특집 : 한국사회에서 복지국가논쟁의 재조명 ; 복지 담론의 변천에 대한 입법학적 접근: 사회적 기본권에 대한 이해를 중심으로

장철준 ( Cheol Joon Chang ) 법과사회이론학회(구 법과사회이론연구회) 2011 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.40

As the financial crisis was extended and the polarization was deepened, people pay more attention to the social welfare systems. Even the conservative, who have been relatively reluctant to look at them, have changed their mind about the issues on social welfare. However, the fact that we have strongly fixed aspirations on the economic growth in the Korean society asks more persuasive discussions on the welfare issues for the change of welfare concept. In this article, the writer tries to analyze the discussions on the welfare issues in the National Assembly and to put forward better ways to perform more active welfare policies. Especially, discussions on typical legislations in four different governments after democratization period(late 1980s) are selected and studied. For stronger persuasion, the writer find the clue to overcome the traditional myth of economic growth in terms of the heightened protection of the social rights. The theory of the cost of rights, presented by Sunstein & Holmes, help this project for its changed concept of liberty and social rights.

빅데이터,클라우드 컴퓨팅 시대의 헌법과 사이버 안보

장철준 ( Cheol Joon Chang ),임채성 ( Chae Seong Im ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논총 Vol.39 No.1

Big Data and Cloud Computing have been positioned as a new paradigm in the current and the future age. Huge benefit from these new technologies has made our life developed considerably, and we do not easily imagine how it would be transformed. Life patterns of the human being surrounded by the highly evolved digital world will not be exactly same to those of the analogue age. Therefore, we need an active system of law to regulate the technology with massive potential. Whereas the benefit from Big Data and Cloud Computing is enormous, the harm would be comparable. Personal data leakage and cyberspace security problems are the possible examples. The massiveness of these problems are horrific because it may seriously risk the key national facilities. We confronts the opportunity of choices: whether we should endure the possible risks to go to the fast technology superiority or whether we proceed in a slow and safe fashion to protect the individual rights. Rationality will be the decisive test to find the answer because we have to find a balanced choice between them. If we give a priority on the national security to the individual rights in the setting of the Korean constitutional setting, harms on the rights would be more serious than those of the foreign countries, because we did not have the satisfactory experiences with the full protection of individual rights by the state. Therefore, we must understand and accept the Western structure and justification of the cyberspace security in their own contexts. In this article, the writer delves into Judge Richard Posner’s constitutional theory on the cyberspace security that caused fierce discussions. The writer intends to initiate the further discussions in Korea through this article.

노인에 대한 법률서비스와 변호사 윤리문제

장철준 ( Cheol Joon Chang ),김주현 ( Ju Hyun Kim ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.37 No.2

A variety of welfare policies and regulations for the elderly have been proposed to respond to an aging society. These are understood as more developed version than before because they have been established on a social consensus on the welfare for the elderly. However, the level of welfare is still stagnating at the rudiments for basic protections; so we have long way to go to fulfill sophisticated policies for the elderly`s better life. This article aims to support legal institutions for realizing lawyer`s service for the elderly in an elevated fashion. Particularly, by organizing regulations on lawyer`s professional conducts for the benefit of the elderly, protections for the elderly as increasing customers of legal services can be elevated. The article deals with the lawyer`s ethics codes for elder law practices with the elder clients with diminished capacities. In addition, conflicts of interest is reviewed when the elder client asks a lawyer to represent his or her family together with himself or herself. All these items are discussed on the premise that lawyer`s ethics should be regulated by written codes rather than individual morality.

표현의 자유에 대한 개인주의적 접근방법과 공익적 접근방법 -반론권에 관한 미 연방대법원 판례를 통해 바라본 헌법 이론적,철학적 지형-

장철준 ( Cheol Joon Chang ) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2008 世界憲法硏究 Vol.14 No.3

The absolute protection theory of freedom of speech in American constitutional law is justified by the value of individual autonomy. Traditional liberal individualism, which promotes autonomy as a foremost theoretical target, prohibits the government from constraining free speech over the process of public deliberation for the democratic collective self-decision making in the name of protecting autonomy. Autonomy, in this context, means being free of paternalistic external constraints. Linked with the development of communitarianism, the collectivist theory of free speech, in which public interests are considered highly, has been shown. The theory criticize the liberal individualist approach to free speech for that autonomy, in this approach, is used as an excuse of existing unequal distribution of information which is the fundamental source of the public deliberation. The strategical method of the collectivist theory to attack the individualist perspective, therefore, is concentrating on deconstructing this autonomy pretext. A philosophical relationship between autonomy and liberty, which was studied by Gerald Dworkin and many scholars, reveals the new possibility that autonomy can be promoted by the paternalistic intervention of liberty. In addition, Joseph Raz`s perfectionist liberalism, in which the government can ban immoral choices for promoting autonomy, leads a new understanding of liberalism instead of the traditional individualistic liberalism in the area of freedom of speech. Those works can be meaningful especially in the Korean circumstance where the collectivist understanding of fundamental rights has relatively prevailed so far.

헌법의 정치적 기능과 그 한계

장철준(역) ( Cheol Joon Chang ),( Mark Tushnet ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2004 法學硏究 Vol.14 No.2

판례평석 : 공무담임권의 제한과 과잉금지원칙 - 구 국가공무원법상 공무원의 당연퇴직사유에 대한 헌법재판소 결정 비판

장철준 ( Cheol Joon Chang ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2004 法學硏究 Vol.14 No.1

민주적 절차와 권력 분립: "민주적 법치국가에서 본 법규범의 효력근거"에 대한 토론문

장철준 ( Cheol Joon Chang ) 법과사회이론학회(구 법과사회이론연구회) 2010 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.38

헌법상 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리와 의뢰인의 비밀보장

장철준(Chang Cheol joon) 한국헌법학회 2017 憲法學硏究 Vol.23 No.1

변호사와 의뢰인 간의 비밀보장 문제는 그간 헌법학계에서 별로 큰 주목을 받지 못하였던 주제였다. 인권 보호를 위한 변호사의 역할이 어느 때보다 커지면서 이제 의뢰인과 변호사 사이에 만들어지는 비밀을 어떻게 보호할 것인가는 중요한 화두로 논의되어야 한다. 기본권의 실질적 보장 체계가 확립된 현대 헌법 체계에서 의뢰인이 변호사의 도움을 받을 수 있게 되었다는 사실 자체가 중요한 시대는 이미 지났다. 오히려 얼마나 양질의 서비스를 받을 수 있는가, 그것이 국민의 권리 보호에 얼마나 이바지할 수 있을 것인가가 더욱 의미를 가진다. 이에 따라 변호사의 비밀보장의무와 변호사-의뢰인 특권은 정치한 입법을 통해 실현되어야 할 중요한 대상이 되었다. 헌법이 보장하는 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리를 실천하기 위해서는, 거시적 차원에서 전체 변호사 직역의 기능적 전제인 의뢰인과의 신뢰 유지 체계를 지켜주어야 한다. 변호사법을 비롯한 우리 법제에서는 그간 이러한 노력이 상대적으로 경시되었지만 지금이라도 그 입법적 보완이 시급하다. 이는 변호사의 직역적 이익을 보장하기 위해서가 아니라 의뢰인인 국민의 헌법상 기본권을 보장하기 위해서이다. 따라서 이들 의무와 특권의 전제조건으로 변호사 직역의 책임 있는 자율규제가 먼저 확립되어야 함은 물론이다. 변호사 직역에 시장의 경쟁 원리가 지배하도록 놓아두지 않고 변호사들의 독점적 지위를 부여한 결정적 이유는, 의뢰인인 국민의 실질적 기본권 보장과 더불어 사법 시스템의 원활한 작동을 보장하겠다는 것이다. 이러한 특권의 전제에는 경쟁을 지양한 단체 내부에서 철저한 윤리규율이 이루어져야 한다는 합의가 자리 잡고 있다. 변호사 직역 실무에서 윤리규범에 의한 자율규제가 실질적으로 작동하지 않고 있는 우리의 현실을 되돌아보고 규제 회복을 통한 직역적 신뢰를 회복함과 동시에, 의뢰인의 비밀보장을 위한 제도정비에 힘을 기울여야 한다. The Attorney-client privilege based on a right to assistance of counsel has been an unattended issue in the Korean constitution academia. But recently, with the heightened roles of lawyers, this issue gains more importance from both of clients and lawyers. Because the contemporary constitutions guarantee the fundamental individual rights substantially, an open opportunity of assistance of counsel is not the reason of existence of the constitutional right any more. The constitution requires something more than a formal description of the right to assistance of counsel. That is to say, how good a client can receive assistance from the counsel, and how this assistance can contribute to the protection of the constitutional rights through well-made legislations matter. The proper legal institutions for lawyers duty of confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege presumes the legal professional s occupational self-regulation based on autonomy. Regulatory privileges for the legal profession were designed to prevent the entire legal market from destruction led by extreme competitions. Therefore, those professional privileges should be maintained with strict self-regulations on occupational ethics. However, the Korean legal profession did not follow this standard. Before arguing regulatory privileges, the legal profession should establish a rationally designed self-regulation system that has been already popular in many developed countries.

이익의 관점에서 바라본 표현의 자유 -토마스 스캔런(Thomas Scanlon)의 표현의 자유 이론 연구-

장철준 ( Cheol Joon Chang ) 법과사회이론학회 2008 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.35

Impeachment as Legislative Oversight

Chang Cheol-Joon(장철준) 한국비교공법학회 2011 公法學硏究 Vol.12 No.2

2004년 봄에 경험하였던 대통령 탄핵사건은 국내정치에 미쳤던 커다란 파장만큼이나 세계적으로도 주목을 끌기에 충분한 것이었다. 탄핵의 사유에 관한 법리적 관점에서 뿐만 아니라 그 소추 절차에 있어 민주주의 관점에서 적지 않은 문제점을 드러내었기 때문이다. 정파적 동기에서 무리하게 감행된 국회에서의 소추 절차 속에서, 법치주의 관점에서도 탄핵을 이해하여야 할 필요성이 강하게 대두되었다. 이후 헌법재판소가 국회의 의도와 다른 심판 결과를 이끌어 내었던 점은 이러한 관점을 뒷받침한다. 즉, 국회의 대통령에 대한 탄핵 소추 권한은 다수의 지배로 대표되는 단순한 의미의 민주주의 관점에서만 정당화되어서는 안 되며, 헌법에 의하여 부여된 여타 국정 감시 · 통제권한의 일환으로써 철저히 법치에 입각하여 실행되어야 한다는 것이다. 실질적 정의의 측면까지 관여하는 실질적 법치주의가, 보다 엄격한 소추절차 확립을 통하여 구현되어야 한다는 뜻이다. 대통령을 중심으로 한 행정부의 권한이 상대적으로 강한 우리의 대통령제 정부형태에서 국회의 각종 국정 감시 · 통제권한은 이를 견제할 효율적 수단으로써 유용한 것이다. 그렇다고 하더라도 상당한 기간의 직무정지를 예정하고 있는 우리의 탄핵제도에서 법치의 고려가 없는 권한을 국회가 행사한다면 자칫 다수의 횡포로 국정의 공백상태를 초래하게 될 가능성이 있다. 따라서 탄핵 또한 국정 감시 · 통제권한의 일부이며, 이는 법치주의 원리에 의하여 작동하여야 한다는 인식과 제도의 확립이 절실한 것이다. The Constitution of South Korea empowers the National Assembly to put forward a motion for impeachment of public officials, including the president. Additionally, the Constitutional Court holds the power to review the motion and deliver the final decision. The National Assembly’s power of motion is based on one of the fundamental principles: checks and balances system of the Constitution. While the president holds the power to veto legislative bills, and while the judiciary holds the right to repeal legislation, the legislature has the right to oversee on administrative and judicial actions-including impeachment of officials with the help of the Constitutional Court. This triad of power distribution is what modern democracy has designed. However, as promulgated in the Constitution, this power must be controlled by the rule of law. Therefore the legislative oversight, including impeachment should be performed within the boundaries of the rule of law. Legislative oversight without consideration of the rule of law can only fail. The experience of 2004 presidential impeachment proves this statement. Even the National Assembly, which was established upon democracy, cannot be an exception of the rule of law. The fact that we did not have an organized structure of law relating to impeachment accounts for the failure. It caused a reckless disregard for the rule of law in the process of impeachment, which should have been more considered as a device for legislative oversight. Just as we have the separation of powers in the Constitution, all governmental branches should be in check with one another, so as to achieve balance of power. The constitutional ideals work according to the rule of law. Legislative oversight, as a practice of those ideals, should be made within the framework of the rule of law. So should impeachment be.