역사학의 남북교류를 위하여

남지대 한국역사연구회 1989 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.2

조선초기 산계[관품]의 구조와 기능

남지대 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 1992 한국문화 Vol.13 No.-

.

조선 태종의 권위 확충

남지대 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2014 규장각 Vol.45 No.-

Having secured his regal authority, Taijong went on to cause a heated commotion in the court by declaring that he would soon abdicate the throne in favor of the Crown Prince. The ulterior motive for that declaration was to mitigate the damage done to his moral integrity by the role he played as a royal prince in the first violent power struggle with his step-brothers. He further tried to clear himself of the sins he had committed during the process leading up to his accession to the throne, by confessing the sins to Heaven. The commotion of August 1406 revolving around the avowed abdication of the throne was deliberately given rise to by Taijong in order to ease the moral damage he suffered on account of his involvement in the above power struggle among royal princes. It had been less than a year since the political conflict that the commotion transpired. By declaring that he would at once step down from the throne in favor of the Crown Prince, he actually made himself appear to be ready to give up all the advantages he might have taken of the conflict. In the midst of this turmoil he held a memorial service for his deceased step-mother Sindeok Wanghu for the first time after he came to the throne. One day after he repealed the decision to step down from the throne he also held a memorial service for both Bangseok and Bangbeon, his step-brothers who were killed by him in the political conflict noted above. As a consequence of these measures, he could obtain Taijo's reaffirmation of his support of Taijong’s rulership. All in all, the commotion stirred up by the avowed abdication of the throne, the performance of memorial services for his step-mother and step-brothers before the eyes of the people of Hanyang, and the following Taijo’s reaffirmation of his support of Taijong's rulership were of great help in relieving Taijong of his responsibility for the above political conflict. The year of 1407 witnessed another severe drought. This led Taijong to pray for Heaven's pardon for his past sins and wrongdoings. He also prayed to Heaven for its benevolence and mercy that would protect the people from famine and disease brought about by the drought, reminding it of its past benevolent bestowal of a mandate from Heaven on him despite his sins. By demonstrating his concern and sympathy for the people who were suffering from severe drought and ensuing famine, Taijong attempted to expand his support base. He would have been seen in the eyes of the people as a ruler who had received a mandate from Heaven and were deeply concerned about people's livelihood. The dispatch of the Crown Prince to Beijing and his having audience with the Chinese emperor had the twofold effect of rendering the setting up of the Crown Prince legitimized by the Chinese emperor and of making this diplomatic feat widely known. This diplomatic achievement, with its domestic reverberations, must have greatly boosted Taijong’s prestige as a ruler and reinforced his regal authority. In this way the legitimacy of Taijong’s rulership was reaffirmed and his regal authority was strengthened.

15세기 통치체제 성격에 관한 남북연구의 비교

남지대 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 2000 民族文化硏究 Vol.33 No.-

朝鮮初期 官署ㆍ官職體系의 정비

南智大 西原大學校湖西文化硏究所 1996 湖西文化論叢 Vol.9,10 No.-

조선 태종의 왕권 확립

남지대 한국외국어대학교 역사문화연구소 2015 역사문화연구 Vol.53 No.-

왕위와 왕통을 정당화한 뒤 태종은 왕권을 확립해 나아갔다. 태종의 과제는 漢陽 還都였다. 定都 논의에서 대신들이 모두 松京에 머물려 하자 태종은 양경제를 수용하는 선에서 정리하였다. 가뭄 뒤의 장마로 물난리가 난 와중에서 1404년(태종 4) 8월에 세자를 책봉하였다. 태종은 嫡長을 세자로 책봉하여 태조-태종-세자로 왕통을 바로 세웠고, 민심을 안정시켰다. 9월초 태종은 태조의 명에 힘입어 1405년 10월에는 한양으로 옮겨갈 것임을 선포하였다. 10월 초 태종이 宗廟에 들어가 동전을 던져 도읍을 한양으로 정하였다. 한양 정도로 태종은 태조의 칭찬을 들었다. 이렇게 태종은 왕권의 안정에 중요한 두 과제를 해결하였다. 태종은 1404년 10월 중순 대표적 공신·인척인 李居易와 그 아들들을 내쫓고, 11월 중순에 開國·定社·佐命 3공신이 동맹하여 충성을 다짐하도록 하여 훈척을 제어하였다. 이어 태종은 1405년 정월에 육조를 정2품아문으로 승격하고 서무를 귀속시켜서, 왕이 인사를 포함하는 행정체계와 군사를 장악하고 중요 사안만을 의정부와 협의하는 체제로 바꾸려 하였다. 태종은 1405년(태종 5) 3월 이후 심한 가뭄과 기근 속에서 한양 환도를 준비하고 추진하여 10월에 한양으로 돌아왔다. 태종은 10월 8일 松京을 출발하여 11일에 漢京에 이르러 종묘에 알현하였고, 20일 새 離宮 창덕궁으로 이어하여 한양 還都를 마무리 지었다. 세자 책봉과 한양 정도, 대표적 공신 인척의 축출하는 훈척 제어와 육조를 승격하여 행정체계를 장악한 위에서 1405년(태종 5) 한양으로 환도함으로써 태종의 왕권은 확립되었다. After rendering legitimate his rulership and the line of succession to the throne of the Chosun dynasty, King Taijong proceeded to secure his regal authority. The major challenge to his authority at that time was the issue of the transfer of the capital of the new dynasty back to Hanyang. Since all of the high public officials wished to continue to live in Songkyong, the capital of the previous dynasty, and have it remain as the capital of the new dynasty, he gave some concessions to them by designating both cities as the capital of the new dynasty. Then he dared to set up one of his sons as the Crown Prince on August 1404 in the midst of a serious flood that strangely followed a drought. He expected to win the mind of the people by designating his eldest son by his legal wife as the Crown Prince. On September of that year he declared that he would bring the task of the transfer of the capital back to Hanyang to completion by October 1405. At the beginning of October 1404 he tossed a coin at the royal ancestors' shrine to decide which city would be the capital of the new dynasty, selecting Hanyang as the new capital. Thus Taijong successfully met the two challenges most crucial to securing his regal authority, the issue of setting up the Crown Prince and that of designating Hanyang as the capital of the new dynasty. On mid-October 1404 Taijong banished Yi Geo-yi and his sons, representative merit subjects/royal in-laws, from the capital. On mid-November he ordered the three groups of merit subjects-Gaeguk, Jeongsa, and Jwa-myong-to form an alliance with one another and make a pledge of allegiance to the throne. On January 1405 he raised the Six Ministries to the status of the second court rank, assigning appropriate tasks to each of them. Thereby he attempted to transform the political system into a new one in which the throne keeps the Samgunbu (the armed forces) and the Six Ministries under his control and consults with the Prime Ministry only in the case of significant political issues. After March 1405 Taijong promoted and made preparations for the transfer of the capital back to Hanyang in the midst of severe drought and famine, and at last he returned to Hanyang on October of the year. He left Songkyong on October 8 1405, and arrived at Hanyang and presented himself at the royal ancestors' shrine three days later. On October 20 1405 he moved to a royal villa, Changdeok-gung, putting an end to the protracted and tumultuous process of transferring the capital back to Hanyang. Taijong's regal authority was secured while vigorously coping with a series of formidable political challenges--the issues of the setting up the capital at Hanyang, the designation of the Crown Prince, the banishment of representative merit subjects/royal in-laws from the capital, the promotion in status of the Six Ministries, and the transfer of the capital back to Hanyang.

조선 건국초 인사관리제도의 성립

남지대 서원대학교 인문과학연구소 1996 인문과학연구 Vol.5 No.-

조선 태종의 즉위과정과 내세운 명분

남지대(Nam, Jidae) 호서사학회 2014 역사와 담론 Vol.0 No.69

미국의 군사법제도에 있어서 지휘관의 권한

지대남(Chi Tai-Nam) 한국비교공법학회 2011 공법학연구 Vol.12 No.1

대한민국은 1948년에 미국의 『육군전시법』(the Army’s Articles of War)을 계수함으로써 미국의 군사법제도를 거의 그대로 수용하였다. 본 논문은 미국의 군사법제도에 있어서 군범죄가 발생할 경우 지휘관의 사건처리 권한을 연구하는 데 있다. 본 논문의 목적은 대한민국에서는 아마도 금년에 헌법개정 논의 가능성이 있으며 여기에 군사법제도가 포함될 수 있다. 따라서 한국의 군사법제도와 가장 관련성이 있는 미국의 군사법제도를 연구함으로써 한국의 헌법개정 논의에 도움을 주려는 데 있다. 본 논문에서 미국의 지휘관의 권한에 대하여 연구한 주요 내용은 수사권, 선택적 처리권(불문조치, 행정적 교정조치, 비사법적 절차에 의한 처벌, 군법회의 회부), 구속명령권(조건부 자유, 연금, 억류, 구금), 공소제기권, UCMJ 제32조 수사, 군법회의 소집권, 군법회의의 유형(약식군법회의, 특별군법회의, 보통군법회의), 배심원 선정권, 확인조치권 등이다. 본 연구 결과 종합적으로 판단할 때, 미국 지휘관의 사건처리권한은 군법회의의 권한보다 강하다고 볼 수 있다. 또한 미국의 지휘관의 권한이 대한민국의 지휘관의 권한보다 훨씬 광범위하고 강화되어 있다고 볼 수 있다. The Republic of Korea has accepted the U. S. military justice system through the adoption of 『the Army’s Articles of War』 of U. S. in the year 1948. This thesis examines the commander’s authority to exercise dispositions regarding military crimes in the military justice system of the United States of America. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to discussion on the constitutional amendment including the military justice system which will take place probably in this year in Korea, by researching the. U. S. military justice system which is most relevant to the Korea counterpart. The contents regarding the U. S. commander’s authority of the thesis are the investigation right(preliminary inquire), alternative dispositions(the nonpunitive measures, the administrative corrective measures, the nonjudicial punishment, courts-martial), pretrial restraint(conditions on liberty, restriction in lieu of arrest, arrest, confinement), referral of charge, UCMJ Article 32 investigation, convening a courts-martial, types of courts-martial(the summary courts-martial, the special courts-martial, the general courts-martial), detailing the courts-martial panel, command prerogative of the convening authority. In conclusion, I perceived that the U. S. military commander’s authority to dispose the incidents is stronger than that of the courts-martial, and is more extensive and powerful than the military commander's authority of the Republic of Korea.

한국과 미국의 군사재판제도의 비교

지대남(Chi, Tai-Nam) 한국헌법학회 2011 憲法學硏究 Vol.17 No.1

대한민국과 미국은 세계2차대전 이후부터 지금까지 정치·경제·사회적 분야는 물론이고 군사적 분야에 있어서도 밀접한 관계를 유지하고 있다. 대한민국은 국군창설 초창기인 1948년에 군사법제도를 수립할 당시에 미국의 육군전시법(the Army's Articles of War)을 繼受함으로써 미국의 군사법 제도를 거의 그대로 수용하였다. 본 논문의 목적은 한국 군사법제도의 토대가 된 미국의 군사법제도를 연구하여 한국의 군사법제도와 비교·검토함으로써 우리나라 군사법제도의 발전에 기여하고자 함에 있다. 본 논문에서 연구한 주요 내용은 다음과 같다. 서론, 미국 군사재판제도의 연혁과 변천, 한국 군사재판제도의 연혁과 변천, 군사재판제도의 이념 (군기강확립과 사법정의), 미국의 군사재판제도의 운영목적. 한국의 군사재판제도의 운영목적, 미국의 군법회의의 재판권(신분적 재판권, 사건에 대한 재판권, UCMJ 제134조 일반조항), 한국의 군사법원의 재판권(신분적 재판권, 사건적 재판권), 결론이다. 본 연구결과를 종합적으로 판단할 때, 미국은 독립전쟁 당시에 영국의 전시군법전(the Britisch Articles of War)를 수용하여 제정한 1775년의 전시 군법전(the American Articles of War)하의 군사법제도의 기본골격이 현재까지 유지되고 있다. 즉, 군사법제도는 군법회의보다는 지휘관이 중심이 되어 현재까지 운영되고 있다. 군법회의는 사법부에 소속된 기관이 아니라 행정부 관할 기관이다. 한국 군사재판제도는 초창기 미국 군사법제도를 수용할 당시에는 미국의 제도와 매우 유사하였다. 그러나 그 후 헌법과 법률의 개정을 통하여 군사 법제도를 일반사법제도에 접근하는 방향으로 변화되어 왔다고 볼 수 있다. 예를 들면, 군사재판기구의 명칭이 초창기에는 미국과 동일하게 군법회의 였으나, 1987년에 헌법개정을 통하여 그 명칭이 군법회의에서 군사법원으로 바뀌었다. 미국의 관할관은 군법회의의 재판결과에 대해서 관할관의 확인조치를 통하여 사면권을 행사할 수 있다. 한국의 관할관도 군사법원의 재판결과에 대하여 확인조치를 통하여 사면권을 행사할 수 있다. 그러나 미국 관할관의 권한이 한국 관할관의 권한보다 훨씬 광범위하고 강력하다. 반면에 군사재판기구로서 미국의 군법회의의 위상과 권한은 한국의 군사법원의 위상과 권한보다 약하다고 할 수 있다. The Republic of Korea and the United States have been maintaining an intimate relationship in political, economical, social, and above all military field. The ROK embraced the US military justice system almost in its entirety by adopting “the Army's Articles of War” of US when establishing the military justice system in 1948. The objective of this paper is to study the US military justice system, and compare and analyze it with the ROK counterpart to contribute to the development of the ROK military justice system. The contents in this paper come in the following order: introduction, history and changes of the US military judgment system, history and changes of the ROK military justice system, idea of military justice system (discipline and justice), objective of the US military justice system, objective of the ROK military justice system, the jurisdiction of the US courts-martial (jurisdiction for a person, jurisdiction for an event, UCMJ Art. 134 General Article), the jurisdiction of the ROK military court (jurisdiction for a person, jurisdiction for an event), and conclusion. Concluding from the research outcomes, the US has maintained the fundamental structures of its military justice system since the enactment of the American Articles of War in 1775 which adopted the British Articles of War. In other words, the commander, instead of the courts-martial, has been the central force in the operation of the US military justice system. The courts-martial should belong to the administrative body not the judicial one. The ROK military judgment system was similar to the US system in its initial stage. However, through the amendment of the constitution and law, the military justice system has been modified to resemble the civil judicial system. For example, the title of military judgment organization was the courts-martial until 1987 when it was renamed to the military court through the constitutional amendment. The US convening authority can exercise amnesty rights on the judgment made by the courts-martial by convening authority opinions and actions. The ROK convening authority can also exercise amnesty rights on the judgment made by the military court. However, the convening authority' power of the US is much stronger than that of the ROK counterpart. On the other hand, the US courts-martial's prestige and power as the military judgment organization is much weaker than that of the ROK military court.