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
오류제보하기
The recent phenomenon of social change is often characterized as globalization, which demands new theory for administrative law as well. Traditional legal system has been based upon nation state with sovereign power, people and territory. But as the power of inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, multi-national corporations and influential people, the scheme of administration in modern nation is being changed. Korea is no exception to this globalization wave. Because of heavy dependency on international trade and diplomacy for its development, we should pay more attention to this global trend and adjust our legal system for welfare of people in borderless society. Contemporary rule of law demands democratic policy making through participation of people in various administrative procedure while modern form of rule of law posed importance on constitutional legal order and the protection of basic constitutional rights of people in substantial way.
It is sure that administrative procedure enlarge the chance of democracy, but it should not be treated as ritual or mere formal events. It should function as an arena in which people can voice their interests and through which the reason of decision is made concrete. Public interest in a global society is decided by competition of all possible public interest. It is the role of government to provide a just and formal place for all the conflicting interests to have a chance of becoming public interest. And documents made through administrative procedure can explain why such an administrative decision was made.
Accountability, transparency and subsidiarity are administrative law principles reflecting characteristics of contemporary globalized administrative law. We should make more efforts to make these this principles have their positions in administrative law. Korean administrative procedure have a few provision for these principles. But to our disappointment, these principles are not fully accepted by either government or court. Reading hard cases such as Saemangum decision of the Supreme Court, we can affirm that the role of administrative procedure in above mentioned sense is not understood by the court. I criticized this tendency of the courts and stressed the importance of reasons in decision making.
In making public interest real foreseeability, participation of citizens and agreement by general people with reason of decision should be the three elements of administrative procedure. Sometimes it is not possible to achieve all these goals in single administrative procedure. The basic act for sustainable development enacted this year(2007) suggests that for next generation and this generation, administrative policy making should consider economic development, protection of environment and social integration at the same time. Although it is very hard to clear all the elements in a administrative policy. government should try to hit the best balance among the conflicting interests. I suggest that administrative procedure should be managed and improved to respond to this purpose.
It is sure that administrative procedure enlarge the chance of democracy, but it should not be treated as ritual or mere formal events. It should function as an arena in which people can voice their interests and through which the reason of decision is made concrete. Public interest in a global society is decided by competition of all possible public interest. It is the role of government to provide a just and formal place for all the conflicting interests to have a chance of becoming public interest. And documents made through administrative procedure can explain why such an administrative decision was made.
Accountability, transparency and subsidiarity are administrative law principles reflecting characteristics of contemporary globalized administrative law. We should make more efforts to make these this principles have their positions in administrative law. Korean administrative procedure have a few provision for these principles. But to our disappointment, these principles are not fully accepted by either government or court. Reading hard cases such as Saemangum decision of the Supreme Court, we can affirm that the role of administrative procedure in above mentioned sense is not understood by the court. I criticized this tendency of the courts and stressed the importance of reasons in decision making.
In making public interest real foreseeability, participation of citizens and agreement by general people with reason of decision should be the three elements of administrative procedure. Sometimes it is not possible to achieve all these goals in single administrative procedure. The basic act for sustainable development enacted this year(2007) suggests that for next generation and this generation, administrative policy making should consider economic development, protection of environment and social integration at the same time. Although it is very hard to clear all the elements in a administrative policy. government should try to hit the best balance among the conflicting interests. I suggest that administrative procedure should be managed and improved to respond to this purpose.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 행정법과 공익
Ⅲ. 글로벌화와 법환경의 변화
Ⅳ. 글로벌 시대 공익의 구조변화
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
國際聯合行政上의 諸問題
국제법학회논총
1960 .04
-
동아시아 행정심판제도 비교연구
행정법연구
2008 .08
-
행정지도와 법률유보 및 구제에 관한 이론적 검토
한양법학
2011 .08
-
중국법상 行政審判機關의 終局裁決權과 그에 대한 評價
법학연구
2005 .12
-
中国2014年《行政诉讼法》修正案的主要内容及未来发展
동북아법연구
2015 .01
-
참여와 교섭에 의한 행정과정과 행정분쟁의 해결
행정법연구
2007 .08
-
현대의 행정 변화와 행정법학 방법론 연구 : 전통적 행정법학의 방법론 분석과 그 보완을 위한 시론(試論)
행정법연구
2005 .10
-
東アジアにおける比較行政法の可能性
동북아법연구
2012 .01
-
사회보장행정의 절차법적 모델의 탐구를 위한 기초연구
한양법학
2010 .02
-
行政節次法上 處分基準 設定ㆍ公表와 合議制 行政廳의 行政節次
행정법연구
2008 .04
-
한국의 행정계획
서울행정학회 학술대회 발표논문집
2007 .12
-
프랑스, 미국에서의 행정행위 개념에 대한 소고
행정법연구
2007 .12
-
행정의 행위형식으로서의‘행정계획’개념에 대한 검토－헌법재판소 2000. 6. 1. 선고, 99헌마538등 결정,대법원 1982. 3. 9. 선고, 80누105 판결 및 대법원 2002.10. 11. 선고, 2000두8226 판결에 대한 평석－
일감법학
2013 .01
-
행정법학의 개념과그 외연(外延) : 제도중심의 공법학방법론을 위한 시론(試論)
행정법연구
2008 .08
-
行政節次法에 관한 比較硏究
법학논총
1987 .12
-
행정절차법의 처분절차상 주요 쟁점 : 절차보장의 확대를 위한 적극적 해석의 필요성
행정법연구
2017 .06
-
2018년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
2019년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2020 .01
-
환경문제에 대한 행정법적 대응과 행정구제
한림법학 FORUM
2006 .11
-
2017년 행정법(I) 중요 판례
인권과 정의
2018 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
Global Administrative Law Perspective for Investment Treaty Arbitration
Kim
,
Dae Jung
국제경제법연구
2013
.07
경쟁제한과 과당경쟁 : 마을버스의 노선허가와 그의 취소
선정원
행정법연구
2002
.08
指紋情報의 警察作用法的 問題 : 헌재 2005. 5. 26. 선고 99헌마513(2004헌마190병합) 결정에 대한 평석
金聖泰
행정법연구
2007
.08
행정소송법 개정에 관한 소고 : 대법원과 법무부 개정안의 상호비교를 중심으로
白潤基
행정법연구
2007
.08
공정거래법상 과징금 제도의 현황과 개선방안
홍대식
행정법연구
2007
.08
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0