입법과정에서 행정부와 입법부의 협의 절차에 관한 연구*- 미국 정부의 대통령 교서와 입법계획 제출 및 협의 절차를 중심으로 -

김재선 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2022 法學論集 Vol.27 No.2

In principle, the U.S. Constitution stipulates that legislative power belongs to the Federal Assembly and that legislation can be submitted in both houses of Congress. Unlike Korea, the U.S. administration does not have the right to submit legislation, but Article 3 (3) of the U.S. Constitution allows the U.S. president to “report to Congress from time to time, recommend Congress to consider necessary and appropriate legislation.” The administration’s legislative involvement begins with legislative planning submitted by each administration to the Office of Management and Budget under the Presidential Office in the form of a budget plan at the beginning of the year. Each administration submits a legislative plan to the Ministry of Management and Budget, and the Ministry of Management and Budget analyzes the practical and budgetary validity of the legislation and reviews the legislation and publishes it in the form of a presidential letter. In particular, the State of the Union doctrine, which consists of joint speeches of the House and Senate, appears to be the most important type of legislative involvement. First, the administration’s legislative plan submission procedure is as follows. At the beginning of the year, the Ministry of Management and Budget prepares guidelines for budget planning and provides them to each administration. Based on the guidelines, the Ministry of Management and Budget and each administrative agency identify major issues related to the budget and analyze, review, and consult on issues in the second half. Around June, the Ministry of Management and Budget issues OMB Circular A-11, which is a guideline for submitting data such as budget statistics to all federal administrative agencies, and in September, administrative agencies (excluding those that have not expressed their intention to submit) submit their budget plans to the Ministry of Management and Budget. From October to November, the Ministry of Management and Budget analyzes the budget proposals of administrative agencies in consideration of “presidential priorities, program performance, and budget constraints,” and the administrative agency and the Ministry of Management and Budget raise questions about budget decisions and suggest alternatives. At the end of November, the Office of Management and Budget proposes a fixed budget to the President’s office, and the Director of Management and Budget proposes to the President a full budget that has been finalized after considering the needs of all administrations and overall budget policies. At the end of November, the Office of Management and Budget notifies all administrative agencies of the decision on the budget request. The legislative plan should reflect the administration’s legislative policy, the president’s State of the Union and other policies, including (1) legislative matters for submission to the National Assembly, (2) whether the expected law is extended, and (3) whether the current law is abolished. In particular, the legislative plan should include (1) analyzing the provisions of the legislation, (3) comparing them with the current legislation, (4) explaining the relevant institutions, (5) consulting with the relevant institutions, and (6) other requirements by laws or administration policies. All institutions, including lawmakers, can submit bills or reports to the National Assembly only after review and coordination by the Ministry of Management and Budget, and the Ministry of Management and Budget can continuously submit opinions on the submitted bills. Moreover, the Presidential Message also has an important meaning as a means of legislative involvement by the government. In the U.S. presidential system, a message takes the form of an executive order in terms of an order to the administration of the president, the head of the administration, but unlike an executive order that goes through signature and promulgation procedures, it does not go through a pub...

입법학 연구와 입법평가 - 법학과 사회과학 접목의 한계지점 -

심우민 ( Woo Min Shim ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2012 法學硏究 Vol.22 No.2

In spite of increasing attention on legislative studies, the legislative scholars have not presented the practical meaning of this academic field. In recent years, legislative evaluation is said to be an alternative which can overcome this situation. Legislative studies have both aspects of norms and facts. Aspects of facts can be explained as applications of social scientific methodologies. One of the branch in legislative studies which puts these scientific methodologies together into all of the legislative procedure is legislative evaluation. This article examines what the conditions for development of legislative studies is, especially relating to the researches of legislative evaluation. This article points out that the traditional definitions of legislative studies have a few problems. Some disagreeable values can be excluded in the traditional one, because it stresses scientificity and objectivity excessively. However, this article insists that each disagreement should be respected in the legislative procedure, and the definition of legislative studies need to be changed in this respect. Accordingly, It will be identified whether this new definition is appropriate through the analysis on the decision making style of legislation.

국회선진화법의 입법 영향과 발의주체별 입법생산성 분석:

윤창근(Yun Chang geun),안진모(An Jin mo) 한국지방정부학회 2018 지방정부연구 Vol.22 No.1

의원입법의 증가는 입법 활동의 주도권이 행정부에서 국회로 이전되고 있음을 보여주는 중요한 지표이다. 그러나 민주화 이후 의원 발의안은 양적 팽창을 이루었음에도 불구하고, 파행적 국회와 잦은 입법 교착 등 문제가 끊이지 않고 있다. 특히, 정부 제출안과 비교하여 의원 발의안의 낮은 가결률은 입법부로서 국회의 역할에 대한 의문과 문제의식을 야기하였다. 의원입법의 낮은 생산성을 극복하고, 입법주체로서의 역할을 회복하기 위하여 국회는 19대 국회 시작 전인 2012년 5월 국회선진화법을 통과시켰다. 본 연구는 국회선진화법이 적용된 19대 국회의 발의 주체별 입법생산성을 분석하였으며, 그 결과 19대 국회에서 입법 활동이 기존 정부･여당 중심에서 정부-여당-야당의 협력체제로 전환되고 있음을 확인하였다. 첫째, 국회선진화법이 적용된 19대 국회는 이전 국회보다 의원입법의 비중이 3배 증가하였다. 둘째, 의원입법의 비중이 증가는 하였으나, 세부적으로 여당입법보다는 야당입법의 비중이 더 크게 증가하였다. 이 결과는 국회선진화법의 목적인 여･야의 협력정치가 실제 작동되고 있음을 증명하고 있다. 셋째, 여당 위원장의 주요 상임위(예, 기재위, 국방위 등)에서는 정부 제출안의 가결률이 매우 높은데, 이는 여당과 행정부의 협력 및 입법역량 집중으로 설명된다. 반면에, 야당 위원장 또는 여･야가 분점한 상임위에서는 위 원장의 정당 편향성과 입법생산성 간의 관련성은 무의미해지고, 대신에 여･야 의원들의 활발한 입법 활동이 확인되었다. 즉, 소속 상임위에서 의원들은 지역구 이익 대변, 그리고 재선 가능성 제고 등 이익분배이론적 입법 활동을 펼치고 있다. The increase in legislative legislation is an important indicator that the initiative of legislative activity is being transferred from the administration to the National Assembly. However, despite the quantitative expansion of lawmakers proposals after democratization, problems continue to arise, including the crippled parliament and frequent legislative stalemate. Moreover, the low approval rate of the legislative initiative raised questions about the productivity of legislative legislation. In order to overcome the low productivity of parliamentary legislation and restore its role as a legislative body, the National Assembly passed the National Assembly Advancement Act in May 2012 before the start of the 19th National Assembly. This study analyzed the legislative productivity of the 19th National Assembly, which was applied with the National Assembly Advancement Act, and as a result, legislative activities were shifted from the existing government and ruling party to the cooperation system of the government, ruling party and opposition. First, the 19th National Assembly, where the National Assembly Advancement Act was applied, saw the percentage of parliamentary legislation triple that of the previous National Assembly. Second, although the percentage of parliamentary legislation was increased, in detail, the weight of opposition legislation increased more than that of the ruling party. This result proves that the cooperation politics of the ruling and opposition parties, the purpose of the National Assembly Advancement Act, are actually operating. Third, the approval rate of the main standing committee of the chairman of the ruling party is very high, which is explained by the cooperation and legislative capacity of the ruling party and the administration. On the other hand, the association between the chairman s party bias and legislative productivity in the opposition party chairman or standing committee of the ruling and opposition parties became invalid, and the active legislative activities of the lawmakers were confirmed instead. In other words, in the standing committee of the party, lawmakers are conducting theoretical legislation on the distribution of profits, such as reducing profits in the district and raising the possibility of re-election.

입법과정에의 국민참여에 관한 연구

최희경 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2007 法學論集 Vol.11 No.2

법률이 제·개정되고 폐지되는 다양한 입법과정을 통해서 국민 개개인의 생활에 직·간접적으로 영향을 미치는 많은 제도나 정책들이 변화되고 있다. 입법과정은 단순히 국가정책이나 의사결정을 일반적으로 수립해나가는 과정이 아니라 국민의 의사가 입법의 형식으로 전환되는 것으로서 그 과정에 국민의 의사가 충분히 수렵되고 반영될 수 있도록 접근성이 보장되어야 한다. 전체적인 입법과정을 볼 때, 국민의 입법참여가 가장 효과적인 것은 법률안의 입안과 작성의 단계이고, 그 다음은 심사의 단계이다. 이 때 국민의 적극적 요구나 개인적 겸험 등이 법안을 만드는 국회의원이나 정책담당 공무원에게 전달되어야 하며, 이 같이 국민의 의사가 충분히 반영되어 제정·개정된 법률의 경우 집행에 대한 저항이 최소화되고 그 실효성이 확보될 수 있게 된다. 이처럼 입법과정에 국민의 참여와 접근성을 증대시키는 것은 입법의 성립의 정당성뿐만 아니라 집행의 실효성을 가져오게 된다. 한편 입법과정에 국민의 참여와 접근성을 증진시키는 제도가 보장되어 있더라도 입법과정에서 정보에 대한 접근을 어렵게 하거나 불가능하게 하는 것은 사실상 국민의 참여를 봉쇄하는 것이 된다. 국회의 회의나 위원회회의를 일체 공개하지 않거나 입법관련 회의록에 대해 국민이 전혀 접근할 수 없도록 하는 경우 국민의 입법참여는 사실상 불가능하게 되며 국회운영의 투명성 역시 확보되기 어렵게 된다. 따라서 입법과정에 국민의 참여를 증진시키기 위해서 직접적으로 국민의 참여를 증진시킬수 있는 방안과 함께 충분한 관련정보에 대한 접근성 역시 확보되어야 하는 것이다. 이에 본 논문은 국민의 직접적인 입법참여를 증진시킬 수 있는 관련제도의 검토와 함께 입법정보에 대한 접근성을 확보할 수 있도록 현행제도에 대한 개선방안을 고찰하고자 한다. The legislative process shall reflect not only the unilateral procedure of the simple nationalpolicy or decision making, but also the intention of the citizens sufficiently. As seeing the overalllegislative process, the most effective method for participation of the citizens is participation in thestage of drafting and preparation of a legislative bill and the review is the next. Opinions and active demands of the citizens are to be conveyed to the parliament member sand the civil servant forming the policy then. The law enacted and revised with sufficient intention of the citizens can secure effectiveness in its execution. The approved legislation would gain the legitimacy and also the effectiveness for execution through increasement of the accessibility of the citizens to the legislative process. On the other hand, even though the system to increase the participation and accessibility of citizens in the legislative process is guaranteed, setting a barrier for access to the legislative information or make it impossible are also an actual cease of the citizens' participation in legislation. This article is done to find a method for the citizens to participate in legislative process based on the legislative petition, the legislative announcement system, and the lobby system. Especially, with reference to the legislative announcement system, separate problem for the legislative announcement system to the government legislative proposal and the parliament members' legislative draft are noted and the measure for improvement is discussed. The necessity of legislation and its effective regulation is proposed after reviewing the positive and negative effects if the Lobbying Disclosures Act is introduced. The method for securing the accessibility of the citizens to the legislative information with the concern of the meeting at the parliament and its minutes of meeting and the parliament broadcasting system of the parliament in Korea is also studied. Especially, formation of the citizens’ political intention can be made through review of transparency during the meeting can be realized through its opening to public. Furthermore, it can increase criticism and surveillance for the parliament activity. The practical method can be proposed after reviewing openness of the subcommittee and the current relate system.

제4차 산업혁명시대에서의 입법과제와 입법부의 대응방안 - 입법방식과 입법시스템의 정비를 중심으로 -

박균성 서울대학교 법학연구소 2018 경제규제와 법 Vol.11 No.2

This paper aims to examine the impact of Industry 4.0(the Forth Industry Revolution) and its legislative countermeasures focusing on the improvement of legislative methods and system. There have been a few studies on the regulation in the era of Industry 4.0, but there have been few studies on legislation in. The legislation related to the Industry 4.0 should have forms of temporary legislation and step-by-step legislation. It also needs to adopt methods of flexible legislation to embrace diversity. We should strength legislative capacity of legislature, and quickly enact laws that govern new technology and new industries. We should expand the administrative legislation or administrative discretion, and proportionately seek a method for administrative and judicial control over them. Measures against legislative delay should be prepared. And, measures should also be prepared to prevent and control delays in legislation. The legislative and regulatory methods should be developed for new Industry 4.0 and new technologies. Under the positive regulation, we should introduce a regulatory sandbox system or a temporary permission, and provisionally adopt method to admit new technologies and new industries. In Korea, where judicial and criminal regulations are weak and autonomous regulation is not developed, it is necessary to take a cautious approach to the introduction of negative regulations. All regulations can not be made only by positive regulation or negative regulation. Depending on the regulated object, it is necessary to decide whether to perform positive regulation or negative regulation. The enforcement conditions should be set together so that the legislative purposes can be effectively achieved. The Industry 4.0 can cause a crisis in legislation. It can also expose the limits of legislative capacity. The crisis must be overcome by improving legislation and restructuring the legislative system. We should build a cooperative legislative platform, with Artificial Intelligences, citizens, concerned persons, and experts participating in legislation. It is also important to enhance the professionalism and ethics of legislators. 이 글은 제4차 산업혁명의 입법에 대한 영향과 그에 대한 입법적 대응방안을 입법방식과 입법시스템의 정비를 중심으로 고찰하는데 목적이 있다. 제4차 산업혁명시대에서의 규제에 관한 연구는 적지 않았지만, 입법에 관한 연구는 거의 없었다. 제4차산업혁명 관련 입법은 잠정적 입법(temporary legislation)이고 단계적 입법(step-by-step legislation)이어야 한다. 또한 다양성을 포용할 수 있는 탄력적인(유연한) 입법이 요구된다. 입법부의 입법능력을 강화하여 신기술과 신산업을 규율하는 법률을 신속하게 제정하여야 한다. 그런데, 입법부의 입법능력에는 한계가 있을 것이고, 법률의 신속한 제정은 쉽지 않을 것이므로 행정입법 또는 행정재량을 확대하고, 그에 비례하여 행정입법 또는 행정재량에 대한 입법부와 사법부의 통제를 강화하는 방안 등을 모색하여야 한다. 입법지체에 대한 대비책이 마련되어야 한다. 입법지체을 방지하고 통제하는 방안도 마련하여야 한다. 제4차산업혁명시대의 신기술 및 신산업에 맞는 입법방식과 규제방식도 개발하여야 한다. 포지티브규제하에서 입법지체는 신기술과 신산업의 실행불능을 의미하므로 포지티브규제하에서는 규제샌드박스제도 내지 임시허가제도를 도입하여 신기술 및 신산업을 잠정적으로 허용하는 방식을 개방하여야 한다. 사법적 규제와 형사법적 규제가 약하고 자율규제가 발전하지 않은 우리 나라에서는 네거티브규제의 도입에 신중한 태도를 취하여야 한다. 모든 규제를 포지티브규제만이나 네거티브규제만으로 할 수는 없다. 규제대상에 따라 포지티브규제를 할 것인가 네거티브규제를 할 것인가를 정해야 한다. 입법목적이 실효성있게 달성될 수 있도록 집행여건을 함께 마련하여야 한다. 제4차 산업혁명은 입법에 위기를 초래할 수 있다. 입법능력의 한계를 노정시킬 수 있다. 입법방식의 개선, 입법시스템의 재구축을 통해 이 위기를 극복하여야 한다. 인공지능, 국민, 이해관계인, 전문가의 입법참여를 실현하여 협력적 입법플렛폼을 구축한다면 입법부는 입법을 지휘하고 통제하는 입법총괄기관으로 시대변화에 맞는 지위를 구축할 수 있을 것이다. 이를 위해 법제도의 정비도 중요하지만 입법자의 입법능력 즉 입법자의 전문성과 윤리성을 제고하는 것도 중요하다. 또한, 입법학, 법정책학, 법경제학의 발전 등 입법관련 학문의 발전과 교육이 요망된다.

한국에서의 입법평가 : 사례연구 ― 입법평가 기준틀의 모색을 위한 시론 ―

이인호 한국공법학회 2009 公法硏究 Vol.38 No.1

The evaluation of legislation means the analysis and assessment of the effects of legislation. It basically focuses on the effects of any bill or statute. It usually analyzes what changes a bill will bring about or a statute have brought about in the behaviors of people and social circumstances. Then it assesses the results of change in view of cost and benefit. In result, the legislative evaluation is interested in the causal relationship between the legislative measures and social realities. This paper is a preliminary study on the framework and criteria for legislative evaluation in Korea. It elucidates seven criteria of evaluation: (i) Sufficient Grounds and Definiteness of Legislative Goals; (ii) Propriety of Regulation Scope; (iii) Reasonableness of Alternative Probe; (iv) Systemic Consistency of Regulation; (v) Effectiveness of Legislation; (vi) Efficacy of Legislation; and (vii) Efficiency of Legislation. The evaluative elements in each criterion are as follows. Criteria of Evaluation Types of Evaluation Elements of Evaluation Sufficient Grounds and Definiteness of Legislative Goals Ex-ante Evaluation ① Fully catch hold of the nature of the risk or harm on the basis of accurate and sufficient factual grounds? ② Properly judge that an affair causing risk or harm embraces any other good effect or utility? ③ Properly set up the legislative goals on the sufficient factual grounds? ④ Obviously present the legislative goals? Propriety of Regulation Scope Ex-ante Evaluation/ Midterm Evaluation ① Classify the weight of risk or the priority of regulation need between the objects of regulation? ② Properly define the scope of regulation according to the above priorities? Reasonableness of Alternative Probe Ex-ante Evaluation / Midterm Evaluation ① Cannot the new legislative goals be achieved through the existing regulations? ② Does a temporary alternative belong to the ambit of the legislative powers? ③ Generally estimate the presumptive costs and benefits of each possible alternative? ④ Do the opted legislative measures cause damage to the important constitutional principles and values? ⑤ Do the opted legislative measures guarantee the superiority over any other alternatives? Systemic Consistency of Regulation Midterm Evaluation ① Is the strength or density of the regulation proportional to the risk or harm on the whole? ② Do the legislative measures overlap each other in the objects and domain of regulation? ③ Is there a contradiction between basic concepts? Effectiveness of Legislation Midterm Evaluation ① Is it not a genuine retroactive legislation which change the completed legal effects of past actions or situations? ② Take any reparative measures for disadvantages suffered by the change of legislation? ③ Is the regulation intelligible, simple, and definite? ④ Require too high level of moral standards? ⑤ Endeavor to hear and reflect the opinions of those interested? Post Evaluation ① Does an average person understand the regulation contents easily and accurately? ② Do the people abide by the legislation? ③ Does the compliance result from the legislative instructions? Efficacy of Legislation Midterm Evaluation ① Is the causal assumption between goal and measure correct? Post Evaluation ① Do the results of legislation come close to the expected goals? ② Are there any other elements or factors which influence the legislative results? Efficiency of Legislation Midterm Evaluation ① Are the prospective benefits high in priority of social demands? ② Are the prospective benefits urgent and compelling? ③ Do the prospective costs have something to do with the detriment of constitutional interest or values? ④ Are the prospective side effects grave and serious? Post Evaluation ① What kind of benefits and to what extent did the legislation attain? ② To what extent did the legislation command enforcement costs? ③ Did the legislatio... 입법평가란 기본적으로 입법의 효과(effects)에 초점을 맞추어, 특정한 입법조치가 수범자의 태도나 행동 혹은 상황에 어떤 변화를 야기하는지를 분석하고, 그 변화의 결과를 비용(costs)과 편익(benefits)의 관점에서 평가하는 작업이다. 그리하여 입법평가는 입법조치와 사회현실 사이의 인과관계(causal relations)에 관심을 갖는다. 통상 입법자는 명시적이든 묵시적이든 인과관계에 관한 일정한 가정(assumptions)에 근거해서 입법행위를 한다. 그러나 입법평가의 주된 목적이 그러한 입법자의 가정이 옳고 그르다는 것을 증명해보이려는 것은 아니다. 입법평가란 입법의 효과에 관한 입법자의 가정과 인식을 향상시키기 위한 것이다. 때문에 입법평가는 입법조치와 사회현실 사이의 인과관계에 관한 정확하고 적절한 정보나 지식을 산출하여 입법자에게 제공함으로써 입법의 질을 제고하고자 하는 실천적인 작업이다. 이 글은 이러한 입법평가 작업을 수행하기 위한 기준틀을 모색하기 위한 시론적 연구이다. 제2장(II)에서는 이러한 입법평가의 개념과 그 의의가 어디에 있는지, 입법평가(사전입법평가, 병행입법평가, 사후입법평가)의 구체적인 목적이 무엇인지, 그리고 입법평가의 한계가 무엇인지를 간단히 살핀다. 이어 제3장(III)에서는 입법평가의 기준을 7가지로 제시하고 각 기준의 판단에 필요한 평가요소들을 정리하면서 이해의 편의를 위하여 관련된 몇 가지 입법사례들을 소개한다. 7가지 입법평가의 기준은 다음과 같다: (i) 입법목표의 근거충실성과 명확성, (ii) 규율범위의 적정성, (iii) 대안모색의 적정성, (iv) 규율의 체계정합성, (v) 입법의 효과성(effectiveness), (vi) 입법의 유효성(efficacy), 그리고 (vii) 입법의 효율성(efficiency).

‘좋은 법률’을 통한 헌법가치 및 공익실현 방안에 관한 연구

고인석 동국대학교 비교법문화연구소 2022 比較法硏究 Vol.22 No.2

The change in social structure to ICT-based society is also easily seen in the area of legislation as well as information access through the Internet and expression of legislative intentions. The activation of Internet use leads to active public opinion and legislative desire based on the interests of the public regarding specific legislation, leading to legislative conflicts. Until now, various legislative principles and theories have been established to resolve legislative conflicts and strengthen the efficiency of legislation. As an institutional mechanism for the realization of "good legislation," the legislative notice system, legislative hearings, and legislative evaluation have been applied during the legislative process. However, The goal for “good legislation” is often a distorted phenomenon that fails to meet the people's legislative needs due to the lack of public opinion formation and influence, legislative lobbying, and public participation channels. Measures to realize “good legislation” will be implemented by improving legislative procedures to expand public participation and reflect active public opinion in the course of legislation. ICT 기반사회로의 사회구조의 변화는 입법의 영역에서도 인터넷을 통한 정책에 대한 정보접근과 정책과 관련한 입법의사의 발현을 용이하게 함으로써 특정입법에 관하여 국민의 이해관계에 따른 적극적 입법의견제시와 입법관여자의 입법욕구가 과도하게 분출하여 첨예한 입법갈등으로 나타나기도 한다. 그동안 국내 입법학 연구분야에서 입법갈등해소와 입법의 효율성 달성방안 차원에서 다양한 입법이론과 입법원칙이 상당히 정비되고 체계화되어 왔으며, ‘좋은 법률’의 실현을 위한 제도적 장치로서 정부입법계획, 입법공청회, 입법청문회, 입법예고제도, 법안심사제도, 입법평가제도 등이 체계적으로 입법과정에 적용되어왔다. 그러나 여전히 ‘좋은 법률’의 달성을 위한 목표는 입법과정에서의 특정 이해관계집단의 여론 형성력과 영향력, 입법로비, 국민의 입법참여제도의 부족 등으로 국민의 다양한 입법욕구에 부응하지 못하고 특정법률의 제·개정시 왜곡된 입법현상으로 나타나는 경우가 상당히 많이 발생하고 있다. 이 논문에서는 ‘좋은 법률’의 실현을 위한 입법의 원칙준수, 입법과정의 개선과 입법의 효율성 강화방안에 관하여 입법절차의 개선과 질적 입법의 달성을 위한 제도적 방안을 제시하고자 한다.

입법형식과 입법평가

백옥선 한국공법학회 2016 공법연구 Vol.45 No.2

Legislative evaluation is designed to evaluate the influence, effects, and etc. of legislation through various perspectives and using a variety of methods. It has been fifteen years since legislative evaluation was introduced to South Korea, however, as is has not yet been institutionalized, in-depth research into the standards and methods of legislative evaluation has also not occurred. Regardless of the need for research on legislative evaluation for it to be institutionalized, research on legislative evaluation must be carried out and developed with the aim to create good legislation. In order to increase the effectiveness of legislative evaluations, standards and methods to accurately evaluating legislation must be established. However, currently legislative evaluations are limited to being categorized based on the time point of the evaluation as either anterior, parallel, or posterior legislative evaluations each with their own standards and methods. Thus, there are limitations to the effective implementation of legislative evaluations and in order for systematic and effective legislative evaluation, the standards and methods must be specified in greatest detail. Accordingly, this paper, as a measure to break down the standards and methods of legislative evaluation, aims to review the usefulness of dividing the legislation, the subject of the evaluation, by form. Legislation form is general categorized by legislation’s type, characteristics, provisions, and agent. This paper examined what specifying the standards and methods of legislative evaluation first by legislative name, and second by form of provision would represent. On this basis, framework act and special act, as particular legislation form, require separate legislative evaluation and in the case of ex ante and ex post legislative evaluation, areas that need to be taken into consideration differ. Likewise, there is a need to establish differentiated legislative evaluation standards and methods for the promotion act. It is expected that the specification of the legislative evaluation standards according to legislative form will contribute to the development of legislative evaluation to a certain degree. However, it can be said that while a certain level of limitation is estimated in deducing formative standardization or common regulatory factors, the limitation is considered to be less compared to that of other methodologies. It is essential that in the future, research on legislative evaluation must not be limited to research by it self, but must work along side research on legislative form and overall legislation. Through this, the standards and methods of legislative evaluation can be utilized effectively throughout the general process of legislation. 입법평가는 입법의 영향이나 효과 등을 여러 가지 관점에서 다양한 수단을 활용하여 평가하는 것이다. 우리나라에 입법평가가 소개된 지 15년이 지났으나, 입법평가가 제도화 되지 못하면서 입법평가의 기준과 방법에 대한 연구는 심도 있게 이루어지지 않고 있다. 그러나 입법평가연구는 입법평가를 제도적으로 도입하기 위한 연구와는 별개로 좋은 입법을 만들기 위한 목적으로도 지속되고 발전시켜야 한다. 입법평가의 실효성을 높이기 위해서는 입법을 제대로 평가할 수 있는 기준과 방법이 잘 정립되어 있어야 한다. 지금까지는 단순히 입법평가의 시점을 기준으로 하여 입법평가를 사전적ㆍ병행적ㆍ사후적 입법평가로 구분하고 각각의 평가기준과 방법을 정하는 데 그치고 있어, 입법평가를 효과적으로 실시하는 데 한계가 되고 있다. 체계적ㆍ효과적인 입법평가를 위해서는 입법평가의 기준과 방법을 최대한 구체화하는 것이 무엇보다도 선행되어야 한다. 이러한 의미에서 본 논문은 입법평가의 기준과 방법을 세분화하기 위한 방안으로, 평가대상인 입법을 형식적으로 구분하는 것의 유용성을 검토하였다. 입법형식은 일반적으로 법 종류, 법 성격, 법 조문, 법 제정주체 등을 기준으로 분류된다. 본 논문에서는 입법평가기준과 방법을 1차적으로 법제명 형식, 2차적으로 법조문 형식으로 구체화하는 것이 입법평가방법론을 구축하는 데 있어 어떠한 의미가 있는지를 검토하였다. 이를 기반으로 한 입법형식별 입법평가방법론을 설명하기 위하여, 특수한 법형태인 기본법과 특별법은 각각 입법평가의 필요성이나 사전ㆍ사후적 입법평가시 고려할 사항이 상이하다는 점, 마찬가지로 진흥법제에 대한 입법평가의 기준과 방법도 달리 마련되어야 한다는 점을 논의하였다. 입법형식에 따른 입법평가기준의 구체화는 어느 정도 입법평가의 발전에 기여할 것으로 보인다. 다만, 이는 형식적인 통일이나 공통적인 규율요소를 도출하는 데 있어 일정한 한계는 있을 수 있을지라도 다른 방법론에 비해 비교적 그 한계가 적다는 점에서 유용할 것으로 판단된다. 물론 앞으로의 입법평가연구는 그 자체에 대한 연구뿐만 아니라 입법형식 등 입법 전반에 대한 연구와 병행하여 이루어져야 하며, 이를 통해 궁극적으로는 입법전반에 걸쳐 입법평가의 기준과 방법이 적극적으로 활용될 수 있어야 한다.

중국의 입법권과 입법과정

전희 이화여자대학교 법학전문대학원 2015 Ewha Law Review Vol.5 No.2

국가의 입법권은 한 나라의 법체계 정비에서 가장 핵심적인 부분이며 입법기관의 가장 중요한 권한에 해당한다. 그 내용과 기능은 다양하고 여러 각도에서 연구의 필요성이 있을 것이나, 본 논문에서는 중국의 전체적인 입법권과 입법과정에 대한 개관을 하면서 입법사항에 관하여 정하고 있는 「입법법(立法法)」을 살펴보고자 한다. 중국의 입법기관은 전국인민대표대회와 그 상무위원회로 대표되며 입법기관의 입법권을 위임받은 국무원을 비롯한 지방 인민대표대회, 국무원 소속 중앙행정기관, 지방정부, 직할시 및 자치구, 경제특구 등은 수여된 범위에서 입법권을 행사하고 있는 실정이다. 입법과정의 체계화가 많이 이루어졌지만, 여전히 입법권의 행사가 명확하게 구분되지 못하며 통일적인 절차규범이 없다는 점, 현실적으로 전국인민대표대회 상무위원회가 가장 강력한 입법권을 행사한다는 점, 지방입법권의 입법남용 등 많은 문제점을 안고 있다. 중국에서 의법치국(依法治国)의 첫 해로 일컫는 2015년, 15년만의 입법법 전면 개정으로 그 첫걸음을 내딛은 것이라고 평가되고 있다. 그 동안의 많은 문제점들이 해결될 것으로 기대되고 여러 면에서 발전된 측면을 보이지만, 아쉬운 점 역시 없지 않다. 새로운 「입법법(立法法)」에 대해서 간략하게 검토 하고, 중국의 법제가 세계적으로도 인정받기 위해서 나아가야 할 방향을 모색하면서 진정으로 인민을 위한 입법, 중국의 특색을 지닌 수준 높은 입법을 기대해본다. Legislative power of the state is the most essential part of a country's legal system maintenance, and it can be said to be one of the most important rights of the legislator. The contents and functions are diverse and feel the need for its study in various ways, but in this study, it will look into the 「Legislation law (立法法)」 that China’s overall legislative and overviews the legislative process while the legislation stipulates about it. China's legislative body is represented by the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee and, including the State Council, entrusted with the legislative power of the Legislature, the situation is that provincial people's congress, the state council, the central affiliation government, local governments, municipalities and autonomous regions and special economic zones, and etc. are exercising legislative power in conferred range. Meanwhile the systematization of legislation were done many times, but still the exercise of the legislative power has not been clearly classified, and there lacks unified procedure norms, the national people's congress standing committee actually exercised the most powerful legislative power, Legislation abuse of the local legislative power, disorder, it is true that these problems are still existing. Starting with the revision of legislative process in 15 years, it is evaluated to be the first step forward. Many problems that were discussed until now are expected to be solved and developed in many ways that only the normative sides are seen, but there still exists unfortunate matters. Details about the issues of the new legislative act are simply overviewed and in order to find ways for Chinese legislation to be affirmed globally, we expect true legislation for people, qualified legislation with Chinese features.

의회와 입법절차 -입법기능과 입법절차의 상관관계를 중심으로-

이장희 ( Jang Hee Lee ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2011 고려법학 Vol.0 No.61

The main thesis of this paper is the relation between legislative function and a legislative procedure in the Constitution. A rational and fair legislative procedure is necessary for lawmaking, in which a legislative procedure is considered as a legal process that should be abided by legislator. However, the procedure is often ignored or infringed practically by legislator. All state actions including legislation are under control by the Constitution and the law, which should be achieved according to a legal procedure envisaged by the Constitution and the law. It means that legislative process regulated by a legal procedure that has binding force is a full fulfillment of legislative function in the Constitution; by such a legal procedure two kinds could be strengthened, the one is democracy as to make adjustments in diverse and different opinions possible, the other is the rule of law as to remain within legality. Hence a legislative procedure in relation to legislative function has a meaning that improve rationality, fairness, and democracy in lawmaking. Furthermore, a legislative procedure does its role to ensure the law to be constitutional, that is, ``constitutional law in fair procedure``. If there are significant procedural faults in lawmaking, we can say that there is no law coming into being regardless of whether the law is good or bad. The premise of the execution of the law or of the jurisdiction according to the law is bringing into the existence of the law, which could be possible only by abiding by a legislative procedure. However, in the view of the legal stability, there are another questions and need extra inquiries about whether there could be the denial of the force of the law which has procedural faults in lawmaking.