독일에서의 규제 논의의 현황과 과제 - 독일 네트워크법(NetzDG)과 EU 디지털서비스법(DSA)을 중심으로 - = Current status and challenges of the regulatory debate in Germany - Focusing on the German Network Act (NetzDG) and the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Regulation is an inevitable limitation in running a country, in reconciling the interests of individuals, and in balancing the interests of individuals and the public interest. However, there are various side effects that can be caused by this regulation, so there have been various discussions and attempts to deregulate, change regulatory methods, and regulatory sandboxes for a long time.
In this article, we look at the changes in regulatory methods in Germany and Europe in response to recent technological developments. Recently, the so-called regulated self-regulation has been widely used around the world, and this change to regulated self-regulation was examined through the German Network Act and the EU Digital Services Act.
In practice, the direct restrictions on internet service users are not imposed by state authorities, but by service providers. However, service providers do not infringe by their own decision, but are forced to take measures such as deletion or blocking that may violate users' fundamental rights due to the state's exercise of public power of surveillance and supervision. From a constitutional perspective, it is unclear whether this should be viewed as a restriction of fundamental rights by the exercise of public power, or whether it should be viewed as a conflict of fundamental rights in which an individual's fundamental rights are infringed by a third party, resulting in a third-party effect issue, or a private relationship that should be resolved as a civil matter. If this is the case, the question of how the freedom of expression of the content creator or disseminator can be guaranteed will arise in practice, and the criticism of private censorship by the service provider cannot be avoided. It is instructive to note that European laws provide procedural guarantees to reduce the threat of violations of fundamental rights, such as the provision of procedural guarantees and review by an independent body such as a third-party commission.
If regulated self-regulation is necessary, it should be designed in a way that reduces the risk of infringement of users' fundamental rights as much as possible and involves the least amount of state intervention, while giving the industry the freedom to set up and apply regulatory methods as it sees fit.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 최철호, "행정법상의 자율규제의 입법형태에 관한 연구" 23 : 2010

2 선지원, "자율규제의 유형별 사례와 플랫폼 자율규제를 위한 시사점" 15 (15): 2022

3 김상택, "자율규제 확대에 따른 전문규제기관 기능 및 역할에 관한 연구" 방송통신위원회 2016

4 이민영, "인터넷 자율규제의 법적 의의" 2010

5 이정념, "인터넷 가짜뉴스(Fake News)의 규율에 관한 법적 쟁점" 67 (67): 2018

6 황성기, "왜 자율규제를 하는가?-법적 규제와 자율규제의 차이-" (10) : 2022

7 이승민, "온라인 플랫폼과 자율규제 논의의 기초" 15 (15): 2022

8 이권일, "소셜 네트워크 시대에 가짜뉴스(fakenews)규제에 관한 헌법적 고찰-독일의 소셜네트워크법(Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz)에 대한 분석을 중심으로-" 20 (20): 2019

9 계인국, "보장행정의 작용형식으로서 규제 - 보장국가의 구상과 규제의미의 한정 -" 41 (41): 2013

10 박신욱, "라인서비스제공자의 책임 및 그 확장과 관련된 독일 네트워크 법집행법(NetzDG) 연구" 인하대학교 법학연구소 21 : 2018

11 노은정, "독일의 ｢소셜 네트워크에서의 법집행 개선을 위한 법률(NetzDG)｣에 대한 분석 및 시사점" 2023

12 이재훈, "독일 자율주행법(Gesetz zum autonomen Fahren)에 대한 일고찰" 22 (22): 2021

13 서보국, "독일 공법상 규제된 자율규제제도 - 우리의 지방공기업법과 지방자치법과의 관련성에 대하여 -" 19 (19): 2019

14 "네트워크집행법 대체하는 디지털서비스법, 더 이상 책임 피할 수 없는 글로벌 플랫폼" 2023

15 계인국, "규제개혁과 행정법 - 규제완화와 혁신, 규제전략 -" 44 (44): 2015

16 선지원, "규제 방법의 진화로서 자율규제의 실질화를 위한 연구" (64) : 2021

17 오일석 ; 지성우 ; 정운갑, "가짜뉴스에 대한 규범적 고찰" 29 (29): 2018

18 G. Frug, "The Ideology of Bureaucracy in American Law" 1984

19 이중기, "SAE 자동화단계 구분과 운전작업의 분류" 중앙대학교 법학연구소 44 (44): 2020

20 J. Black, "Constitutionalising Self-Regulation" 59 : 1996