DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Unconstitutionality of Call to Arms for Police Action

치안활동을 위한 군병력동원의 위헌여부에 관한 고찰

  • 조성제 (대구한의대학교 경찰행정학과)
  • Received : 2011.03.04
  • Accepted : 2011.05.25
  • Published : 2011.06.28

Abstract

As for the anti-terrorism bills, which were submitted to the National Assembly, the mobilization of anti-terrorism commando, which was designated or established by the National Defense Minister, is mobilized the military troops without being based on marital law in light of the constitutional law, thereby possibly violating the constitution, first of all, with regards to mobilization of anti-terrorism commando, which was formed with military troops. The anti-terrorism commando is the military force, which was trained professionally for the anti-terrorism activity. Thus, the violation of human rights may be greatly reduced rather than what general soldiers are putted in the public-order activity such as anti-terrorism. However, it is thought to be desirable to make it possible for the input of special forces, which were trained professionally in relation to anti-terrorism activity, through constitutionally revising the constitutional law. As for the provision of 'support for military troops' in the anti-terrorism bill, what is a case that the nation's important facilities and multi-use facilities are difficult to be protected from terror with the anti-terrorism commando and police force needs to be constitutionally regarded as resulting in reaching the level enough to correspond to 'a state of national emergency equivalent to wartime incident.' Thus, enacting the future anti-terrorism law, it is thought to be unnecessary for having the provision of 'support for military troops' with receiving criticism obstinately for possibly violating the constitution.

Keywords

Enactment of Anti-terrorism Law;Human Rights;Anti-terrorism Commando;nti-terrorism Bills;Support for Military Troop

References

  1. 김영호, "비전통적 안보위협과 군의 역할", 평화연구, 제17권, 제2호, p.158, 2009.
  2. 신정현, "선진국방의 비전과 과제", 나남출판, p.488, 1996.
  3. 이계수, "한국의 군사법과 치안법", 공법연구 제31권, 제4호, p.288, 2003.
  4. Stefan Gose, "Bundeswehr im Innern," Burgerrechte & Polizei/Cilip, pp.50-52, 2002; 이계수, "한국의 군사법과 치안법", 공법연구, 제31권, 제4호, p.289, 2003.
  5. Tade Matthias Spranger, "Inner Sicherheit durch Streitkrafteeinssatz?", p.1003, 1999; 이계수. "한국의 군사법과 치안법", 공법연구 제31권 제4호, p.294, 2003.
  6. 김선범, "합동안정 및 평화작전", 국방대학교, pp.21-29, 2007.
  7. 국방일보, 2008. 10. 22.
  8. 헌재 2009. 4.30, 2007헌마290.
  9. 헌재 2004.10.28 2004헌바61, 2004헌바62, 2004헌바75(병합).
  10. 헌재 2009.06.25, 2008헌마393.
  11. 국회운영위원회 검토보고서, pp.19-20, 2010.
  12. 국회운영위원회 검토보고서, p.18, 2010.
  13. 국회운영위원회 검토보고서, p.18-19, 2010.
  14. 강대출, "테러방지법안에 관한 입법적검토", 한국테러학회.한국자치경찰학회 추계학술대회 발표집, p.27, 2008.
  15. 조성제, "영국.프랑스.독일의 테러방지법제정 과정과 그 시사점", 법학연구, 제18권, 제3호, p.356, 2010.
  16. 조성제, "국민의 기본권 보장과 국가안보를 위한 방안으로써 테러방지법 제정에 관한 연구", 세계헌법연구, 제15권, 제1호, p.352, 2009.
  17. 윤태영, "9.11 테러 이후 미국의 대테러리즘", 세계지역연구논총 제26권 제3호, p.458, 2008.