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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2024.5
- 수록면
- 81 - 105 (25page)
- DOI
- 10.35227/HYLR.2024.5.35.2.81
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The current Constitution guarantees freedom of establishment of political parties and a plural party system in Article 8. The freedom of establishing a political party guaranteed here refers not only to the freedom to form a political party in a narrow sense, but also to the freedom of political parties in a broad sense. The freedom of political parties includes the freedom of citizens to form and join political parties, freedom of party activities, and political party disorganization. This includes the freedom to join and leave political parties. It also includes the freedom of party organization, that is, the freedom of establishing a political party, which is the freedom to form a political party of any type and organization.
This freedom of establishment of political parties and the plural party system are instrumental in realizing the constitutional purpose and function of political parties, which is participation in the formation of the political will of the people. Therefore, any system that restricts the freedom of party establishment and the plural party system to make it impossible to realize the functions and purposes of such political parties should be viewed as a violation of the Constitution.
In the Political Party Act, when establishing a political party, the central party of the political party must be located in the capital, the political party must have five or more city/provincial parties, and the legal number of city/provincial parties must be 1,000 or more. and the "legal party membership clause" fundamentally make it impossible for new political parties or regional political parties based in the region to emerge, which infringes on the freedom of political party establishment under Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution and goes against the principle of the plural party system.
The Constitutional Court has previously ruled that this is constitutional, but it is difficult to accept the majority view of the Constitutional Court, and the above provisions do not recognize the legitimacy of the legislative purpose, appropriateness of the means, minimal infringement, and balance of legal interests, as seen above. Therefore, it violates the principle of prohibition of excess, which is the standard for reviewing unconstitutionality. In other words, the people"s freedom to establish political parties is being violated.
In terms of the freedom of establishment of political parties and the interpretation of the plural party system, there is no legislative reason to prohibit the establishment of local political parties. This is true even when examined comparatively. In order to form and reflect the people"s political will in a variety of ways, a path must be opened for the free emergence of new political parties, and one way to do this is to legally allow regional political parties to be established and engage in political activities. It is done.
In terms of legislation, the provisions on the location of the central party"s capital in Article 3 of the Political Parties Act, the provision on five or more statutory city/provincial parties in Article 17, and the statutory number of city/provincial party members in Article 18 must be deleted or revised.
This freedom of establishment of political parties and the plural party system are instrumental in realizing the constitutional purpose and function of political parties, which is participation in the formation of the political will of the people. Therefore, any system that restricts the freedom of party establishment and the plural party system to make it impossible to realize the functions and purposes of such political parties should be viewed as a violation of the Constitution.
In the Political Party Act, when establishing a political party, the central party of the political party must be located in the capital, the political party must have five or more city/provincial parties, and the legal number of city/provincial parties must be 1,000 or more. and the "legal party membership clause" fundamentally make it impossible for new political parties or regional political parties based in the region to emerge, which infringes on the freedom of political party establishment under Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution and goes against the principle of the plural party system.
The Constitutional Court has previously ruled that this is constitutional, but it is difficult to accept the majority view of the Constitutional Court, and the above provisions do not recognize the legitimacy of the legislative purpose, appropriateness of the means, minimal infringement, and balance of legal interests, as seen above. Therefore, it violates the principle of prohibition of excess, which is the standard for reviewing unconstitutionality. In other words, the people"s freedom to establish political parties is being violated.
In terms of the freedom of establishment of political parties and the interpretation of the plural party system, there is no legislative reason to prohibit the establishment of local political parties. This is true even when examined comparatively. In order to form and reflect the people"s political will in a variety of ways, a path must be opened for the free emergence of new political parties, and one way to do this is to legally allow regional political parties to be established and engage in political activities. It is done.
In terms of legislation, the provisions on the location of the central party"s capital in Article 3 of the Political Parties Act, the provision on five or more statutory city/provincial parties in Article 17, and the statutory number of city/provincial party members in Article 18 must be deleted or revised.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 정당설립의 자유의 보장과 제한
Ⅲ. 「정당법」상의 ‘전국정당조항’에 대한 헌법재판소의 해석
Ⅳ. 정당설립의 자유 제한의 한계
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
정당등록제도에 관한 헌법적 고찰
공법학연구
2020 .11
-
정당의 공직선거후보자 추천에 관한 법정책적 고찰
법과 정책연구
2020 .01
-
개인의 자유로서 정당의 자유 - 헌법상 정당조항에 대한 민주적 해석론 -
공법학연구
2023 .02
-
시민정치의 흐름과 네트워크정당모델의 과제
민주주의와 인권
2016 .03
-
정당의 자유 제한에 관한 연구 - 헌법 제8조 제1항과 정당설립의 자유를 중심으로 -
법학연구
2025 .02
-
아동․청소년의 민주적 대표성 강화를 위한 정치참여 개선 - 학교영역에서의 정치참여 제한 및 개선을 중심으로 -
공법학연구
2021 .05
-
시민참여 활성화를 위한 ‘정당법’ 개선에 관한 연구
법학연구
2017 .01
-
지역정치 활성화를 위한 지역정당 설립 방안 연구: 해외 주요국 지역정당 사례의 비교분석
한국지방정치학회보
2021 .01
-
‘設館修史’의 전통과 首都 北京 : 近現代 北京史를 둘러싼 제도와 연구
서울학연구
2016 .11
-
정당법 10년 성과와 과제
의정연구
2015 .01
-
Facing Financial Governance Challenges in Africa: A Reflection on Political Parties’ Financial Accountability in Tanzania
Asian Journal of African Studies
2023 .02
-
청년 당원의 정당 활동 전략: 보이거나 숨거나
한국사회학회 사회학대회 논문집
2024 .12
-
정당의 공직선거후보자추천을 위한 당내경선에 대한 헌법적 검토
중앙법학
2016 .09
-
정당에서의 정치교육과 청소년 정치활동 참여- 청소년의 참정권 확대를 위한 관점에서의 검토 -
법과인권교육연구
2022 .08
-
청년의 정치참여와 대표성: 청년당원의 인식을 중심으로
현대정치연구
2020 .12
-
헌법상 정당조항(제8조) 개정론
세계헌법연구
2023 .04
-
中日韩三国合作制度化建设的前景与挑战
동북아 문화연구
2020 .09
-
한국 유권자의 정당 신뢰에 영향을 미치는 요인 분석
사회과학연구
2018 .06
-
독일 지방정치의 ‘탈정당정치화’ 경향 : 한국 지방정치발전에의 함의
21세기정치학회보
2015 .03
-
정당개혁의 필요성과 방향 : 정당 활동가들의 시각을 중심으로
미래정치연구
2017 .08
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0