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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2018.2
- 수록면
- 177 - 197 (21page)
- DOI
- 10.35227/HYLR.2018.02.29.1.177
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
As shown by “National Security Act” (“Gukgaboanbeop”) and “Act on Anti-Terrorism” (“Tereobangjibeop”), there is a huge debate on whether it is necessary and legitimate to use criminal law as a means of ensuring national security. This applies not only to Korea, but also to most Western democratic countries. At first sight, this may seem strange, because there has been no state which does not have penal provisions to protect its own existence. But when we consider the meaning and purpose of state punishment in the context of an intellectual history of modern criminal law, it becomes clear that a fierce debate on the legitimacy of penal law protecting national security (Staatsschutzstrafrecht) is a normal occurrence.
Doctrines and theories of modern criminal law are mainly based on the Philosophy of the enlightenment which refuted the classical natural law ideas and established social contract theory that sees raison d"être of state power in its function of ensuring the freedom of individuals. Accordingly, they have designed a liberal and constitutional “theory of legally protected interests” (Rechtsgutslehre) which conceives basic human freedom as “legally protected interests of individuals” (Individualrechtsgüter) and limits the task of criminal law to protecting these interests. Of course, Rechtsgutslehre also recognizes “legally protected interests of society as a whole” (Universalrechtsgüter), since the protection of these interests is essential for the development of individual freedom. In other words, Universalrechtsgüter are derived from Individualrechtsgüter, and not the reverse; penal provisions protecting Universalrechtsgüter criminalize the preparatory stages of a crime, so that they can be justified only if they contribute to guaranteeing Individualrechtsgüter. It is therefore no wonder, why in democratic countries there is a vehement debate on Staatsschutzstrafrecht which safeguards state that is furthermost from Individualrechtsgüter.
Recently, however, liberal Rechtsgutslehre is being shaken by increasing demands on public security, which correlate with the threat of Islamist terrorism that aims to destroy Western liberal democracies. Proponents of Staatsschutzstrafrecht allege that liberal Rechtsgutslehre is not able to counteract the international terrorism and must thus be replaced by preventive theories which make it possible to fight effectively against terrorism; they propose to produce penal provisions to criminalize the preparation of terrorist acts. But it should be stressed that such proposals are hardly compatible with a liberal concept of state that regards state not as an end in itself but rather as an instrument for guaranteeing individual freedom; they curtail civil liberties without significantly contributing to combating terrorism. Therefore we should use criminal law as ultima ratio in the field of fighting terrorism, just as in other areas. This does not mean that criminal law could neglect the risk of terrorism, but rather that we should know exactly where the reason and limits of protection of state by criminal law lie, if we want to prevent anti-terrorism law from turning into anti-liberty law.
Doctrines and theories of modern criminal law are mainly based on the Philosophy of the enlightenment which refuted the classical natural law ideas and established social contract theory that sees raison d"être of state power in its function of ensuring the freedom of individuals. Accordingly, they have designed a liberal and constitutional “theory of legally protected interests” (Rechtsgutslehre) which conceives basic human freedom as “legally protected interests of individuals” (Individualrechtsgüter) and limits the task of criminal law to protecting these interests. Of course, Rechtsgutslehre also recognizes “legally protected interests of society as a whole” (Universalrechtsgüter), since the protection of these interests is essential for the development of individual freedom. In other words, Universalrechtsgüter are derived from Individualrechtsgüter, and not the reverse; penal provisions protecting Universalrechtsgüter criminalize the preparatory stages of a crime, so that they can be justified only if they contribute to guaranteeing Individualrechtsgüter. It is therefore no wonder, why in democratic countries there is a vehement debate on Staatsschutzstrafrecht which safeguards state that is furthermost from Individualrechtsgüter.
Recently, however, liberal Rechtsgutslehre is being shaken by increasing demands on public security, which correlate with the threat of Islamist terrorism that aims to destroy Western liberal democracies. Proponents of Staatsschutzstrafrecht allege that liberal Rechtsgutslehre is not able to counteract the international terrorism and must thus be replaced by preventive theories which make it possible to fight effectively against terrorism; they propose to produce penal provisions to criminalize the preparation of terrorist acts. But it should be stressed that such proposals are hardly compatible with a liberal concept of state that regards state not as an end in itself but rather as an instrument for guaranteeing individual freedom; they curtail civil liberties without significantly contributing to combating terrorism. Therefore we should use criminal law as ultima ratio in the field of fighting terrorism, just as in other areas. This does not mean that criminal law could neglect the risk of terrorism, but rather that we should know exactly where the reason and limits of protection of state by criminal law lie, if we want to prevent anti-terrorism law from turning into anti-liberty law.
목차
Ⅰ. 현대 형법의 근간인 ‘자유주의 · 법치국가 형법’
Ⅱ. 현대 안보형사법의 의미와 상황
Ⅲ. 현대 안보형사법의 과제와 역할
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (94)
참고문헌 신청
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 권영법 / 2013 / 테러범죄에 대한 형사법적인 대응방안의 검토 - 비교법적인 검토를 통한 입법안의 제안을 중심으로 - / 인권과 정의 (436) : 88 ~ 108
[기타자료] - 김신영 / 2011 / [9ㆍ11 … 그 후 10년] 잡범이었던 ‘관타나모 동문(美관타나모 수용소에서 풀려난 사람들)’들, 골수 反美전사 됐다 / 조선일보 2011. 9. 1
[단행본] - 김일수 / 1990 / 법 인간 인권 ― 법의 인간화를 위한 변론 ― / 박영사
[기타자료] - 김일수 / 2004 / 자유냐 안전이냐 / 국민일보 2004. 12. 16
[기타자료] - 김일수 / 2015 / 휴대전화 감청과 ‘豫防형법’ 추세 / 문화일보 2015. 6. 2
[기타자료] - 김신영 / 2011 / [9ㆍ11 … 그 후 10년] 잡범이었던 ‘관타나모 동문(美관타나모 수용소에서 풀려난 사람들)’들, 골수 反美전사 됐다 / 조선일보 2011. 9. 1
[단행본] - 김일수 / 1990 / 법 인간 인권 ― 법의 인간화를 위한 변론 ― / 박영사
[기타자료] - 김일수 / 2004 / 자유냐 안전이냐 / 국민일보 2004. 12. 16
[기타자료] - 김일수 / 2015 / 휴대전화 감청과 ‘豫防형법’ 추세 / 문화일보 2015. 6. 2
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)
-
헌법재판소 2014. 12. 19. 선고 2013헌다1 전원재판부
가. 피청구인은 민주노동당이 국민참여당 등과 함께 신설합당 형식으로 창당한 정당이므로, 민주노동당의 목적과 활동은 피청구인의 목적이나 활동과의 관련성이 인정되는 범위에서 이 사건의 판단자료로 삼을 수 있을 뿐이고, 민주노동당의 목적이나 활동 그 자체가 이 사건의 심판대상이 되는 것은 아니다.
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 1990. 4. 2. 선고 89헌가113 전원재판부〔합헌〕
1. 위헌법률심판(違憲法律審判)의 대상(對象)에 있어서 법문(法文)의 내용(內容)이 다의적(多義的)이고 그 적용범위(適用範圍)에 있어서 과도한 광범성(廣範性)이 인정된다면 법치주의(法治主義)와 죄형법정주의(罪刑法定主義)에 위배(違背)되어 위헌(違憲)의 소지(素地)가 있다.
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
민법의 일반법적 성질에 기초한 민법개정 제안
안암법학
2015 .01
-
데이터 법제의 분류체계 정립을 위한 시론적 검토
과학기술과 법
2022 .12
-
21세기 대한민국 안보형사법의 의의, 특성 그리고 위험형법과의 조우
형사정책연구
2016 .09
-
안보위해 사건에서 전문법칙 완화 적용 문제
치안정책연구
2020 .01
-
뉴테러리즘에 대한 안보형사법 체계 재정립 :「국민보호와 공공안전을 위한 테러방지법」에 의해 처벌될 수 없는 테러범죄 유형들을 중점으로
한국테러학회보
2023 .06
-
Essay Skills For Law School: 13 Areas of Law: Constitutional law Contracts Wills
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2017 .12
-
사회변화에 따른 한국 민법의 개정과 과제
법학논총
2018 .01
-
사회보장법으로서의 산업안전보건법
노동법논총
2016 .08
-
Strengthening Clinical Legal Education in Japan: What Should Be Done in the Second Stage of the Law School System?
Journal of Korean Law
2021 .01
-
변화하는 가족, 변화하는 사회보장법 - 2016 춘계 사회보장법학회 제9회 학술대회 참관기
사회보장법연구
2016 .06
-
Employment Law and Intellectual Property Law
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2018 .12
-
조선시대의 형사법제 연구 : 총칙의 현대 형사법 편제에 따른 재정립
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2015 .12
-
Law In and As Culture
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2016 .12
-
공법과 사법 구분의 기원 · 변천 및 당위체계에 관한 연구 : 금전급부 8 유형론의 구체적 실례 및 그 정리와 해결을 중심으로
저스티스
2015 .10
-
Enforcing a New National Security? China's National Security Law and International Law
JOURNAL OF EAST ASIA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
2017 .05
-
유기천의 생애와 형법학 - ‘과학적 형법관’의 이해를 위한 시론 -
형사법연구
2019 .01
-
국제법상 자연법론에 대한 고찰 ‒자연법론의 역사적 전개와 현대적 의의를 중심으로‒
국제법평론
2023 .02
-
부산대학교 「법학연구」의 역사 - 학술지로서의 내용적 특성과 통계분석을 중심으로 -
법학연구
2019 .05
-
한국형사법학 60년의 회고와 전망 -형법각론분야: 개인적 법익에 대한 죄-
형사법연구
2017 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0