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
- 2024.8
- 수록면
- 3 - 39 (37page)
- DOI
- 10.35227/HYLR.2024.8.35.3.3
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The position of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court is that ‘Articles for the Government of the Korean Constabulary’ was either enacted as an "Ordinance" by the Military Governor"s authority or promulgated by means other than publication in the Official Gazette, as an "other regulation" amending the "former above-said Articles." It is questionable whether the fact of the law"s promulgation can be assumed rather than proven or verified.
The English name of the Act is ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’ which means "Regulation for the Korean Constabulary." However, without any records of its enactment or promulgation, this regulation was suddenly renamed and applied as the then-effective Act. Indeed, it appeared as a law long after its supposed enactment, promulgation, and effective date. However, ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’cannot be considered a law. Originally, the American ‘Articles of War,’ which is said to be the prototype of ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’ was merely a "wartime manual" applied during wartime, as its name suggests. Later, this wartime manual was incorporated into the legal code with the approval of Congress for each article.
However, unlike the United States, there was no process in our country for incorporating wartime manuals or regulations for the Korean Constabulary into the legal code. Therefore, ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’cannot be considered a law. Even considering the political situation around July 5, 1948, when the law was supposedly enacted, and other promulgated ordinances, it could not possibly have been enacted or implemented as an ordinance. It is impossible to apply a single-trial system for military judicial officers and allow military prosecutors to have exclusive prosecutorial rights while stipulating a hierarchical system and exclusive prosecutorial rights for civilian prosecutors.
It is said that a document indicating the promulgation of ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary(Coast Guard)’ was discovered in the U.S. National Archives, but it does not show that the Ordinance was actually promulgated. It is merely a pamphlet containing a draft for the law. Moreover, it appears that this pamphlet and other U.S. military government ordinances were interpreted in an unreasonable way to fit certain claims. ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’ is by no means a law.
The English name of the Act is ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’ which means "Regulation for the Korean Constabulary." However, without any records of its enactment or promulgation, this regulation was suddenly renamed and applied as the then-effective Act. Indeed, it appeared as a law long after its supposed enactment, promulgation, and effective date. However, ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’cannot be considered a law. Originally, the American ‘Articles of War,’ which is said to be the prototype of ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’ was merely a "wartime manual" applied during wartime, as its name suggests. Later, this wartime manual was incorporated into the legal code with the approval of Congress for each article.
However, unlike the United States, there was no process in our country for incorporating wartime manuals or regulations for the Korean Constabulary into the legal code. Therefore, ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’cannot be considered a law. Even considering the political situation around July 5, 1948, when the law was supposedly enacted, and other promulgated ordinances, it could not possibly have been enacted or implemented as an ordinance. It is impossible to apply a single-trial system for military judicial officers and allow military prosecutors to have exclusive prosecutorial rights while stipulating a hierarchical system and exclusive prosecutorial rights for civilian prosecutors.
It is said that a document indicating the promulgation of ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary(Coast Guard)’ was discovered in the U.S. National Archives, but it does not show that the Ordinance was actually promulgated. It is merely a pamphlet containing a draft for the law. Moreover, it appears that this pamphlet and other U.S. military government ordinances were interpreted in an unreasonable way to fit certain claims. ‘Articles for Government of Korean Constabulary’ is by no means a law.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 국방경비법의 유효성에 대한 기존 논의
Ⅲ. 미국 Articles of War의 성립과 적용
Ⅳ. 국방경비법이 법률인지 여부
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
국제재판소의 ILC 국가책임조항 인용에 관한 연구
국제법평론
2021 .01
-
조선경비대 항공 부대의 역사에 대한 비판적 검토 고찰
군사
2022 .12
-
Evolution of Human Rights as Cultural System : Probabilistic Topic Modeling of 116,253 South Korean Newspaper Articles, 1990-2015
한국사회학회 사회학대회 논문집
2017 .12
-
국가책임조항의 규범적 지위에 관한 소고(小考)
국제법학회논총
2020 .09
-
미군정기 노동법에 관한 연구
노동법학
2025 .03
-
两周应国墓地玉器性别差异研究兼论丧葬玉器在社会权力运作中的作用
글로컬 창의 문화연구
2019 .12
-
공공디자인 관련 조례 제정 동향 및 함의 - 광역지방자치단체 조례를 중심으로 -
도시디자인저널
2022 .12
-
“일의 의미” 실증연구 동향: 2009~2018년 국내⋅외 학술지 게재 논문을 대상으로
기업교육과 인재연구
2019 .01
-
AJPOR Is Seeking Articles That Use a Broad Range of Methodologies
Asian journal for public opinion research : AJPOR
2019 .01
-
향토음식관광 관련 조례 내용분석 - 광역자치단체 조례를 중심으로 -
호텔리조트연구
2020 .01
-
지방자치단체의 기관구성특례에 관한 소고
법학연구
2023 .04
-
유아 또래관계 연구동향 분석 : 2010~2015년도 학술지를 중심으로
한국육아지원학회 학술대회지
2015 .10
-
생활임금조례의 위법성에 관한 고찰
노동법논총
2018 .12
-
춘천시 청소년 노동인권 조례 현황 및 개선 연구
아태비즈니스연구
2021 .01
-
한반도 군정 사례의 미래 안정화작전 시사점 분석
한국군사학논집
2020 .02
-
로컬푸드 조례의 개선 방안 연구－법률 및 조례 비교를 중심으로－
식품유통연구
2015 .01
-
조례와 법률우위의 원칙- 지방의회와 지방자치단체장간의 권한범위에 관한 대법원 판례를 중심으로 -
원광법학
2015 .01
-
정부3.0 ‘서비스 정부’의 성과에 관한 IPA분석
서울행정학회 학술대회 발표논문집
2016 .07
-
광역자치단체 미술 관련 조례 비교를 통한 지역 미술 발전 방안 연구
문화산업연구
2024 .09
-
지방조직 및 인사 분야의 연구경향 분석 -「한국지방자치학회보」 게재논문을 중심으로(1989-2017)-
한국지방자치학회보
2018 .03
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0