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 abstract review of law is not permitted in relationship with the congress due to the damage of democracy. 'The premise of judgement' should be interpreted in relationship with the matter of power separation between Congress and Constitutional Court.
The abstract review against legistlative ordinance among administrative legistlations has nothing to do with the damage of democracy, but it should be conrolled in the aspect of administrative work. Thus 'the premise of judgement' should be interpreted not in relationship between Congress and Constitutional Court, but in relationship of power distribution between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. In the meaning of enbroadening the width of letigation possibility and right saving, the abstract review of norm could be permitted in some aspect, but it has the limits of not being violated against the principle of power balance. The abstract review of norm by the Constitutional Court could be permitted, but not by the Supreme Court.
In case of Municipal Ordinance, the abstract review of norm against it should be restricted more severely than that against legistlative ordinace. But in the point of principle of power separation, there would be no problem because the Municipal Ordinance is under the law and the local congress is just a kind of administrative organ
In conclusion, the abstract review of norm against law would be not permitted. The abstract review of norm against legistlative ordinace by the Supreme Court should be not permitted, but could be permitted by the Constitutional Court. But in the case of Municipal Ordinance, the abstract review of norm against it shuold not be permitted.
The premise of litigation should be lightly treated as meaning a little relationship with the case, and the objective litigation would suffice the fulfillment of 'premise of litigation'.
The abstract review against legistlative ordinance among administrative legistlations has nothing to do with the damage of democracy, but it should be conrolled in the aspect of administrative work. Thus 'the premise of judgement' should be interpreted not in relationship between Congress and Constitutional Court, but in relationship of power distribution between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. In the meaning of enbroadening the width of letigation possibility and right saving, the abstract review of norm could be permitted in some aspect, but it has the limits of not being violated against the principle of power balance. The abstract review of norm by the Constitutional Court could be permitted, but not by the Supreme Court.
In case of Municipal Ordinance, the abstract review of norm against it should be restricted more severely than that against legistlative ordinace. But in the point of principle of power separation, there would be no problem because the Municipal Ordinance is under the law and the local congress is just a kind of administrative organ
In conclusion, the abstract review of norm against law would be not permitted. The abstract review of norm against legistlative ordinace by the Supreme Court should be not permitted, but could be permitted by the Constitutional Court. But in the case of Municipal Ordinance, the abstract review of norm against it shuold not be permitted.
The premise of litigation should be lightly treated as meaning a little relationship with the case, and the objective litigation would suffice the fulfillment of 'premise of litigation'.
목차
Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. 憲法 제107조 제1ㆍ2항의 規範統制的 意味
Ⅲ. 條例의 法的 地位
Ⅳ. 맺음
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (3)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
抽象的規範統制 導入을 위한 試論 : 行政立法에 대한 規範統制를 中心으로
법학논총
2011 .02
-
중국법상 법률우위원칙의 실현과 행정규범의 통제
공법학연구
2015 .11
-
‘裁判의 前提’를 둘러싼 憲法 第107條 第1項ㆍ第2項 사이의 體系整合性을 위한 試論
한양법학
2011 .02
-
조례의 사법적 통제에 관한 소고
지방자치법연구
2016 .01
-
조례제정의 한계와 통제에 관한 일고찰
한국자치행정학보
2016 .01
-
인터넷 이용과 커뮤니케이션 규범 변화의 관계에 관한 연구
한국언론학보
2014 .06
-
法規範の分類方法に関する一考察 ―個別規範と一般規範、行為規範と授権規範57)―
동북아법연구
2010 .01
-
규범통제의 본질에 비추어 본 대법원과 헌법재판소의 역할
고려법학
2009 .01
-
켈젠의 법이론에 있어서 규범과 가치 -규범과 가치의 상관관계를 중심으로-
법철학연구
2015 .12
-
국제규범의 근거에 관한 법철학적 고찰
국제정치논총
2006 .04
-
規範效力과 事例硏究方法
헌법판례연구
2008 .02
-
우리 위헌법률심판제도와 헌법재판소 결정의 효력
저스티스
2006 .04
-
중국의 違憲審査制度에 관한 小考
공법학연구
2006 .06
-
조례에 대한 입법평가제도 도입가능성
지방자치법연구
2009 .01
-
조례의 사법적 통제와 주요쟁점에 관한 법리의 검토
법학논총
2015 .01
-
중국적 규범(norm)의 모색과 한계 : 주권(sovereignty)을 중심으로
국제정치논총
2006 .12
-
행정처분에 대한 헌법재판소의 취소가능성
저스티스
2017 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-363-004477355