立法過程의 改善方案에 관한 硏究

Metadata Downloads
Issued Date
Modern democratic nations select the principle of the respective independence of the legislature, the executive and the judicature in order to secure freedom and rights of the people and prevent evil influence caused by the concentration of power. As the executive power is being expanded as much as the administrative legislature has been substituted for the legislative power of the national assembly because of demands of the Social welfare nation and relative superiority of specificity, a typical meaning of the power division is deteriorated. However, the basic intention of the power division to protect the freedom and rights of the people from arbitrary execution of the executive is the last stronghold of the representative democracy.
The legislative right based on the power division indicates that the basic policy of the nation, in particular, the policy that influences on freedom and rights of the people should be decided through a democratic procedure by the national assembly, a representative organization of the people. The meaning and function of the legislature within constitutional order are directly involved with the duty of the legislature in democratic order and of order of social and constitutional states. Here, the legislature is designed to decide basic matters of community societies based on democratic and procedural justice, promote reasonableness and stability of the decision and secure the freedom of the people.
In consideration of the all the things above, the most important thing to be considered is that the process to organize the legislature should be democratic and resonable. That is, the executive should adjust and reflect polycentric interests and intentions of the people for reinforcement of the legislature and encouragement of democratic control, consider specific technology and efficiency demanded by modern active states and have leadership and responsibility to incorporate interests and intentions of the people through the national assembly.
However, the legislature under the structures of democratic states usually needs very complex procedures corresponding to political and social situations. In particular, as the purposes of today's legislature are politically, economically and socially complex and diversified, and the process is naturally flexible, its organized planning is very difficult.
The whole process of the legislature should be governed under the legally organized organizations, and preparation of a theoretical base to overview the every stage of the legislature is very useful in actual legislature, and contributes to improvement of the legislature according to economic and social needs, and quality of the law.
The evaluation of the legislature execution is considered at the same time in two aspects: That is, actual aspect and procedural aspect; whether the corresponding laws are contradictory to the constitution and relevant law, valid and effective, and whether the legislative process abstract policy is embodied into the written law is democratic and just.
In particular, in the latter aspect, that democratic and efficient progress of the legislative process is very important in that the legislative system deals with the gap between reality and the legislature properly and productively, and democracy of procedure works for justification of actual contents of the legislature, which improves possibility of acceptance of the law by the people.
For today's democratic states, the legislative power is executed by the parliament. The execution of the legislative power by the Parliament is embodied and realized by the legislative process. The Parliament democratically elected by the people transforms the people's intention into legislature through legislative process. Through the process, the intentions of the people are represented as laws based on written forms. The legislature as products embodied and realized through the process regulates treatment, protection and adjustment between the people, the people's rights and duties to states, duties of states and the way to execute them.
Therefore, in constitutional perspective, the legislative process is important under the representative democracy politic system as it discusses and documents orders of states. So the legislative process preconditions that the parliament goes through a series of processes when it enacts the law with certain legislative purposes. The most important standards in analysis of this legislative process are democracy and efficiency.
That is, the goal to be pursued in research on the legislative process theory based on representative democratic politics is to prepare organized systems of legislative procedure such as organizations and management procedure of legislative system so that laws agreed by everyone may be enacted according to democratic procedures.
Therefore, democracy and efficiency are variables to evaluate and analyse various institutional systems in legislative process. The parliament has an internal property to secure democracy as it is basically a board of representatives, its efficiency is insufficient. The efficiency of the legislative process to respond to the demands of contemporary society that leads to demands of diversified legislature is necessary in reality. The efficiency should be based on protection of the minority in political perspective. Under democracy, when the minority group does not have possibility to develop its intentions and is exposed to decision of the politically major group, the legislative process is not justified. Therefore, for efficiency of the legislative process, the minority should be protected and equal opportunities should be secured.
So, the legislative process should be based on both democracy and efficiency. To meet the conditions of democracy and efficiency, the constitution and the parliament law specify the legislative processes from presentation, discussion, decision and declaration of the bills. Specified procedures and methods are institutionally and lawfully supported. However, actual legislative process does not satisfy both democracy and efficiency. The legislative process is inclined to efficiency, which causes a damage of democracy. In particular, due to today's trends of administrative state and political party state, efficiency of the legislative process is emphasized. Thus, emphasis on efficiency and obstruction to democracy are caused by functional change of the parliament. The parliament is designed as a place for open intentions and discussion, but decisions are made by committees or subcommittees because of a tendency of political party state.
The committeemen is restricted to their political parties, and express their opinions and vote according to the policy of their parties. The parliament has bee reduced to a place where policy decided by the political party leaders is displayed, not a plaza of open discussion. The minority who have opposite opinions are not allowed to express their intentions or discussion or persuasive process may be omitted. Entering the 20th century, social state, administrative states and political party states appeared due to two world wars, frequent economic depressions, and consistent international tension and caused weakness or decline of parliamentarism. Accordingly, the legislative process has focused on efficiency rather than democracy.
Therefore, specific procedures and methods of legislative process need a constitutional speculation to meet democracy and efficiency at the same time. How the legislative process should be improved should be speculated so that basic human rights and democratic justice can be secured and national order can be established. The meaning and function of the legislature in contemporary constitutional states are directly involved with duties of the legislature in democratic order and order of social and law-governed states. The legislature decides basic matters of community society, promotes resonable and stable decision and secure freedom with extensive participation of the executive based on democratic and procedural justification. Therefore, the legislative process should be democratic and reasonable. To coordinate and reflect polycentric interests and various intentions of the people, the legislature should promote actual discussion and reinforce democratic control.
In addition, in respect to specific technology and efficiency demanded by contemporary welfare states, the legislative procedure and method the executive incorporate interests and intentions of the people through the parliament is important. Problems involved in the legislative process of the parliament include the domination of the legislature by the executive, superficial discussion of the parliament due to association of the executive and political parties and discussion dominated by standing committees, insufficient consideration of the public opinion in legislature process in spite of the principle of opening of the legislative process.
Also, for the bills presented by congressmen, because of lack of extensive and intensive information and specific knowledge, the bills fall behind the bills presented by the government both in quality and in quantity in respect to choice of the legislative policy and drafting of the bills. It is actually difficult for the congressmen to present the bills independently without cooperation of the executive or their political parties. In a process of discussion, opposition is intensified between the administration party and a nongovernment party because of interests of each party and opposition between the political parties dependant on the number of parliamentary seats, which is reflected in the legislative process.
Therefore, this study speculates how the legislative process with such problems is improved. Specifically, the legislative process should consider efficiency and the least financial burden to the public based on the principle that it should secure democratic justification.
The current constitution and the parliament law provide institutional systems to satisfy democracy and efficiency at the same time according to stages of the legislative process. However, there are many cases that efficiency is obstructed because of the focus on democracy or democracy is obstructed because of the focus on efficiency. Therefore, this study speculates the institutional systems in democracy and efficiency aspects.
First, reinforced parliament legislative systems in drafting of the bills may secure democracy in that it may converge the opinions of the people, and improve efficiency in that it may transform the opinions of the people into bills. The legislature announcement system or the opening of the drafting process may contribute to securement of democracy in that it notifies the contents of the bills to the public. The reinforced petition function may secure democracy in that it may converge the opinions of the people. The use of professional groups or organizations may secure democracy in the perspective of convergence of the opinions of the public, and improve efficiency in that it may identify the demands of the legislature properly and transform them into the bills.
Second, the mitigated number fixing for proposals presented by congressmen may secure democracy in that various opinions of the people may be changed into bills and presented as subjects of discussion in the parliament. Long-term legislature plans of the bills proposed by the government may improve efficiency in that it prevents excessive quantity of the bills and specifies the legislative process.
Third, discussion and decision of the bills may be classified into submission to committees, judgement by committees, and discussion and decision through a main session. The system of submission may secure democracy in that committeemen of concerned committees in addition to committeemen of the main committee are permitted to discuss the bills. The fixed bill judgement period system may improve efficiency as the committees fix the period of judgement and force the judgement to be completed within the period, but as it may obstruct democracy, its abnormal management should be prevented.
In respect to judgement of committeemen, abolition of the 2-year term system of standing committeemen may secure democracy in that it promotes exact consideration of the opinions of the public. The abolition of political party politic conference system may obstruct efficiency but may improve democracy in that the parliament should be legislative arena where various opinions of the public are presented and discussed. The 2-step bill judgement system may secure democracy in that careful consideration of the bills may be encouraged through extension of judgement period from one day to two days. Reasonable management of sub-committees designed for expansion of sub-committee activity area, closure of sub-committee conference, expansion of number of sub-committees and joint management of sub-committees may encourage both democracy and efficiency by considering importance of sub-committees.
The bill exclusive charge committeemen system and assistant use of professionals may improve efficiency in that it adds professionalism to discussion of the bills. Construction examination, reinforcement of voting, abolition of regular meeting system and the introduction of regular public hearing system may secure democracy in that it encourages careful discussion of the bills.
Live broadcasting of the legislative process in discussion and decision of main session may secure democracy in that how opinions of the people are considered may be confirmed. The activated bill judgement promotion system may improve efficiency in that discussion on the bills by main sessions may be completed within a prescribed period. The two-times of regular meeting or change of the inspection period may improve efficiency in that it encourages division of heavy tasks. The fixed proposal period of main session may secure democracy in that it provides a period through which members of other committees are familar with the bills by setting a certain period for proposals of the bills whose judgement is completed by committees. The mitigated number requirement for proposal of the revised bills may secure democracy in that it helps reflection of the opinions of congressmen to the legislative bills easier.
Fourth, in respect to declaration of the laws, dualized publication of the official Gazette such as the laws and ordinances, and other notifications ? public announcement and data, and computerization of the laws may secure democracy in that it notifies the laws discussed and decided by the parliament to the public.
However, ten years have passed since local governments revived, but the understanding of local parliaments by the public is still insufficient. Excessive control and intervention of the central government in local governments are a great restraint to establishment of local government system and autonomous legislative rights. In addition, ordinances that deal with every setting of community people have been ignored because of lack of recognition of local public officers and the public. Few of the public or only a few people concerned participate in local parliaments that deal with the proposed bills of ordinances. As the people do not tend to approve that local parliaments could make special ordinances for the people, they themselves resist preciousness of autonomous legislative right.
In addition to problems involved in enactment and abolition of local parliament ordinances, the legislature have institutional and operational problems such as too narrow range of autonomous legislature, lack of specificity of committeemen, superficial discussion of ordinances, lack of efforts of committeemen to enact legislative ordinances, and insufficient legislative assistance function.
For activation of autonomous legislative function with such problems mentioned above, first, the range of too narrow autonomy should be expanded. In consideration that most of the business of local governments is entrusted by organs, entrusted business should be transferred to local business.
Second, the procedure of legislature announcement system should be legislated. When committeemen plan the legislature, opinions of the staff concerned or the people should be properly considered, which will contribute to reduction of problems in respect to validity of ordinances.
Third, performance of the legislative activities of the committeemen should be regularly evaluated. In the future, the evaluation system of institutional legislative activities should be introduced, through which performance of the local committeemen is regularly evaluated and the results are notified to the community people, the staff and organizations concerned. It may contribute to saving of tax expenditures.
Fourth, in respect to appointment of professional committeemen, appointment standards should be legislated so that the persons who are familar with practical task of the legislature and have specified education on the legislature may be appointed. For improvement of specificity of legislative activities of local parliaments and committeemen, the system of professional committeemen who assist legislative activities should be improved.
Fifth, professionals in various fields involved in legislative activities should participate in the process. For activation of autonomous legislative function, institutional systems that professionals in corresponding fields are used should be prepared, or various proposals or reports should include opinions of local professors or professionals in various fields or human resources poll may be introduced.
Sixth, the assistant organization for congressmen legislature should be reinforced. Assistant human resources who have experiences of judicial office may be employed or judicial curriculum for the staff in charge of congressmen assistance should be prepared.
Seventh, for validity of ordinance implementation, control and intervention of the central government should be reduced and the regulation of penalty which is imposed in violation of autonomous laws and regulations should be legislated. If penalty is not imposed on when the people violate the ordinances even though they are designed for them, the ordinances are reduced to invalid laws.
Eighth, for expanded participation of the public, the public proposal system should be introduced, which is very important for activation of autonomous legislative function. In respect to enactment, revision and abolition of ordinances of local parliaments, the community people are allowed to ask enactment of ordinances in Japan. So Korea need the introduction of the system.
This study presents suggestions on improvement of the legislative process-the legislative process of the parliament, and autonomous legislative process in that the constitutional standards that declare respect, values and basic rights of individuals are embodied in forms of laws through legislative process. For securement of democratic justification, the legislative process should be opened so that various opinions of the public are converged to the parliament. Also, for promotion of efficiency, legislative demand of the public should be properly satisfied.
For establishment of autonomous legislative right which reflects regional characteristics, the central governments and local governments should control legal and institutional intervention, share information and data with the local parliaments to prepare autonomous legislature for the public, and cooperate each other to encourage autonomous governments and activate autonomous legislative functions of local parliaments.
Alternative Title
- A Study on the Improvemental Plan of Legislative Process
Alternative Author(s)
Kim, Eun Chul
朝鮮大學校 大學院
일반대학원 법학과
Awarded Date
Table Of Contents
第1章 序論 = 1
第1節 問題의 提起 = 1
第2節 硏究의 基礎 = 5
1. 硏究의 對象과 方法 = 5
2. 硏究의 方向과 範圍 = 6
第2章 立法過程 一般論 = 8
第1節 立法過程의 意義 = 8
1. 立法過程의 槪念과 考慮事項 = 8
2. 立法過程의 特徵 = 9
가. 法律案 提出의 共有 = 9
나. 審議節次의 段階化 = 9
다. 討論의 前提와 情報의 共有 = 10
라. 立法過程의 公開 = 10
3. 立法過程의 機能 = 11
가. 民主的 正當性 確保 機能 = 11
나. 國民意思 收斂機能 = 13
다. 政治的 意思形成 機能 = 13
라. 葛藤解決과 統合化 機能 = 14
4. 立法過程의 基本構造 = 15
가. 法律案의 立案과 提出 = 16
나. 法律案의 審議·議決 = 17
다. 法律의 公布와 再議要求 = 17
5. 現代 議會民主主義와 立法過程 = 18
第2節 立法過程 分析의 틀 = 22
1. 槪說 = 22
2. 民主性의 側面 = 22
3. 效率性의 側面 = 25
4. 民主性?效率性의 關係 = 27
第3章 國會立法過程과 自治立法過程 = 29
第1節 國會立法과 自治立法의 現況 = 29
1. 意義 = 29
2. 法律의 制定實績 = 29
가. 國會의 法律案 處理 = 29
나. 議員立法과 政府立法 = 31
다. 法律案의 修正 = 33
3. 一般法과 特別法 = 34
第2節 國會立法過程 = 37
1. 槪觀 = 37
가. 法律案의 準備 = 37
나. 法律案의 提出 = 37
다. 本會議 報告 및 委員會 回附 = 38
라. 本會議 審査 = 39
마. 體系·字句의 審査 = 40
바. 全院委員會 審査 = 40
사. 本會議 報告 및 議決 = 41
아. 法律案의 整理와 移送 = 41
자. 法律案의 公布와 再議要求 = 41
2. 法律制定過程의 變遷 = 42
가. 法律案의 提出 = 42
나. 委員會 回附 = 43
다. 委員會 審査 = 45
라. 本會議 審議 = 47
마. 政府移送 및 公布 = 49
3. 法律案의 立案 = 50
가. 法律案 立案의 意義 = 50
나. 立案의 主體와 參與者 = 51
(1) 立案의 主體 = 51
(가) 國會議員 = 52
(나) 政府 = 52
(다) 政黨 = 53
(라) 國會의 委員會 = 53
(마) 大法院 등 憲法上 獨立機關 = 54
(2) 立案의 參與者 = 55
(가) 國會 立法支援機關 = 55
(나) 所管이 아닌 關聯 行政府處 = 55
(다) 地方自治團體 = 56
(라) 利益集團·壓力團體·市民團體 = 56
(마) 言論 = 57
다. 立案의 主要準則 = 57
(1) 實體的 側面의 主要準則 = 58
(2) 形式 및 體系的 側面의 主要準則 = 60
(3) 節次的 側面의 主要準則 = 61
라. 法律案의 立案過程 = 61
(1) 立案의 類型 = 61
(2) 立案의 過程 = 63
(가) 議員發議法律案 = 63
① 立法情報의 收集·分析과 立法政策의 決定 = 64
② 法律案의 草案作成 또는 作成依賴 = 65
③ 立案에 대한 檢討 = 65
④ 意見收斂 = 66
⑤ 黨政協議 = 66
⑥ 法律案 確定 = 66
⑦ 法律案의 發議 = 67
(나) 委員會案 = 67
(다) 政府提出法律案 = 70
① 立法情報의 收集·分析과 立法政策의 決定 = 70
② 草案(部處案)의 作成 = 70
4. 法律案의 國會審議 = 74
가. 國會審議의 槪觀 = 74
(1) 意義 = 74
(2) 國會의 法律案 審議 = 75
(가) 法律案 審議의 影響要因 = 75
(나) 議會運營方式과 法律案 審議 = 76
나. 國會審議의 主要原則 = 77
(1) 多數決의 原則 = 77
(2) 一事不再議의 原則 = 78
(3) 定足數의 原則 = 80
(가) 議事定足數 = 80
(나) 議決定足數 = 81
(다) 要求定足數 = 82
(라) 發議定足數 = 82
(4) 會期繼續의 原則 = 82
(5) 1日 1會議의 原則 = 83
(6) 會議公開의 原則 = 84
다. 國會審議의 諸過程 = 85
(1) 本會議 報告 = 85
(2) 所管委員會 回附 = 86
(가) 常任委員會 回附 = 86
(나) 特別委員會 回附 = 87
(다) 關聯委員會 回附 = 88
(3) 立法豫告 = 89
(4) 所管委員會 審査 = 89
(가) 委員會 上程 = 89
(나) 提案者 趣旨說明 = 90
(다) 專門委員 檢討報告 = 91
(라) 代替討論 = 91
(마) (常設)小委員會 審査 = 93
(바) 逐條審査 = 95
(사) 贊反討論 = 96
(아) 票決 = 96
(자) 委員會 審査와 관련된 節次 = 97
① 發議者 또는 提出者에 의한 撤回·修正 = 97
② 飜案 = 97
③ 宴席會議 = 98
④ 公聽會 = 98
⑤ 開會 = 99
(5) 法制司法委員會의 體系·字句審査 = 100
(6) 全院委員會 審議 = 103
(7) 本會議 審議 = 104
(가) 一般的인 審議節次 = 104
(나) 本會議 審議에서의 關聯節次 = 106
① 法律案의 再回附 = 107
② 法律案에 대한 修正同意 = 107
③ 法律案의 撤回 및 修正 = 107
④ 飜案 = 108
(8) 法律案의 整理 = 108
(가) 意義 = 108
(나) 委任의 範圍 = 108
(다) 委任議決이 없는 境遇의 例 = 109
(9) 國會審議過程의 問題點 -委員會中心主義와 全院委員會制度- = 109
5. 法律의 公布 = 111
가. 公布의 意義 = 111
나. 公布의 節次 = 112
(1) 公布節次의 法的 根據 = 112
(2) 公布의 諸節次 = 113
(가) 法律案의 政府移送 = 113
(나) 國務會議 審議 = 113
第3節 自治立法過程 = 115
1. 自治立法過程의 意義 = 115
가. 自治立法의 現況 및 成果 = 115
나. 우리나라 自治立法過程의 特徵 = 116
다. 自治立法過程의 性格 = 118
라. 自治立法過程에 대한 새로운 分析의 틀 = 118
2. 自治立法權의 性格 = 119
3. 自治法規의 種類 = 120
가. 條例 = 120
(1) 意義 = 121
(2) 條例制定權의 範圍와 限界 = 121
나. 規則 = 122
4. 條例의 制定過程 = 122
가. 意義 = 122
나. 條例案의 立案 = 124
(1) 地方自治團體의 長이 提出하는 경우 = 127
(가) 關係機關의 事前承認 또는 事前協議 = 127
(나) 立法豫告 = 127
(다) 法制擔當부서의 審査 = 127
(라) 條例規則審議會의 審議 = 128
(마) 附議案件의 公告 = 128
(바) 地方議會 提出 = 128
(2) 地方議會議員이 發議하는 경우 = 128
(가) 議員 또는 政黨과의 協議 = 128
(나) 意見聽取 = 129
(다) 條例案의 確定 = 129
(라) 贊成議員의 署名 및 條例案의 提出 = 129
(3) 地方議會의 委員會가 提出하는 경우 = 129
(4) 條例案의 立案 및 提出過程에서의 住民參與制度 = 129
다. 條例案의 審議 = 132
(1) 委員會 回附 = 133
(2) 委員會 上程 = 133
(3) 提案者의 趣旨說明 = 134
(4) 專門委員의 檢討報告 = 134
(5) 質議·討論 = 134
(6) 票決 = 135
라. 本會議 審議 = 135
(1) 審査報告書의 配付·議事日程의 作成 = 135
(2) 本會議 報告 = 135
(3) 質議·討論 = 136
(4) 票決 = 136
(5) 條例案의 確認 = 136
마. 監督廳에 대한 報告 = 137
바. 條例의 公布 = 137
(1) 地方自治團體의 長의 公布 = 137
(2) 地方議會議長의 公布 = 137
사. 條例案의 再議要求 = 138
(1) 再議要求節次의 意義 = 138
(2) 再議要求 要件 및 節次 = 139
(가) 地方自治法 第19條 第3項에 의한 再議要求 = 140
① 再議要求의 要件 = 140
② 再議要求節次 = 140
(나) 地方自治法 第98條에 의한 再議要求 = 140
① 再議要求의 要件 = 140
② 再議要求節次 = 141
(다) 地方自治法 第99條에 의한 再議要求 = 141
① 再議要求의 要件 = 141
② 再議要求節次 = 141
(라) 地方自治法 第159條에 의한 再議要求 = 141
① 再議要求의 要件 = 141
② 再議要求節次 = 141
아. 再議要求에 대한 地方議會의 審査 = 142
자. 再議決된 事項에 대한 大法院 提訴 = 143
(1) 提訴要件 = 143
(2) 提訴節次 = 143
차. 條例의 效力發生 = 144
(1) 條例의 施行日 = 144
(2) 條例의 公布日 = 144
카. 地方自治團體長의 先決處分 = 144
第4章 立法過程의 統制 = 146
第1節 問題의 提起 = 146
第2節 國會立法過程 統制 = 148
1. 國會立法過程 統制基準 = 148
가. 憲法과 國會法에 의한 統制基準 = 148
나. 民主主義 本質에서 오는 統制基準 = 149
2. 國會內部 立法過程에 의한 統制 = 150
가. 法律案 提出에서의 統制 = 150
(1) 成立要件의 充足 = 150
(2) 發議定足數 成立 = 150
나. 委員會 回附에서의 統制 = 151
(1) 關聯委員會 回附 = 151
(가) 合同回附制度 = 151
(나) 關聯委員會回附制度 = 152
(다) 外國 議會의 關聯委員會 回附 = 152
(라) 우리나라 國會의 關聯委員會 回附 = 154
(2) 法律案審査期間 指定 = 154
(가) 外國議會의 法律案審査期間 指定 = 154
(나) 우리나라 國會의 法律案審査期間 指定 = 155
다. 委員會 審査에서의 統制 = 156
(1) 審査節次 = 156
(2) 法律案上程期間의 設定 = 156
(3) 公聽會와 聽聞會의 開催 = 156
(4) 逐條審査 = 157
(5) 立法豫告 = 157
라. 本會議 審議·議決에서의 統制 = 157
(1) 會議의 一般原則 = 157
(2) 審査節次 = 157
(3) 一事不再議 = 158
3. 大統領에 의한 統制 = 159
가. 法律案 提出에 의한 統制 = 159
나. 法律案 拒否에 의한 統制 = 160
다. 法律案 公布에 의한 統制 = 161
라. 臨時會 集會要求에 의한 統制 = 162
4. 司法的 統制 = 162
가. 法院에 의한 統制 = 162
나. 憲法裁判所에 의한 統制 = 163
(1) 憲法裁判所 統制의 必要性 = 163
(2) 憲法訴願審判에 의한 立法過程 統制 = 165
(가) 立法過程에 대한 審査를 한 判例 = 165
(나) 國會議員의 請求에 대한 却下決定 = 165
(다) 立法不作爲에 대한 憲法訴願 = 166
(3) 權限爭議審判에 의한 立法過程 統制 = 167
(가) 憲法 및 憲法裁判所法 規定 = 167
(나) 憲法裁判所의 決定 = 167
① 國會議員의 當事者 能力을 否認한 경우 = 168
② 國會議員의 當事者 能力을 認定한 경우 = 168
(다) 國會議員의 權限爭議審判 當事者能力 = 169
(라) 國會議員의 法律案 審議·表決權의 侵害 與否 = 170
(마) 可決宣布行爲의 無效 與否 = 170
① 立法過程上의 瑕疵와 法律의 效力 = 171
② 可決宣布行爲의 無效 = 171
(바) 決定의 範圍와 效力 = 172
(4) 違憲法律審判에 의한 立法過程 統制 = 173
(가) 憲法合致的 法律解釋 = 173
(나) 違憲法律審判을 통한 立法過程 統制基準 = 175
(다) 事前的?豫防的 違憲法律審判制度 導入에 대한 考察 = 176
(라) 抽象的 規範統制制度의 導入에 대한 考察 = 178
5. 國民에 의한 統制 = 179
가. 請願權行事에 의한 統制 = 179
나. 法院과 憲法裁判所를 통한 統制 = 180
다. 選擧에 의한 統制 = 181
第3節 自治立法過程의 統制 = 183
1. 住民에 의한 統制 = 183
가. 條例의 制定 및 改廢請求權 = 183
(1) 意義 = 183
(2) 請求權의 內容 = 184
(가) 請求의 主體 = 184
(나) 請求의 相對方 = 184
(다) 請求의 對象 = 185
(라) 請求의 節次 = 185
나. 請願權 및 住民의 訴請權 = 186
2. 立法的 統制 = 187
3. 行政的 統制 = 188
가. 再議要求 = 188
(1) 再議要求權者 = 189
(2) 再議要求事由 = 190
(가) 法律의 委任 없이 住民의 權利制限·義務賦課 또는 罰則을 規定하는 경우 = 190
(나) 個別 上位法令의 規定內容 違背 = 190
(다) 當該 地方自治團體의 事務가 아닌 事項을 規定한 경우 = 191
(라) 市·郡·區의 條例가 市·道의 條例·規則에 違反한 경우 = 191
(마) 地方議會와 執行機關의 權限配分 및 代表制 原理에 違背되는 경우 = 191
(바) 上級機關의 承認 등 先行節次의 履行 = 191
(사) 公益을 顯著히 害하는 경우 등 條例案에 異意가 있는 경우 = 192
(아) 豫算上 執行 不可能한 事項이 包含된 경우 = 192
(3) 再議要求 方法 및 期限 = 192
(4) 條例案의 再議決 = 193
(5) 再議要求의 實態 = 194
나. 標準條例案 또는 條例準則案 示達 = 194
다. 承認·協議 = 195
(1) 意義 = 195
(2) 現行法令上 承認·協議留保 條項 = 197
라. 條例의 制定·改廢 報告 = 198
4. 司法的 統制 = 198
가. 違法條例에 대한 大法院 提訴 = 199
(1) 意義 = 199
(2) 大法院 提訴 制度의 性格 = 200
(가) 機關訴訟說 = 200
(나) 地方自治法에 特有한 規範統制의 一種이라는 說 = 201
(다) 學說의 檢討 = 202
나. 違憲·違法 命令·規則 審査權에 의한 統制 = 205
다. 憲法裁判所에 의한 統制 = 205
第5章 立法過程의 改善方案 = 208
第1節 國會立法過程의 改善方案 = 208
1. 法律案 立案?提出과 改善方案 = 208
가. 立案過程上의 改善課題 = 208
나. 法律案 立案의 改善方案 = 210
(1) 國會의 法制機構 補强 = 210
(가) 國會의 法制機構 = 210
(나) 法制業務 一元化 = 212
(2) 立法豫告制度의 改善 = 213
(가) 議員提出法律案 = 214
① 國會運營委員會 등의 審査를 거친 法律案에 대한 立法豫告의 實施 = 214
② 委員會 審査對象 法律案의 立法豫告에 대한 考察 = 214
(3) 立法豫告의 問題點 = 215
(4) 立法豫告 改善方案 = 215
(5) 立案過程의 公開 = 217
(6) 請願機能의 强化 = 218
(가) 請願機能 强化의 必要性 = 219
(나) 議會Ombudsman制度의 導入 = 220
(다) 請願委員會의 新設 = 221
(7) 專門家 集團이나 團體의 活用 = 221
다. 法律案 提出의 改善方案 = 222
(1) 議員提出法律案의 發議定足數 緩和 = 222
(2) 政府提出法律案의 長期 立法計劃 樹立 = 223
2. 法律案 審議?議決과 改善方案 = 224
가. 法律案의 委員會 回附 改善方案 = 224
(1) 法律案審査期間指定制度의 變則運用 防止 = 224
(2) 關聯委員會回附制度의 改善 = 225
(가) 關聯委員會回附制度의 必要性과 問題點 = 225
(나) 關聯委員會回附制度의 改善方案 = 226
나. 法律案의 委員會 審査 改善方案 = 227
(1) 常任委員 2年 任期制의 廢止 = 228
(가) 美國議會의 選任優先制 = 228
(나) 日本議會의 族議員 = 229
(다) 常任委員 2年 任期制의 廢止 = 230
(2) 黨政協議制度의 廢止 = 231
(3) 法律案審査日程의 2段階化 = 232
(4) 小委員會 運營의 內實化 = 233
(가) 小委員會 活動 領域 擴大 = 234
(나) 小委員會 委員數의 擴大 = 235
(다) 合同小委員會의 運營 = 235
(5) 公聽會의 活性化 = 235
(가) 公聽會 開催 公告 方法의 改善 = 235
(나) 陳述人 選定 方法의 改善 = 236
(다) 小委員會와 委員會에서 2次例 公聽會 開催 = 236
(6) 法律案專擔議員制度의 導入 = 237
(7) 專門家의 審査補助 活用 = 237
(8) 逐條審査?票決의 强化 = 238
(9) 定例會議制度의 廢止와 定例公聽會制度의 導入 = 239
다. 法律案의 本會議 審議?議決過程 改善方案 = 240
(1) 立法過程의 생중계 = 240
(2) 國會議長의 地位와 權限 强化 = 241
(가) 國會議長 選出을 國會 自律에 委任 = 242
(나) 國會議長의 黨籍 離脫의 문제 = 242
(다) 國會議長의 權限 行事에 自律性 保障 = 244
(라) 平生 國會議長職 수행에 관한 檢討 = 244
(3) 法律案審査促進制度의 活性化 = 244
(4) 質議와 討論節次 省略의 最小化 = 245
(5) 定期會 2回 開會나 國政監査實施 시기의 變更 = 246
(6) 本會議 上程期限 設定 = 247
(7) 修正案 發議定足數 要件 緩和 = 248
(8) 讀會制 導入에 관한 檢討 = 248
3. 法律案 公布 및 再議要求와 改善方案 = 249
가. 法律案 公布의 改善方案 = 249
(1) 官報揭載에 의한 公布 = 249
(2) 官報內容의 2元化 = 250
(3) 言論媒體를 통한 弘報內容의 充實 = 251
(4) 法令에 대한 電算化作業의 改善 = 251
第2節 自治立法過程의 問題點과 改善方案 = 252
1. 自治立法機能의 自主性 確保 = 253
2. 立法過程에 대한 地方自治團體의 參與擴大 = 255
3. 條例의 司法審査主體의 變更과 權限爭議對象機關 擴大 = 257
4. 再議要求制度의 整備 = 258
5. 自治立法 擔當者의 法制能力 强化 = 259
6. 自治立法機能의 活性化 方案 = 261
가. 制度的 側面 = 261
(1) 條例 制·改正 範圍 擴大 = 261
(2) 議員立法時 立法豫告制 導入 = 263
(3) 議員 立法活動 評價制度 導入 = 263
(4) 專門委員制度 改善 및 法制化 = 264
(5) 議員專門性 提高를 위한 制度 改善 = 265
나. 運營的 側面 = 266
(1) 該當分野 專門家 活用 = 266
(2) 議員立法 補佐組織 補强 = 267
(3) 條例施行의 實效性 確保 = 267
(4) 住民參與 擴大方案 摸索 = 268
다. 外部的 要因과의 關係改善 = 269
(1) 中央政府와의 關係 = 269
(2) 地方自治團體 執行部와의 關係 = 270
第6章 結論 = 272
參考文獻 = 277
朝鮮大學校 大學院
金恩哲. (2004). 立法過程의 改善方案에 관한 硏究.
Appears in Collections:
General Graduate School > 4. Theses(Ph.D)
Authorize & License
  • AuthorizeOpen
  • Embargo2005-10-25
Files in This Item:
  • There are no files associated with this item.

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.