법의 세계화와 국가주권 -욕망과 개념의 관계적 관점에서-

엄순영 ( Soun Young Eum ) 법과사회이론학회 2008 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.35

일반 : 법의 세계화 -조약체결권과 국회동의권의 법적 성격을 중심으로-

엄순영 ( Soun Young Eum ) 민주주의법학연구회 2006 민주법학 Vol.0 No.32

A national economy system cannot be formed only with its policy through the capital moving free without a nationality in the world (the globalization of capital). It is closely connected with the economy system outside a nation. Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements (FDI, FTA) provide another disciplinary mechanism governing a state. Interconnecting densely with law and legal forming system in the area outside a state, they are formed and effected outside a state and restrict it. These economy agreements discipline a individual economy life. International Law effecting the change of a private life is extended increasingly. The more it closely links to a national law the more it rule s our everyday life. These series of situations would call the globalization of law. Theses day we experience it. In the globalization of law, the treaties are extended more and more and grow in a legal field. The more treaties are occupied in the municipal law. Therefore, the roles of the people and the Legislature are very important in the treaty-making process. So this study shows how the treaty power and the consent of the Legislature to treaty making can be connected with the globalization of law. The treaty power has two characters, the legislative and the diplomatic. In the globalization of law, the former is essential to it. Because the global law leading the globalization of law is of ten built up in the economy law system, the economy law has the trade mark of a economy policy and the relation to the people everyday life, and the municipal law has load weight much more on these treaties. So the Legislature would have the treaty power. But in our country the Constitution provides the President has it. Nevertheless, the former doesn`t fade away. And then the legal character of the treaty power has the legislative so that we cannot explain that of the consent of the Legislature only as the democratic control over the presidential peculiarity. The consent of the Legislature exists for the democratic control over the administrative power rather than as a way of the legislative power. So the real consent of the Legislature is necessary and then it should be same to the exercise of the legislative power. For it the Legislature and the people should get out of the subordinate and take part as the coordinate in the treaty-making process. The Legislature and the people have right to participate as same the co ordinate as the Administrative in the treaty-making process. Therefore, the Legislature and the people can get in the treaty-making process not only as an observer but also as a partner. Af course this means not that they should be always a partner of the treaty making but that if they want to be a partner, they can be. It brings forth a counterargument that our Constitution provides the President has the treaty power for the efficiency of negotiation. But the efficiency doesn`t desert the justification. The justification of the treaty power should not be determined only by the efficiency.

욕망과 법 논리

엄순영 ( Soun Young Eum ) 법과사회이론학회 2010 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.39

The contents of the major premise in legal logic base on one`s values connected with one`s desires. At once the desire is an important factor of an act. As an act shapes the logic of judgement, it connects with the desires. Therefore it is to study desires that we need in Jurisprudence. So this paper studies the concept of desire in jurisprudence, and then how a desire can connect with legal logic. In this essay, the desire includes the concepts of intentions, wills and wants in jurisprudence. Then the desire signifies wanting something. So it is suggested to separate the desire from its objects and its degrees. The something has a bracket and we can put everything in it. If we put reason in it, the desire shall be the Desire for Reason. In this way the desire is not opposed to a reason but comprehends it. Generally we say that the decision realizes rights. But in this view of desire we can say again that the decision realizes the desires recognized as rights. The desires arrange the index and contents of rights. Through this view it is proposed that our desire for legal logic makes itself important also. In addition to this, our desires act in linking legal logic to reality. This our desire lets legal logic just. Therefore legal argument`s legitimacy about its contents has relation deeply with what and to some degree we want.

한나 아렌트의 자유와 주권의 양립불가능성과 그 가능성 -국민주권의 행위규범성 모색-

엄순영 ( Soun Young Eum ) 민주주의법학연구회 2011 민주법학 Vol.0 No.47

``The incompatibility of liberty and sovereignty`` has been of much interest to Arendt scholarship to date. However, I shall point out that Arendt`s dealing with liberty and sovereignty takes place not for their incompatibility but for proposing a great vision on liberty - liberty does not mean will but action, and so sovereignty has not the supreme power but the solidarity. So I shall weigh the compatibility of liberty and sovereignty on the basis of her conception of liberty and sovereignty in her works. In her understanding of liberty and sovereignty, the power does not mean the domination and then the sovereignty does not result in the reign but the ability of turning promises into the reality. From her view of liberty and sovereignty, I shall infer the nature of action norm in nation-sovereignty, which is the aim of this paper.

니클라스 루만(Niklas Luhmann)의 인식방법과 법사회학

엄순영 ( Eum Soun-young ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.26 No.1

자기준거체계이론은 사회학의 일반이론이면서 사회학의 일반체계이론이다. 루만은 이러한 자기체계이론을 수용한 후 이를 독자적으로 자기생산 체계이론으로 발전시켰다. 그리고 이러한 자기생산체계이론을 법체계에도 그대로 적용하였다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 루만이 독창적으로 주장한 체계의 자기생산, 체계의 구조적 연결의 의미를 고찰하고, 인간에 대한 루만의 이해, 사회체계의 작동방식인 커뮤니케이션의 의미를 살펴보았다. 그리고 이러한 개념이 법체계와 어떻게 연결되는가를 루만이 분석한 법원개념과 재판거부금지, 정의와 법체계의 관계를 예로 하여 설명하였다. 루만의 법사회학은 법체계 내의 개념에 내재된 역설과 순환논법을 폭로하고, 법체계 내의 개념이 역설과 순환논법을 피하는 방법으로 고안되었으며 이와 함께 이러한 역설과 순환논법이 은폐되거나 외면되는 것이 아니라 체계의 분화를 통해서 해소된다고 하고, 법체계와 관련해서 제도적 측면보다 작동적 측면에 더 주목한다. After N. Luhmann accepted the self-referential systems theory based on the general systems theory of established sociology, that is the general theory of sociology, he developed originally the autopoietic systems theory. He applied this autopoetic systems theory to legal systems. Therefore in this paper these are inquired, Luhmann’s self-reproducing systems, structural coupling systems, understanding of human and communication meaning of a systems operation method. And then I explain the connection between these concepts and legal systems citing his analysis of the source of law and of the prohibition of denial of justice, and the relation between justice and legal systems. Luhmann’s sociology exposes a paradox and a circular argument hidden in concepts of legal systems. It says that the concepts in legal systems are devised to face away from a paradox and a circular argument but that these concepts cannot be hidden or neglected and instead can be melt in differentiation of systems. Furthermore it takes notice more the operation of legal systems than the institution of.

연구논문 : 법의 세계화와 한미 FTA - 조약의 효력요건과 한미FTA의 효력을 중심으로 -

엄순영 ( Soun Young Eum ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2007 法學硏究 Vol.15 No.1

일반 : 법의 세계화에 대한 민주주의적 통제

엄순영 ( Soun Young Eum ) 민주주의법학연구회 2005 민주법학 Vol.0 No.28

칸트의 실천이성에 근거한 사회적 법사상

엄순영 민주주의법학연구회 2001 민주법학 Vol.19 No.1

In diesem Artikel wird der Rechtsdenken des Kants mit der Sozialrechtsdenken diskutiert. Nach Kant befu¨gt man den kategorischen Imperativ auf der Grundlage der praktischen Vernunft, und dieser kategorische Imperativ impflizieren sich Dimension der Sozialita¨t. Denn die kategorische Imperative wird erst mo¨glich nicht im Menschen als Individualita¨t, sondern Menschen als Sozialita¨t. Wenn der kategorische Imperativ realisiert wird in der wirklichen Gesellschaft, dann wird die Verfolgung eigener Glu¨ckseligkeit anderen vernunftigen Wesen einverbinden. Jedoch bedu¨rfen wir den Sozialrechtnormen, denn wir Menschen sind unzulanglich, unvollkommen. Der Staat ist nach Kant nicht als Realstaat, sondern als Idealstaat begriffen. Kant setzt eine selbsta¨ndige Gesellschaft voraus. Wenn das Recht der vereinigte Willen des Volkes ist und der Staat aus dem vereinigten Willen dessen kommt, dann ko¨nnen wir fragen: welches Rechtsprinzip wollen alle Volker die nicht o¨konomisch gleich sind, konsturieren? Die Antwort auf dise Frage ist, dass wir die Verwirklichung einer Gesellschaft zum fundamentale Prinzip machen, wo mindestens der o¨konomische Bedarf der Existens als Menschen erganzt werden kann.