Earticle

This paper aims for a review of current status and evaluation of statutory interpretation concluded by Statutory Interpretation Deliberation Committee (hereinafter called SIDC) under the Ministry of Government Legislation(hereinafter called MOLEG) in Korea. Statutory interpretation has been an important mission since foundation of MOLEG and some regulations concerning it were enacted in 1949. The Working Regulations for MOLEG was revised in 2005 and SIDC was newly established and civilians can request statutory interpretation as well as officers of central and local governments. Though statutory interpretation system has been developed rapidly, its applicants and objects need to be examined more carefully to improve the current system. The Working Regulations for MOLEG expressly provides SIDC shall interpretate Acts, Presidential Decrees, Prime Minister's Decrees and Minister's Decrees. It is still doubtable whether the Constitution, Acts and Decrees governed neither by the Prime Minister nor by the Executive can also be objects for authoritative interpretation done by SIDC. Basically I have a negative opinion about this issue on the ground of respect for principle of check and balance of government power. Statutory Interpretation by SIDC for these laws and decrees might be done only for the purpose of uniformity and consistency of administration in the Executive. Ordinances of local governments shall not be objects of statutory interpretation of SIDC in consideration of theory of local autonomy. However, provisions relating to local autonomy may be enacted within the limits of acts and subordinated statutes under Korean Constitution. Therefore SIDC shall interpretate ordinances of local governments with authority to confirm them with Acts and Subordinated Statutes. The newly revised Working Regulations for MOLEG permits civilians to request statutory interpretation, but the National Assembly and its members are excluded. They should also be able to become applicants for statutory interpretation to obtain official opinion of the Executive about specific Acts and Decrees to supervise it. It is also a hot issue whether statutory interpretation of SIDC has binding effect or not. I think that judicial binding effect shall not be granted, but administrational binding effect shall be given. The current statutory interpretation system has also some other problems such as composition of SIDC, its relationship with the Minister of MOLEG and its decision process.

Bei der Verwaltungsbereich ist es bei der Anwendung des Rechtsnormen notwendig, sie authentisch zu auslegen, was darauf zuruckzufuehren, dass die Konstruktion des Verwaltungstraegers von Anfang an vielkoepfig und hierachisch organisiert. Natuerlich darauf vorwegloesend hat man das Einheitsprinzip und das Ressortsprinzip bereitgestellt, zwischen denen irgendwie Ergaenzungen und Ausgleichen ohne Zweifel fuer erforderlich gehalten sind. (1) In Hinblick auf die Zeitlauf angesehen haben wir die Rechtsnormen erlassen, geaendert, oder aufgehoben. Dazwischen haben wir sie interpretierend oder auslegende angwendet. (2) Matriell-rechtlich bewertet wird sie nach dem Prinzip der Sachnaehe jedem Ministerium verteilt, d.h. das Ressortsprinzip. Die Jeden Ministerium uebergreifende Aufgabe wird letztlich von der Bundesregierung ausgefuehrt, die sich beispielsweise Kollisionsregelungen ueber die Zustaendigkeitsprobleme zwischen Umwelt und Wasserhaushalt stellt. Dafuer haben sich die betroffenen Verwaltungstraeger einigen, so dass innerhalb Rechtsmaessigkeit und pflichtmaessiges Ermessens eine Loesung bzw. eine Interpretation zu finden ist. Anschliessend kommt ein Aufsichtmachthaber auf eben eine hoehrer Ebene in Betracht, der es mit dem Rechts- oder Fachaufsichtsmittel aufloesen kann. Bei dem Institution wie Rechtssetzungsamt in Republik Korea ist in der BRD und in der EU nicht vorhanden. Kompetenzrechtlich wird dieses Problem anders als in Korea dem betreffenden Ministerium, dem Ministerium fuer Justiz oder der Bundesregierung verteilt. Das waere einerseits eine organisationsrechtliche Feststellung von einem funktionell-rechtspolitischen Wesen und anderseits von ganz unten her betrachtet kann es vom zustaendigen Beamten als ihr Rechtspflicht gestellt werden kann. Es ist klat, dass die Zwecke wie die Rechtsfoermlichkeit, die Systemgerechtigkeit der Rechtsnormen und die Rechtsmaessigkeit schon bei der authentischen Auslegung von der Exekutive gesetzt werden, was zur Einigkeit und Effizienz der Rechtsordnung fuehrt.

The discourse about 'optimum number' of lawyer should be changed now because the quantitative approach of 'optimum number' is meaningless. Under our lawyer system that has been formed excluding market competition from the beginning, taking out the market-oriented and economic concept called 'optimum number' all of sudden and training lawyers suitable to it after quantifying the number will result in nothing else but just ceaseless administrative failure. In our lawyer system under the management control of judicial bureaucracy, any 'optimum number' shall be restored to 'quantitative control' which will be followed by a solid entry barrier of any form. On the contrary, important question is what the qualification of lawyer expected by our country or requested by our society and economy should be and what kind of conditions and environment should be secured in order to foster the lawyers who own such qualification. The concept of 'optimum' should be concentrated on the issue of establishing such criteria and our ability to foster lawyers corresponding to such criteria. The concept of 'optimum number' is, in general, subject to agreement of economics theory because the concept of 'optimum' itself contains the discourse of economics. However, numerous premises should be suggested in order to calculate it in the relation with reality. A judgment is necessary on what should be controlled and what should be considered as a matter of course. The question is what kind of premises are required for lawyers. This paper claims that current barrier of entry for lawyer qualification should be abolished resolutely. Enrollment quota control of law school or lawyers examination system, which is too much burdensome to those who take the exam, does not make any contribution to the goal such as normalizing the legal service market or securing so-called lawyer quality, but just has a role to limit the number of lawyers and control the legal service market. Of course, in order to manage the quality of lawyers the role of government or lawyer's association is absolutely necessary and needs to be actually effective. But that should not work in a way to determine decisively the legal service supply and cause a reduction of demand itself in turn. It will be reasonable that their intervention shall be made in an indirect method such as controlling the lawyer training courses or assisting and encouraging those courses at the level of government or professional association. In other words, restrict and thorough post-regulation will not only contribute to normalizing the legal service market but also raise public confidence in legal service so that it may make a direct contribution to realizing the rule of law. Current aspect of our rule of law in 2009 is at a important turning point. The law school system is the one that makes the most critical and omnidirectional effect. Probably the department of justice or lawyer associations might be indulged in an idea that it shall be safe as long as they can control, in their discretion, the number of lawyers through means such as enrollment quota control or lawyers examination system, but even if such idea is effective one, the impact that this law school system gives to our legal system is beyond description. Demolishing the enrollment quota control system, changing it to a reasonable approval system and, at the same time, changing the lawyers examination system to a substantial qualifying examination system that screens unqualified candidates led by lawyers and law schools, and consequently maximizing supply to our legal service market in a short period of time, this is what this epoch demands us to do. In short, increasing the number of lawyers as early as possible is the mission of the highest priority that our today's reality imposes on us.

In many countries, the last decade has been marked by increasing debate about the acceptability and regulation of euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in medical practice. Recently, there have been growing calls for the introduction of ‘death with dignity’, that will allow patients in terminal condition with a short life expectancy, or a permanent vegetative state, to have their life ended by doctors removing them from life-support. In reality, it is still illegal for doctors to remove life-support equipment from patients, whether they are terminally ill or not. There are no laws or regulations governing the right to ‘death with dignity’, as all the types of euthanasia are banned in South Korea. On May 21st, 2009, the Korea’s Supreme Court upheld a landmark ruling: allowing a family to remove life-sustaining equipment from a comatose patient that had no chance of recovery. According to the Supreme Court's ruling, given the overall evidence and condition of health, the patient's physician would be permitted to remove the life-sustaining support, which means the patient is in all intents and purposes already dead. Before falling into her coma, she said that she did not want to be kept alive with machines if there was no chance of recovery. Given this, we believe that she would also want the treatment to be stopped. In this condition, extending her life is meaningless and against her will of dying with dignity. The Supreme Court's ruling is expected to provide a fresh momentum for the move to make legislation to revise the Medical Law. With the court requesting guidelines on dealing with similar cases in the future, some doctors, civic groups and politicians are claiming that now is the most opportune to enact a law in respect to a person's right to choose ‘how to die’. They say unless a law is implemented, many similar lawsuits will be filed that will haunt doctors and families for years to come. This study was intended to describe and compare the legal procedures for notifying, controlling and evaluating euthanasia between natural death act model and physician assisted suicide act model. The first legislation model is 'living will act' model. In United States, The Karen Quilan case gave rise to legislative activity in the host of state capitals, and several states had adopted statutes that formally recognized some forms of written directives describing some circumstances in which certain kinds of medical care could be terminated. These statues were sometimes dominated 'living will' acts, sometimes 'right to die' acts and 'natural death' acts. Today most states have statutes on living wills. A living will commonly called an advance directives, is written expression of an individual's for future health care decisions. Usually the living will expresses intent to avoid prolonging life in terminal or permanently unconscious state, but the opposite intent can also be expressed. The second legislation model is 'physician assisted suicide act' model. The Oregon death with Dignity Act was passed in 1994 through the voter initiative process. Oregon state has explicitly made legal the option for a mentally competent, terminally ill patient to seek medications that he or she could consume to bring about death in a humane and dignified manner. On April 10, 2001, the Dutch parliament legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide, and on May 16, 2002, the Belgian parliament approved a law on euthanasia. Whereas in the netherlands euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are regulated as two possible end-of-life options, in belgium the law only regulates euthanasia. In both countries, any patient who requests euthanasia has to be well informed about their situation, namely, their diagnosis, outlook, and treatment options. In Korea, these lively dispute of legal policy on the preconditions and concrete procedure of living will act and natural death act. We should permit a terminally ill person to execute his or her own living will or advanced directives according to the definite procedure.

This paper aims at the analysis and valuation of so-called death with dignity act in the perspective of law and bioethics. So-called death with dignity act comprise “bill about death with dignity act” of Shin Sang-Jin, “bill about the right to natural death in the terminal stage of life” of Kim Se-yon and “bill about hospice and Palliative Medicine” of Kim chung-whan. At first, I propose the perspective of law and bioethics, then analyse the concrete issues of death with dignity. And above three bills is analysed by following issues : (1) the concept of death with dignity (2) the necessity of legislation (3) the value issues about autonomy and protection of life (4) the permission coverage of death with dignity (5) the making-out the advance directives (6) the assumption and representation of declaration of intention (7) the role of ethical review board.

This article evaluates Bills of 'Death with Dignity Act' in Korea. This seeks to provide a overview of the legislative process on Bills of 'Death with Dignity Act'. Now several Bills of 'Death with Dignity Act' are introduced by 3 member of the National Assembly and NGO. The Bills of 'Death with Dignity Act' in Korea regulate how a patient can refuse life-sustaining medical apparatus in what condition. The purpose of these bills is to permit patients to determine a dignity or natural death himself/herself. The self-determination of patients must be informed. The right to self-determination of patients includes life-sustaining medical care and the right to refuse life-sustaining medical care. The Korean Constitution can be interpreted that the right of dying patients to refuse life-sustaining medical care be respected. The right to refuse life-sustaining medical care for dying patients was established in the case of 'Severance Hospital', decided by the Korean Supreme Court in 2009.