Constitutional transition and the travail of judges: the courts of South Korea

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Amal Sethi
{"title":"Constitutional transition and the travail of judges: the courts of South Korea","authors":"Amal Sethi","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2045712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Few jurisdictions are more illuminating of constitutional law and politics than South Korea (‘Korea’). As autocratic legalism gradually shows its face in various corners of the world, Korea’s tumultuous history serves as a cautionary tale with respect to the extent to which autocratic legalism can be stretched. Whereas numerous countries had their first encounter with autocratic legalism only in recent decades, Korea was living under it back in the 1960s. During Korea’s lengthy authoritarian rule, the judiciary was timid and avoided head-to-head confrontations with the authoritarian regime. Nevertheless, it arguably showed signs of independence and an ability to mitigate the effects of authoritarian laws. Additionally, Korea is one of the handful of countries that have emerged from authoritarian rule and managed to stay democratic for an extended period. The Korean Constitutional Court has had a certain role to play in this achievement, challenging conventional scholarly wisdom on the extent to which courts can have a hand in democratization. Legal historian, Marie Seong-Hak Kim’s book is an ambitious attempt to unpack many of these facets, viewed through the lens of Korean courts from 1945 to the present day. Kim’s book comes with two methodological qualifications. Firstly, Kim states that since judges in authoritarian contexts are apprehensive about political reprisals, they rarely speak publicly about laws or their decisions. Therefore, she has tried to infer ‘jurisprudential and juristic belief’ from ‘the terse language in judicial opinions which were pervaded with mechanical and seemingly callous positivistic reasoning’. Secondly, Kim focuses ‘on law rather than politics’ and makes little attempt to do otherwise. After an introductory first chapter that provides background information and outlines the book’s arguments, Chapter 2 discusses Korea’s legal traditions, the making of its 1948 constitution and the Korean courts from 1945 to 1962. In 1948, after almost half a decade of Japanese colonial rule followed by three years of American military occupation, Korea promulgated a new constitution. There were serious attempts by the constitution’s drafters to leave behind the remnants of the colonial past. Simultaneously, to avoid a legal vacuum, they retained several colonial judicial personnel and judges to operate the court system. Since there were apprehensions about giving power to a judiciary with links to the colonial past, the Supreme Court and other lower courts under it, were only given the power to review administrative decrees and regulations. Meanwhile, a new part-judicial, part-political body, the Constitutional Committee, was entrusted with reviewing statutes issued by the legislature of Korea – the National Assembly. The choices made by the drafters generally remained untouched","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"30 1","pages":"188 - 192"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2045712","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Few jurisdictions are more illuminating of constitutional law and politics than South Korea (‘Korea’). As autocratic legalism gradually shows its face in various corners of the world, Korea’s tumultuous history serves as a cautionary tale with respect to the extent to which autocratic legalism can be stretched. Whereas numerous countries had their first encounter with autocratic legalism only in recent decades, Korea was living under it back in the 1960s. During Korea’s lengthy authoritarian rule, the judiciary was timid and avoided head-to-head confrontations with the authoritarian regime. Nevertheless, it arguably showed signs of independence and an ability to mitigate the effects of authoritarian laws. Additionally, Korea is one of the handful of countries that have emerged from authoritarian rule and managed to stay democratic for an extended period. The Korean Constitutional Court has had a certain role to play in this achievement, challenging conventional scholarly wisdom on the extent to which courts can have a hand in democratization. Legal historian, Marie Seong-Hak Kim’s book is an ambitious attempt to unpack many of these facets, viewed through the lens of Korean courts from 1945 to the present day. Kim’s book comes with two methodological qualifications. Firstly, Kim states that since judges in authoritarian contexts are apprehensive about political reprisals, they rarely speak publicly about laws or their decisions. Therefore, she has tried to infer ‘jurisprudential and juristic belief’ from ‘the terse language in judicial opinions which were pervaded with mechanical and seemingly callous positivistic reasoning’. Secondly, Kim focuses ‘on law rather than politics’ and makes little attempt to do otherwise. After an introductory first chapter that provides background information and outlines the book’s arguments, Chapter 2 discusses Korea’s legal traditions, the making of its 1948 constitution and the Korean courts from 1945 to 1962. In 1948, after almost half a decade of Japanese colonial rule followed by three years of American military occupation, Korea promulgated a new constitution. There were serious attempts by the constitution’s drafters to leave behind the remnants of the colonial past. Simultaneously, to avoid a legal vacuum, they retained several colonial judicial personnel and judges to operate the court system. Since there were apprehensions about giving power to a judiciary with links to the colonial past, the Supreme Court and other lower courts under it, were only given the power to review administrative decrees and regulations. Meanwhile, a new part-judicial, part-political body, the Constitutional Committee, was entrusted with reviewing statutes issued by the legislature of Korea – the National Assembly. The choices made by the drafters generally remained untouched
宪法过渡与法官的艰辛:韩国法院
很少有司法管辖区比韩国(“韩国”)更能说明宪法和政治。随着专制法家逐渐在世界各个角落出现,韩国的动荡历史对专制法家可以延伸到什么程度起到了警示作用。许多国家在最近几十年才第一次遇到专制的法家主义,而韩国早在20世纪60年代就生活在其中。在韩国漫长的独裁统治时期,司法部门胆小怕事,避免与独裁政权正面交锋。然而,可以说它显示了独立的迹象和减轻专制法律影响的能力。此外,韩国是少数几个摆脱专制统治并长期保持民主主义的国家之一。韩国宪法法院在这一成就中发挥了一定的作用,挑战了关于法院能在多大程度上参与民主化的传统学术智慧。法律历史学家Marie Seong-Hak Kim的书是一个雄心勃勃的尝试,通过从1945年到现在的韩国法院的镜头来揭示这些方面的许多方面。金的书有两个方法论上的限制。首先,Kim指出,由于专制环境下的法官担心政治报复,他们很少公开谈论法律或他们的决定。因此,她试图从“充斥着机械和看似冷酷的实证推理的司法意见书中的简洁语言”中推断出“法理学和法学信仰”。其次,金正日关注的是“法律而不是政治”,很少尝试做其他事情。在第一章提供背景资料和概述本书的论点之后,第二章讨论了韩国的法律传统、1948年宪法的制定以及1945年至1962年的韩国法院。1948年,在经历了近5年的日本殖民统治和3年的美国军事占领之后,朝鲜颁布了一部新宪法。宪法起草者曾认真地试图将殖民历史的残余抛在脑后。同时,为了避免法律真空,它们保留了几名殖民地司法人员和法官来运作法院系统。由于有人担心把权力交给一个与殖民历史有联系的司法机构,最高法院及其下属的其他下级法院只被赋予审查行政法令和条例的权力。与此同时,一个新的半司法半政治的机构,即宪法委员会,被委托审查韩国立法机构- -国民议会颁布的法规。起草者所作的选择基本上没有动过
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信