인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
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.
초록·키워드
For the last 17 years since the establishment of the Korean Constitutional Court, the Court has actively engaged in adjudicating numerous cases involving crucial issues, and has been widely appraised to successfully promote fundamental human rights in South Korea. Among the various decisions rendered by the Court, this article particularly deals with those directly related to the election laws.
Since its inception, the Consitutional Court has rendered 123 rulings, as of December 2005, on election related matters. A critical analysis of those rulings clearly shows some patterns of the Court on the issues. The main focus of this article is to exhibit these patterns and to argue against the conservative position the Court has taken so far.
The principal argument in this article is premised on the assessment that the current legislation on election law contains many problems that might well clash with the letter and spirit of the Consitutional Law, which promote the principle of “free election.” The article argues that undue influence of the political parties has deformed the legislative process of elections law, thus making these laws to function as a strict restriction on the citizen's freedom to participating in free elections. Instead of fostering the environment for freer election, the current election laws unproportionately stress on clean and transparent campaign management.
The clear patterns of the Constitutional Court rulings are the polar opposites. In a leading case like the National Assembly Candidacy Deposit Case (88Hun-Ka6, Sept. 8, 1989), the Court found Article 33 and 34 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act violating the Constitution. The relevant provisions of the Act required the candidates to deposit substantial amounts of money in order to prevent too many candidates from running and ensure a clean election. The Court ruled that these provisions violate the equal protection of law(Art. 11), as well as the principle of equal election(Art. 41).
Contrary to the active position the Court has been taking to ensure the principle of equality among candidates, the Court has rendered a series of reserved or conservative decisions regarding the time, place and manner of election campaign. This article supports the dissenting opinions in these rulings, and requests the Consitutional Court to change its position for the promotion of free election campaign endorsed by the Constitutional Law.
Since its inception, the Consitutional Court has rendered 123 rulings, as of December 2005, on election related matters. A critical analysis of those rulings clearly shows some patterns of the Court on the issues. The main focus of this article is to exhibit these patterns and to argue against the conservative position the Court has taken so far.
The principal argument in this article is premised on the assessment that the current legislation on election law contains many problems that might well clash with the letter and spirit of the Consitutional Law, which promote the principle of “free election.” The article argues that undue influence of the political parties has deformed the legislative process of elections law, thus making these laws to function as a strict restriction on the citizen's freedom to participating in free elections. Instead of fostering the environment for freer election, the current election laws unproportionately stress on clean and transparent campaign management.
The clear patterns of the Constitutional Court rulings are the polar opposites. In a leading case like the National Assembly Candidacy Deposit Case (88Hun-Ka6, Sept. 8, 1989), the Court found Article 33 and 34 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act violating the Constitution. The relevant provisions of the Act required the candidates to deposit substantial amounts of money in order to prevent too many candidates from running and ensure a clean election. The Court ruled that these provisions violate the equal protection of law(Art. 11), as well as the principle of equal election(Art. 41).
Contrary to the active position the Court has been taking to ensure the principle of equality among candidates, the Court has rendered a series of reserved or conservative decisions regarding the time, place and manner of election campaign. This article supports the dissenting opinions in these rulings, and requests the Consitutional Court to change its position for the promotion of free election campaign endorsed by the Constitutional Law.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-362-016081829
