일본 평화헌법 개정 논의의현황과 쟁점

손형섭 한국의회발전연구회 2014 의정연구 Vol.20 No.1

최근 일본의 평화헌법 개정움직임에 대하여 그 현황과 쟁점에 대하여 검토하였다. 일본은 헌법 전문에서 평화주의를 규정하고 9조에서 전쟁을 영구히 포기하고, 전력을 보유하지 않으며 교전권을 부정하고 있다. 이 규정은 제2차 세계대전의 참상을 경험한 일본인들에게는 소중한 규정으로 인식되고 있다. 그러나 일부 일본인들은 미국의 요구에 의한 헌법규정이라는 주장, 향후 미래적인 국제관계와 일본의 안보를 위하여 집단적 자위권 행사를 인정하도록 해야 한다는 개헌론을 지속해서 제기했다. 특히 아베 총리는 제2기 집권 이후 위 규정의 개헌논의를 몰아가고 있다. 2012년부터 아베 내각에서 개헌을 위한 첫 번째 쟁점을 해결하기 위하여 헌법 개정 절차조항인 일본헌법 96조 선개정을 시도하였으나, 2013년 7월 일본 참의원 선거에서 자민당 등이 3분의 2 이상의 개헌의석을 확보하지 못하여 그 시도는 무산되었다. 2016년 7월 25일에 참의원의 부분선거가 있으니 이때까지 자민당 등은 양원에서 개헌의석을 확보할 수 없다. 여론도 9조 개헌을 찬성하는 국민이 과반에 이르지 않고 있다. 따라서 위 구조가 새로 바뀌기 전까지는 개헌 가능성은 높지 않다. 이에 최근 아베 내각에서는 해석개헌을 통해 일본헌법 9조에서 전쟁을 포기한 것이지만 자위권은 포기한 것이 아니며, 때에 따라서는 집단적 자위권도 행사할 수 있도록 해석하려 한다. 이미 제1차 아베 내각 이후 지속해서 집단적 자위권을 구체화하는 모습을 보여 왔다. 관련 법제의 제․개정, 자위대의 해외파병, 무기수출 및 개발에 참여를 시작하고 있다. 이런 해석은 자위권은 인정하나 집단적 자위권은 부정하는 종래의 해석과 충돌한다. 미국은 이와 같은 집단적 자위권을 인정하려는 일본정부의 움직임에는 지지를 하고 있으나, 헌법 9조의 개헌이나 아베 정권의 우경화․과거사 인식에 대하여는 부정적 시각을 보이고 있다. 따라서 앞으로 한국은 ‘한미안보동맹을 강화’하면서 일본에 대하여 중국과 함께 ‘한중 과거사 공동 대응’을 강화하고 미․중간의 긴장을 완화에 동아시아 중재자 역할을 구상해야 할 것이다. 일본에는 평화헌법 해석변천에 따른 한국의 우려를 다양하게 전하여 일본의 무절제한 군사 대국화를 견제해야 한다. This research is about the recent movements toward theories on the amendment of the Japanese Constitution regarding their peace article and related issues. In the preamble to the Japanese Constitution, Article 9, states peace and permanent renouncement of war, denies the possession of military forces and does not recognize Japanese military forces’ right of belligerency. But some Japanese claim that constitutional provisions was made by the demands of the United States, and Right for collective self-defense should be recognized for future international relations regarding Japan's national security. The Abe Cabinet first attempted to amend Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution to solve the issues on constitutional reform process. On Japanese House of Councillors election in July 2013, the LDP could not hold more than two-thirds seats to achieve constitutional amendment and therefore this first attempt was not successful. LDP, to achieve the constitutional amendment, had two-thirds over seats in House of Representatives but however does not have enough seats in the house of Councillors due to the Japanese public opinion that was against the amendment. Thus, Abe Cabinet is attempting a different approach by changing the interpretation to Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution to permit to the Right of collective self-defense. The Abe Cabinet drives for the Right of collective self-defense for the SDF's overseas sending of troops. But the interpretation to permit Right of collective self-defense directly conflicts with the current interpretation of the Article of the Constitution. South Korea has strengthened US-ROK security alliance and the Korea- China strengthened joint actions about post history issues against the Japanese. South Korea relieves the tension of between the U.S. and China, acting as the Arbitrator of East Asia. As a result, South Korea through various channels has stated South Korea’s concerns on the change of the interpretation of Peace Constitution of Japan to the Japanese, and prevent the emergence of neo-japanese imperialism.

한국인과 일본인의 환자용 사상체질 설문지 문항 응답 비교 연구

류동훈,정종훈,배우열,김규곤,전수형,김종원,Ryu, Dong-Hoon,Jeong, Jong-Hoon,Bae, U-Yeol,Kim, Kyu-Kon,Jeon, Soo-Hyung,Kim, Jong-Won 사상체질의학회 2013 사상체질의학회지 Vol.25 No.3

Objectives This study was performed to compare responses of Korean to the Sasang Constitution questionnaire with those of Japanese and to learn difference in characteristic according to the Sasang Constitution between two countries. Methods 301 Korean visiting the department of the Sasang Constitution, Dong-Eui Medical Center in Busan, Korea from November 2006 to September 2010 responded to the SSCQ-P(Sasang Constitution Questionnaire for Patients). Sasang Constitution specialist interviewed subjects and diagnosed their Sasang Constitution. 361 Japanese visiting the center for Kampo Medicine, Keio University in Tokyo, Japan from January 2010 to February 2011 responded the SSCQ-J(Sasang Constitution Questionnaire for Japanese). The Sasang Constitution was diagnosed in the same way as Korean. We compare responses to the SSCQ-P in Korean with those to the SSCQ-J in Japanese. Results 1. Among Soyangin related 58 items of Sasang Constitution questionnaire, 26, 46.36% items had statistically significant response results in both Korean and Japanese and response disposition of all these items was same. Among Taeeumin related 68items, 36, 52.94% items had statistically significant response results in both Korean and Japanese. Of these, response disposition of 35 items was same and that of 1 item was different. Among Soeumin related 71 items, 31, 43.66% items had statistically significant response results in both Korean and Japanese. Of these, response disposition of 28 items was same and that of 3 items was different. 2. The proportion of items having statistical significance and same disposition in both Korean and Japanese by Sasang Constitutional characteristic category[Features and Way of Speaking, Physical Appearance, Temperament and Talent, Pathological Syndromes] was as follows; In Soyangin, the proportion in Pathological Syndromes was 27.8% and that in the others was more than 41.7%. In Taeeumin, the proportion in Pathological Syndromes was 33.3% and that in the others was more than 57.9%. In Soeumin, the proportion in Features and Way of Speaking was 70.6%, that in Physical Appearance was 8.3% and that in the others was 30~40%. Conclusions The response disposition of many of items having statistical significance between Korean and Japanese was same and that of a few was different. From this, there are many common Sasang Constitutional characteristics between two countries, and possibility of applying the Sasang Constitutional Medicine of Korea to Japan.

메이지헌법의 성립 및 패전 후 일본국헌법으로의 전개과정

박찬권 ( Chan Kwon Park ) 영산대학교 법률연구소 2015 영산법률논총 Vol.12 No.1

메이지헌법(대일본제국헌법)의 성립과정과 그 내용 및 패전 후 평화헌법(일본국헌법)의 전개에 대해 살펴볼 때 일본의 헌법체제 하에서 과거 아시아국가에 대한 침략역사가 어떻게 규정되고 있는지 알 수 있다. 현재의 일본국헌법(평화헌법)은 과거 메이지헌법(대일본제국헌법)이 가졌던 천황제를 완전히 삭제하지 못함으로써 과거 침략역사를 극복하지 못하고 있다. 뿐만 아니라 천황제 존속의 대가인 헌법 제9조의 전쟁포기조항이라는 기형적인 제도로 인해 그 문제점이 심화되고 있다. 이러한 문제점은 천황제 폐지라는 역사청산의 관점에서 해결되기보다는 과거 메이지헌법시대의 회귀라는 관점에서 해결되려는 경향으로 나타나고 있다. 헌법 제9조가 개정되고 천황제가 계속 유지된다면, 이는 과거 침략의 역사를 청산하지 못한 일본국헌법의 내재적 모순이 부정적인 방향으로 표출될 것이다. 일본의 경우 시대가 지남에 따라 과거의 역사적 과오가 재평가되고 청산되어지기 보다는 과거 침략전쟁의 책임자인 천황이 상징적으로나마 계속 헌법상 지위를 가지고 있다. 이러한 일본헌법체제 하에서는 과거의 역사적 과오가 극복되기는 어렵다. 오히려 언제든지 과거의 부정적 역사로 회귀할 가능성이 일본국헌법에 내재되어 있다. The progression of the Japanese Constitution after the war as well as the contents and the process of enacting the Meiji constitution shows how the japanese aggression towards Asia countries is defined in the present constitution system of Japan. The Japanese do not overcome the past history of aggression, failing to abolish the Tenno institution in the Meiji constitution completely, in the present constitution of Japan. Article 9 of the Constitution, a war-renouncing article that is the abnormal system as the price of maintenance of the Tenno institution, makes it harder to overcome the history. These problems turn up as the tendency of regressing to the past Meiji constitution. The inherent contradiction of the Japanese Constitution which is caused by the failure to clear the past history of aggression will appear in the form of the regression if the Article 9 of the Constitution is to be revised and the Tenno institution is maintained. Tenno, who is responsible for the past war of aggression, has the constitutional symbolical status in Japan. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to overcome the past historical wrongs but rather the possibility that The Japanese go back to the past is immanent in the Japanese Constitution

立憲主義の思想と展開 - アジアと日本 -

戸波江二 전남대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.36 No.4

The general features of constitutionalism of each Asian countries include 1) an inseparable relation of the development of constitutionalism with the progress of democratization, 2) an important role of the consitutional revision in the progress of constitutionalism, and 3) the inadequate realization of constitutionalism in terms of its penetration into politics. On the contrary, the development of constitutionalism in Japan started with the enactment of the Constitution of Japan after the Second World War. The concept of constitutionalism was not settled down, but rather the opinions on the Constitution of Japan have been splitted, remaining in confrontation between constitutional protection and constitutional revision. This is the Japan-specific progress of constitutionalism in the development of constitutionalism in Asia. A key issue of the progress of Japanese constitutionalism in the postwar period is the revision of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution stipulates renunciation of war, stating “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” Subsequently, Paragraph 2 stipulates ‘non-maintenance of war potential’ and ‘denial of the right of belligerency’, stating “In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.” In this article, the non-maintenance of war potential is legally important because it prohibits the maintenance of armed fores, and therefore, it seems to be against the constitutionality of the Self-Defense Forces (SDF). Without the revision of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, the Government of Japan has explained the constitutionality of the SDF based on the interpretation of the right of self-defense through the so-called “constitutional revision through interpretation.” In other words, the government argues that Japan has a right of self-defense to protect the country against imminent and unlawful invasion, and that this right cannot be taken away by Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. It also says that the minimum strength necessary for self-defense is not prohibited by the Constitution, and that this minimum strength does not fall under the scope of “war potential” of which maintenance is prohibited in Article 9. After the Gulf War in 1990s, Japan dispatched its SDF abroad in the name of international contribution. In addition, Abe’s second government approved the right to collective self-defense according to the Government’s reinterpretation of the Constitution. Indeed, the constitutionalism in Japan is in a serious crisis. アジアの諸国の立憲主義の一般的特徴としては、①立憲主義の発展が民主化の進展と不可分の関係にあったこと、②立憲主義の進展において憲法改正が重要な役割を果たしていること、③立憲主義が実際の政治への浸透度の点でまだ十分に実現されているとはいえないことを挙げよう。その一方、日本の立憲主義の発展は、第2次世界大戦後の日本国憲法の制定から始まるが、立憲主義の思想が強固に根付いたというわけではなく、むしろ、日本国憲法に対する評価の分裂が長く尾を引き、護憲-改憲の対立として現在までなお続いている。それがアジアの立憲主義の過程での特殊日本的な立憲主義の展開というものである。 戦後日本的な立憲主義の展開において最大の争点になったのは、日本国憲法第9条の改正をめぐる問題である。憲法9条は、1項で、「日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、永久にこれを放棄する」と定め、「戦争の放棄」を宣言するとともに、2項で「前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。国の交戦権は、これを認めない」と定め、「戦力の不保持」と「交戦権の否認」を規定している。この規定のうちで法的に重要なのは、「戦力の不保持」であり、それは軍隊をもつことを禁じているため、自衛隊の合憲性と正面からぶつかるようにみえるからである。 日本政府は、憲法第9条を改正せずにいわゆる「解釈改憲」という方法で自衛権の解釈によって自衛隊を合憲性を説明してきた。つまり、国家は急迫不正の侵害に対して自国を守るための自衛権をもっており、憲法第9条によっても放棄されていないということである。そして、自衛権を行使するうえで必要最小限度の実力をもつことは憲法も禁じてはおらず、そのような「自衛のための必要最小限度の実力」は憲法9条で保持を禁じられた「戦力」には該当しない、というものである。さらに、1990年代の湾岸戦争以後には「国際貢献」という名で自衛隊の海外派遣をし、また第2次安部政権下では政府の憲法解釈の変更によって集団的自衛権まで容認している。まさに、日本において立憲主義は重大な危機に見舞われていると言えよう。

일본의 집단적 자위권 행사와 평화헌법의 위반 문제

이장희 ( Jang-hie Lee ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2015 외법논집 Vol.39 No.1

This article consists four parts : 1) Right of collective self-defense in international law, 2) Its exercise & review concerning Violation possibility of Preamble and Aricle 9 of Japanese constitution(1947), 3) The Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation and Its Legal issues concerning Japanese Pacifist Constitution, 4) Evaluation. In as much as the essence of the exercise of the right of self-defense is use of armed force, which may endanger the international peace and security, that should be subject to some limitations. For an exercise of armed force to be justified as self-defense, It should meet, in particular, two most important requirements: necessity and proportionality. On July 1,2014,on the 60th anniversary of establishment of Japan’s Self-defense Forces, Shinzo Abe decided on the reinterpretation of its constitution to allow its collective self-defense through a cabinet council decision. The current japanese constitution(1947) which is commonly called the pacifist constitution denies the Japanese people national forces, the use of force collective self-defense alongside in principle. According the initial interpretation of constitution by the Japanese government, even a war for ‘individual’ self-defense was renounced to dispell the disgrace of a warlike country as confirmed in the National Assembly records. Article 9 Clause 2 does not recognize any armaments and right of belligerency, thereby a war to exercise self-defense and the right of belligerency are renounced. Two Legal instruments for the exercise of the right of self-defense in Japan are The Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation(1997) and the Situations in Areas surrounding Japan Law(1997) based on the new revised guidelines in 1997. The defense guidelines set forth general roles for the U.S. military and the Self- Defense Forces to engage in joint operations. They mainly forcus on the defense of Japan and emergencies in the nearby region, presumably including the Korean Peninsula,though this not stated explicitly. Controversies arose out of its rear area support, which was questioned to be collective self-defense and thus unconstitutional. Japan and the United States released interim report quite recently (October 8, 2014) on revising their bilateral defense cooperation guidelins by the year’s end, in which they call for more global military cooperation between two countries that will benefit the Asia-pacific region and beyond.” The new interim report emphasize the “global nature” of the Japan-U.S. military alliance. But this means expansion of military role of Japanese SDF. which could be unconstitutional against the pacifist constitution. It implies that Japan pushes for collective self-defense by circumventing the amendment of the Constitution which even Japanese people oppose.

새로운 평화주의의 모색 : 헌법조사회 최종보고서와 자민당 헌법 개정안을 중심으로

김지연(Kim Jee-yeon) 한국외국어대학교 일본연구소 2007 日本硏究 Vol.31 No.-

The Peace Constitution has brought on severe discussion in Japanese politics like theological arguments. But it is expected to face the ultimate round. Since The Self-Defence Farces," first oversee dispatch for PKO in 1992, the breakdown of the Peace Constitution has been made rapid in progress. The infringement of the Peace Constitution had begun with the prelude of the cold war(1947) and the signing of U.S. - Japanese Security Treaty. The establishment. of Self-Defence Forces(1954) meaned the outset of the Japanese rearmameot. Its momentum was the Gulf War(1900-1991). Since the Gulf war, the new Japanese peace - the Normal State in security and Diplomacy - has been raised. So Called, the Normal State has included the exercise of the collective right of self-defense and first-strike attack. Now the liberal Democratic Party in Japan holds 327seats with the Komeitou, his coalition partner, in National Congress, can take the leads in the revision of the constitution. The Liberal Democratic Party made an announcement the new constitutional draft in 2005. It had clearly stipulated ""the Self Defence Force"" in national Security Clause. The liberal Democratic Party has discussed the process of the constitutional revision. It will he the national referendum, indispensible process in the constitutional revision. In conclusion, the pacifism in Japanese type originally put toward inactive de-mititarization, it had made some role in economic development in 60"s and 70"s. The pacifism in Japanese style had been infringed by the beginning of the cold war, U.S. - Japanese Security Treaty and the establishment of SDFs. It had been severely struck so called Nakasone"s ""readjustment of after war politics"" in 1980"s. To make matters worse, since the Gulf War and the trend of globalization, the new Japanese Pacifism is transformed to take an active role in conflict area including a preemptive strike.

憲法におけるスポーツ条項の位置づけについての一考察 ―中南米諸国の実例をも訪ねて―

尹龍澤 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 2008 스포츠와 법 Vol.11 No.4

In order for the nation to grasp sports, inserting regulations concerning sports into the Constitution is very important. Due to the influence of Spain and Portugal, most of the Constitution of Latin American countries have regulations relating to sports. Although they belong to the same culture area as Latin America, the way they regulate something relating to sports are various. When we try to add regulations concerning sports into our own countries’ Constitution, this Latin American Constitution’s sports clause will be of a great reference. In the case of these countries’ Constitution, the placement of sports clause can be divided into two. Firstly, it is a Constitution that places sports as human rights. Secondly, it is a Constitution that places sports as the country’s objective. This year (2008), in Germany’s case, there is a movement on trying to insert sports regulations into the Constitution. However, it is examined by regulating the country’s objective, rather than regulating sports as human rights. When trying to place sports as human rights, there might be many problems brought up, such as who’s human rights is it, and what kind of content will that be about. I think that regulating sports as national objective into the Constitution is suitable, because a healthy growth for sports should be built together between the nation and the citizens as one. 1. 憲法の中でスポーツについての規定を挿入することは、国民がスポーツをその手にしっかりと握るためには、非常に重要なことである。スペインやホルトガルなどの影響を受けた中南米の国々の憲法の多くは、スポーツに関する規定を持っている。しかし、ラテンアメリカという同じ文化圏に属しながらも、スポーツに関する規程の仕方は様々である。我々が、自国の憲法にスポーツについての規定を加えようとするとき、これらラテンアメリカの憲法のスポーツ条項は、大変に参考になる。 2. これらの国の憲法におけるスポーツ条項の位置は、大きく二つに分類することができる。一つは、スポーツを人権として位置づける憲法である。もう一つは、スポーツを国家の目標として位置づける憲法である。 3. スポーツを人権として位置づけるときには、誰の人権か、その内容はどのようなものかについて、多くの疑問が提起されるであろう。筆者としては、スポーツを国家目標として憲法に規定することが適切だと考える。なぜならば、健全なスポーツの発展は、国家と国民が一体となって作っていくべきものであるからである。 4. 今年(2008)、ドイツにおいても、スポーツ規定を憲法に挿入しようとの動きがある。しかし、ドイツにおいても、スポーツを人権としてではなく、国家の目標として規定する方ことで検討されている。

일본 신문의 헌법개정에 대한 인식 -헌법기념일 사설(2007?2012년) 분석을 중심으로-

정현숙 ( Jeong Hyeon Suk ) 현대일본학회 2012 日本硏究論叢 Vol.36 No.-

이 연구에서는 헌법 9조 개정을 다룬 일본의 신문기사를 분석하였다. 2007년부터 2012년까지 전국 41개 신문의 헌법기념일 사설을 중심으로 신문의 헌법관과 헌법개정에 대한 입장을 분석하고, 구체적 쟁점으로 자위대의 위상과 역할, 미일안보체제, 자위대의 해외파견에 관한 인식을 분석하였다. 분석을 통해 다수의 신문이 ``호헌 내지 개헌에 신중한 입장``을 취하고 있음을 확인하 였다. 이들 신문은 현행 헌법이 일본의 번영과 평화를 가져온 기반이라고 보고 있으며, 헌법 9조가 표방하는 평화주의에 대해서도 높이 평가하고 있다. 또한 구체적 점에 대 해서도 지금까지 일본정부가 헌법의 틀 안에서 견지해온 전수방위와 집단적 자위권 행 사 금지의 원칙을 지지하고, 이러한 원칙을 무너뜨리려는 최근 일본정부의 시도를 강하 게 비판하고 있음을 확인하였다. 신문의 이러한 인식은 지금까지 여론조사 분석을 통해 확인된 일본국민 다 가 공유 하고 있는 것이기도 하다. 이런 점에서 현행 헌법에 대한 일본국민의 강한 지지는 헌법 9조 개정의 움직임을 저지하는 데 일정한 역할을 할 것으로 기대된다. This research conducted an analysis of Japanese newspaper articles discussing Japanese Constitutional Revision. The range of the analysis was Japanese newspaper articles from 2007 to 2012. Perspective about the Constitution of each newspaper and its basic stance on the Constitutional Revision were examined from its articles. Furthermore, more specific issues such as status and role of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, and overseas dispatch of the Japan Self-Defense Forces were examined as well. This research found that majority of the newspapers think highly of the current Constitutio n as what brought prosperity and peace to Japan, and value pacifism in the Article 9. Further more, regarding the specific issues, newspapers support the principle of a strictly defensive national security policy and prohibition of the use of right of collective self-defense that the Japanese government has maintained within the framework of the Constitution. The resea rch found that they strongly criticize the attempt of the Japanese government trying to tear down theses principles. These perceptions of the media are also equivalent to the perception s that most Japanese nationals share. In this perspective, it is expected that strong support on the current Constitution will play a certain role in deterring the movement toward the Constitutional Revision.

일본 헌법재판의 분석과 우리나라에의 시사점에 대한 연구

손형섭(Son, Hyeung-Soeb) 국제헌법학회 한국학회 2011 世界憲法硏究 Vol.17 No.1

최근에 개헌론과 함께 통치기구의 개편에 대한 논의가 있다. 오래 동한 대법원과 헌법재판소의 헌법적 권한 문제도 미묘한 논제가 되고 있다. 이러한 시점에, 이 논문에서는 법원형 헌법재판제도, 이른바 부수적 위헌심사제도를 가지고 있는 일본 헌법재판의 특징과 한계를 분석하여 우리에게 어떠한 시사점을 줄 수 있는지를 연구하였다. 일본 헌법재판의 권한은 맥아더 초안으로부터 일본 현행헌법의 해석과 일본 최고재판소는 판결을 통하여 “일본의 현행 제도하에서는 특정한 자의 구체적인 법률관계에 대하여 분쟁이 존재하는 경우에만 재판소에 그 판단을 구할 수 있고, 재판소가 어떠한 구체적 사건을 떠나 추상적으로 법률명령 등의 합헌성을 판단하는 권한을 가지고 있다는 견해는 헌법 및 법률 등에 그 근거가 없다.”고 판단하고 있다. 일본의 부수적 위헌심사의 특징은 최고재판소는 물론 일본의 하급법원에서도 헌법재판을 할 수 있다는 것이다. 일본 특유의 부수적 위헌법률심사제는 미국의 그것과 유사하면서도 다른 특징을 가지고 있다. 대륙법을 계수한 일본이 미국의 부수적 위헌법률심사제도를 도입하여 나타나는 현상을 검토하고 미국의 그것과도 다른 일본의 헌법재판을 검토한다. 여기서 일본의 재판소가 헌법재판에 소극적인 입장을 갖는 이유 등에 대하여 논한다. 일본 재판소의 헌법재판에 있어 법률에 대한 효력을 무효라고 선언하는 법령위헌 판단의 숫자는 그리 많지 않다. 그러나 특유의 부수적 위헌심사제에 있어서 한정합헌해석과 적용위헌이라는 방법을 사용하여 다수의 헌법판단을 하고 있다. 일본 헌법재판의 판단기법, 심사기준론에대해서도 검토하고, 문제점과 헌법재판소 설치논의와 그 다양한 대안에 대하여 확인한다. 또한, 일본의 헌법재판이 그동안 소극적이었던 태도에 대하여 이토 전 재판관의 분석을 중심으로 논증하고, 최근 일본 최고재판소의 경향에 대해서는 검토한다. 일본이 유지하고 있는 법원형 재판제도는 헌법재판을 위해 완비된 제도는 아니라고 판단된다. 하지만 그동안 축척 되어온 법령위헌, 적용위헌, 운용위헌, 한정합헌 및 합헌판결의 내용은 유사한 법률체제를 가지고 있는 우리에게 참고의 필요성이 높아 보인다. 또, 일본의 제도를 통하여 우리 헌법재판에 대하여 몇 가지 새로운 제안으로서, 대법원과 다른 규범통제기관으로서의 위치를 가지기 위하여 헌법재판관의 출신성분을 법관 출신 이외의 다양한 자로 구성하는 안을 제안해 본다. 또한 헌법재판의 심급제와 재량상고 등에 대하여도 일고한다. This paper is the debate on the constitutional authorities of Supreme Court of Japan and relevant to a Constitution Amendment. We consider Japanese Constitutional review as regards characteristics and limits, the philosophical orientation of its Supreme Court. Hence, This paper analyzes Japan's unique judicial passivity and the benefits and limitations of subordinate judicial reviews and related apparent implications. According to the current Japanese Constitution interpreted from the MacArthur draft, Supreme Court of Japan has the authority regarding contests related to judical cases but can not review abstract legalities lacking evidence related to existing Japanese law and Constitution. Herein is evaluation of the Constitutional law adoption process and the confirmation of lower court Constitutional Review authority. Japan court’s unique ancillary Constitutional Review jurisdiction is similar to that of the United States with variations. Because Japan institutes a constitutional law system likely as American Constitutional Review, the Japanese Constitutional Review system infers rationale for a passive orientation in Japan’s constitutional review. However, Japan’s Constitutional Review varies from the U.S. constitutional review that the Supreme Court has not authorized to declare the unconstitutionality of legislation. In addition, Japanese Constitutional Review exhibits a reticent attitude by former Judge Ito’s analysis argument. And, Japan's Constitutional Review system is not to suggest that the complete system, But we can get suggestions from japan Constitutional Court. Thus, this paper suggests various alternatives for Korea’s Constitutional Review processes, likely as intermediate trial. Also, we can review to import certiorari system in Constitutional Review. certiorari system can be judged more carefully claims of specific constitutional issues. The 21st century continues to the era of the Constitutional review. However, the Constitutional Review systems should guarantee the basic rights of citizens with ours blood and sweat.

일본 스나가와(砂川) 판결에 대한 연구: 일본 헌법 제9조와 통치행위론

정일영 한국법사학회 2023 法史學硏究 Vol.68 No.-

일본의 헌법은 제9조에서 무력의 행사를 영구히 포기하며 전쟁의 수단인 전력 또한 보유하지 않는다고 규정하고 있어 평화헌법이라는 별명을 가지고 있음에도 불구하고, 현재 일본은 세계에서최상위권에 드는 강력한 군사력을 보유하고 있다. 이러한 규범과 현실 사이의 간극에 대하여 일본최고재판소는 동 헌법 제98조에 규정한 위헌심사권을 적극적으로 행사하지 않고 있으며, 국가 권력의 헌법 위반에도 불구하고 소극적인 자세만을 보여준다. 그렇다면 어째서 일본의 사법부는 본래주어진 권한에 따라 정부의 행위에 제동을 걸지 않는 것일까. 이를 이해하기 위한 수단으로 본 연구는 일본 헌법의 평화주의에 대하여 최초로 구체적인 법적 해석을 제공한 일본 최고재판소의 스나가와 판결에 주목한다. 전력을 보유하지 않겠다고 천명한 헌법에도 불구하고 외국의 군대가 일본에주둔하는 것은 사실상 군사를 보유하는 것과 다름이 없기에 이러한 주둔이 위헌이라는 하급심의주장에 대하여, 스나가와 최고재판소 판결은 미군의 일본 주둔 여부는 고도의 정치적 고려가 동반된 통치행위이고 따라서 이는 사법부의 판단 대상으로 적합하지 않다는 결론을 내린다. 이와 같은결정을 이해하기 위해서는 단순히 법리적으로 접근하기에는 한계가 있고, 당시 최고재판소를 둘러싼 다양한 외부 요인을 함께 고려할 필요가 있다. 그러나 판결 자체의 이도 저도 아닌 불확실성은많은 모호함을 남기고 있으며, 더욱이 스나가와 판결은 헌법 제9조에 대한 최초의 사례였기에, 이후다시 제9조의 해석이 문제가 될 때마다 꾸준히 인용되었다는 점에서 사실상 법원이 개입할 수 있는여지를 거의 없애버리는 선례의 형성이라는 부작용 또한 초래하였다. Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution stipulates that it permanently renounces the use of force and does not possess military power as a means of war. Despite its nickname as the ‘Peace Constitution’, Japan currently possesses one of the most powerful military forces in the world. Regarding the gap between norm and reality, the Supreme Court of Japan does not actively exercise its right of constitutional review stipulated in Article 98 of the Japanese Constitution, and retains a passive stance despite constitutional violations by the government. This study focuses on the Sunagawa decision by the Supreme Court of Japan, which provided the first specific legal interpretation of pacifism declared within the Japanese Constitution. In response to the lower court’s argument that stationing of foreign troops was unconstitutional for it is virtually the same as retaining its own military forces, the Sunagawa Supreme Court decision ruled that the matter at hand is a highly political act, and therefore is not suitable for the courts to judge. In order to understand this decision, it is necessary to consider various external factors surrounding the Supreme Court at the time. However, the uncertainty of the ruling itself leaves a lot of ambiguity, and furthermore, because the Sunagawa decision was the first case regarding Article 9 of the Constitution, it has been consistently cited whenever the interpretation of Article 9 was necessary. This also had the side effect of forming a precedent that almost eliminated any room for judicial intervention.