韩国宪法法院制度研究

【作者】 宋永华；

【导师】 董茂云；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 民商法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 韩国宪法法院制度建立至今不过二十余年,但在宪政建设方面发挥了令人瞩目的作用。本文分别从历史源流、制度内容与制度实效等方面对韩国宪法法院制度作了探讨。首先,从历史的角度探讨了韩国宪法法院制度的流变,分析了韩国宪政建设的困境与出路;其次,从制度分析的角度述评了韩国宪法法院的宪法地位、组织、审判权及其行使程序;最后,从制度实效的角度总结了韩国宪法法院在韩国宪政建设中所起的作用。在全文研究的基础上,提出了韩国经验对后发国家建立完善宪法审查制度的启示,同时指出韩国宪法法院制度的不足。第一章在介绍韩国政治转型之前的宪法审查制度的发展与流变的基础上,对韩国宪政建设的困境作了探讨。作为第一个实施宪法法院制度的亚洲国家,韩国近现代宪法的发展及宪法法院制度的建立却远非一帆风顺,经历了近百年的挫折方取得成功。韩国二十世纪八十年代政治转型之前的宪政建设始终处于困境之中,宪法审查制度仅仅作为专制政权的民主点缀而存在,难以发挥保障宪法实施的作用。对此,本文从文化传统、殖民地历史与战后朝鲜半岛局势等方面分析了韩国宪政建设的困境,解释了宪法审查制度难以发挥作用的原因。第二章分析了韩国的政治转型与宪法法院制度的确立。二十世纪六十年代至八十年代间,韩国经济发展带动了社会结构的变迁,导致威权主义统治合法性基础的消减,最终促成威权主义统治向民主政治的转型。政治转型为韩国宪政建设提供了出路,宪法法院制度正是韩国政治转型的产物。韩国宪法法院审判权的生成凝结着高度的政治智慧,融合了韩国宪政建设的历史基础和现实需求,较好把握了制度移植与本土化的关系,奠定了宪法法院制度成功的基础。第三章分析了宪法法院的宪法地位,述评了宪法法院的组织体系。宪法法院制度是对西方传统的三权分立体制突破与重构的产物,形成了立法、行政、司法之外的另一种国家权力——宪法审查权。所以,韩国宪法法院是独立于立法、行政、司法机关之外的政治性的国家权力行使机关、宪法保障机关和宪法审判机关,它和其他国家机关的关系表现为宪法文本上的静态关系和宪政实践中的动态关系。韩国宪法法院以法官为中心的组织体系,凸显了以审判权行使为第一要务的组织原则,并辅以高水平专业化的审判研究人员和精简高效的行政辅助人员,为宪法审查权的行使提供了有力的人力资源保障。第四章述评了韩国宪法法院的审判权及其行使程序。韩国宪法法院的审判权范围适当、分类清晰、功能明确,基本反映了政治转型以来韩国宪政建设的现实需求,主要包括法律合宪性审判权、弹劾审判权、政党解散审判权、权限争议审判权和宪法诉愿审判权。宪法法院的审判程序与所作的决定是司法技术智慧的结晶。宪法法院的一般审判程序属于宪法法院程序法规范的总则部分,而特别审判程序是宪法法院适用于特定审判权行使的专门程序,属于宪法法院程序法规范的分则部分。决定是审判权行使的成果,韩国宪法法院在实践中对决定形式作了必要的移植和创新,形成了变形决定制度,使宪法法院制度更好地满足宪政建设的现实需求。第五章从制度实效的角度总结了韩国宪法法院在韩国宪政建设中所起的作用。以韩国民主化转型为契机而确立的宪法法院制度,在巩固民主政治、树立法治权威和人权保障等方面发挥了显著的作用,成为韩国政治转型与宪政发展上最引人注目的成就之一。宪法法院以其实际行动改善着国民对宪法与法律的态度和对民主政治的认识,提升了国民的法治观念,激励着国民对人权保障的诉求。在结语中,作者在总结前文研究的基础上提出了四点启示性结论:首先,后发国家应依托本国宪政建设的现实条件建立与完善宪法审查制度,脱离现实盲目进行制度移植的做法是行不通的;其次,后发国家宪法审查制度的设计宜采取中央化模式;第三,后发国家应注重加强宪法审查的专业化程度;第四,后发国家宪法审查制度的完善应以宪政建设的现实需求为导向,突出对制度实效的追求。在看到韩国宪法法院制度成功一面的同时,我们也必须指出它的不足:第一,宪法法院的审判权范围相对受限;第二,宪法诉讼的程序性门槛仍嫌过高;宪法法院的决定执行力缺乏刚性的制度保障。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since its establishment in 1988, the Constitutional Court of Korea has gained significant reputation on constitutionalism construction. This paper discusses the Korean constitutional court system mainly in the aspects of backgrounds, contents and actual effects. First of all, the paper focuses on the evolvement of Korean constitutional adjudication system and analyse the embarrassment and outlet with which Korea are confronted in its constitutionalism construction; secondly, the paper reviews the constitutional status, organization, jurisdiction and procedure of Korean Constitutional Court; lastly, the paper analyses the function of Constitutional Court in Korea’s constitutionalism construction from the aspects of democratic politics, rule of law and human rights protection. On the base of the above-mentioned research, the author brings forward several revelatory remarks on the establishment and perfection of constitutional adjudication system in developing countries; and the author also points out the defects of the Korean constitutional court system.Chapter One is about the evolvement of Korean constitutional adjudication system and the embarrassment confronted by Korea before its political transformation started in the late 1980s. As the first Asian country which adopted the constitutional court system, Korea’s efforts on the construction of modern constitutionalism and the establishment of the Constitutional Court are far away from plain sailing, but suffering numerous frustrations. Before its political transformation started in the late 1980s, Korea’s constitutionalism construction had been always stayed with embarrassments. As a result, the constitutional adjudication systems that stipulated in the constitution could not fullfil its systemtic function and only existed as the democratic ornaments of dictatorship. The author points out that the reasons for the embarrassments could be traced in Korea’s culture tradition, colonial history and the hard international situation of Korean peninsula after World War II.Chapter Two mainly analyses the establishment of the current constitution court of Korea on the backgrounds of the economic and social development and political transformation. During the period from 1960s to 1980s, Korea’s social change brought about by its economic development began to chanllenging the legality of authoritarianism, and later promoted the Korea’s political transformation from authoritarianism to democracy. Therefore, we may say that the Constitutional Court is one of the outcomes of political transformation. The creation of Korean Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction is one of the keypoints to its success, which contains high political wisdom, accommodates the historic developments and contempory needs of Korean constitutionalism, and well deals with the relationship between system transplantation and localization.Chapter Three reviews the constitutional status and the organization of Korean Constitutional Court. The constitutional court system is an outcome of the dissolution and reconstruction of the tradidtional western system of checks and balances, which gives birth to the newly state power of constitutional adjudication besides the original legislative, administrative and judicial power. In addition, the Constitutional Court is a political institution that is independent from the legislative, administrative and judicial institutions and fullfils the function of protecting the constitutional order and implementing the constitution through adjudication. Based on the above understanding, the author then discusses the relationship between the Constitutional Court and other state institutions from two perspectives, one is their static relationship that exists in the constitution context, and the other is their dynamic relationship that comes into being in the constitutionalism practice. The organization framework of the Korean Constitutional Court shows obvious U.S.-style characters, in which the justice is the center.Chapter Four is about the jurisdiction and procedure of the court. According to the Constitutional Court Act, the Constitutional Court is empowered to adjudicate on the constitutionality of statutes at the request of ordinary courts, on impeachment motions, on dissolution proceedings of political parties, on competence disputes between agencies of the central government, between the central and local governments, or between local governments, and on constitutional complaints as provided by law. The jurisdiction of the Korean Constitutional Court well meets the real needs of Korean’s constitutionalism construction since the political transformation for its suitable coverage, clear classification and definite functions. The procedure and the decision of the Constitutional Court reflect the wisdom of judicial techniques. The general adjudication procedure is applicated in all kinds of the jurisdictions; well each kind of the special adjudication procedures could only be applicated in its corresponding jurisdiction. The decision is the product of the jurisdiction and bears the weight of the whole system. The Korean Constitutional Court has made significant technical innovation on its decision by transplanting other countries’ practice into the Korean system.The Fifth and final Chapter analyses the function of Constitutional Court in Korea’s constitutionalism construction. The constitutional court system established in the process of political transformation has exerted its notable functions in the aspects of democratic politics, rule of law and human rights protection; therefore, it has been considering one of the most remarkable achievements in Korea’s development of constitutionalism. In the passed two decades, the practice of Constitutional Court of Korea has changed the Korean people’s attitude twards the constitution and the law, improved their understanding on the democratic politics and rule of law, and also encouraged their pursuance of better human rights situation.In the epilogue of this paper, the author proposes four revelatory remarks: firstly, it is crucial to establish the constitutional adjudication system relying on the real condition of a country’s constitutionalism construction; secondly, the centralized mode constitutional adjudication system is a better choice for those developing countries; thirdly, the developing countries should enhance the specialization and professionalism of its constitutional adjudication system; and finally, the efforts to improve its constitutional adjudication system should be oriented by the real needs of the constitutionalism construction and pursue the actual effects. Besides its successful side, the Korean constitutional court system still has obvious defects that are urgent to be correctted: firstly, the the Court’s jurisdiction is comparatively too narrow to better meet the needs; secondly, the procedural doorsill of constitutional adjudication is too high to a certain extent; thirdly, the Court’s decision is lack of institutional protection in the aspect of binding force.更多还原