황제권 중심 국민국가체제의 수립과 좌절(1895~1904) : A Study of the Sovereign Power between 1895 and 1904

도면회 한국역사연구회 2003 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.50

This paper is to examine the nation-state building in Korean modern history focusing on the sovereign power. Most researches has often regarded the sovereign power as an obstacle to nation-state building. But as Korean history has maintained several centralized dynasties for fifteen centuries and more, the sovereign of Korea after the Kabo Reform could function as a powerful centripetal force in nation-state building based on that "proto-nationalistic" loyalty. lnitially, the principles of state building introduced in the Kabo Reform was to restrict the sovereign power to the extreme and create a new type of homogeneous people that were supposed to be loyal to the sovereign and patriotic to the state at the Same time. For that purpose, several projects were carried out: the establishment and proclamation of independent state power, the restriction of the sovereign power and introduction of a cabinet system, the abolishment of status system, publishment of newspapers, population census, and so forth. As the extreme restriction of the sovereign power endangered the privileged status of the Enlightenment Group members into danger, they could not but restore the sovereign power in nation-state building after the King's flight to Russian Legation in February, 1896. Hence, it happened that the leading group of the Independence Club pursued a constitutional monarchy, while the Emperor an absolute monarchy. The desire of the Independence Club, however, broke down, as it was disorganized by the Emperor's Guards. The policies of sovereign power build-up after 1899 brought a Korean-version of "Bonapartism" into existence. But, it frustrated the nation-state building project because it reduced the sovereign power into a private dimension, as the political and social power group exploited and suppressed the people. Hence, it created a "subject" which had only an obligation of loyalty and obedience without the rights to life and property, so that it was only natural that Korean people failed to unite as a nation in protest against the Japan's invasion. After the Russo-Japanese war, as a corollary, some crucial agendas of several politica1 groups that asserted the constitutional monarchy, "spouted" from the desire to deny this sovereign power.

주권권력에서 생명권력으로성의 역사 1-앎의 의지 를 중심으로

김용규 부산대학교 인문학연구소 2018 코기토 Vol.- No.85

This paper aims to examine Foucault’s formation of power theory and transformation ofpower models in The History of Sexuality 1: The Will to Knowledge. This book is a work thatshows a crucial turning point in the development of Foucault’s power theory. It means theculmination of Foucault’s power concept, which has been going on since “The Order ofDiscourse” in the 1970s, and anticipates his power theory to be unfolded in the late 70s. Asmost of his lectures in the Collège de France and talks have been recently published, theoverall outline of his power theory is being revealed. Foucault sought various ways to definethe concept of power by 1975. First, in the light of the evolution of the concept of power,Foucault moves the field of power from the state or political structure to the society. He urgesthat power be understood as a strategy to be exercised, not possessed, and that power is understoodas a power relationship that inherently includes the relationship between resistanceand power. In particular, The History of Sexuality 1: The Will to Knowledge deepens and extendsthe concept of power as a ubiquitous, productive and resistant concept that is spreadingthroughout the social body. Second, in terms of the form of power, Foucault’s concept ofpower begins by criticizing the traditional sovereign power that defines human beings as legaland ideological subjects and goes, through disciplinary power that trains bodies and makesthem docile, into biopower that manages and controls population(social body). The workthat displays this expansion and development of power is The History of Sexuality 1: The Will toKnowledge. This paper examines Foucault’s theory of power from disciplinary power to biopowerin detail. 이 글은 성의 역사 1-앎의 의지 를 푸코의 권력이론의 형성과 권력모델의 변화라는 시각을 통해 검토하고 그 한계와 성과를 짚어보는 데목적이 있다. 앎의 의지 는 푸코의 권력론의 전개에서 중요한 전환을보여주는 작업이다. 그것은 1970년대 「담론의 질서」 이후 진행된 푸코의 권력 개념의 정점이면서 70년대 후반에 펼쳐질 그의 권력론을 앞서선취하고 있다. 1975년 무렵 푸코는 권력 개념을 어떻게 규정할 것인가를 다각도로 모색하였다. 당시의 콜레주 드 프랑스 강의와 대담들이 발간되면서 그의 권력론의 전체적 윤곽이 서서히 드러나고 있다. 첫째, 권력 개념의 진화라는 관점에서 푸코는 권력의 장을 국가나 정치구조에서사회로 이동시킨다. 그는 권력을 소유가 아니라 행사되는 전략으로 이해하고 저항과 권력의 투쟁적 관계를 내재적으로 포함하는 권력관계로 이해할 것을 촉구한다. 이를 좀 더 확장하여 앎의 의지 는 권력을 사회체전체로 확산되어 나가는 편재적이고 생산적이며 저항적인 개념으로 확장한다. 둘째 권력의 양식이라는 관점에서 인간을 법적․이데올로기적주체로 내세우는 주권권력을 비판하면서 시작하여 유순한 신체들(개인적 신체)을 통제하고 훈육하는 규율권력을 거쳐 인구(사회체)를 관리하고 조절하는 생명권력으로 발전해간다. 이러한 확장과 발전을 집약하는저작이 앎의 의지 이다. 하지만 앎의 의지 에서 개진된 생명권력은 그뒤 또 다른 권력 개념으로 발전해간다. 이 논문은 규율권력에서 생명권력으로 나아가는 푸코의 권력론을 살펴본다.

군주권력의 공공성을 둘러싼 논쟁: 공천하인가, 사천하인가

장현근(CHANG, Hyun-Guen) 한국정치사상학회 2021 정치사상연구 Vol.27 No.1

지난 2천 년간 『예기』「예운」편에 등장하는 천하위공(天下爲公)과 천하위가(天下爲家)는 정치권 력론으로 접근하였다. 公을 공유(共有)로 해석하여 선양으로 보고, 家를 사유로 해석하여 세습으로 보았다. 이글은 그에 대해 이의를 제기하고, 공천하와 사천하 논쟁은 선양과 세습의 문제가 아니라 군권(君權) 행사의 공공성 확보를 위한 정치담론이었음을 밝히려는 시도이다. 公과 私 개념은 순자에 이르러 배타적 관계성을 확립하였으며, 公은 공공성의 의미를 갖게 되었다. 그의 후계자들이 예치(禮治)를 중심으로 전개한 공천하, 사천하 논쟁은 도덕(학문)과 정치권력의 길항 속에서 군권행사라는 정치과정상의 공공성을 확보하기 위한 논쟁으로 볼 수 있다. 중국의 정치전통은 군권에 대한 무조건적 복종이 아니라 군권의 공공성을 둘러싸고 끊임없이 논쟁함으로써 군주권력의 사유화를 견제해왔다. 『예기』「예운」편, 당태종, 유종원, 주희 등이 ‘군주권력의 공공성’을 강조하며 공천하와 사천하의 조화와 절충을 시도한 것은 군주권력이 공공성을 지닌 것으로 공적으로 행사되어야 함을 강조하기 위함이었다. 정치는 공공의 이익을 위해 존재한다. 중국 전통정치사상의 본질을 왕권주의로만 취급할 수는 없다. For the past 2,000 years, Tianxia Wei Gong(天下爲公, a public and common spirit ruled all under the sky) and Tianxia Wei Jia(天下爲家, a private and family ruled all under the sky), who appeared in “Liji禮記 Liyun禮運” episodes, have been interpreted as political power theory. That Gong(公) was regarded as sharing, and considered as Chanrang(禪讓, abdicate the throne to the wise). That Jia(家) was regarded as possession, considered as a hereditary succession. This article raises objections to that interpretation, and attempts to reveal that the debate over “royalty for the public(common)” and “royalty for the private(family)” were not a matter of Chanrang and hereditary succession, but a political discourse to secure the publicness of sovereign power. The concept of public(common) and private established an exclusive relationship with Xunzi(荀子), and Gong had the meaning of publicness. The debate over “royalty for the public(common)” and “royalty for the private (family)”, which his successors developed around rule by Rites, can be seen as an argument to secure the publicness of the political process of exercising sovereign power in the contention of moral(academic) and political power. Chinese political tradition has kept the privatization of monarchy in check by constantly arguing over the publicness of the sovereign power, not unconditional obedience to the sovereign power. Liji Liyun, Tang Taizhong(唐太宗), Liu Zongyuan(柳宗元), and Zhu Xi(朱熹) tried to harmonize and compromise the “royalty for the public(common)” and “royalty for the private(family)”, emphasizing the "publicness of sovereign power" to emphasize that sovereign power should be exercised publicly. Politics exists for the public good. The essence of Chinese traditional political thought cannot be treated only as Royalism.

道統과 治統, 聖人과 帝王: 宋 ~ 淸中期의 道統論을 통해본 士大夫社會에서의 君主權

민병희(Min, Byoung-hee) 한국외국어대학교 역사문화연구소 2011 역사문화연구 Vol.40 No.-

당 중기 이후 도통론은 사회·정치 질서에 대한 본원적인 질문과 밀접한 연관을 맺으며 출현하였다. 북송시기 다양한 계보를 산출하며 전개되었던 도통론은 주희의 도학 체계에서 중요한 위치를 차지하게 되며 단순히 유가의 도의 전수의 계보를 넘어, 사회·정치 질서의 기반이 되는 권력의 정당성에 대한 논의의 기본적 틀을 제공하게 된다. 주희의 도통론의 정치적 의미는 무관의 왕으로서 공자가 지니고 있는 정치적 상징성을 극대화하고, 공자가 구현하였다고 보는 “문헌적 왕권”을 새로운 방식으로 구현하면서 사대부들의 권력을 새롭게 규정하고 있다. 도통과 치통의 관계의 문제는 직설적으로 표현하자면, 聖人과 帝王의 관계의 문제이며, 이는 곧 사대부의 권력과 군주의 권력의 문제에 대한 논의였다. 이 논문은 이러한 ‘道統論’의 틀 속에서 군주권의 정당성 문제가 어떻게 논의되어왔는가를, 명대와 청대의 대표적인 전제 군주로 여겨지는 황제들을 중심으로, 담론과 보다 구체적인 禮制와 문헌 편찬 등으로 표출된 군주의 대응을 중심으로 살펴 보았다. 군주측의 대응과 이러한 대응의 배경을 살펴 본 바에 의하면, 사대부 사회에서의 권력의 정당성의 문제는 사대부가 중심이 된 논의구조인 도통론에 큰 영향을 받으며, 이러한 상황에서 사대부는 이념적으로는 군주권을 압도할 수 있는 기반을 가지고 있었다고 보인다. 이 논문은 송대 이후의 군주권에 대한 논의는 이전 시기와 매우 다른 구도 속에서 논의되고 있었으며, 이는 사대부 사회라는 새로운 엘리트층의 성격과 밀접한 관련을 맺고 있다는 것을 보여주었다. 그러나 송대 이후의 군주권에 대한 논의의 성격은, 기존의 설명과 같이 군주권에 복속된 관료층으로서의 엘리트층의 등장이 분권적 요소를 제거하여 전제적 군주권이 강화되어간다는 변화 과정으로 이해하기는 힘들다. 이 논문에서 살펴본 바에 따르면, 송대 이후의 강력한 군주권의 성격은 동양적 전제주의나 유럽 절대왕정의 구도로는 이해되기 힘들며, 세습적 귀족이 아니지만 사회적으로 특권을 지닌 사대부 집단과 그 사대부 집단이 만들어낸 사대부 사회의 권력 구조의 틀 안에서 이해될 수 있는 것이다. Daotong discourse has developed in a close relation to the discourse on the sociopolitical order since the mid Tang period. Zhu Xi firmly established the lineage of Daotong and its sociopolitical meaning in Confucian tradition. Since Zhu Xi up to the decline of Daoxue in the Mid Qing period., Daotong discourse has provided the frameworks for the discourse on the legitimacy of power and the relationship between Daotong and zhitong has been problemitized. The question of the relationship between Daotong and zhitong ultimately asked the question of the relationship between the power of the literati and the power of ruler. The political implication of Confucius, the uncrowned king, was highlighted in the Daotong discourse in Zhu Xi's learning. Also Zhu Xi's learning textualized Daotong in the form of his new classical tradition, the Four Books, It also transformed the way in which "textual kingship" could be embodied. This paper analyzes ritual controversies concerning Confucian temple and attempts to manipulate "textual kingship" in order to understand the power struggle between the emperor and the literati. Unlike the conventional understanding, the emperors in the Ming and Qing periods did not have a solid ideological ground for their sovereign power. The framework of political discourses based on Daotong was designed to support the power of the literati, and the emperors were mostly defensive in the ideological discourses. The sovereign power in the literati society cannot be fully understood by theories of "Oriental Despotism" or by the model of the "absolute state" in Europe. Without the further understanding of the nature and structure of literati society, is it impossible to explain the sovereign power in late imperial china.

한국 문학에서호모 사케르와 주권 권력의 역학관계와 재현 양상

이도흠 한국언어문화학회 2016 한국언어문화 Vol.0 No.62

Lee, Doheum. 2016. The Representation and Correlation between Sovereign Power and Homo Sacer in Korean Literature. This paper critically accepted Giorgio Agamben’s theory and applied it to Korean literary work: The folk tale of Wukmyeon in the Buddhist era, Boeun-giu-rok in the Confucian era, Namaste in modern times. There are opposition between human order and divine order in King Gyeongdeok era. It is possible to be excluded by sovereign power in human order but is not possible to be homo sacer through sacrificial rite in divine order. Wukmyeon is a homo sacer whois excluded by sovereign power. However, in the temple that the authority of Buddha far surpass King’s, she is practicing asceticism to escape from homo sacer, and to become a Buddha. In the order of the family in which Confucian mythology operates, Yeoncheong Wi, hero in Boeun-giu-rok, is homo sacer who can be assaulted and deported by his father, and can be killed by law and culture based on Confucian ideology at that time. However, outside of the order of the family, he is the ideal pursuing the moral and ethics of Confucianism. So, Yeoncheong Wi escapes from homo sacer and passes the state examination, and makes a lot of money and reconciles with his father. Kamil, hero in Namaste, is homo sacer who is thoroughly excluded by the sovereign power and Korean people who have a strong ethnic myth and exclusiveness. Kamil resists against the sovereign power through various types of action in order to escape from homo sacer. However, no change at all, he eventually suicides himself.

개혁군주 공민왕 : 공민왕의 즉위와 초기 국왕권 강화노력

홍영의 (사)한국인물사연구회 2012 한국인물사연구 Vol.18 No.-

King Gongmin, who succeeded the throne after being defeated twice by King Chunghye and King Chungjung, faced several significant crises during his regime. His solutions to these crises were four main reforms, which were carried out during his first, 5th, 12th, and 20th year of his accession. Every time the reforms took place, the political world changed dramatically. By strengthening royal authority, King Gongmin took priority in rejecting diplomatic relations with the Yuan dynasty over socioeconomic reformations which was assigned during Yuan's intervention. Especially after King Gongmin's accession, he used his courtiers such as Yeonjeosujong's liege in order to reinforce sovereign power and to carry out anti-Yuan policies that were led by King Gongmin. King Gongmin's political actions were very unique compared to the actions taken by other kings during intervention of Yuan dynasty. When Yuan's intervention, King Gongmin let courtiers check the power of public officers, succeeding policies of previous kings. However, through the changes of the political world, King Gongmin restrained his courtiers when they tried to limit royal authority. This was King Gongmin's system for controlling the courtier's power. King Gongmin even expelled the courtiers at anytime if they became a disturbance in his political reforms. This is a known fact based on the example of King Gongmin's purge of Jo-Ilsin. King Gongmin purged Jo-Ilsin immediately when Jo-Ilsin rebelled against the Gongmin and became a problem to his authority. The King took advantage of his courtiers in order to remove the corrupted influential political forces, close to the Yuan dynasty. They were the very subjects of social inconsistencies. Gongmin's trial resulted in failure due to Jo-Ilsin's rebellion. So the king couldn't help returning the removed subjects back into the government, weakening royal authority. Nevertheless, after getting rid of political anxiety such as Jo-Ilsin and Gi Cheol's faction, King Gongmin could nominate his courtiers, relatives and supporters to key positions in the government giving them political power. In his 5th, King Gongmin's full-scaled anti-Yuan policies and eliminating pro-Yuan influences were possible due to the growth of the King's courtiers. It was the time that the basis of reinforcing weak sovereign power was made. Also, it was the time that King Gongmin could control his courtiers so as to innovate Koryo dynasty. Right after the anti-Yuan policy, King Gongmin renominated Lee-Jehyun as prime minister. However, the King's courtiers took over politic power and the King made them carry out reformations of his direction. Index: King Gongmin, Reinforcement of sovereign power, Anti-Yuan reforms, Courtier Politics, Pro-Yuan forces.

한국 문학에서 호모 사케르와 주권 권력의 역학관계와 재현 양상

이도흠 ( Lee Doheum ) 한국언어문화학회(구 한양어문학회) 2016 한국언어문화 Vol.61 No.-

This paper critically accepted Giorgio Agamben`s theory and applied it to Korean literary work: The folk tale of Wukmyeon in the Buddhist era, Boeun-giu-rok in the Confucian era, Namaste in modern times. There are opposition between human order and divine order in King Gyeongdeok era. It is possible to be excluded by sovereign power in human order but is not possible to be homo sacer through sacrificial rite in divine order. Wukmyeon is a homo sacer who is excluded by sovereign power. However, in the temple that the authority of Buddha far surpass King`s, she is practicing asceticism to escape from homo sacer, and to become a Buddha. In the order of the family in which Confucian mythology operates, Yeoncheong Wi, hero in Boeun-giu-rok, is homo sacer who can be assaulted and deported by his father, and can be killed by law and culture based on Confucian ideology at that time. However, outside of the order of the family, he is the ideal pursuing the moral and ethics of Confucianism. So, Yeoncheong Wi escapes from homo sacer and passes the state examination, and makes a lot of money and reconciles with his father. Kamil, hero in Namaste, is homo sacer who is thoroughly excluded by the sovereign power and Korean people who have a strong ethnic myth and exclusiveness. Kamil resists against the sovereign power through various types of action in order to escape from homo sacer. However, no change at all, he eventually suicides himself.

개혁군주 공민왕 : 공민왕의 즉위와 초기 국왕권 강화노력

홍영의 한국인물사연구소 2012 한국인물사연구 Vol.18 No.-

King Gongmin, who succeeded the throne after being defeated twice by King Chunghye and King Chungjung, faced several significant crises during his regime. His solutions to these crises were four main reforms, which were carried out during his first, 5th, 12th, and 20th year of his accession. Every time the reforms took place, the political world changed dramatically. By strengthening royal authority, King Gongmin took priority in rejecting diplomatic relations with the Yuan dynasty over socioeconomic reformations which was assigned during Yuan’s intervention. Especially after King Gongmin’s accession, he used his courtiers such as Yeonjeosujong’s liege in order to reinforce sovereign power and to carry out anti-Yuan policies that were led by King Gongmin. King Gongmin’s political actions were very unique compared to the actions taken by other kings during intervention of Yuan dynasty. When Yuan’s intervention, King Gongmin let courtiers check the power of public officers, succeeding policies of previous kings. However, through the changes of the political world, King Gongmin restrained his courtiers when they tried to limit royal authority. This was King Gongmin’s system for controlling the courtier’s power. King Gongmin even expelled the courtiers at anytime if they became a disturbance in his political reforms. This is a known fact based on the example of King Gongmin’s purge of Jo-Ilsin. King Gongmin purged Jo-Ilsin immediately when Jo-Ilsin rebelled against the Gongmin and became a problem to his authority. The King took advantage of his courtiers in order to remove the corrupted influential political forces, close to the Yuan dynasty. They were the very subjects of social inconsistencies. Gongmin’s trial resulted in failure due to Jo-Ilsin’s rebellion. So the king couldn’t help returning the removed subjects back into the government, weakening royal authority. Nevertheless, after getting rid of political anxiety such as Jo-Ilsin and Gi Cheol’s faction, King Gongmin could nominate his courtiers, relatives and supporters to key positions in the government giving them political power. In his 5th, King Gongmin’s full-scaled anti-Yuan policies and eliminating pro-Yuan influences were possible due to the growth of the King’s courtiers. It was the time that the basis of reinforcing weak sovereign power was made. Also, it was the time that King Gongmin could control his courtiers so as to innovate Koryo dynasty. Right after the anti-Yuan policy, King Gongmin renominated Lee-Jehyun as prime minister. However, the King’s courtiers took over politic power and the King made them carry out reformations of his direction. Index: King Gongmin, Reinforcement of sovereign power, Anti-Yuan reforms, Courtier Politics, Pro-Yuan forces.

17,18세기 류큐(琉球) 곡물 기원 신화의 재편과 류큐 왕권의 논리

정진희 ( Jin Hee Jeong ) 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2012 大東文化硏究 Vol.80 No.-

17·18세기 류큐 관찬 문헌에 기록된 곡물 기원 신화는 고유구(古琉球) 왕권의 신화적 논리와 사쓰마 침탈 이후 근세(近世) 유구(琉球)의 변화한 왕권론을 보여주는 자료이다. 『중산세감(中山世鑑)』과 『중산세보(中山世譜)』의 창세 신화에 보이는 곡물 기원 신화에서는 고유구(古琉球)의 신화적 왕권론 및 그것과 결별하고자 하는 의도에서 모색된 유교적 왕권론의 실마리가 엿 보이며, 『유구국유래기(琉球國由來記)』와 『유구국구기(琉球國舊記)』의 곡물 기원 신화에서는 의례 체계의 재 편과 신화의 재배치를 통해 구성된 "세계체계"에서 류큐의 왕권이 농경 의례와 관련되는 양상을 파악할 수 있다. 류큐의 곡물 기원 신화는 류큐 왕권의 신화적 논리 에 접근할 수 있다는 점뿐만 아니라, 왕권과 농경 신화의 상관성에 대한 특수한 사 례이자 비(非)신화 시대에 신화가 왕권의 논리를 구축하는 담론으로서 소환되는 사례라 는 점에서 주의깊게 살필 필요가 있다. In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Ryukyu were invaded and controlled by Satsuma, some types of myths about Origin of Grains were documented on official texts. This study attempts to delineate the features of the documented myths as those of sovereign power. The myths are grouped into four types as follows. (A) Amamiku(아마미구) (阿摩美久) brought the five grains from the heaven. (B) Five grains were naturally grown up. (C) Grains were washed up on the shore. (D) Amamiku brought the rice grain from the Nirai-kanai(ニライカナイ) (A) and (B), the elements of foundation myths written by civil servants of Ryukyu Dynasty, show the mythical principles of sovereign power. What the (A) shows is the principle of `god-nation` and what the (B) shows is the principle of confucian kingship. The important thing is that the purpose of both types is same. The both types aim for not mythical but reasonal principle which supporting strong sovereign power or kingship. (C) and (D) are regional oral tradition in Kudakazima(구고도) (久高島) and Tamagusuku(옥성) (玉城). As the official ritual system accepted and changed into agricultural rites, the type (C) and (D), regional myths about grains-origin, are organized into new official mytholpgy. And in this case, the principle of official mythology is that the sovereign power or kingship rules the rice-farming hero and must be offered agricultural richness. These myths of Ryukyu, are different from other dynasty`s myths about sovereign power or kingship in some respects. For further comprehension we need to focus on the other myths about myth of kingship, of Ryukyu dynasty.

국가는 왜 주민보호에 실패하는가? 조선기 한반도 분쟁과 국가의 반(反)인민적 행태를 중심 사례로

박홍서 한국정치학회 2013 한국정치학회보 Vol.47 No.2

본 논문의 목적은 국가의 주민보호 실패 원인을 탐색하는 것이다. 국가의 목적은 보편적으로 구성원 보호라는 공공성에 있다고 가정됨에도 불구하고, 국가는 오히려 구성원의 생명보호 책임을 방기하거나 심지어 생명을 침해하는 주체가 되어 왔다. 특히, 국가의 반인민적 행태는 정치제제나 통치자의 속성과 무관하게 보편적으로 발생해 왔다는 사실은 그 원인이 주권의 내재적 속성에 있다는 것을 시사한다. 국가에 대한 현실주의적, 비판적 접근은 주권 권력의 최고목표가 주민 보호가 아니라 그 자체의 생존에 있음을 보여준다. 주권 권력은 폭력의 ‘합법적’ 독점을 통해 대내외적 위협세력에 대한 생살여탈권을 행사한다. 특히, 이러한 생살여탈권은 주권 권력의 생존이 가장 위협받을 수밖에 없는 안보위기상황에서 극단적으로 행사된다. 조선기 한반도 분쟁 상황인 임진왜란, 정묘․병자호란, 그리고 청일전쟁 상황에서 조선의 주권 권력은 권력의 생존 및 유지를 최우선의 목표로 간주하고 주민보호 책임을 방기해 버리는 현실주의적 행태를 보였다. 향후 국가의 공공성을 제고시키기 위해서는 주권 권력의 생살여탈권에 대한 민주적 통제를 강화할 필요가 있다. This article attempts to analyze the causes of states’ failure of protecting their people. It is generally assumed that states put their top priority on providing their citizens with security against threats, external and internal alike. In reality, however, there are not a few cases in which states, far from protecting their people, pose serious threats to their people. Such failure of state does not result from a particular political system or leadership given the fact that even democratic states often pose serious threats to their citizens. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that a state’s anti-people behavior is embedded in the universal nature of sovereign power: monopolizing violence for its own survival. Sovereign power’s realistic behavior clearly appears during its security crisis in that war generally maximizes sovereign power’s sense of threat. Empirically, Chosun governments also showed Machiavellian behaviors against their people during security crises such as military conflicts of 1592, 1627/36, and 1894, respectively. In those cases, the Chosun government abandoned its responsibility of protecting people, or even tried to kill people in charge of rebellion. To improve a state’s publicity in the future, it needs considerate discussion about how to consolidate a democratic control against sovereign power’s right of life and death.