. . 1.
2.
. ( )
1.
2.
. 1.
2.
.
* ,
: 2012. 10. 30 / : 2012. 11. 22. / : 2012. 11. 30
I.
‘ ’
.
(legislative process) ,
“
(parliamentary bodies) ,
- , ,
, , , -
” .1)
,
, “
,
”2) .3)
,
,
,4) ,
,
.
1) , , , 2008, 247 .
2) , “ - -”,
, 1987. 7, 34 .
3) .
4) , “ ”, 34 3 , ,
2006. 2, 26 .
.
. ,
.
,
.5)
( )
.6)
,
.
, ,
.
.
, ( )
,
.
5) G. B. Galloway, The Legislative Process in Congress, New York 1959, p. 9.
6) , “ ”, 3 ,
, 1992, 16~17 .
.
40 “ ”
. 52
“ ”
.
.7)
‘ ’ ,
‘ ’ ,
‘ ’ .
, ,
,
( ) ,
15
16
. 18 1 17 4
6,387 3 2
4,188 , 18 12,219
17 2 ,
1,693 10 .
7) ,
21 10 ‘ ’
, 15 9 ‘
’ . , “
”, 34 3 , , 2006. 2, 3 .
.8)
< >
( )
(1948~1950) 234 89 43 48% 145 106 73%
2 (1950~1954) 398 182 77 42% 216 137 63%
3 (1954~1958) 410 169 72 43% 241 85 35%
4 (1958~1960) 322 120 31 26% 202 44 22%
5 (1960~1961) 296 137 30 22% 159 40 25%
(1961~1963) 1,162 554 514 93% 608 501 82%
6 (1963~1967) 658 416 178 43% 242 154 64%
7 (1967~1971) 535 244 123 50% 291 234 80%
8 (1971~1972) 138 43 6 14% 95 33 35%
9 (1973~1979) 633 154 84 55% 479 460 96%
10 (1979~1980) 129 5 3 60% 124 97 78%
(1980~1981) 189 33 33 100% 156 156 100%
11 (1981~1985) 498 202 83 41% 287 257 90%
12 (1985~1988) 379 211 66 31% 168 156 93%
13 (1988~1992) 938 570 171 30% 368 321 87%
14 (1992~1996) 902 321 119 37% 581 537 92%
15 (1996~2000) 1,951 1,144 461 40% 807 659 82%
16 (2000~2004) 2,507 1,912 517 27% 595 431 72%
17 (2004~2008) 7,489 6,387 1,352 21% 1,102 563 51%
18 (2008~2012) 13,912 12,219 4,890 40% 1,693 1288 76%
* : (http://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/jsp/StatFinishBill.jsp)
8) , “ 18 ”, 512 ,
, 2009. 7, 98 .
,
, ,
.
,
.9)
) ( ),10) )
, ) 3
.11)
) 10
9) , , 98 ; , “ -
-”, 11 4 , ,
2005. 12, 288 .
10) ( 52 ).
51 .
, ‘ ’ ,
‘ ’ . , “ ”, 49 2 ,
, 2004. 2, 5 2 .
11) ,
. , “ ”,
, 2002, 123 .
( ) ) (
) . 18 11,190 , 1,029
, 955 74 .
79 1 10
. 20
,12) 2003 2 4 10
. ,
.13)14)
, 3
( )
,
, ,
,
,
, .15)
12) 20
. , , ,
2004. 11, 24 .
13) , , 6 ; , , 8 .
14)
, , 8 .
15) , “ ”, , , 2008. 4, 140 .
,
16)
,
.
,
17) ,
.
,
.18)
51 1 2
,
. ‘
’ ‘ ’ ,
,19)
16) 5 3
1 31
, .
17) ,
, .
, .
, , 28 .
18) , , 32 .
19)
.
.20)
‘ ’ ‘ ’
.
,21)22)
, .
, ,
23) .
. ,
, , 2008. 10, 32 .
20) , , 142 .
21) , , 8 . 6
,
‘ ’
. , , 10 .
22) ,
. , , 346 .
23)
. 16
( 37 ), .
,
( 81 1 ).
82 2
. , )
, )
.
15 , 20 (
· 5 )
( 59 ).
24) ‘ ’ . 2012 5
25 (2012 5 30 ) 59 2
30
, .
. ,
24) , , 25 .
,
(General Debate) .
. ,
3 1
( 64 1 ) 3
1 ( 65 2
).
,
.25)
, 57 1
( 58 2 3 ).
,
,
.
.26)
.
Y\PG 䢿䟊⽟SG 㞴㦮G ⏒ⶎSG X[]㴓G 㺎㫆U Y]PG 㩫㨂䢿SG 㞴㦮G ⏒ⶎSG XW㴓G 㺎㫆U
( , , , ) (
) (
86 ), ( 81 1 ).
.
, ,
,27)
,
‘ ’
28) .
4 16
,
5 1960 9 26
2002 2 16
.29)
) , , )
4 1 . ,
27) , , 45 .
28) , ,
, 1978, 90 .
29) , , 9 .
( 63 2 1 ).
, ‘ ’
, ‘ ’
.30)
( 63 2
2 ),
.31) 2 , 1 2
5 ,
. 2005 7 28
.32) ,
.33)
‘ ’
, ,
.
30) , , 150 .
31) , , 9 .
32) , , 45 .
33) , , 315 .
, .
. ,
.34)
,
15 .
, ,
.
. ( )
( ) .
.35)
34) , , 43 .
35) “ ,
, ,
,
” . 2006.6.29, 2005 604; 1999.11.
, .
,
,
.
,
.
, ,
,
,
,
.
,36)
, ,
37)
.38)
25, 97 54; 1994.2.24, 93 213.
36) , “ ”, 21 2 ,
, 2009, 158 .
37) , “ : ”,
6 1 , , 2007, 170 .
38) , “ ”, 67 , , 2002.
6, 8 .
26 “
.
” .
, ,
, ,
, .
.39)
‘ ’
,40)
(participatory democracy) .
39) Vgl. J. Isensee, Staatshoheit und Bürgerinitiative, in: K. H. Biedenkopf/W. Birkenmeir, Staatsführung, Verbandsmacht und Souveränität, 1977, S. 146; , , 7
.
40) , “ ”, ,
, 2004. 6, 26 .
, 13 18
, ,41)
,
.
< 13 ~ 18 >
( )
13 (1988~1992) 67 0 1 1 0
14 (1992~1996) 432 4 102 10 316
15 (1996~2000) 765 4 316 19 426
16 (2000~2004) 595 3 179 16 397
17 (2004~2008) 534 10 186 33 305
18 (2008~2012) 272 3 61 5 203
2,665 24 845 1,965 1,647
* : (http://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/jsp/PetitionStat.jsp)
, ,
‘ ’ .42)
41) , , 160 .
42) , “ NGO , ”,
3 , 2003, 120 .
.
43)
.
(
124 1 ).
.
( 125 3 ),
( 9 ),
( 10 1 ). ,
.
43)
,
2006.6.29, 2005 604 “
,
,
”
. , 2 “
,
”
. , ,
159 ; , , 25 .
,
, ( 125
1 , 3 6 ).
, )
, ) , )
, ) .
, 26
2
‘ ’
. ,
, “
,
.
”44) .
.
44) 1994. 2. 24. 93 213,214,215( ).
,
,
.
26 2
‘ ’ ‘ ’
.
.45)
.
, .
.
‘ ’
,46)
45) M. Siegfried, “Begründungspflicht bei Petitionsbescheiden”, DÖV 1990, 279 ff.; ,
, 17 . U. Rühl, “Der
Umfang der Begründungspflicht von Petitionsbescheiden”, DVBl 1993, 14 ff. .
46) , “ ”, ,
, 2000, 225 .
1983
( 11133 ) , 1996
12 31 , 1998 1 1
( 41 44 ).
( , , )
, ) ·
, ) , )
, ) , )
.
‘ ’
,
1994 .
2011 5 11 82 2
,
, 10
, .
,
,47)
.
, 82 2 2
10 ,
.
2012 2 27
( 174 , 2012.5.30 )
,
10 , 15
,
,
( 4 1 2 ).
40
.
.
,48)
[^PG 㧚㭧䢎SG 㞴㦮G ⏒ⶎSG [[㴓G 㺎㫆U
48) , , 130 .
,
,
.
.
‘ ’ ,
, ,
.
,
㓠❬❟⭿ᯬG ❳[X⟇┧G ᒇᛓG 㓠❬‘G
,
, ,
.
( 6 ), .
64 1
3 1 · .
,
3 1 ( 65 1
2 ).
,
( 58 6 , 64 1 65 2
).
1988 13 ‘5
’ ,
, .
, ,49)
.
.50)
49) , , 168, 172 .
50) , , 19 .
.51)
,52)
,
.53)
,
.54)
.
, ( )
,
.
.55)
51) , , 13 ; , , 172 .
52) , , 44 .
53) , , 13 .
54) , , 13~14 .
55) , , , 2010, 942 .
, .
, ,
,56)
.
.
,
. ,
,
. ( )
, ,
, ,
.
56) , , 153~154 .
, , , 2008. 10.
, “ ”, 34 3 ,
, 2006. 2.
, “ - -”,
, 1987. 7.
, “ 18 ”,
512 , , 2009. 7.
, , , 2004. 11.
, , , 2008.
, “ NGO ,
”, 3 , 2003.
, “ :
”, 6 1 , , 2007.
, “ ”,
, , 2000.
, “ ”, 21 2 ,
, 2009.
______, “21 ”, 5 ,
, 2009.
, “ ”,
, 2002.
, “ ”, ,
, 2004. 6.
, “ -
-”, 11 4 ,
, 2005. 12.
, “ ”, 34 3 ,
, 2006. 2.
, “ ”, 49 2 , , 2004. 2.
, “ ”, 3 , , 1992.
, “ ”, 67 ,
, 2002. 6.
, “ ”, , , 2008. 4.
, , , 1978.
G. B. Galloway, The Legislative Process in Congress, New York 1959.
M. Siegfried, Begründungspflicht bei Petitionsbescheiden, DÖV 1990, 279 ff.
U. Rühl, Der Umfang der Begründungspflicht von Petitionsbescheiden, DVBl 1993, 14 ff.
< >
, ,
.
,
.
.
,
.
, ,
.
.
, ( )
,
.
Journal of Legislation Research / 43th Issue
Promoting People`s Participitation in the Lawmaker-initiated Legislative Process
Yi, Se-Jeong*57)
As the modern administration becomes diversified and specialized and the function of the nation changes, the exercise of government power as well as the provision of service and distribution of goods are carried out pursuant to the law, placing more significance on the legislation process today.
In the representative democracy, the legitimacy of the content of the law is primarily determined by the members of the National Assembly, the representatives of the people. Without any adequate understanding of the individual specific interest and empirical opinion however, it is highly unlikely to ensure such legitimacy. It is therefore necessary to expand the opportunities for the people to participate in the legislation process to ensure legitimacy.
Currently, the people submit written opinions, apply pressure to the political party or organize assembly or demonstration to participate in the process, but these indirect modes of participation are limited in their influence. To incorporate the opinions of the people, it is imperative that the institutional measures are established and put into practice to provide more direct approach. With regard to the legislations introduced by the members of the National Assembly, there are institutional measures such as legislative petitions, legislative announcement, public hearing, etc. In some cases however, these exist for the sake of formality or there is lack of relevant regulations - highly doubtful in their effectiveness.
This article outlined the status quo as well as the process of the legislation by the members of the National Assembly, and explored the legislative petition - people's participation in the (previous) stage of legislative proposition - and legislative announcement as well as public hearings - people's participation in the stage of the legislation review - so as to examine the ways to expand the opportunities for the people to participate in the legislation process.
* Research Fellow in Korea Legislation Research Institute, Ph.D. in Law
:
