미국의 헌법적 불법행위(Constitutional Tort)소송에 관한 고찰

이노홍(Lee Noh Hong) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2010 世界憲法硏究 Vol.16 No.4

미국의 헌법적 불법행위(Constitutional Tort)소송이란 미연방법 제42권 제1983조를 근거로 한 소송을 의미하는 것으로 그 내용은 간단히 ‘주법의 외형을 갖춘자’, 간단히 주와 지방 정부의 공무원 및 직원이 미연방 헌법상 시민의 권리를 침해한 경우 그 손해에 대한 구제를 연방법원에 청구하는 소송이라고 설명할 수 있다. 실체적 헌법의 실질적 구현절차라고 할 수 있는 헌법적 불법행위소송은 오늘날 미연방법원에 제기되는 소송의 대다수를 차지하고 있으며 연방대법원의 경우도 한해 판결 중 절반 정도가 바로 헌법상 불법행위소송과 관련된 사안이기에 헌법적 불법행위소송이 미국 헌법 이론 및 소송 실무에 있어 차지하는 중요성은 매우 크다. 연방헌법을 주에 강제하기 어려웠던 시기에 연방의회는 연방헌법상 권리를 침해당한 피해자가 ‘주법의 외형을 갖춘 자’를 상대로 연방법원에 직접 구제를 청구할 수 있도록 함으로써 연방헌법의 실질적인 보장을 가능하게 하였다. 그렇지만 헌법적 불법행위소송은 헌법적 불법행위라는 개념설정의 어려움과‘주법의 외형을 갖춘 자’라는 규정의 모호성 때문에 그 적용과 해석에 있어 많은 논란의 대상이 되어왔다. 연방대법원은 판례를 통해 ‘주법의 외형을 갖춘 자’의 범위를 주나 지방의 공무원뿐만 아니라 연방공무원, 시정부, 사인에게까지 확장하여 헌법적 권리를 확대하기 위해 노력하였으며, 헌법적 불법행위 존부를 판단함에 있어 발생시킬 수 있는 공무집행의 위축 및 남소 방지를 위하여 과거 판례에 의해 명확히 정립되지 않은 위헌 행위에 대해서는 손해배상에 있어 면책권을 인정하기도 하였다. 헌법적 불법행위소송의 핵심은 결국 헌법 위반 행위에 대해 책임을 물을 수 있는 대상과 그 한계, 즉 헌법적 배상책임을 지는 하는 ‘법의 외형을 갖춘 자’의 범위는 어디까지인가? 그리고 이들이 헌법적 배상책임을 면제받는 경우는 언제인가에 있다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 이와 같은 미국의 헌법적 불법행위소송에 대한 논의 검토는 우리의 국가배상 및 공무원책임을 해석하고 헌법의 적용대상을 설정하는데 있어서 그리고 위헌 판단이 정립되지 않은 경우 발생시킬 수 있는 과도한 국가배상 책임 및 공무원 책임의 한계를 설정하는데 있어 분명 의미 있는 작업이 될 것이다. Constitutional torts are actions under Section 1983 of title 42 of the U.S. Code is provides every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. The purpose of Section 1983 was to put the federal courts between the State and the people, as guardians of people's federal rights and to protect the people from unconstitutional actions under color of state law. Constitutional torts has very significant importance in practice, but it raise difficult theoretical issues of constitutional and statutory interpretation. The main issues are the term, constitutional tort itself, interpretation of 'under color of state law' and application of immunity to area of constitutional tort. This article aims to the general review about the these main issues on constitutional tort. At beginning, I sketches the history and background of enacting constitutional tort statues and the dormant status during Civil Rights period. I describe the relation the Sovereign Immunity, compensation statues in federal and states, and constitutional tort at part II. Next I explore the leading cases about constitutional tort and the theoretical issues focusing on interpretation of under color of state law and immunity problem on constitutional tort. In the end, I suggest how this constitutional tort in U.S. would approach to similar situation at Korean constitutional problem and interpretation.

헌법소원의 대상으로서 공권력의 행사와 행정청의 행위 -헌재 결정을 중심으로-

이노홍 ( Noh Hong Lee ) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2011 세계헌법연구(世界憲法硏究) Vol.17 No.2

Constitutional Court Act Article 68-1 provides that any person who claims that his basic right which is guaranteed by the Constitution has been violated by an exercise or non-exercise of governmental power may file a constitutional complaint, except the judgments of the ordinary courts, to the Constitutional Court: Provided, That if any relief process is provided by other laws, no one may file a constitutional complaint without having exhausted all such processes. Constitutional complaint can be filed with the Constitutional Court by any person who believes his or her fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been breached due to the exercise or non-exercise of government power. The existence of the exercise or non-exercise of government power is the first and main issue for the constitutional complaint but it is not easy to determine in the case of executive action because the constitutional complaint is filed without having exhausted all the relief processes provided by other laws, or is directed against the judgment of the ordinary court. For instance, a de facto exercise of power which is difficult to challenge in administrative review or ordinary courts` judicial review can be the subject of Constitutional Complaint. However the Constitutional Court devide a de facto exercise of administrative power based on the legal influence to petitioner and only coercive de facto exercise is considered as the subject of constitutional complaint. And this article will review the constitutional court decisions related with de facto exercise, demonstrate the strictness and inherence of the review test for the subject of constitutional complaint and try to find the proper standard of it.

UN 아동권리협약 제3선택의정서상 개인청원제도와 아동의 재판청구권

이노홍 ( Noh Hong Lee ) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2015 세계헌법연구(世界憲法硏究) Vol.21 No.2

Children are the object of protection, care and control by parents and adults. Though the high possibility of invasion of rights, it is not easy to set concrete contents of children’s rights and to get remedies. The CRC in 1989 for treating children the subject of rights and safeguarding the substantive rights of children and two optional protocols in 2000 which protect the children from harmful recruitment and use in armed conflict and sexual exploitation were adopted by UN. However most children don’t know the rights they have and what to do when their rights are violated. Also the limited legal and proceeding status of children and the court system lack of child sensitive make the children difficult to appeal and go to courts for remedies for violation of their rights in most countries. UN provides children with the ability to use remedy procedures at international treaty body if a State does not protect children’s rights properly by adopting Optional Protocol to the CRC on a Communications Procedure. CRC-OP3 recognizing child as independent and self-determined legal person in international law becomes effective following by ten states’ ratification. We have to be prepared for the positive consideration to ratify CRC-OP3. The complaints before the Committee of the Rights of Children are only admissible after the exhaustion of all available domestic legal remedies. This articles discusses the current legal status of minors focusing to the access limitation to the judicial process. In civil procedural laws, only the adults over nineteen-year-olds have a capability of action in leal proceedings and all the minors can bring a case through their representatives. Also the administrative procedural law and constitutional court law follow the general rules about minor’s capability of civil procedural law. Actually, all the legal remedy procedural deny the children the independent capacity of legal proceeding in Korea. It does not seem easy to access the court and bring cases by minors. However, the statutes preventing minors from bringing lawsuits without parental representation have to be reviewed on the view of child best interests and right to access courts. This article argues that the court will be open to whoever claims the remedy for violation of rights, even the minors who have the ability of understanding about legal and personal implications and need for protection of rights of access to courts.

기본권 효력확장이론과 쟁점에 관한 고찰

이노홍 ( Lee Noh Hong ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2017 홍익법학 Vol.18 No.1

This article examines the theories and issues about the application of fundamental rights to the private actors. The constitutional ground of extension of the effect of fundamental rights can be found in character as objective principles for the whole legal and social order of the constitutional law and the state duty of protection in Article 10. However, the court applying fundamental rights to the private parties should be passive considering the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. Korean Supreme Court adapted the indirect effect theory and stated that fundamental rights should influence the interpretation of private law through open and general clauses such as good faith, good morals and public polices. But it is difficult to predict the concrete method of application and the result. In the background expanding of the effect of fundamental rights exist the private and social powers that can have a risk of violating the weaker`s fundamental rights and are exercising public functions and have close relationships with state. Therefore, the scope of the extension of fundamental rights needs to be narrowed to these privates parties, not individuals with no power and close nexus with state. It is the one of the solutions keeping the rule of law and state duty of protection. Also, the object of constitutional complaint which is last process of fundamental rights protection is limited to public powers. Constitutional duty of state should not be diluted by transforming public role into that of privates. Therefore, it needs to expand the interpretation of the meaning of `public powers` according article 68 (1) of Constitutional Court law to the private powers that have similar function and close relation with public powers.

미국 사립대학내 언론의 자유에 관한 헌법적 고찰

이노홍 ( Noh Hong Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2013 홍익법학 Vol.14 No.1

The colleges and universities are educational institutions for robust speech through a wide range of critical debates to search for truth and knowledge in our society It is essential for colleges and universities to recognize that the campus is the marketplace of ideas and protect the speech in the campus. But sometimes universities, especially the private universities immune from respecting the constitutional protections violate the free speech rights of their students. A fundamental principle of constitutional law in U.S. is that only the state or a private that playes a public function or close nexus to the state may be liable for violating constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court and most courts have refused to regard private educational institutions as state under state action theory to protect individual freedom and private autonomy. Many scholars criticise the decisions, insisting that the education is a basic function in the society and private higher educational institution is not things of purely private concern and private property. Actually It is not easy to find any differences between public university students and private university students as far as rights of free expression are concerned. To examine the Supreme Court decisions about public university student`s speech right, Court has made clear that First Amendment protections should apply on college campuses and attempt to balance students` legitimate First Amendment rights. But the Court have articulated speeches on public university campuses applying a public forum test and gave strong deference to university officials`s opinion in a particular college`s unique environment. University dedicates itself to enlightening students, promoting the exchange of ideas and intellectual curiosity through allowing free discussion of all the social issues. Though we can not deny all the regulatory power of university for legitimate educational purpose, it is necessary to substantial efforts to protect speech in university by concrete standard, fair process, and democratic committee.

성차별에 관한 사법심사기준의 재고찰- 미연방대법원의 성차별 심사기준과 비교를 중심으로-

이노홍 ( Noh Hong Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2012 홍익법학 Vol.13 No.4

This Article examines judicial review standards of the sex-based discrimination cases of Korean Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court`s most recent sex-based equal protection case about whether the legislation imposes the duties of military service only on men, infringes on their right to equality suggested that all the classifications based upon sex or gender should not be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court said that the strict standard of review only applies to sex based discrimination either causes a grave infringement on relevant basic rights or restricts on gender equality in the area that the Constitution particularly enumerated. However, Constitution provides that special protection shall be accorded to working women, and they shall not be subjected to unjust discrimination in terms of employment, wage sand working conditions. So it is hard to predict what is the ``unjust discrimination`` in employment and working condition subject to strict scrutiny and Court does not give any specific guideline. All classifications based on sex are not unconstitutional and the law reflecting real differences between men and women will be permitted, but classifications based on fixed stereotypical notions concerning the relative roles and abilities of females and males will not allowed and even in cases involving real differences, the Constitution prohibits sex-based legislation that reflects or reinforces traditional conceptions of men`s and women`s roles. This anti-stereotype guideline can be a key principle in sex-based equal protection law and the examination about the anti-stereotype concept development in the U.S. Supreme Court is very helpful to reshape judicial standard in Equal Protection and the guideline for the decisions about sex based discrimination cases.

미국 민영교도소에 대한 연방헌법 적용논의

이노홍(Lee Noh-Hong) 한국헌법학회 2003 憲法學硏究 Vol.9 No.4

Privatization is the process of delegating control of a governmental function to the private sector. The role of privatization in America is rapidly expanding on the belief that privatization of government function is an effective tool to cut costs and reduce budget deficits and the prison system is not the exception. Therefore the major constitutional question is whether prisoners in private facilities will benefit from same constitutional protections offered to prisoners in government facilities, or whether the private prison must be subject to Constitution. This article examines issue about the application of constitution to private prisons in U.S. focusing state action doctrine. The fourteenth amendment established the state-action requirement as a constitutional limit on the government, in order to protect individual rights. However, the courts over the past half century have expand the meaning of state action, failing to apply a consistent analysis for determining. The key constitutional problem of private prison is that the private prison can be considered the state actor which attributable to state and subject to constitution. Part I of this article introduces arguments for and against privatization and complex legal issues. Part II of this article explores the history of prison privatization and the issues on constitutional law and civil rights law in the United States. Part III of this article overviews state action theory in U.S. Constitution and four state action test. Part IV explores the U.S. Supreme Court decisions related the application of constitution to private prison. Privatization of prisons does not mean that it will eliminate, or at least reduce constitutional liability. State action can be found in the private-prison or private-jail context under any of the various tests. Though the Supreme Court has increasingly restricted the application of the state-action doctrine, the doctrine is certainly flexible enough to be used with vigor in the right case, such as one involving the management of a private prison or jail. As Justice Brennan has written, the Government is free to privatize some functions it would otherwise perform. But such privatization ought not automatically release those who perform government functions from constitutional obligations.

상업적 광고규제와 표현의 자유 보호론 재검토

이노홍 ( Noh Hong Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2016 홍익법학 Vol.17 No.1

Commercial advertisement is marketing communication which proposes an economic transaction for promoting or selling goods and services to consumer in general. Commercial advertisement is also protected by the freedom of speech under Article 21 Section 1 and the freedom of business under Article 15, so the restrictions of it can be justified in accordance with the principle of proportionality derived from Article 37(2) of the Constitution. Although the commercial advertisement is protected under freedom of expression it can be regulated because the direct or indirect effects of harmful commercial advertisements could be serious to public. In addition, indecent and inappropriate advertisements to children is spreading through internet nowadays. In spite of the needs of the protection for consumer, expecially children from harmful commercial advertisement, it is often argued that commercial speech should be protected as strongly as political speech and the self regulation should be most desirable way under freedom of expression. This article analyses the constitutionality of regulating commercial advertisement in freedom of expression value. Reviewing the Constitutional Court Cases related commercial advertisement, this article analyses the meaning, characteristic, and justification of the free speech protection of it. This article explains how the Constitutional Court applied the principle of proportionality to the restriction of commercial advertisements and explains the recent Constitutional Court medical advertisement prior review case deciding that if the expression are within the scope of freedom of expression protected under Article 21 (1), censorship is absolutely prohibited under Article 21 (2). Commercial advertisement, regardless of the object, content, medium, or formality of the advertisement should be governed by the principle of absolute prohibition of censorship. This article analyses its adequacy about commercial advertisement doctrine by Constitutional Court and argues the proper interpretation about absolute prohibition of censorship for the protection of consumer and minors.

영국 기본권의 수평적 효력이론에 관한 고찰

이노홍 ( Noh Hong Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.1

For the reason that the UK has no written codified constitution, we have little about comparative studies about fundamental rights in UK, the land of Magna Carte, the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights. However, following of the enactment of the Human Rights Act (HRA) which means the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, HRA became the substantial constitution about fundamental rights and caused a lot of academic debates surrounding interpretation of HRA in UK. Especially the horizontal effect of Fundamental rights of HRA which means the binding effect of human rights provisions on private parties has been one of the hot issues. These constitutional debates come from the HRA provisions; Section 6(1) HRA provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act contrary to Convention rights. Section 6(3)(a) expressly includes courts within the definition of a public authority. Also, Section 6(3)(b) includes any person certain of whose functions are ‘functions of a public nature`` within the definition of a public authority. 6(3)(b) can create horizontal effect of HRA to the increasing private parties performing public duties and functions. The more difficult problem caused of a lot academic theories about horizontal effect is the interpretation about 6(3)(a) which requires courts to act in a manner compatible with Convention rights. The debates focus on the manner and the extent to which courts could modify the cause of action of the common law applying disputes between private parties in order to ensure their compatibility with Convention. This article aims to introduce the constitutional changes in UK after the adoption of HRA and examines the various theories surrounding the horizontal effect of HRA. It deals with various academic theories about the horizontal effect focusing on no horizontal effect, direct vertical effect, indirect vertical effect and constitutional constraint model and analyzes the court decisions related this issue. The study will be helpful to understand the change of UK constitutionalism, development of fundamental right and the effect of fundamental rights to the privates. Finally, it will give the chance to review the horizontal effect debates in Korea.

네덜란드 헌법상 기본권의 수평효(대사인효) 논의 고찰

이노홍(Lee, Noh-Hong) 한국비교공법학회 2018 공법학연구 Vol.19 No.1

기본권의 대사인효 또는 수평효의 핵심은 전통적으로 국가 공권력을 구속하는 헌법상 기본권을 사적 자치가 지배하는 민사법 영역의 사적 당사자들에게도 직접 적용할 수 있는가에 있다고 할 수 있다. 우리 헌법학계에는 독일이나 미국의 이론을 중심으로 소개되어 왔지만 이 문제는 최근 ‘사법의 헌법화’라는 주제로 유럽 여러 국가들에서 학문적 논의의 대상이 되어왔다. 네덜란드도 기본권의 수평효라는 용어로 사인에 대한 기본권 효력논의가 전게되었고, 특히 1983년 개헌 과정에서 헌법상 기본권의 사인에 대한 확장 여부 및 기본권의 강도나 내용에 따른 차등적 수평효 적용 방안 등이 제시되기도 하였다. 비록 헌법 명문 규정으로 반영된 것은 아니나 기본권의 수평효 문제에 대한 좀 더 적극적이고 유연한 적용이 필요하다는 합의 속에 그 해결은 결국 입법부와 사법부의 역할로 남겨졌다. 이후 의회는 일반평등대우법 제정, 근로계약 보호 및 임차인 보호 관련 민법규정 신설 등을 통해 기본권의 수평효 보장을 위한 노력을 기울이고 있다. 사법부의 경우, 사인에 대한 기본권 적용에 특별한 이론이나 방식을 도입하고 있지는 않았지만 일반적으로 간접적 효력의 방식을 채택하고 있다고 할 수 있다. 그렇지만 대법원은 이 과정에서 기본권의 절대 우위를 인정하거나 국가에 대해 작용하는 기본권의 강도를 동일하게 사인들 간에 적용하기보다는, 기본권을 민사 분쟁을 해결할 때 고려하는 이익 중 하나로 판단하거나 또는 당사자의 권리나 이익을 구체화하는 형태로 적용하는 모습을 보이고 있다. 이런 네덜란드 대법원의 기본권 수평효 적용 방식은 민법의 헌법화 또는 기본권 종속화라기보다는 민법 보완적 기본권 해석이라는 평가를 받는다. 오늘날 민사소송에서 당사자들은 헌법상 기본권을 그대로 원용하여 자신들의 권리침해를 주장하는 경우가 늘고 있고 법원도 이를 그대로 판단의 도구로 삼아 심리하는 경향을 쉽게 찾아 볼 수 있다. 그렇지만 국가에 대해 적용되는 헌법상 기본권이 사인들 간에도 동일한 내용과 형식으로 작용한다는 것은 타당하지 않으며 간접 효력 역시 그 적용의 예측이 쉽지 않지 않다. 그렇다면 특별한 국가 관련성이 인정되거나 힘의 불균형이 심각하여 민사법원칙의 적용이 부적절한 예외적 경우가 아닌 일반적 민사사건의 경우, 개인의 민사상 권리를 보완하거나 구체화하는 요소로서 기본권을 고려하여 당사자의 이익을 형량하는 네덜란드 사례는 오늘날 법치국가, 법률유보원칙 및 권력분립의 원칙 등에 비추어 볼 때 시사하는 바가 있다고 할 것이다. The concept of the horizontal effect of fundamental rights of the Constitution, which traditionally binds state power, can be applied directly to private parties in the civil law area dominated by private autonomy. This issue has recently been subject to various academic discussions by European countries under the theme of ‘constitutionalization of the civil law’. In the Netherlands, this issue was discussed with the term ‘horizontal effect of the fundamental rights’, in the process of constitutional amendment in 1983, The resolution was left to the legislature and the judiciary, though it was not reflected in the constitutional provisions, but it was agreed that a more flexible application of the fundamental rights to private parties was necessary. Since then, the Parliament has been making efforts to ensure the horizontal effect of fundamental rights through the general equality law, the protection of labor contracts and the revision of civil law provisions related to the protection of tenants. In the case of the judiciary, although it does not introduce any particular theory or method for the application of fundamental rights to the privates, it is generally said that it adopts a method of indirect horizontal effect. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, without recognizing the absolute superiority of fundamental rights considers fundamental rights as one of interests in resolving civil disputes or a concrete expression of the interests of the parties. This methods is evaluated as a complementary fundamental rights in interpretation of the civil law, rather than constitutionalization of the civil law or subordination of basic rights. In today’s civil litigation cases, the parties are increasingly claiming their rights violations by using the fundamental rights of the Constitution, and the courts accept easily these fundamental rights based claims as a tool of judgment. However, the constitutional right that applies to the state can not be regarded as acting in the same way between privates in disputes and the result of indirect effects are also unpredictable in its application. The Dutch case, which considers fundamental rights as a factor to supplement or substantiates an individual’s civil rights in a general civil case can be helpful to find alternative way in the view of the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers.