http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
김종서 민주주의법학연구회 2025 민주법학 Vol.- No.87
‘민주세력 옹호’란 국가와 자본에 의하여 억압받으면서도 민주화에 헌신하며 자본주의 비판을 멈추지 않는 개인과 단체들에 대한 공감, 이론적 뒷받침, 탄압에 대한 대응 등을 포괄하는 단어 정도로 이해할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 민주법학에 수록된 대부분의 글들과 민주주의법학연구회(이하 ‘민주법연’)가 해 왔던 거의 모든 일들이 이 범주에 포함될 것이기 때문에 이렇게 이해할 경우 이 주제를 독자적인 범주로 구분할 이유는 없게 된다. 그래서 이 글은 이 주제에 대하여 좀 다른 방식으로 접근하여, 네 가지 질문에 대해 답하는 식으로 서술했다. 우선 이 글은 그 출발점으로 “우리는 ‘누구와’ 함께 (하고자) 했는가?”라는 질문을 던진다. 이에 대해 민주법연이 민주법학운동을 통해 함께 했던 또는 함께 하고자 했던 개인이나 집단의 일정한 공통점을 찾아보고 대표적인 집단을 정리해 보았다. 다음으로 떠오르는 물음은 당연히 “우리는 민주세력과 ‘어떻게’ 함께 (하고자) 했는가?”이다. 이에 답하기 위해 필자는 국제인권조약의 당사국에게 부과되는 인권의무로서 인권에 대한 존중・보호・실현의 의무에 착안하여 민주법연의 활동을 평가해 보고자 했다. 그리고 “그런 우리의 시도는 어떤 한계에 부딪혔으며, 그 이유는 무엇이었나?”라는 아픈 질문이 이어진다. 민주법연이 다양한 민주세력과 함께 진행했던 활동들이 부딪힌 한계를 찾아보고 그 원인을 민주법연이라는 조직의 측면과 회원이라는 개인의 측면에서 살펴보았다. 마지막으로 남는 질문은 “이제 우리는 누구와 어떻게 함께 할 것인가?”이다. 민주법연은 2020년에 새로운 발족선언문을 채택함으로써 우리의 관심과 열정을 기울여야 할 대상을, 우리와 함께 해야 할 민주세력의 범주를 과거에 비해 훨씬 넓힐 것을 선택했는데, 그것이 어떤 의미를 가지며 향후 어떤 과제를 민주법연에 던지는가를 탐색해 보았다. 이러한 작업을 통하여 앞으로 민주법연에 주어진 과제이자, 민주법학운동의 성패를 좌우할 과제를 이렇게 정리했다. “늘 현장에 함께 있으면서, 현장의 목소리에 의해 요구되는 것을 확인하고 그것에 대하여 현장의 조건에 가장 부합한 해법과 대안을 다양한 민주세력과 함께 발견하고 제시하는 것.” The topic of “advocacy of pro-democracy activists” is a tricky one. Not only is it difficult to define what constitutes pro-democracy activists, but the term “advocacy” is hard to pin down. Perhaps most of the articles in Democratic Legal Studies(DLS) and almost all of the work of the Democratic Legal Studies Association(DELSA) would fall into this category. So this article takes a different approach to the topic, answering four questions. First, I started with the question, “With whom have we―DELSA and its members― worked?” To answer this, I look for certain commonalities in the individuals and groups with whom DELSA has worked or sought to work through the Democratic Legal Studies movement. Among them are workers/trade unions/labor movements, democratization movements, education movements, disaster victims, minority parties/progressive parties, and human rights movements.. The next question that naturally arises is, “How have we ‘worked’ with pro-democracy activists?” To answer this question, I tried to evaluate the work of DELSA by focusing on the obligation to respect, protect, and realize human rights, which is imposed on state parties to international human rights treaties. This leads me to ask the painful question, “What were the limits of our attempts, and why?” I looked at the limitations of our activities with various pro-democracy activists and examined the reasons for them, both from the perspective of the organization and the individual members. The final question that remains is, “Who will we work with and how will we work together?” By adopting a new founding statement in 2020, DELSA has chosen to broaden the scope of whom we focus our attention and enthusiasm on, and whom we stand with, much more than in the past, and I have explored what this means for the future and what challenges it poses for the organization. Through this work, I have summarized the tasks that will be given to DELSA in the future, and the tasks that will determine the success or failure of the DLS movement, as follows: “To always be present in the field, to identify what is demanded by the voices of the field, and to discover and present solutions and alternatives that best meet the conditions of the field together with various pro-democracy activists.”
김종서 ( Jong Seo Kim ) 민주주의법학연구회 2011 민주법학 Vol.0 No.46
While the Constitutional Court since 1987 has exerted an exclusive power of constitutional interpretation and can now be called even an omnipotent power, the democratic control thereof has never been working. This thesis aims at evaluating the judicial review system by the Constitutional Court in a democratic perspective. For the purpose of this, I first tried to prove that both the main-stream legal scholarship and the civil society had wrongly responded to the newly-introduced constitutional court system. And then I investigated how the democratic criticism had been developed. For this, I took as an example the Democratic Legal Studies Association(DELSA), which had allegedly been established to revolutionize the realities of law and legal scholarship in Korea under the slogan of Toward the day when the people and the law will be one! since 1989. The activities of the DELSA were analyzed in three categories: Ideological critiques; analyses of the court decisions; and the practical responses to the judicial review system in the dimension of social movement. Considering that the core task of the DELSA is to criticize the dominant ideology and to create a counter-ideology, I suggested some proposals as follows: First, the Constitutional Court as a creator of the constitutional ideology should be properly attended to, analyzed elaborately, and overcome sufficiently. Second, the analyses of its background system and its individual decisions should be performed simultaneously on the one hand, the changes in its form of operation should also be investigated constantly and thoroughly on the other. Finally, it is urgent to do the above mentioned tasks that a collective and interdisciplinary working among legal, human and social scientists should begin immediately.