Unlike the past, modern society has been changed greatly on many sides. Especially, it is extremely revolutionary concerning about marriage and family. We are going to go over the normative meaning of marriage and family in constitution and analyze precedents that recently concerned. Article 36 of Korean constitution is as follows; Article 36 (1) Marriage and family life shall be entered into and sustained on the basis of individual dignity and equality of the sexes, and the State shall do everything in its power to achieve that goal. This emphasizes on individual dignity and equality of the sex. There are a lot of theories which are the general rule, the guarantee of system, natural liberties and the right to live for the legal character of the article. Precedents accepts these three things-the general rule, the guarantee of system, natural liberties-and it is seemingly right. Precedents protected a monogamy family system by making a application of adultery case (the criminal law Article 241), the unconstitutional petition of the income tax law Article 61, the unconstitutional recommendation of the civil law Article 809 (1) etc. At the same time, it firmly says equality between husband and wife and the freedom of marriage with declaring unconstitutionahty of the Article of civil law which rules the patriarchal family registry system (Hojuje), Moreover, the decision of Hojuje from the constitutional court is very important in the meaning of the harmony between tradition and the principle of equality. In the mean time, by the judgement above, traditional family and marriage system has been disappearing. These systems are suddenly reorganizing based on the dignity and equality of the individual. At this point, we had better find the alternatives about the system how to settle in the new structure.

抄録全体を表示

An influential theory insists that matters pertaining to family, for example marriage and divorce, are included in the object of the right to self-determination. But, Art. 24, cl. 1 of the Japanese Constitution provides that "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with equal rights of husband and wife as a basis". In this paper, I will study some problems related to guarantee of "freedom to found a family', mainly through an examination of the contents of Art. 24, cl. 1.

抄録全体を表示

In Korean Civil Law, "Family" ("GA" in Korea) is formed with the Householder and its family members. The "Householder" ("Hoju" in Korea) is a head of a family, as the central figure of it. The "Householder System" in Korea is a unique legal system that grants many rights and dignities over family members to householder and compiles a register with the householder as the central figure the status of family members for a public announcement. These Householder System has been recognized since the enforcement of the Korean Civil Code in January 1st 1960. However, it has been criticized by many scholars, for the unconstitutionality of itself. Namely, most of people indicate, inter alia, that it had been made on the basis of Korean traditional customs with male or father as the central figure in family; but a great number of people note that it is against the constitutional ideology, the dignity and value of human, the right to pursue the happiness, equalities of both sexes, etc. Even at the time of the legislation of the Korean Civil Law, there were many arguments whether it prescribed the Householder System or not. In addition, whenever the revision of Korean Civil Law was discussed, a question on the maintenance or abolition of that system was always raised. In spite of those criticism and several attempts of revision, the regulations affecting the Householder System have not been changed for thirty years. However, the Householder System of the Korean Civil Law, especially Family Law was largely changed by the 7th revision in January 13th 1990. That is to say, many rights of householder were mostly eliminated except formal and symbolic things. But even after then, there were still arguments on the abolition of that system. Furthermore, in February 3rd 2005, the Constitutional Court of Korea upheld that the Householder System is against the Korean Constitutional Law. In the mean time, the revised bills of the Korean Civil Law were proposed by the National Assembly and the Ministry of Justice, the final modified bill was conformed in March 2nd 2005 and will be enforced from January 1st 2008. Through the incessant arguments and the decision of the Constitutional Court concerned with the Householder System, and its complete abolition, the Korean Civil Law has experienced very important change. In view of these facts, the Family of Korea can be rearranged equally without distinction between male and female, father and mother, husband and wife, senior and elder, etc. And these results are the fruits that the Koreans endeavored with blooded-and-tears to comply with the democratic ideology of the Korean Constitutional Law. However, it is necessary to consider the conventional interpretations on the family law. Because the Householder System, mixed with the thoughts that male or husband is the central figure of family, is firmly rooted in Korean society, and the Korean family law itself is grounded on traditional and customary, ethic and conservative characters of Korean society. Furthermore, law feelings or consciousness is considered with regards that the family law system reflects social norms corresponded with contemporary people. Thus, we must pay attention to the fact that many Korean people still put a high value on the Householder System as a frame to bind affirmatively family relations.

抄録全体を表示

Stepfamilies are increasingly common in Japan. In 2004, about three-fifth of all divorced couples were ones raising minor children, and more than one-fifth of all married couples were remarried ones. This article provides the current state of laws affecting stepfamilies. The review demonstrates that for the most part, stepparents do not have a legally recognized status in relation to their stepchildren. Some suggestions for legal reform will be made.

抄録全体を表示

The dazzling development of life science technology shines the light of hope, but it casts dark shadow to us at the same time. Although, with respect to the life span and incurable diseases, human embryonic cloning works in the positive manner, it also effects in negative way as to the infringement of human dignity, misuses for commercial purpose, and the incompleteness of technology. In this situation, as implementing the Statute of Bioethics and Safety enforced in January 1st 2005, Korea established legislative and institutional mechanism which regulates ethical and legal problems caused by the development of life science technology. This paper, therefore, briefly investigated discussions about main contents and legal issues of Bioethics law concerning with human embryonic in Korea. To do this, as premises for discussions, it also briefly examined the concept of human embryonic cloning and the legal status of human embryo and finally, it suggested alternative plans in the policy level. A basic attitude of the law is to completely prohibit somatic cell nuclear cloning for producing human individual cloning, and restrictively allows researches about remaining embryo expired from certain period for conservation after sterilization and materials generated by somatic cell nuclear transfer. This approach is quite desirable, but it still has something to supplement in regards to legal policies. The Bioethics law, as it is, reveals a loophole, inter alie, in the administrative system. Due to the self regulation system, the Committee of Bioethics plays only examination roles and it is not sufficient to protect human embryo. Thus, clarifying the human embryo as life more in detail and supplementing rules to protect human embryo, we should make efforts to minimize interventions from criminal law.

抄録全体を表示

Recently, the Child Abuse Prevention Law and the Domestic Violence Prevention Law were enacted. These laws concern not only problems of social welfare and criminal law, but also some important problems relating to fundamental rights and principles of the Constitution. In this paper, I will point out some issues for further consideration and discussion.

抄録全体を表示

I have been interested in the legal problems on the relationship between social groups and their members because social groups are essential for human beings to develop themselves and to live happily. There are many kinds of social groups. From my viewpoint, however, post-war theories on the Japanese Constitutional Law have not sufficiently propounded the persuasive classification of them. In this paper I examine the meaning of the words 'commune' and 'community', which has been used in several recent papers and suggest useful way of classification of social groups from the viewpoint of the Japanese Constitutional Law.

抄録全体を表示

Although Western constitutionalism has little to do with a written constitution, since the Meiji Era constitutional theorists in Japan have concentrated their studies mainly on the written constitutional Code or documents. So, it tends to overlooked that modern constitutionalism originated in medieval constitutional thought, especially Christian doctrines and the rule of law tradition. I think that the following two stands form the central factors of the Western constitutionalism. First, arbitrary power-exercised by the power-holders should be denied and rejected. And secondly, in order to restrict the exercise of such arbitrary power, the rule of law should be available and applied. In this essay, I concentrate my attention on the Western characteristic Weltanschauung or Ontologie, that is to say, "All things are created by the Creator", and attempt to point out that Roman Catholic Church offered a notion of the separation of the power-holder and the decision-maker. And probably, this notion is one of the basic ideas that Western constitutionalism contains.

抄録全体を表示

Die Frage uber die Moglichkeit der in Eigentum und Freiheit eingreifenden kommunalen Satzungsgebung stellt ein rechtsdogmatisches Topos dar, in dem sich die Forderung einer sachgerechten Problemlosung in ortlichen Gemeinschaften durch Satzungen und die europaische Verfassungstradition des Grundrechtschutzes durch Gesetze uberschneiden. In diesem Aufsatz wird es diese Frage unter dem rechtsvergleichenden Gesichtspunkt betrachtet. In Deutschland wird der Selbstverwaltungsbegriff nicht nur im kommunalen Bereich, sondern im Sinne einer allgemeinen Verwaltungsform dezentraler Art verwendet. Nach der herrschenden Auffassung bedarf es einer besonderen gesetzlichen Grundlage dort, wo Satzungen in Freiheit und Eigentum eingreifen oder ihrerseits zu Eingriffen ermachtigen sollen. Die Grunde, die das Bundesverfassungsgericht im Facharzt-Beschluss von 9. 5. 1972 fur die berufsstandische Selbstverwaltung hierzu genannt hat, lassen sich jedenfalls im Prinzip auch auf die gemeindliche Selbstverwaltung ubertragen. Die japanische kommunalrechtliche Theorie und Praxis zeigt die Moglichkeit einer den Kommunen entgegenkommenden Auslegung der Selbstverwaltungsgarantie. Diese Auslegung fuhrt zwar nicht zur unbegrenzten Anerkennung der kommunalen Satzungsgebung. Sie birgt jedoch ein hoheres Risiko fur die Grundrechtsverletzung durch die kommunale Satzungsgewalt, Die Grenze der Satzungsgebung muss deswegen zwischen der sachgerechten Problemlosung in ortlichen Gemeinschaften durch Satzungen einerseits und dem in der Verfassung beabsichtigten Grundrechtsschutz durch Gesetze andererseits sorgfaltig austariert werden.

抄録全体を表示