백태" 2012
• 16 육종수, "유신헌법질서의 전개" (2) : 1972
• 17 김선택, "유신헌법의 불법성 논증" 법학연구원 (49) : 175-2079, 2007
• 18 권혜영, "유신헌법상 긴급조치권과 그에 근거한 긴급조치의 불법성" 법학연구소 14 (14): 181-221, 2009
• 19 김민배, "유신체제와 긴급초치 세대 유신헌법과 긴급조치" (32) : 1995
• 20 김선택, "위헌적 헌법개정에 대한 위헌심사론 - 유신헌법의 경우 -" 한국비교공법학회 12 (12): 165-200, 2011
• 21 한태연, "역사와 헌법시리즈 제1회 한국헌법과 헌법학의 회고" 한국헌법학회 8 (8): 9-52, 2002
• 22 김일수, "새로쓴 형법총론" 박영사 2008
• 23 Niklas Luhmann, "사회의 법" 새물결 2014
• 24 J.Rousseau, "사회계약론" 서울대학교출판부 2009
• 25 Starck Christian, "법치국가와 전법치국가적 과거의 극복" (18) : 1995
• 26 Montesquieu, "법의 정신" 동서문화사 2013
• 27 박성호, "법의 정당성에 관한 연구" 중앙법학회 22 (22): 197-218, 2020
• 28 문영식, "법의 양면성-형법과 자유" (19) : 2010
• 29 Thomas Hobbes, "리바이어던 I" 나남 2012
• 30 정달현, "로크의 정치철학" 영남대학교출판부 2007
• 31 Winfried Hassemer, "독일법철학과 형법의 전통" 1 : 1992
• 32 김선택, "긴급조치의 불법성과 긴급조치위반사건판결의 청산방안" 한국공법학회 36 (36): 403-428, 2007
• 33 한국헌법연구회, "긴급조치는 왜 선포되어야 했나" 23 (23): 1974
• 34 심재우, "권력과 법치주의" (21) : 1996
• 35 홍영기, "국가권력의 한계, 어디에서 비롯되는가" 한국법철학회 8 (8): 199-232, 2005
• 36 후지이 다케시, "4·19/5·16시기의 반공체제 재편과 그 논리 ― 반공법의 등장과 그 담지자들" 역사문제연구소 15 (15): 9-34, 2011