헌법상 자기결정권과 후견주의

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In case of an individual with independent decision-abilities, self-determination made by him or her is protected as the decision grounded in unrestrained intention; the decision under duress is not regarded as self-decision. However,constitutionally, the right to self-determination is not unlimited, but it is under certain restrictions. Although, a person with independent decision-abilities whose action is not harmful to others, certain actions, such as prostitution, the sale of human organs, slavery contract, etc, are not allowed to put in practice freely. It is also not always permitted the state guardianship of the intervention to a person who is unable to make independent decision. Though no harm to others, some actions made by personal decision for the benefit of himself or herself would be restrained by the state intervention that is the basis of legal paternalism.
According to J. S. Mill’s harm principles, the right to self-determination is not entirely protected if it harms to others. Such assertion is clearly stipulated in the Constitution (article 37, section 2) that ‘all people’s right of freedom will be restrained by the national security, public order, public welfare’. In this case, it would leave a question on what the constitutional basis of the state intervention to prostitution or crimes without harming to others. In other words, unlike the case of harmful actions to others, even actions without harming to others, the restriction of the fundamental human rights will be justified exceptionally.
In the basis of Such the restriction, the logical inevitable restriction on all human rights applies not only to harmful actions on others but also to self-wrong.
In other words, even though it is a self-determined action, if it possibly harm to the personal autonomy permanently, the state intervention to the action will be allowed exceptionally as limitations might be believed to be inherited in the rights of self-determination. Personality breathes the breath of autonomy. Thus, the intervention by the legal paternalism is exceptionally allowed when a person’s action is for his or her own interests.
In this article, it is the main objective to examine the basis of legal paternalism’s justification and the degree allowed.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 권영성, "헌법학원론(2010년도판)" 법문사 2010

2 정종섭, "헌법학원론" 박영사 2010

3 김철수, "헌법학개론(제19전정신판)" 박영사 2007

4 성낙인, "헌법학(제11판)" 법문사 2011

5 김강운, "헌법상 자기결정권의 의의" 한국법학회 (20) : 161-179, 2005

6 양건, "헌법강의(제2판)" 법문사 2011

7 한국헌법학회, "주요법령에 대한 주석서 발간(헌법－총강 및 기본권 부분)" 학술연구용역최종보고서 2007

8 오병선, "자유제한의 원리와 도덕의 법적 강제" 3 : 2001

9 J. S. 밀, "자유론" 산수야 2005

10 강태수, "자기위해행위의 제한에 관한 헌법적 고찰" 법학연구소 43 (43): 17-44, 2008

11 김주현, "자기결정권과 그 제한" 헌법재판소 7 : 1996

12 민병로, "일본판례헌법" 전남대학교출판부 2011

13 조엘 파인버그, "사회철학" 종로서적 1992

14 H. 하트, "법, 자유, 도덕－인간의 존엄과 가치의 창출" 나남출판 1996

15 최봉철, "도덕의 법적 강제에 대한 논쟁과 헌법재판소의 결정" 법학연구소 18 (18): 661-698, 2006

16 竹中勳, "自己決定權の意義" (58) : 1996

17 小柳正弘, "自己決定の倫理と‘私たち’" ナカニシヤ出版 2009

18 高橋和之, "立憲主義と日本國憲法" 有斐閣 2005

19 B·ピエロート＝, "現代ドイツ基本法" 法律文化社 2001

20 澤登俊雄, "犯罪·非行對策における强制の根據とその限界" (123) : 1988

21 田中成明, "法理學講義" 有斐閣 1994

22 井上達夫, "法という企て" 東京大學出版會 2003

23 內野正幸, "憲法解釋の論理と体系" 日本評論社 1991

24 土屋淸, "憲法學の新たなパラダイムを求めて" 成分堂 2010

25 竹中勳, "憲法學とパターナリズム·自己加害阻止原理, In 現代立憲主義と司法權, 佐藤幸治先生還曆記念" 靑林書院 1998

26 中島徹, "憲法の想定する自己決定·自己責任の構造" 社団法人自由人權協會 2005

27 佐藤幸治, "憲法[第3版]" 靑林書院 1995

28 芦部信喜, "憲法[第3版]" 岩波書店 2007

29 長谷部恭男, "憲法(第3版)" 新世社 2004

30 井上英治, "憲法(上)" 辰巳法律硏究所 2003

31 戶波江二, "幸福追求權の構造" (58) : 1996

32 小山剛, "基本權の內容形成" 尙學社 2004

33 內野正幸, "國益は人權の制約を正当化する, In リーディングズ·現代の憲法" 日本評論社 1995

34 福田雅章, "刑事法における强制の根據としてのパターナリズム" 103 (103): 1990

35 中村直美, "パターナリズムの硏究" 成分堂 2007

36 J. クライニッヒ, "パターナリズム(1983年)(三)" 25 (25): 1988

37 Patrick Devlin, "The Enforcement of Morals" Oxford Universityt. Press 1965

38 Gerald Dworkin, "Paternalism, In MORALITY AND THE LAW" Wadsworth　 Publishing Co 1971

39 Joel Feinberg, "Legal Paternalism" 1 (1): 1971

40 H. L. A. Hart, "Law, Liberty, and Morality" Stanford University Press 1962