자치입법과정에 관한 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

However, ten years have passed since local governments revived, but the understanding of local parliaments by the public is still insufficient. Excessive control and intervention of the central government in local governments are a great restraint to establishment of local government system and autonomous legislative rights. In addition, ordinances that deal with every setting of community people have been ignored because of lack of recognition of local public officers and the public. Few of the public or only a few people concerned participate in local parliaments that deal with the proposed bills of ordinances. As the people do not tend to approve that local parliaments could make special ordinances for the people, they themselves resist preciousness of autonomous legislative right. In addition to problems involved in enactment and abolition of local parliament ordinances, the legislature have institutional and operational problems such as too narrow range of autonomous legislature, lack of specificity of committeemen, superficial discussion of ordinances, lack of efforts of committeemen to enact legislative ordinances, and insufficient legislative assistance function.
For activation of autonomous legislative function with such problems mentioned above, first, the range of too narrow autonomy should be expanded. In consideration that most of the business of local governments is entrusted by organs, entrusted business should be transferred to local business.
Second, the procedure of legislature announcement system should be legislated. When committeemen plan the legislature, opinions of the staff concerned or the people should be properly considered, which will contribute to reduction of problems in respect to validity of ordinances.
Third, performance of the legislative activities of the committeemen should be regularly evaluated. In the future, the evaluation system of institutional legislative activities should be introduced, through which performance of the local committeemen is regularly evaluated and the results are notified to the community people, the staff and organizations concerned. It may contribute to saving of tax expenditures.
Fourth, in respect to appointment of professional committeemen, appointment standards should be legislated so that the persons who are familar with practical task of the legislature and have specified education on the legislature may be appointed. For improvement of specificity of legislative activities of local parliaments and committeemen, the system of professional committeemen who assist legislative activities should be improved.
Fifth, professionals in various fields involved in legislative activities should participate in the process. For activation of autonomous legislative function, institutional systems that professionals in corresponding fields are used should be prepared, or various proposals or reports should include opinions of local professors or professionals in various fields or human resources poll may be introduced.
Sixth, the assistant organization for congressmen legislature should be reinforced. Assistant human resources who have experiences of judicial office may be employed or judicial curriculum for the staff in charge of congressmen assistance should be prepared.
Seventh, for validity of ordinance implementation, control and intervention of the central government should be reduced and the regulation of penalty which is imposed in violation of autonomous laws and regulations should be legislated. If penalty is not imposed on when the people violate the ordinances even though they are designed for them, the ordinances are reduced to invalid laws.
Eighth, for expanded participation of the public, the public proposal system should be introduced, which is very important for activation of autonomous legislative function. In respect to enactment, revision and abolition of ordinances of local parliaments, the community people are allowed to ask enactment of ordinances in Japan. So Korea need the introduction of the system.
This study presents suggestions on improvement of the legislative process-the legislative process of the parliament, and autonomous legislative process in that the constitutional standards that declare respect, values and basic rights of individuals are embodied in forms of laws through legislative process. For securement of democratic justification, the legislative process should be opened so that various opinions of the public are converged to the parliament. Also, for promotion of efficiency, legislative demand of the public should be properly satisfied.
For establishment of autonomous legislative right which reflects regional characteristics, the central governments and local governments should control legal and institutional intervention, share information and data with the local parliaments to prepare autonomous legislature for the public, and cooperate each other to encourage autonomous governments and activate autonomous legislative functions of local parliaments.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제 1 장 서론 = 1
• 제 1 절 연구의 목적 = 1
• 제 2 절 연구의 범위 = 4
• 제 2 장 자치입법과정 일반론 = 5
• 제 1 절 자치입법과정의 의의와 성격 = 5
• Ⅰ. 자치입법과정의 의의 = 5
• 1. 자치입법과정의 현황 = 5
• 2. 자치입법과정의 특징 = 6
• 3. 자치입법과정의 성격 = 8
• 4. 자치입법과정에 대한 새로운 분석의 틀 = 9
• Ⅱ. 자치입법권의 성격 = 10
• 제 2 절 자치법규의 종류 = 11
• Ⅰ. 조례 = 12
• 1. 의의 = 12
• 2. 조례제정권의 범위와 한계 = 12
• Ⅱ. 규칙 = 13
• 제 3 절 자치법규의 제정과정 = 14
• Ⅰ. 조례의 제정과정 = 14
• 1. 의의 = 14
• 2. 조례안의 입안 = 16
• 3. 조례안의 심의 = 26
• 4. 본회의 심의 = 29
• 5. 감독청에 대한 보고 = 31
• 6. 조례의 공포 = 32
• 7. 조례안의 재의요구 = 32
• 8. 재의요구에 대한 지방의회의 심사 = 37
• 9. 재의결된 사항에 대한 대법원 제소 = 38
• 10. 조례의 효력발생 = 39
• 11. 지방자치단체장의 선결처분 = 40
• Ⅱ. 규칙의 제정과정 = 40
• 1. 규칙안의 작성 = 41
• 2. 규칙안의 심사 및 조례규칙심의회의 심의 = 41
• 3. 규칙안의 사전보고 = 41
• 4. 규칙안의 공포 = 42
• 제 3 장 자치입법화과정의 통제 = 42
• Ⅰ. 주민에 의한 통제 = 42
• 1. 조례의 제정 및 개폐청구권 = 42
• 2. 청원권 및 주민의 소청권 = 46
• Ⅱ. 입법적 통제 = 47
• Ⅲ. 행정적 통제 = 48
• 1. 재의요구 = 48
• 2. 표준조례안 또는 조례준칙안 시달 = 56
• 3. 승인·협의 = 57
• 4. 조례의 제정·개폐 보고 = 60
• Ⅳ. 사법적 통제 = 61
• 1. 위법조례에 대한 대법원 제소 = 61
• 2. 위헌·위법 명령·규칙 심사권에 의한 통제 = 68
• 3. 헌법재판소에 의한 통제 = 68
• 제 4 장 자치입법과정의 문제점과 개선방안 = 71
• 제 1 절 서론 = 71
• 제 2 절 자치입법과정의 개선방안 = 72
• Ⅰ. 자치입법기능의 자주성 확보 = 72
• Ⅱ. 입법과정에 대한 지방자치단체의 참여확대 = 75
• Ⅲ. 조례의 사법심사주체의 변경과 권한쟁의대상기관 확대 = 77
• Ⅳ. 재의요구제도의 정비 = 78
• Ⅴ. 자치입법 담당자의 법제능력 강화 = 79
• 제 3 절 자치입법기능의 활성화 방안 = 82
• Ⅰ. 제도적측면 = 82
• 1. 조례 제·개정 범위 확대 = 82
• 2. 의원입법시 입법예고제 도입 = 84
• 3. 의원 입법활동 평가제도 도입 = 85
• 4. 전문위원제도 개선 및 법제화 = 85
• 5. 의원전문성 제고를 위한 제도 개선 = 87
• Ⅱ. 운영적 측면 = 88
• 1. 해당분야 전문가 활용 = 88
• 2. 의원입법 보좌조직 보강 = 89
• 3. 조례시행의 실효성 확보 = 89
• 4. 주민참여 확대방안 모색 = 90
• Ⅲ. 외부적 요인과의 관계개선 = 92
• 1. 중앙정부와의 관계 = 92
• 2. 지방자치단체 집행부와의 관계 = 93
• 제 5 장 결론 = 94
• 참고문헌 = 97