민영화의 헌법적 한계와 규제

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Today, the tasks left to the state are quantitatively increasing as well as qualitatively changing. On this account, many people raise questions whether a State can play an independent role to overcome public challenges amid rapid changes in high technology society. We are used to hearing privatization as a means to overcome waste and inefficiency in government and the neoliberalism, adhering to market competition, increases the tendency of the privatization.
However, The theme privatization is connected with appropriate roles of a state and it is required to consider correlation with changing roles of a state. Besides privatization has an important bearing on the whole fundamental human rights of the people. In this regard, this study insists that privatization should be proceeded within the limitations of the constitution and regulations which are the measures for a state to play its role in terms of the privatization should be established.
This study includes analysis of the relationship between privatization and the basic principles of the constitution; Rule of law, Democracy, Welfare state. and the provisions on the economy. privatization policy should be performed on legal basis and the interested parties must have the equal opportunity to take part in the discussion. In the case when privatization related to necessary goods and services to live like a human being is performed, a strict standards for selection should be applied. Furthermore, the Korean Constitution has many clauses related to the economy, so we have to consider carefully the limitations of the privatization defined by the constitution. Especially, according to the constitutional guidelines like as balanced regional development, promotion of small and medium business, decentralization of economic power, the privatization policy should be performed.
The public sector should not shift the duty for public tasks onto the private sector by privatization. A state has the constitutional duty to guarantee the people's fundamental human rights. Therefore, a state is required to regulate after the privatization to prevent the violation of the people's fundamental human rights caused by the privatization. In this case, the regulation system should be established considering the changing roles of a state and a cooperative system with the private sector. So, the regulation system is to set up in flexible and specialized way while respecting social autonomy.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정극원, "헌법상의 사회국가원리" 26 (26): 1998

2 문병효, "최근 독일행정법의 변화와 시사점 - 유럽화, 민영화, 규제완화를 중심으로 -" 법학연구원 (52) : 213-261, 2009

3 길 준 규, "세계화 시대의 생존배려 개념의 변화" 한국비교공법학회 7 (7): 343-368, 2006

4 차진아, "사회국가의 이념과 그 현실적 한계 ― 소득세를 통한 혼인과 가족생활의 보호에 관한 한국과 독일의 (연방)헌재 판례를 중심으로 ―" 한국헌법학회 13 (13): 155-199, 2007

5 김종세, "법치국가 실현을 위한 국민적 합의기반의 필요성에 대한 고찰 - 헌법학적 및 법철학적 고찰을 중심으로 하여 -" 한국법학회 29 (29): 1-27, 2008

6 한상희, "민주주의와 경제질서 -재구성적 헌법읽기-" (14) : 1998

7 박신, "민영화의 헌법적 문제" 국민대 법학연구소 (11) : 1999

8 변해철, "민영화와 공공이익" 22 (22): 1994

9 이원우, "민영화에 대한 법적 논의의 기초" 7 : 1998

10 김형성, "독일과 한국에 있어서의 사회적 시장경제" 3 (3): 2001

11 Rolf Stober, "독일경제행정법상 규제완화" 24 (24): 1996

12 장영철, "기본권의 제3자적 효력과 기본권보호의무, 공법연구" 29 (29): 2001

13 표명화, "기본권보호의무의 이론적 기초" 한국헌법학회 8 (8): 132-160, 2002

14 오건호, "기간산업 사유화의 문제점과 공공적 발전 모색" 민주주의법학연구회 23 : 7-202, 2003

15 선정원, "규제개혁과 정부책임" 30 (30): 2001

16 이승우, "국가와 국가권력의 본질과 과제" 7 (7): 2001

17 송석윤, "국가역할의 역사적 변천 -근대국가의 미래와 관련하여-" (20) : 2001

18 이승우, "공기업 민영화의 헌법적 문제점" 35 (35): 1994

19 최승원, "공기업 민영화의 법적 기초" 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) (21) : 189-197, 2008

20 李元雨, "공기업 민영화와 공공성확보를 위한 제도개혁의 과제" 한국공법학회 31 (31): 2-2, 2002

21 김민호, "공공서비스의 민간위탁과 공기업의 민영화" 한국토지공법학회 25 : 267-285, 2005

22 김형성, "경제헌법과 경제정책의 헌법적 한계" 한국법학원 (79) : 5-29, 2004

23 정영화, "경제규제의 헌법원리및 이론연구" 미국헌법학회 17 (17): 1-40, 2006

24 김유환, "경제규제완화에 있어서의 공법적 대응" 24 (24): 1996

25 이원우, "경제규제와 공익" 법학연구소 47 (47): 89-120, 2006

26 原田大樹, "自主規制の公法學的硏究" 有斐閣 2007

27 田中二郞, "新版行政法 下卷 全訂第2版" 弘文堂 1983

28 Dieter Grimm (Hrsg.), "Wachsend Staatsaufgaben -sinkende Steuerungsfahigkeit des Rechts" Nomos 1990

29 Udo Di Fabio, "Verwaltung und Verwaltungsrecht zwischen gesellschaftlicher Selbstregulierung und staatlicher Steurung" 56 : 1997

30 Robert Baldwin, "Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice" Oxford University Press 1999

31 Barry M. Mitnick, "The political economy of regulation: Creating, Designing, and Removing Regulatory Forms" Columbia University Press 1980

32 John G. Francis, "The Politics of Regulation: A Comparative Perspective" Blackwell 1993

33 J. Braithwaite, "The New Regulatory State and the Transformation of Criminology" 20 : 2000

34 Julia Black, "Talking about regulation" 1 : 1998

35 Dieter Grimm (Hrsg.), "Staatsaufgaben" Nomos 1994

36 Anthony Ogus, "Rethinking Self-regulation" 15 : 1995

37 Ian Ayers, "Responsive Regulation:Transcending the Deregulation Debate" Oxford University Press 1992

38 Anthony Ogus, "Regulation:Legal form and Economic Theory" Oxford University Press 1994

39 J. Heier, "Regulation: Politics, Bureaucracy and Economics" St. Martin's Press 1985

40 Giandomenico Majone, "Regulation and its Modes, in Regulating Europe" Routledge 1996

41 Wolfgang Weiß, "Privatisierung und Staatsaufgaben: Privatisierungsentscheidungen im Lichte einer grundrechtlichen Staatsaufgabenlehre unter dem Grundgesetz" Mohr Siebeck 2002

42 C. R. Sunstein, "Paradoxes of the Regulatory State" 57 : 1990

43 Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, "Modernisierung von Recht und Justiz: Eine Herausforderung des Gewährleistungsstaates" Suhrkamp 2001

44 G. Majone, "From the Positive to the Regulatory State" 17 : 1997

45 Douglas C. Michael, "Ferderal Agency Use of Audited Self-Regulation as a Regulatory Technique" 47 : 1995

46 G. F. Schuppert, "Die öffentliche Verwaltung im Kooperationsspektrum staatlicher und privater Aufgabenerfüllung: Zum Denken in Verantwortungsstufen" 31 : 1998

47 Hermann Hill (Hrsg.), "Die Zukunft des öffentlichen Sektors" Nomos 2006

48 G. F. Schuppert (Hrsg.), "Der Gewährleistungsstaat -Ein Leitbild auf dem Prüfstand" Nomos 2005