지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Unfortunately we had experienced 'unjust state' for a long time in our constitutional history.
During that time, there must have been much infringement of human right under the name of law.
It has been well known that '5ㆍ18' coudetat is one of notorious cases of 'unjust state' we had.
And significant decisions on matters connected with '5ㆍ18' coudetat, so called successful coudetat, came out from the Constitutional Court on Dec. 15, 1995 and Feb. 12, 1996.
Above all, we could realize that the Constitutional Court concluded '5ㆍ18' coudetat was illegal.
Hereupon, I tried to analyze those decisions in comparison with the theory of legal validity. Consequently, I arrived at a conclusion in following:
1. The Constitutional Court recognized the possibility of punishment on the leaders of '5ㆍ18' coudetat based on 'theory of acknowledgement' attached to 'theory of legal idea' of legal validity.
2. The Constitutional Court recognized the validity of the legal system had been constructed by the leaders of '5ㆍ18' coudetat. The court concluded that punishment against the leaders of '5ㆍ18' coudetat was one thing and recognition of the legal system constructed by the illegal leaders was another. And in my opinion, this decision seemed to be based on 'theory of legal efficiency' and theory of 'legal stability' as a fountain of legal validity.
3. Even though it's a case of formal validity of law, in applying 'extinctive prescription of prosecution' and 'non-retroactive efficiency of law doctrine', the Constitutional Court exceptionally didn't give a priority order to 'trust and interest doctrine' and 'legal stability' when the criminal destroyed 'serious public interest'. Of course, such an attitude of the Constitutional Court is unusual. To think of it, this decision seemed to be based on 'theory of legal idea'.
During that time, there must have been much infringement of human right under the name of law.
It has been well known that '5ㆍ18' coudetat is one of notorious cases of 'unjust state' we had.
And significant decisions on matters connected with '5ㆍ18' coudetat, so called successful coudetat, came out from the Constitutional Court on Dec. 15, 1995 and Feb. 12, 1996.
Above all, we could realize that the Constitutional Court concluded '5ㆍ18' coudetat was illegal.
Hereupon, I tried to analyze those decisions in comparison with the theory of legal validity. Consequently, I arrived at a conclusion in following:
1. The Constitutional Court recognized the possibility of punishment on the leaders of '5ㆍ18' coudetat based on 'theory of acknowledgement' attached to 'theory of legal idea' of legal validity.
2. The Constitutional Court recognized the validity of the legal system had been constructed by the leaders of '5ㆍ18' coudetat. The court concluded that punishment against the leaders of '5ㆍ18' coudetat was one thing and recognition of the legal system constructed by the illegal leaders was another. And in my opinion, this decision seemed to be based on 'theory of legal efficiency' and theory of 'legal stability' as a fountain of legal validity.
3. Even though it's a case of formal validity of law, in applying 'extinctive prescription of prosecution' and 'non-retroactive efficiency of law doctrine', the Constitutional Court exceptionally didn't give a priority order to 'trust and interest doctrine' and 'legal stability' when the criminal destroyed 'serious public interest'. Of course, such an attitude of the Constitutional Court is unusual. To think of it, this decision seemed to be based on 'theory of legal idea'.
목차
Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. 法效力論 一般
Ⅲ. 憲裁決定과 法效力
Ⅳ. 結論
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
5ㆍ18 關聯事件의 不起訴處分에 대한 憲法訴願의 取下와 憲法訴願節次의 終了決定
헌법판례연구
1999 .07
-
헌법불합치결정에 대한 비판적 검토
법학연구
2009 .08
-
업무방해죄의 적용에 관한 헌법적 고찰 : 헌법재판소 결정의 규범적 이해
노동법학
2010 .06
-
제3기 헌법재판소와 정치적 사건, 그리고 소수자의 인권
서강법학
2008 .06
-
폐지된 세법규정의 효력
조세법연구
2013 .08
-
헌법재판소법의 문제점과 개선방안
공법학연구
2005 .02
-
헌법의 자기보장규범성에 관한 검토 : 데릴 레빈슨의 공공선택이론을 중심으로
한양법학
2013 .11
-
법률해석과 헌법재판 : 법원의 규범통제와 헌법재판소의 법률해석
저스티스
2008 .12
-
소멸시효법의 최근의 동향과 시사점
법학연구
2005 .06
-
獨逸 聯邦憲法裁判所와 美國 聯邦大法院의 違憲審査基準論
헌법판례연구
2008 .02
-
헌법재판에서의 헌법 또는 법률의 해석·적용
원광법학
2010 .01
-
民法 第764條의 違憲與否에 관한 憲裁決定에 대한 批判的 檢討 : 1991. 4. 1, 89헌마160 全員裁判部 決定
헌법판례연구
2009 .02
-
일본의 헌법재판소 설치론과 그 문제점
한양법학
2009 .11
-
판례평석 : 한정위헌청구의 적법성에 관한 헌법재판소 결정 비판 : 헌재 2012. 12. 27. 2011헌바117
한양법학
2013 .05
-
2008年의 重要 憲法判例
헌법판례연구
2009 .02
-
법원과 헌법재판소의 조세사건에 있어 헌법판단의 차이 : 위헌심사형 헌법소원시 위헌결정을 중심으로
조세연구
2010 .12
-
사법적(司法的) 결정의 정치적 작용 : 헌법재판소의 정당 관련 결정에 대한 비판적 재검토
동아법학
2013 .08
-
공소시효제도에 대한 헌법재판소의 결정에 관한 연구 -법학방법론의 측면에서-
법철학연구
2007 .05
-
政策決定에 있어서 公益의 問題
한국정치학회보
1981 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-018450608