The Meaning and Content of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution as a Standard for Constitutionality Review

I. Kang
{"title":"The Meaning and Content of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution as a Standard for Constitutionality Review","authors":"I. Kang","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2023.36.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates that “the rights of authors, inventors, scientists, and artists are protected by law”. Despite being a provision that has continued since the Constitution's establishment, there has not been enough discussion in the constitutional academic community regarding its normative meaning and function, relationship with other fundamental rights, especially property rights, and concrete criteria for constitutionality review. Recently, in a case in which the Court reviewed the constitutionality of Article 9 of the Copyright Act, Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution was applied. As a result of this decision, discussions on the normative meaning of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution and its standard for constitutionality review were triggered in the constitutional law academia. These discussions are mostly related to whether Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution has a unique meaning and performs an independent function, its normative meaning, and the concrete standard for constitutionality review. However, many ambiguous aspects remain. Therefore, this article examines the normative contents of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. The composition of this article is as follows. First, as a starting point, the meaning and limitations of the decision of the Court are examined. Second, by examining the US Supreme Court's doctrine about the copyrights clause and related discussions, this article seeks applicability of it to the interpretation of the Korean Constitution. Third, based on this, it critically reviews the recent discussions in constitutional law academia and offers the contents of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution as a standard for constitutionality review.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korea Copyright Commission","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2023.36.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates that “the rights of authors, inventors, scientists, and artists are protected by law”. Despite being a provision that has continued since the Constitution's establishment, there has not been enough discussion in the constitutional academic community regarding its normative meaning and function, relationship with other fundamental rights, especially property rights, and concrete criteria for constitutionality review. Recently, in a case in which the Court reviewed the constitutionality of Article 9 of the Copyright Act, Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution was applied. As a result of this decision, discussions on the normative meaning of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution and its standard for constitutionality review were triggered in the constitutional law academia. These discussions are mostly related to whether Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution has a unique meaning and performs an independent function, its normative meaning, and the concrete standard for constitutionality review. However, many ambiguous aspects remain. Therefore, this article examines the normative contents of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. The composition of this article is as follows. First, as a starting point, the meaning and limitations of the decision of the Court are examined. Second, by examining the US Supreme Court's doctrine about the copyrights clause and related discussions, this article seeks applicability of it to the interpretation of the Korean Constitution. Third, based on this, it critically reviews the recent discussions in constitutional law academia and offers the contents of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution as a standard for constitutionality review.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为合宪性审查标准的宪法第22条第2款的含义和内容
《宪法》第22条第2款规定“作家、发明家、科学家和艺术家的权利受法律保护”。尽管这一条款自《宪法》制定以来一直延续至今,但宪法学界对其规范意义和功能、与其他基本权利特别是财产权的关系以及具体的合宪性审查标准等问题的讨论并不充分。最近,在法院对《著作权法》第9条是否符合宪法进行审查的案件中,适用了《宪法》第22条第2项。这一决定引发了宪法学界对宪法第22条第2款的规范意义及其合宪性审查标准的讨论。这些讨论主要涉及宪法第22条第2款是否具有独特的意义和独立的功能,其规范性意义,以及合宪性审查的具体标准。然而,仍然存在许多不明确的方面。因此,本文对宪法第22条第2款的规范性内容进行了考察。这篇文章的组成如下。首先,作为起点,对法院判决的意义和限制进行了审查。其次,本文通过考察美国最高法院关于版权条款的原则及其相关讨论,寻求其对韩国宪法解释的适用性。第三,在此基础上,批判性地回顾了最近宪法学学界的讨论,并将《宪法》第22条第2款的内容作为合宪性审查的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Limitations on Granting Copyrights to AI-Generated Works and Alternative Protection Methodologies The Meaning and Content of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution as a Standard for Constitutionality Review Determining Fair Use and the Role of Transformative Use Test: On the Rulings in Wofsy v. De Fontbrune Quo vadis, What will be the Future of Appropriation Art?: Focusing on “The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith” A Study on the Free Use of Public Works: Focused on the Seoul Central District Court’s 2019 Gadan 5207564 Decision
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1