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
This article is a description and analysis on the legislative process of The Law on the Establishment and Management of Law Schools(2007)(hereinafter 'the Law School Law'). Several scholars who dealt with this subject considered the process as unusual and irrational and consequently criticized the Congress for passing the Law in such an improper way. But if we review the process in different perspective and more deeply, we can find the opposite side, that is, the dynamics and normality of the process. This article is arguing against their critical views on the process, based on the author's personal engagement with the process as a member of civil society organization that wanted to pass the Law.
This article shows, with so many materials, that the Congress is not so rigid organization as the critics generally complain and that rather it has considerable responsiveness to the demand of the civil society. Most congress members were ready to listen to civil society members. They gave equal opportunities to both group who were for or against the Law. The congressional modification and passage of the Law is actually the result of the full participation of civil societies.
Nevertheless it does not mean that the Congress is so democratic and open-minded that it is easy for each individual to approach and influence the Congress. One of the factors that enable the civil society to influence it was fact that the civil society was able to mobilize the active law professors and deans and has the incomparable level of specialty in dealing with the congress members and in influencing medias. With this factors in mind, the Congress must still seem to the common people too far to approach.
In sum, at least as far as the legislative process of the Law School Law is concerned, with some reservation of course, we can safely argue that the Congress is the organization with considerable democratic sensibility to the demand of civil society, which is very much contrasted with the rigidity of the Executive Branch. That is one of the reason why the Law School Law could be passed in spite of the strong opposition of the powerful vested interests group, that is, the Korean Bar Association. Accordingly this paper concludes that it is not right to simply dismiss the legislative process of the Law School Law as irrational or undemocratic, but that the process should be considered to be an important proof of the democratic maturity of the congress as well as civil society.
This article shows, with so many materials, that the Congress is not so rigid organization as the critics generally complain and that rather it has considerable responsiveness to the demand of the civil society. Most congress members were ready to listen to civil society members. They gave equal opportunities to both group who were for or against the Law. The congressional modification and passage of the Law is actually the result of the full participation of civil societies.
Nevertheless it does not mean that the Congress is so democratic and open-minded that it is easy for each individual to approach and influence the Congress. One of the factors that enable the civil society to influence it was fact that the civil society was able to mobilize the active law professors and deans and has the incomparable level of specialty in dealing with the congress members and in influencing medias. With this factors in mind, the Congress must still seem to the common people too far to approach.
In sum, at least as far as the legislative process of the Law School Law is concerned, with some reservation of course, we can safely argue that the Congress is the organization with considerable democratic sensibility to the demand of civil society, which is very much contrasted with the rigidity of the Executive Branch. That is one of the reason why the Law School Law could be passed in spite of the strong opposition of the powerful vested interests group, that is, the Korean Bar Association. Accordingly this paper concludes that it is not right to simply dismiss the legislative process of the Law School Law as irrational or undemocratic, but that the process should be considered to be an important proof of the democratic maturity of the congress as well as civil society.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 법안작성단계: 2003년부터 2005년 10월까지
Ⅲ. 국회입법단계
Ⅳ. 평가
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
충남대학교 법학전문대학원의 민법 교육과정 및 교육방법
법학연구
2008 .12
-
사회변화에 따른 한국 민법의 개정과 과제
법학논총
2018 .01
-
일본 법과대학원에 있어서의 민사법의 이론교육과 실무교육의 조화
서강법학
2008 .12
-
WHAT IS LAW
저스티스
1965 .04
-
중국 민법학의 역사회고와 전망
외법논집
2009 .01
-
분쟁해결의 민법학에서 제도구상의 민법학으로
법과 정책연구
2010 .01
-
中国民法典编纂中的立法模式悖论 ——基于商法规范如何安排的视角
원광법학
2017 .01
-
명예의 개념과 명예훼손에 대한 민법상 구제방법에 관한 연구
동북아법연구
2018 .01
-
민법 제1조와 不文民法의 法源性
동북아법연구
2012 .01
-
중국 불법행위법(침권책임법)의 주요 내용과 특징
재산법연구
2010 .01
-
중국 민법총칙이 신설한 비법인 조직에 대한 소고
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
美國憲法上 聯邦議會의 權限과 그 限界
공법학연구
2005 .06
-
민법에서 권리론의 실현과 역할
원광법학
2014 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-360-003104652