현행 헌법의 평등권·양성평등조항 개정방향

• 영문명: The Reform of Equal Protection Clause and The Possibility of Affirmative Action for women In The Existing Constitutional Law
• 발행기관: 한국헌법학회
• 저자명: 조홍석(CHO Hong-Suck)
• 간행물 정보: 『헌법학연구』憲法學硏究 第12卷 第4號, 135~162쪽, 전체 28쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2006.11.01

영문 초록

  The Equal Protection and Bisexual Equality Realization Clause ought to be revised in direction to be accorded with the reality of the Korea Constitutional Law. Cl. 2, 3 of Art. 11 must be deleted. The human race, language, physical condition must be added to the reason of discrimination prohibition of 2. Sent. Cl. 1 of Art. 11. The Sexes Equality Realization and Women-Amicable Affirmative Action must be understood as the problem of legislation policy. If the clause of affirmative action is set up, it is not to be tied up the distinction of sex but to be composed of the contents for the protection of "the social weak". Because the protection of outside people is the problem of civil rights protection obligation of a state, it is not necessary to make the separated protection clause for the protection of outside people. Cl. 1 of Art. 36 concerning the Sexes Equality of marriage and family system is reasonable to be stipulated in Art. 11. Because the protection of motherhood is problem of "social consideration", it must be stipulated in the purpose clause of a state supposing the infringement of protection obligation. On the basis of this stipulation form about the protection of motherhood, the clause of protection of motherhood is prescribed in the direction of practical guarantee of "the minimum rights insurance.
  The same sex-marriage can not be receivable in the Korea Constitutional Law. As the homosexual love is the problem of a sexual taste, it can be connote in the protection realm of personal rights and rights of pursuit happiness of life. Accordingly, it is not necessary to set up the separate protection clause for the same sex-marriage and homosexual love.
  In the point of view that Cl. 3 of Art. 34 concerning the interests and public welfare improvement of women protect the interests and public welfare of general women, its protection realm is different from Cl. 1 of Art. 36 concerning the protection of motherhood. So it is reasonable to stipulate separately Cl. 1 of Art. 36 and Cl. 3 of Art. 34.
  It is reasonable to stipulate separately Cl. 3 of Art. 36 concerning the good health rjghts and Cl. 2 of Art. 35 concerning the environmental rights. Because the environment protection in connected with the protection of motherhood is not so much the protection realm of good health rights as the environmental rights.

목차

Ⅰ. 글을 시작하며
Ⅱ. 현행헌법의 평등권 및 양성평등 그리고 모성보호 조항의 문제점
Ⅲ. 미국과 독일의 헌법규정
Ⅳ. 개별적인 검토
Ⅴ. 결론
[Abstract]

키워드

기본권개정 적극적 평등실현조치 평등권 차별 모성보호 reform of rights affirmative action equal rights discrimination protection for motherhood