The Constitution stipulates “The property rights of all citizens are guaranteed. The content and limitations are determined by law.” in Article 23 Paragraph 1, and paragraph 2 stipulates the constitutional limitations of property rights by stipulating that “the exercise of property rights should be suitable for public welfare.” And paragraph 3 stipulates that “the expropriation, use, or restriction of property rights due to public necessity and compensation thereof shall be made by law, but legitimate compensation shall be paid.” The separation theory excludes unconstitutional infringement of property rights and guarantees the existence of specific property rights of the subject of fundamental rights. In the case of excessive restrictions beyond social restrictions, according to the separation theory, it is not understood as the expropriation of Article 23 (3) of the Constitution, and various measures (relaxation measures) to alleviate the excessive burden will be considered first. The basic structure of property rights can be divided into 'content regulations without compensation obligations', 'content regulations with (coordinated) compensation obligations', and 'expropriation regulations (with compensation obligations)'. The content regulation of property rights essentially means the protection of property rights in that it forms a property rights legal order, and the expropriation regulation means the restriction of property rights that make it impossible or remarkably difficult to act in the protected area. Therefore, both are independent legal systems.
{"title":"The Gap in the Legal Texts and the Supplementation by Interpretation - Focusing on the provisions and interpretations of property rights under Article 23 of the Constitution -","authors":"Sang-sik Son","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.2.57","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.2.57","url":null,"abstract":"The Constitution stipulates “The property rights of all citizens are guaranteed. The content and limitations are determined by law.” in Article 23 Paragraph 1, and paragraph 2 stipulates the constitutional limitations of property rights by stipulating that “the exercise of property rights should be suitable for public welfare.” And paragraph 3 stipulates that “the expropriation, use, or restriction of property rights due to public necessity and compensation thereof shall be made by law, but legitimate compensation shall be paid.” The separation theory excludes unconstitutional infringement of property rights and guarantees the existence of specific property rights of the subject of fundamental rights. In the case of excessive restrictions beyond social restrictions, according to the separation theory, it is not understood as the expropriation of Article 23 (3) of the Constitution, and various measures (relaxation measures) to alleviate the excessive burden will be considered first. The basic structure of property rights can be divided into 'content regulations without compensation obligations', 'content regulations with (coordinated) compensation obligations', and 'expropriation regulations (with compensation obligations)'. The content regulation of property rights essentially means the protection of property rights in that it forms a property rights legal order, and the expropriation regulation means the restriction of property rights that make it impossible or remarkably difficult to act in the protected area. Therefore, both are independent legal systems.","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130098241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recently, major countries and international organizations, including the European Union, are reforming their personal data protection system, which is understood to seek the reasonable balance between the protection of personal information and communication technologies that have developed rapidly over the past three decades. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), enacted by the EU in May 2016, is the world's most powerful privacy system now, and since the GDPR was enacted, EU trade partners have been actively striving to align their own data protection legislations with the GDPR by adopting and amending theirs to meet the global data protection standards. Brazil, as Latin America's economic giant, has also spent a long time finding the balance point between creating economic profits and protecting human rights under the pressure of mediating the conflicting values of using and protecting personal information. As a result of the conflict, the Brazilian General Data Protection Regulation(LGPD), affected by the EU GDPR, was passed on August 15, 2018 after eight years of discussion. This study began with questions about how specific the Brazilian LGPD was influenced by the European GDPR and how these two legislations were harmonized in the global society. We examined the system and status of Brazil's personal information legislation, as well as the legislative progress of the new legislation, and went on to conduct comparative legal reviews of the two legislations to find out the similarities and differences between them. Furthermore, we looked at the implications of Brazilian legislation for our legislation and sought compatibility between the value of privacy protection and the development of information technology.
{"title":"Legislative Harmonization of Brazilian Data Protection Law with EU GDPR: A Comparative Study on the EU GDPR and Brazil's LGPD","authors":"Hansol Kim","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.2.105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.2.105","url":null,"abstract":"Recently, major countries and international organizations, including the European Union, are reforming their personal data protection system, which is understood to seek the reasonable balance between the protection of personal information and communication technologies that have developed rapidly over the past three decades. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), enacted by the EU in May 2016, is the world's most powerful privacy system now, and since the GDPR was enacted, EU trade partners have been actively striving to align their own data protection legislations with the GDPR by adopting and amending theirs to meet the global data protection standards. Brazil, as Latin America's economic giant, has also spent a long time finding the balance point between creating economic profits and protecting human rights under the pressure of mediating the conflicting values of using and protecting personal information. As a result of the conflict, the Brazilian General Data Protection Regulation(LGPD), affected by the EU GDPR, was passed on August 15, 2018 after eight years of discussion. This study began with questions about how specific the Brazilian LGPD was influenced by the European GDPR and how these two legislations were harmonized in the global society. We examined the system and status of Brazil's personal information legislation, as well as the legislative progress of the new legislation, and went on to conduct comparative legal reviews of the two legislations to find out the similarities and differences between them. Furthermore, we looked at the implications of Brazilian legislation for our legislation and sought compatibility between the value of privacy protection and the development of information technology.","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131510601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
On October 29, 2022, at around 22:15, a large-scale crushing accident occurred in Itaewon, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with a crowd of 100,000 gathered ahead of the Halloween festival. This accident is the largest human-caused accident in Korea since the sinking of the Sewol ferry in 2014, and the first recorded since the collapse of Sampoong Department Store in 1995 in which 502 people died in a large-scale disaster in downtown Seoul. In the process of investigation by the Special Investigation Headquarters, it is pointed out that the police's poor response made the accident bigger as the cause of the Itaewon disaster. However, on July 21, 2001, from 20:45 to 50 p.m., 11 people suffered from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to full body compression on the Asagiri Pedestrian Bridge in Akashi City, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan. A large-scale accident occurred in which 183 people were killed or injured. Japan has experienced many legal and social changes, such as the revision of the “Guard Service Act” and the establishment of a new “congestion guard” work test, in the wake of the stampede accident. In this paper, the background of Japan's 'Akashi Fireworks Festival Overpass Accident', the cause of the accident, the judgment of the court, and the resulting legal and social changes were examined to examine the implications for Korea.
{"title":"A study on the revision of the “Security Guard Act” and the establishment of 'Congestion Guard' in Japan","authors":"Yongsook Park","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.2.85","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.2.85","url":null,"abstract":"On October 29, 2022, at around 22:15, a large-scale crushing accident occurred in Itaewon, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with a crowd of 100,000 gathered ahead of the Halloween festival. This accident is the largest human-caused accident in Korea since the sinking of the Sewol ferry in 2014, and the first recorded since the collapse of Sampoong Department Store in 1995 in which 502 people died in a large-scale disaster in downtown Seoul. In the process of investigation by the Special Investigation Headquarters, it is pointed out that the police's poor response made the accident bigger as the cause of the Itaewon disaster. However, on July 21, 2001, from 20:45 to 50 p.m., 11 people suffered from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to full body compression on the Asagiri Pedestrian Bridge in Akashi City, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan. A large-scale accident occurred in which 183 people were killed or injured. Japan has experienced many legal and social changes, such as the revision of the “Guard Service Act” and the establishment of a new “congestion guard” work test, in the wake of the stampede accident. In this paper, the background of Japan's 'Akashi Fireworks Festival Overpass Accident', the cause of the accident, the judgment of the court, and the resulting legal and social changes were examined to examine the implications for Korea.","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128349456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Depending on their status, we can divide inter-Korean agreements into three types. First, inter-Korean agreements in the broadest sense. Second, inter-Korean agreements concluded and promulgated pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Inter-Korean Relations Development Act. Third, inter-Korean agreements as treaties concluded and promulgated under the Constitution. In the broadest sense, the inter-Korean agreement is seen as a kind of public contract from the point of view of public law. Looking at the inter-Korean agreement according to the legal principle of public contract, it is useful to explain what has normative power to agreements or contracts related to the creation or change of legal relations under public law. On the other hand, in order for an inter-Korean agreement to secure normative power as a public contract, there must be an agreement between the two Koreas on arbitration or competent courts to resolve disputes regarding its contents. If there is an agreement between the two Koreas, it should be a basic treaty concluded and promulgated according to the Constitution, not simply an inter-Korean agreement under the Inter-Korean Relations Development Act, as it should have normative power under domestic and international law. Lastly, I believe that the consent of the National Assembly is not enough for the inter-Korean agreement signed and promulgated according to the Act to have binding force even to the people. Even if the inter-Korean agreement has been approved by the National Assembly, its normative power must be secured only through legislative procedures.
{"title":"The Normative Power of the Inter-Korean Agreement","authors":"Hyungui Kim","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.2.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.2.31","url":null,"abstract":"Depending on their status, we can divide inter-Korean agreements into three types. First, inter-Korean agreements in the broadest sense. Second, inter-Korean agreements concluded and promulgated pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Inter-Korean Relations Development Act. Third, inter-Korean agreements as treaties concluded and promulgated under the Constitution. In the broadest sense, the inter-Korean agreement is seen as a kind of public contract from the point of view of public law. Looking at the inter-Korean agreement according to the legal principle of public contract, it is useful to explain what has normative power to agreements or contracts related to the creation or change of legal relations under public law. On the other hand, in order for an inter-Korean agreement to secure normative power as a public contract, there must be an agreement between the two Koreas on arbitration or competent courts to resolve disputes regarding its contents. If there is an agreement between the two Koreas, it should be a basic treaty concluded and promulgated according to the Constitution, not simply an inter-Korean agreement under the Inter-Korean Relations Development Act, as it should have normative power under domestic and international law. Lastly, I believe that the consent of the National Assembly is not enough for the inter-Korean agreement signed and promulgated according to the Act to have binding force even to the people. Even if the inter-Korean agreement has been approved by the National Assembly, its normative power must be secured only through legislative procedures.","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"173 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129078186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"입법영향분석 어떻게 할 것인가?","authors":"편집부 편집부","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.2.143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.2.143","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p />","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116692369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The COVID-19 pandemic situation shows an aspect of accelerating the digital transformation, which has been discussed as the goal of government policy. This transformation process not only enhances individual freedom, but also induces restrictions and controls aimed at the public interest. This article focuses on the legislative issue surrounding the disclosure and utilization of movement information about confirmed patients, which was a problem during the recent COVID-19 pandemic period. Controversy over government guidelines surrounding the disclosure of the movement about confirmed patients made it clear that it is not simply whether such administrative measures complied with legal requirements, but that the balance between public interest values and private values of privacy is important. Based on this premise, this article reviewed the problems of the discourse on the use of personal data or personal location data for public interest purposes in terms of legislative technique. Korea's Personal Data Protection Act frequently utilizes very convenient legislative technique in setting comprehensive exceptions for the purpose of public interest. In conclusion, the ultimate issue in the use of personal data for public interest is not the protection of identification information and its exceptions, but whether or not the privacy and private life of the data subject can be practically protected. Nonetheless, the current legislation focuses only on establishing a comprehensive exception category in terms of legislative technique. In order to overcome these problems and develope legislation for privacy protection in the new era, it is necessary to devise new legislative technique that can reflect the request for change.
{"title":"Principles and Limitations of Using Personal Location Data for Public Interest: Implications for Legislative Technology of Personal Data Protection Act","authors":"Woomin Shim","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.2.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.2.1","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic situation shows an aspect of accelerating the digital transformation, which has been discussed as the goal of government policy. This transformation process not only enhances individual freedom, but also induces restrictions and controls aimed at the public interest. This article focuses on the legislative issue surrounding the disclosure and utilization of movement information about confirmed patients, which was a problem during the recent COVID-19 pandemic period. Controversy over government guidelines surrounding the disclosure of the movement about confirmed patients made it clear that it is not simply whether such administrative measures complied with legal requirements, but that the balance between public interest values and private values of privacy is important. Based on this premise, this article reviewed the problems of the discourse on the use of personal data or personal location data for public interest purposes in terms of legislative technique. Korea's Personal Data Protection Act frequently utilizes very convenient legislative technique in setting comprehensive exceptions for the purpose of public interest. In conclusion, the ultimate issue in the use of personal data for public interest is not the protection of identification information and its exceptions, but whether or not the privacy and private life of the data subject can be practically protected. Nonetheless, the current legislation focuses only on establishing a comprehensive exception category in terms of legislative technique. In order to overcome these problems and develope legislation for privacy protection in the new era, it is necessary to devise new legislative technique that can reflect the request for change.","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127074495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The principle of separation of powers divides the functions of the state into legislative, administrative, and judicial branches and entrusts them to independent state institutions, and controls the power of the state through mutual checks and balances. However, the political situation in the modern state has changed significantly compared to the past, namely, the separation of powers has changed due to the development of the party state, and the administrative and national phenomenon has emerged in which the domain of administrative authority is enlarged and enlarged to fulfill social and national tasks. Meanwhile, due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic response measures, the power fusion phenomenon (the goal of improving the efficiency of the executive branch) has appeared in each country, where the executive and legislative branches are connected, and the French Republic is no exception. In other words, it is an undeniable fact that the fusion of powers contributed greatly to effectively responding to and taking measures against the COVID-19 pandemic, which is called a national disaster. However, the phenomenon of power fusion would be said to have both sides like two sides of a coin. First of all, the power fusion phenomenon on the positive side is that, as mentioned above, when a country faces a national disaster such as the Corona 19 virus pandemic, it can stabilize the situation quickly and without major fluctuations by strengthening the efficiency of the administration. Next, the negative aspects of power fusion have concerns about power concentration and dictatorship, which is directly linked to human rights violations, so the human rights protection system should be strengthened and operated.
{"title":"Concentration of Government power to Respond to National Disasters in the New Normal Era","authors":"M. Kang","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.1.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.1.39","url":null,"abstract":"The principle of separation of powers divides the functions of the state into legislative, administrative, and judicial branches and entrusts them to independent state institutions, and controls the power of the state through mutual checks and balances. However, the political situation in the modern state has changed significantly compared to the past, namely, the separation of powers has changed due to the development of the party state, and the administrative and national phenomenon has emerged in which the domain of administrative authority is enlarged and enlarged to fulfill social and national tasks. \u0000Meanwhile, due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic response measures, the power fusion phenomenon (the goal of improving the efficiency of the executive branch) has appeared in each country, where the executive and legislative branches are connected, and the French Republic is no exception. In other words, it is an undeniable fact that the fusion of powers contributed greatly to effectively responding to and taking measures against the COVID-19 pandemic, which is called a national disaster. \u0000However, the phenomenon of power fusion would be said to have both sides like two sides of a coin. First of all, the power fusion phenomenon on the positive side is that, as mentioned above, when a country faces a national disaster such as the Corona 19 virus pandemic, it can stabilize the situation quickly and without major fluctuations by strengthening the efficiency of the administration. Next, the negative aspects of power fusion have concerns about power concentration and dictatorship, which is directly linked to human rights violations, so the human rights protection system should be strengthened and operated.","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121394444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Public experience (in German, öffentliche Erfahrung) is a general term for activities in the public domain as a citizen, such as direct or indirect public opinion forming process as opposed to private experience, that is, activities with private benefits. The widespread use of intelligent information technology affects not only private activities in industry and life, but also public experience. From the perspective of inclusion, it is necessary to examine digital transformation or technological development and changes in public experience in two directions. First, it should be considered that digital transformation in the public domain cannot be viewed as having only a positive function through technological progress. Second, it is necessary to explore what is a desirable method of public debate for the social acceptance of intelligent information technology. From these two perspectives, it is needed to look at what kind of change public experience shows. Next, in order to incorporate the values pursued by society into a changing society, it is required to explore how to systematically utilize and adjust such changes. In terms of public experience, digital transformation has the advantage of being able to increase participation quantitatively as well as materializing it through digital communication technology. However, in terms of inclusion, technology can rather cause digital divide and public experience divide, and such divides are not limited to individual problems, but also extend to regional problems. Due to the digitization of the means of public experience, the adverse effects of increasing controllability, problems of anonymity and bias, and weakening the accountability of participants are also conceivable. In order to maximize the advantages of intelligent information technology for public experiences and to promote the path to an inclusive society, institutional considerations are needed to solve the above problems. Measures are needed to eliminate the personal gap caused by the use of intelligent information technology and the competency gap of local governments related to the implementation of the public experience system. In addition, in order to minimize adverse functions related to individual public experiences of participants, it is necessary to take long-term and short-term measures to enhance digital citizenship as well as organized governance for various data management including public data.
{"title":"Changes in the Public Experience of Citizens due to Digital Transformation","authors":"Jiweon Seon, Hwalbin Kim","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"Public experience (in German, öffentliche Erfahrung) is a general term for activities in the public domain as a citizen, such as direct or indirect public opinion forming process as opposed to private experience, that is, activities with private benefits. The widespread use of intelligent information technology affects not only private activities in industry and life, but also public experience. \u0000From the perspective of inclusion, it is necessary to examine digital transformation or technological development and changes in public experience in two directions. First, it should be considered that digital transformation in the public domain cannot be viewed as having only a positive function through technological progress. Second, it is necessary to explore what is a desirable method of public debate for the social acceptance of intelligent information technology. From these two perspectives, it is needed to look at what kind of change public experience shows. Next, in order to incorporate the values pursued by society into a changing society, it is required to explore how to systematically utilize and adjust such changes. \u0000In terms of public experience, digital transformation has the advantage of being able to increase participation quantitatively as well as materializing it through digital communication technology. \u0000However, in terms of inclusion, technology can rather cause digital divide and public experience divide, and such divides are not limited to individual problems, but also extend to regional problems. Due to the digitization of the means of public experience, the adverse effects of increasing controllability, problems of anonymity and bias, and weakening the accountability of participants are also conceivable. In order to maximize the advantages of intelligent information technology for public experiences and to promote the path to an inclusive society, institutional considerations are needed to solve the above problems. Measures are needed to eliminate the personal gap caused by the use of intelligent information technology and the competency gap of local governments related to the implementation of the public experience system. In addition, in order to minimize adverse functions related to individual public experiences of participants, it is necessary to take long-term and short-term measures to enhance digital citizenship as well as organized governance for various data management including public data.","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"289 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126020891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Even though they are members of a country where the ideology of democracy is protected by the constitution, it is extremely rare for e ach citizen to actually feel that he or she is exercising sovereignty except for voting. Existing forms of participation, such as public hearings, had to invest a lot of time and effort. However, as ‘the Blue Hous e Shinmungo’ and ‘Public Petition’ have recently been activated, the arena where people can express their thought to urge social change is expanding. Nevertheless, the role of the people is only to suggest opinions and not to participate in the process of finding a solution, so it is extremely rare for the people to feel a sense of efficacy as a sovereign. In the educational field, various educational activities are being conducted to develop competence as a democratic citizen, but the y face various limitations, such as non-cooperative attitudes of relat ed institutions, and debates over the political neutrality of teachers. In order to overcome these limitations, legislative education is drawi ng attention as an alternative to realizing democratic citizenship edu cation. 'Beurelsbacher Konsens', which is the basis of democratic citizens hip education, is based on Prohibition against Overwhelming the Pupil, Treating Controversial Subjects as Controversial the principle of controversy, and Giving Weight to the Personal Interests of Pupils. Af ter the consensus was released, various criticisms were raised, such as the possibility of overwhelming and edification in a covert way, the passive attitude of teachers to avoid overwhelming and edification, the extent of controversy in actual classroom situations, and indiffere nce to the development of the community. In order to overcome criticism and realize consensus-based democratic citizenship education, teachers should be aware of the possibility of overwhelming and edif ication, but as a guide, they should introduce various viewpoints on the issues so that students develop their ability to analyze them based on individual perspectives and interests. Furthermore, it is necessary to provide various opportunities for social participation while gradually expanding the scope to classes, schools, local communities, and countries so that they can seek symbiosis with the community, not just making decisions for the realization of individual interests. …
{"title":"Implications of Legislative Education as Democratic Citizenship Education from the Point of View of the ‘Beutelsbacher Konsens’.","authors":"Ji-won Jeong","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.1.171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.1.171","url":null,"abstract":"Even though they are members of a country where the ideology of democracy is protected by the constitution, it is extremely rare for e ach citizen to actually feel that he or she is exercising sovereignty except for voting. Existing forms of participation, such as public hearings, had to invest a lot of time and effort. However, as ‘the Blue Hous e Shinmungo’ and ‘Public Petition’ have recently been activated, the arena where people can express their thought to urge social change is expanding. Nevertheless, the role of the people is only to suggest opinions and not to participate in the process of finding a solution, so it is extremely rare for the people to feel a sense of efficacy as a sovereign. In the educational field, various educational activities are being conducted to develop competence as a democratic citizen, but the y face various limitations, such as non-cooperative attitudes of relat ed institutions, and debates over the political neutrality of teachers. \u0000In order to overcome these limitations, legislative education is drawi ng attention as an alternative to realizing democratic citizenship edu cation. \u0000'Beurelsbacher Konsens', which is the basis of democratic citizens hip education, is based on Prohibition against Overwhelming the Pupil, Treating Controversial Subjects as Controversial the principle of controversy, and Giving Weight to the Personal Interests of Pupils. Af ter the consensus was released, various criticisms were raised, such as the possibility of overwhelming and edification in a covert way, the passive attitude of teachers to avoid overwhelming and edification, the extent of controversy in actual classroom situations, and indiffere nce to the development of the community. In order to overcome criticism and realize consensus-based democratic citizenship education, teachers should be aware of the possibility of overwhelming and edif ication, but as a guide, they should introduce various viewpoints on the issues so that students develop their ability to analyze them based on individual perspectives and interests. Furthermore, it is necessary to provide various opportunities for social participation while gradually expanding the scope to classes, schools, local communities, and countries so that they can seek symbiosis with the community, not just making decisions for the realization of individual interests. …","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125792527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article is an exploratory discussion for practically realizing the legislative responsibility that legislators have to bear according to the Constitution, and aims to explore the structure and the particularities of legislative responsibility. Legislative responsibility can be defined as a comprehensive responsibility based on the obligations imposed on legislators by the Constitution. In order to explore the particularities of legislative responsibility, the basic structure and essence of legislative responsibility and the particularities of constitutional responsibility are examined preconditionally. Since there are legislative obligations that the Constitution imposes on the legislator, it can be said that legislative responsibility also exists. However, the particularities of the constitutional responsibility due to the constitutional characteristics and the particularities of the legislative responsibility due to the legislative characteristics act as a difficulty in realizing the legislative responsibility. In particular, the legislative responsibility is also limited because of the inability to impose unsatisfiable obligations on individual legislators who are fully exposed to the complexity of the external environment, and the normatively and factually impossibility of determining violations of legislative obligations. For this reason, in order to practically realize the legislative responsibility, it is necessary to preemptively reduce the risk of violation of the legislative obligations as much as possible. In other words, rather than ex post determining whether a specific legislative procedure or legislative output violates the legislative obligations, a preemptive mechanism should be prepared to minimize the risk of violating the legislative obligation in the course of the legislative process. This avoids leaving the legislative responsibility as a nominal responsibility or realizing it solely as a political responsibility by the people. A way to reduce the risk of violation of legislative obligations is, for example, to document and disclose all information and reasons on which individual legislators base their judgments when making legislative choices. This not only improves the political responsibility by the people, but can also function as a means for individual legislators to be exempted from the responsibility for violations of legislative obligations.
{"title":"An Exploratory Study on the Structure and the Particularities of Legislative Responsibility","authors":"Junseong Mo","doi":"10.58555/li.2022.1.65","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.58555/li.2022.1.65","url":null,"abstract":"This article is an exploratory discussion for practically realizing the legislative responsibility that legislators have to bear according to the Constitution, and aims to explore the structure and the particularities of legislative responsibility. Legislative responsibility can be defined as a comprehensive responsibility based on the obligations imposed on legislators by the Constitution. In order to explore the particularities of legislative responsibility, the basic structure and essence of legislative responsibility and the particularities of constitutional responsibility are examined preconditionally. \u0000Since there are legislative obligations that the Constitution imposes on the legislator, it can be said that legislative responsibility also exists. However, the particularities of the constitutional responsibility due to the constitutional characteristics and the particularities of the legislative responsibility due to the legislative characteristics act as a difficulty in realizing the legislative responsibility. In particular, the legislative responsibility is also limited because of the inability to impose unsatisfiable obligations on individual legislators who are fully exposed to the complexity of the external environment, and the normatively and factually impossibility of determining violations of legislative obligations. \u0000For this reason, in order to practically realize the legislative responsibility, it is necessary to preemptively reduce the risk of violation of the legislative obligations as much as possible. In other words, rather than ex post determining whether a specific legislative procedure or legislative output violates the legislative obligations, a preemptive mechanism should be prepared to minimize the risk of violating the legislative obligation in the course of the legislative process. This avoids leaving the legislative responsibility as a nominal responsibility or realizing it solely as a political responsibility by the people. A way to reduce the risk of violation of legislative obligations is, for example, to document and disclose all information and reasons on which individual legislators base their judgments when making legislative choices. This not only improves the political responsibility by the people, but can also function as a means for individual legislators to be exempted from the responsibility for violations of legislative obligations.","PeriodicalId":115318,"journal":{"name":"Center for Legislative Studies, Gyeongin National University of Education","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129447870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：