为什么民主社会容忍不民主的法律?韩国公众对国家安全法的支持度排序

IF 3.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Democratization Pub Date : 2023-09-28 DOI:10.1080/13510347.2023.2258082
Christopher Green, Steven Denney
{"title":"为什么民主社会容忍不民主的法律?韩国公众对国家安全法的支持度排序","authors":"Christopher Green, Steven Denney","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2258082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates why anti-democratic laws persist in democratic societies, focusing on South Korea's National Security Act (NSA). Enacted in 1948, the NSA restricts freedom of expression and movement to deter pro-North Korea behaviour. Despite being at odds with the tenets of running contrary to liberal democracy, the Act remains in place. Existing public opinion data indicates modest to strong support for the law, but measurement concerns leave much to be desired. Using a choice-based conjoint, we test the impact of democratic norms and national security rationales on various policy propositions related to the NSA, including its abolition. Results show widespread support for the Act, driven by both democratic norms and security concerns. Progressives are more likely to support revisions limiting the scope of the Act on the basis that it safeguards democracy, but they agree with conservatives that it should not be abolished. This research contributes to understanding South Korea's post-democratic transition and the balance between national security and democracy more broadly.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why do democratic societies tolerate undemocratic laws? Sorting public support for the national security act in South Korea\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Green, Steven Denney\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13510347.2023.2258082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study investigates why anti-democratic laws persist in democratic societies, focusing on South Korea's National Security Act (NSA). Enacted in 1948, the NSA restricts freedom of expression and movement to deter pro-North Korea behaviour. Despite being at odds with the tenets of running contrary to liberal democracy, the Act remains in place. Existing public opinion data indicates modest to strong support for the law, but measurement concerns leave much to be desired. Using a choice-based conjoint, we test the impact of democratic norms and national security rationales on various policy propositions related to the NSA, including its abolition. Results show widespread support for the Act, driven by both democratic norms and security concerns. Progressives are more likely to support revisions limiting the scope of the Act on the basis that it safeguards democracy, but they agree with conservatives that it should not be abolished. This research contributes to understanding South Korea's post-democratic transition and the balance between national security and democracy more broadly.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Democratization\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Democratization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2258082\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2258082","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究调查了为什么反民主法律在民主社会中持续存在,重点是韩国的国家安全法(NSA)。美国国家安全局于1948年颁布,限制言论和行动自由,以遏制亲朝鲜行为。尽管与自由民主主义背道而驰,但该法案仍然存在。现有的民意数据显示,人们对这项法律的支持从温和到强烈不等,但衡量方面的担忧还有很多需要改进的地方。使用基于选择的联合,我们测试了民主规范和国家安全理由对与国家安全局相关的各种政策主张的影响,包括其废除。结果显示,出于民主规范和安全考虑,该法案得到了广泛支持。进步人士更有可能支持以保护民主为基础,限制该法案的范围,但他们同意保守派的观点,即不应废除该法案。这项研究有助于更广泛地理解韩国的后民主转型以及国家安全和民主之间的平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Why do democratic societies tolerate undemocratic laws? Sorting public support for the national security act in South Korea
This study investigates why anti-democratic laws persist in democratic societies, focusing on South Korea's National Security Act (NSA). Enacted in 1948, the NSA restricts freedom of expression and movement to deter pro-North Korea behaviour. Despite being at odds with the tenets of running contrary to liberal democracy, the Act remains in place. Existing public opinion data indicates modest to strong support for the law, but measurement concerns leave much to be desired. Using a choice-based conjoint, we test the impact of democratic norms and national security rationales on various policy propositions related to the NSA, including its abolition. Results show widespread support for the Act, driven by both democratic norms and security concerns. Progressives are more likely to support revisions limiting the scope of the Act on the basis that it safeguards democracy, but they agree with conservatives that it should not be abolished. This research contributes to understanding South Korea's post-democratic transition and the balance between national security and democracy more broadly.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Democratization
Democratization POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Democratization aims to promote a better understanding of democratization - defined as the way democratic norms, institutions and practices evolve and are disseminated both within and across national and cultural boundaries. While the focus is on democratization viewed as a process, the journal also builds on the enduring interest in democracy itself and its analysis. The emphasis is contemporary and the approach comparative, with the publication of scholarly contributions about those areas where democratization is currently attracting considerable attention world-wide.
期刊最新文献
After authoritarianism: transitional justice and democratic stability After authoritarianism: transitional justice and democratic stability , by Monika Nalepa, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2022, 300 pp., £ 26.99 (paperback), ISBN: 9781009073714 Weak party system institutionalization and autocratization: evidence from Tunisia Ballots beyond borders: attitudes towards external voting in Colombia Fading freedoms: democratic decline in Albania Changing the rules to win the game again: does presidential term-limit evasion affect measures of electoral integrity? 
×
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