Publications
Detailed Information
미국 헌법상 명확성 원칙(void for vagueness) 심사 -미국연방최고법원 판례를 중심으로 : Void for Vagueness Test of U.S. Supreme Court
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 전종익 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2009-10-08T02:28:08Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-10-08T02:28:08Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 법학, Vol.50 No.1, pp. 455-481 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1598-222X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://lawi.snu.ac.kr/ | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10371/10272 | - |
dc.description.abstract | U.S. Supreme Court has held that the roles of vagueness doctrine are fair
notice and prohibiting arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. As the former is considered more important, the Court has explicitly taken the person of ordinary intelligence standard. But the Court usually declared unvague the statute whose meaning could be defined only by reference to many cases, other statues, and common law tradition. It is substantially the lawyer standard. To solve this dilemma, it is suggested that the ordinary person who would be law-abiding would not be reluctant to take consult the lawyer. In some cases, the Court said that prohibiting arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is more important and that it is not vague. if the statute would give minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement. Most of recent 30 years vagueness cases are the first amendment cases and criminal law cases in which area the statue should have the highest definiteness. The Court usually decided not vague on those cases. That would make clear that the U.S. Supreme Court takes the lawyer standard. For the same reason, the Standard of our vagueness doctrine must be changed. For a long time, the Constitutional Court of Korea has explicitly taken the ordinary person standard in many decisions, but substantially it has applied the lawyer test. In order to make consistent the external standard and the substantial test, it should declare that the Court take the lawyer standard or at least the law-abiding person standard. | - |
dc.description.sponsorship | 이 논문은 서울대학교 법학발전재단 출연 법학연구소 기금의 2009학년도 학술연구비
의 보조를 받았음. | - |
dc.language.iso | ko | - |
dc.publisher | 서울대학교 법학연구소 | - |
dc.subject | 명확성의 원칙 | - |
dc.subject | 공정한 고지 | - |
dc.subject | 자의적이고 차별적인 집행 | - |
dc.subject | 일반인 기준 | - |
dc.subject | 법전문가기준 | - |
dc.subject | arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement | - |
dc.subject | Lawyer standard | - |
dc.subject | void-for-vagueness doctrine | - |
dc.subject | rule of Law | - |
dc.subject | fair notice | - |
dc.title | 미국 헌법상 명확성 원칙(void for vagueness) 심사 -미국연방최고법원 판례를 중심으로 | - |
dc.title.alternative | Void for Vagueness Test of U.S. Supreme Court | - |
dc.type | SNU Journal | - |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | Chon, Jong Ik | - |
dc.citation.journaltitle | 법학 | - |
dc.citation.endpage | 481 | - |
dc.citation.number | 1 | - |
dc.citation.pages | 455-481 | - |
dc.citation.startpage | 455 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 50 | - |
- Appears in Collections:
- Files in This Item:
Item View & Download Count
Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.