RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      각국의 직업선택의 자유와 실질적 보장에 관한 노동법상 고찰 = A REVIEW OF FREEDOM AND SUBSTANTIAL SECURITY FOR OCCUPATIONAL OPTIONS IN EACH COUNTRY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LABOR LAW

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

        In the modern capitalistic countries that pursue the idealistic state of welfare, the freedom of occupational options is considered a right for survival that is required to security the substantial freedom beyond any formal or abstract perception of it under the near-modern civil law system. Moreover, it is also recognized as a basic right of workers to satisfy their ego by developing and sharpening their aptitude and capacity through job and to achieve their demands and goals to improve their environment by upgrading the social and economic status. The occupation or job in this sense shall not be confined only to certain kinds that have been traditionally accepted by society but should be comprehended as that which is, despite the socio-environmental changes, continuously requested to earn means for mental as well as physical sustenance without sacrificing public interests. Such freedom of occupational options is guaranteed by statutes in countries like Korea, Germany and Japan. Even in the USA and Canada where no security of freedom for occupational options is provided in a statutory form, it is regarded as one of inherent rights that are generally guaranteed.<BR>  Today, there are still disagreements as to significance and detailed contents of the freedom of occupational options in view of labor-related features among scholars specializing in labor law. Majority of them, however, stand for the view that "the freedom of occupational options should be so extensively and comprehensively interpreted that it may encompass free decisions of workers to select, perform and change occupation, their free choice of vocational training place, free secession from working place, holding concurrent posts and standing in competitive position". In such interpretation, the freedom of business may also be categorized as a sort of freedom to perform job. On the other hand, employers who own and utilize production means are deemed to have the legal choice to employ workers with the right of management. In this situation, it is essential for labor and management to agree to unite production means and working force in compliance with the capitalistic legal system.<BR>  The labor law of the modern welfare countries has the top priority to realize the freedom of occupational options by providing whole citizens with jobs to improve their economic status and realize social justice. The government should be able to offer to members of the nation job opportunities that may security certain level of working conditions and help them choose jobs that suit their aptitude and improve their ability. It must be assured further that workers can transfer to all upgraded position in return for their laborious work.<BR>  It may be concluded that the freedom of occupational options, together with the national policy for realization of full employment, conforms with the legal obligations of the nation toward the labor right. It is, thus, imperative to detail the concept and contents of the right to work and prepare criteria for interpreting the positive laws by reformulating the freedom of occupational options under the contemporary paradigm.
      번역하기

        In the modern capitalistic countries that pursue the idealistic state of welfare, the freedom of occupational options is considered a right for survival that is required to security the substantial freedom beyond any formal or abstract per...

        In the modern capitalistic countries that pursue the idealistic state of welfare, the freedom of occupational options is considered a right for survival that is required to security the substantial freedom beyond any formal or abstract perception of it under the near-modern civil law system. Moreover, it is also recognized as a basic right of workers to satisfy their ego by developing and sharpening their aptitude and capacity through job and to achieve their demands and goals to improve their environment by upgrading the social and economic status. The occupation or job in this sense shall not be confined only to certain kinds that have been traditionally accepted by society but should be comprehended as that which is, despite the socio-environmental changes, continuously requested to earn means for mental as well as physical sustenance without sacrificing public interests. Such freedom of occupational options is guaranteed by statutes in countries like Korea, Germany and Japan. Even in the USA and Canada where no security of freedom for occupational options is provided in a statutory form, it is regarded as one of inherent rights that are generally guaranteed.<BR>  Today, there are still disagreements as to significance and detailed contents of the freedom of occupational options in view of labor-related features among scholars specializing in labor law. Majority of them, however, stand for the view that "the freedom of occupational options should be so extensively and comprehensively interpreted that it may encompass free decisions of workers to select, perform and change occupation, their free choice of vocational training place, free secession from working place, holding concurrent posts and standing in competitive position". In such interpretation, the freedom of business may also be categorized as a sort of freedom to perform job. On the other hand, employers who own and utilize production means are deemed to have the legal choice to employ workers with the right of management. In this situation, it is essential for labor and management to agree to unite production means and working force in compliance with the capitalistic legal system.<BR>  The labor law of the modern welfare countries has the top priority to realize the freedom of occupational options by providing whole citizens with jobs to improve their economic status and realize social justice. The government should be able to offer to members of the nation job opportunities that may security certain level of working conditions and help them choose jobs that suit their aptitude and improve their ability. It must be assured further that workers can transfer to all upgraded position in return for their laborious work.<BR>  It may be concluded that the freedom of occupational options, together with the national policy for realization of full employment, conforms with the legal obligations of the nation toward the labor right. It is, thus, imperative to detail the concept and contents of the right to work and prepare criteria for interpreting the positive laws by reformulating the freedom of occupational options under the contemporary paradigm.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
        Ⅱ. 직업선택의 자유의 의의
        Ⅲ. 각국의 직업선택의 자유
        Ⅳ. 노동법상 직업선택의 자유와 보장을 위한 구체적 내용
        Ⅴ. 결론
        참고문헌
        【ABSTRACT】
      • Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
        Ⅱ. 직업선택의 자유의 의의
        Ⅲ. 각국의 직업선택의 자유
        Ⅳ. 노동법상 직업선택의 자유와 보장을 위한 구체적 내용
        Ⅴ. 결론
        참고문헌
        【ABSTRACT】
      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 "헌법이론과 헌법" 박영사 1999

      2 "직업의 자유의 제한" 1987

      3 "직업의 자유 한국에서의 기본권이론의 형성과 발전" 박영사 1997

      4 "직업의 자유" 고시연구 1982

      5 "직업선택의 자유와 면허제도" 세창출판사 2002

      6 "직업선택의 자유" 1984

      7 "신노동자경영참가론" 창작과 비평사 1995

      8 "고용보장의 노동법적 원리와 구조에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 박사학위논문 1997

      9 "雇用保障法の硏究" 法律文化社 1987

      10 戶波江二, "職業の自由と違憲番査" 有斐閣 (174) : 1995

      1 "헌법이론과 헌법" 박영사 1999

      2 "직업의 자유의 제한" 1987

      3 "직업의 자유 한국에서의 기본권이론의 형성과 발전" 박영사 1997

      4 "직업의 자유" 고시연구 1982

      5 "직업선택의 자유와 면허제도" 세창출판사 2002

      6 "직업선택의 자유" 1984

      7 "신노동자경영참가론" 창작과 비평사 1995

      8 "고용보장의 노동법적 원리와 구조에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 박사학위논문 1997

      9 "雇用保障法の硏究" 法律文化社 1987

      10 戶波江二, "職業の自由と違憲番査" 有斐閣 (174) : 1995

      11 "社會法理論の總括" 勁草書房 1975

      12 "憲法學敎室 I" 日本評論社 1991

      13 "憲法(基本權)" 成文堂 1996

      14 "勞働權の理論と課題" (100) : 1976

      15 "勞働權と雇用保障法" 日本評論社 1991

      16 "人權と憲法訴訟" 有斐閣 1994

      17 "in: Maunz/Dürig/Herzcg/Scholz, GG-Kommentar" 12 (12):

      18 "Sozialrecht" 2001

      19 "Grundzüge des Verfassungsrechs der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" 1978

      20 "Grundriss des Arbeitsrechts" 13-, 2003

      21 "Die Verfassungsrechtliche Berufsfreiheit" 1962

      22 "Arbitsrecht" 2003

      23 "Arbeitsrechts-Handbuch, 9. Aufl., 2000" 2000

      24 "Arbeitsrecht" 1961

      25 "Arbeitsrecht" 5-, 1998

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2027 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2021-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2018-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2015-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2009-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2007-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2004-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2003-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2002-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2000-07-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 1.11 1.11 1.07
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.99 0.99 1.176 0.45
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼