Detailed Information

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

근대 사법제도 성립사 비교연구 -한국에 있어서 ‘사법독립’ 원리의 태동 수용과 전개-Creating Independent Courts : Origins and Processes of Judicial Independence in Korea

Authors
신우철
Issue Date
2008
Publisher
서울대학교 법학연구소
Keywords
judicial independence; Constitutionalism; Court Organization Act; Korea; Japan; China; East Asia; 사법독립; 입헌주의; 재판소구성법; 한국; 일본; 중국; 동아시아
Citation
서울대학교 법학, v.49, no.2, pp 256 - 285
Pages
30
Journal Title
서울대학교 법학
Volume
49
Number
2
Start Page
256
End Page
285
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/cau/handle/2019.sw.cau/31379
ISSN
1598-222X
Abstract
In this article, I trace the frustrated legal efforts to establish independent courts during the late Chosun Dynasty and the Taehan Empire. First, I compare the traditional judicial system of Korea with that of Japan and China. Here, I concentrate on the traditional systems of “checks and balances” in each state, and find that the distinctive feature of the Korean system is to limit the terms of judicial officers. Next, I analyze some literatures that introduced the new idea of “judicial independence” to Korea. In this part, the work of Choi Han-ki(최한 기), the Japan-reports of Eom Se-young(엄세영) and Park Jeong-yang(박정양), some editorials of the Hansong Sunbo(한성순보), some descriptions of Mangukjeongpyo(만국정표) and Misokseupyu(미속습유), the reform petition of Park Young-hyo(박영효의 건백서) will be examined. Compared to Japan and China, the acception of judicial independence, theoretical or constitutional, was extremely late in Korea. Such “ur-constitutional” documents as Cheongryeong (Governmental Order) of the Kapsin Coup, Hongbeom(Great Norm) of the Kabo Reform, Heonyi(Six Articles[Charter]) of the Independence Club, Kukje(State Institution) of the Taehan Empire do not contain any clause concerning judicial independence. The first constitutional document that provided the guarantee of judicial independence is the Provisional Constitution of 1919, but it was no more than a “constitutional decoration” of the “provisional government” which could not actually “constitute” and “govern.” Although the Court Organization Acts of 1895, 1899, and 1907 modelled after the Japanese judicial reform acts since the Meiji Restoration, provisions concerning judicial independence were completely excluded. Lastly, I research the historic causes and the political effects of the absence of judicial independence in Korea. Here, I conclude that the dominancy of such “political” principles as parliamentarism and localism over the “legalistic” principle like judicial independence might explain the Korean experience.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
Law School > Law > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Researcher Shin, Woo Cheol photo

Shin, Woo Cheol
법학전문대학원 (법학과)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE