Earticle

그동안 우리나라 입법과정상의 문제점으로 ‘주사입법’이나 ‘통법부화’ 등이 지적되었다. 그러나 이러한 문제점은 1980년대 후반 이후 많이 개선되었다. 그 이유로 ㉠ 1980년대 후반 이후 입법학 연구가 본격적으로 진행된 점, ㉡ 국회와 정부(법제처)의 입법전문가들의 입법학 연구 역량이 이전과 비교하여 더욱더 성장한 점, ㉢ 입법을 지원할 수 있는 새로운 입법지원조직(예를 들면, 2007년에 설립된 국회입법조사처, 7월 3일에 초대 처장을 임명함)이 창설된 점, ㉣ 상당수 법과대학원에서 입법학을 개설하고 있는 점, ㉤ 한국입법학회(1998년에 설립됨)를 비롯하여 한국법정책학회(1999년에 설립됨), 한국입법정책학회, 입법이론실무학회 등 입법학 연구를 위한 학회가 설립되어 꾸준한 활동을 하고 있는 점 등을 들 수 있다. 이상과 같은 배경으로 우리나라의 입법학 연구가 많이 향상되었고, 입법과정상의 문제점이 많이 개선되었다. 하지만 아직도 해결해야 할 문제점이 존재한다. 그 예로 ㉠ 양적으로 증가하였지만 질적 저하된 법률안의 제출문제, ㉡ 비효율적인 입법, ㉢ 법안 작성시 국민이나 이해관계자들의 충분한 의견수렴이 되고 있지 않는 문제, ㉣ 이러한 것들을 개선하기 위한 법제기구의 확대․강화의 필요성, ㉤ 입법전문가의 부족 현상, ㉥ 입법전문가 양성교육프로그램의 부족현상(현재 25개 법학전문대학원 중에서 12개 대학원에서 15강좌를 개설하는 것으로 조사되고 있으나, 실제로 개설된 대학교는 4군데 뿐임) 등을 들 수 있다. 최근 우리나라에서 입법평가에 대한 연구가 활발하게 진행되고 있다. 입법평가제도는 현대 들어 국가의 역할이 확대․강화됨으로써 국민생활 곳곳의 지나친 규제나 입법화, 규범의 홍수․조문의 복잡화, 규범의 양적 팽창과 질적 저하 등의 문제점을 해결하기 위한 것이다. 우리나라 국회의 입법과정에서도 이와 같은 문제점이 나타나고 있는데, 이러한 문제점을 해결하기 위한 개선방안의 하나로 입법평가, 특히 입법평가의 기준이나 방법이 유용할 것으로 생각된다.

This article is to review the current situation, problems of legislative process in the National Assembly and suggest improvements, especially evaluation of legislation. There are a lot of problems of legislative process in the National Assembly. Drafting bills by low civil servant(so-called, ‘Jusa-ibbeob’) was criticized and National Assembly was criticized as the organ of just passing the laws(so-called, ‘Tongbeobbu’). But many of them were improved in the late 1980's. Those reasons are as in the following: ⓐ legislative studies were begun in earnest in the late 1980's, ⓑ capability of legislative experts in the National Assembly and Government(esp. Ministry of Government Legislation) was improved better than before, ⓒ many organs of supporting legislation(esp. National Assembly Research Service in 2007) were organized, ⓓ legislative class was opened in the considerable number of Law School, ⓔ many society for legislative Study(esp. Korean Society of Legislation Studies in 1998, Korean Association of Law and Politics in 1999, Korean Society of Legislation and Policies etc.) were organized and have studied too much. As stated above, legislative studies and problems of legislative process have improved too much. But much more still remains to be improved. For example, ⓐ many bills submitted but quality of them is debased, ⓑ inefficient legislation, ⓒ abroad variety of ideas(esp. people and persons concerned etc.) have not fully taken into consideration in drafting bills, ⓓ organs of supporting legislation need to be expanded and reinforced much more, ⓔ a few legislative experts, ⓕ a few legislative class in the Law School. Much studies of legislative evaluation are in progress in our country recently. Evaluation of Legislation is to improve excessive regulation and legalization, complex provisions etc. There are a lot of similar problems of legislative process in the National Assembly. I think that evaluation of legislation(esp. criteria and methods of evaluation of legislation) will be useful in improving those problems.

In US society of Legislation Studies, theories of Statutory Interpretation has developed into three basic approaches. They are intentionalist theories, textualist theories, and dynamic theories. According to intentionalist theories, statutory meaning should be governed by legislative intent. They emphasize legislative intent as the object of statutory interpretation. A important reason why statutes ought to be obeyed is that they are directives from the legislature, representative organ of the People. Therefore Intentionalist theories are well harmonized with our democracy system. But they have a several weak points. First there are problems of aggregation : By what source we reach the goal, legislative intent. Second, there are problems of attribution : Whose intention is the most pivotal legislator's ? Also, Intentionalist theories are subject to the problem of changed circumstances. Reader of Text is too far from the Writer, legislators. According to textualist theories, statutory meaning should be governed by textual meaning. They suggest that interpreters should pay heed to the plain meaning of the statutory text. They say that the statutory text is the best evidence of legislative intent. Especially, New Textualists insist that judges should not consult the legislative history of a statute. They say legislative history like that is not the law, according to the Article I Section 7 of the Constitution. Textualist theories are well harmonized with our rule of law principle. But they have a several weak points. First they misunderstand the meaning of separation of power. The Framers of US constitution believe that courts respond to unjust and partial law to protect the citizen's rights in the severity of the law. Secondly textualist theories can sever the connection between the rule of law and democracy unsuspectedly to arrive at law without mind or spirit. According to dynamic theories, statutory meaning should be governed by a more dynamic, pragmatic assessment of institutional, textual, and contextual factors. Best answer theories, pragmatic theory, and critical theory are consist of dynamic theories. Especially Critical theory is typically deconstructive but can be reconstructive as well.

2010년부터 ODA원조수혜국으로서의 지위를 가진 우리나라는 ODA의 효율적인 운영을 위해 국제개발협력기본법 및 동시행령을 제정하여 운영하고 있다. 그런데 현행 ODA운영체계와 법제에 대한 다양한 문제점 도출이 이루어지고 있고, 이에 대한 여러 가지 개선책이 대두되고 있는 상황이다. 이러한 상황에서 국익과 관련성 및 정치적 수단으로 이용될 가능성이 있고, 지식 ODA로서의 성격을 가지고 있는 법제교류지원 관점에서 우리나라의 ODA에 대한 검토가 필요하다. 즉, 현재까지의 경제적 측면의 ODA에서 지식ODA로의 전환이 이루어지는 시기가 되었고, 지식ODA의 일종인 법제교류지원 관점에서 우리나라의 ODA에 대해서 분석함으로써, 효과적인 ODA사업 분야의 확대 및 지속적이고 실효성 있는 ODA를 도모할 수 있기 때문이다. ODA와 관련하여 법적 통제론의 관점에서 본다면, 헌법 및 행정, 국회, 법원에 의한 통제를 할 수 있을 것이다. 또한 국제개발협력기본법 및 동 시행령에 의한 법률적 통제도 가능하다. 다만, 현행 ODA와 관련하여서는 원조체계의 분절화, 목적 조항의 부조화, 국제개발협력위원회의 기능문제, 정보공개의 범위, 민간단체․기관의 참여 및 지원에 관한 문제, ODA평가체계와 관련한 문제가 대두되고 있다. 이러한 문제는 지식ODA인 법제교류지원에도 그대로 적용될 문제이다. 이러한 문제에 대해 가능한 개발협력대상국의 주체성을 유지시키면서도, 경제 인프라 구축에 대한 ODA와 기초생활분야(BHN : Basic Human Needs)에 대한 ODA를 조화롭게 수행할 필요가 있다. 또한, 현행 원조체계의 2원화에 따른 2개의 주관 기관이 합리적인 협의가 이루어 질 수 있는 체제 구축 및 행정부와 국회의 협력과 관련한 시스템 구축도 고려할 필요가 있다.

As one of ODA donor countries, Korea has enacted and enforced Framework Act on International Development Co-operation and Enforcement Decree of the Act for the efficient operation of ODA from 2010. However, many problems related to the current ODA operating system and legislation have occurred so various remedies for this are being suggested. In this situation, a study on Korea`s ODA is needed from the viewpoint of Legal Exchange Support which is related to the national interest, has the availability as a political mean and has the character of knowledge-based ODA. In other words, it is the time to change from economical ODA to knowledge-based ODA. Also, the expansion of the effective ODA project and sustainable and effective ODA are able to be planed by analyzing Korea`s ODA in terms of Legal Exchange Support which is a kind of knowledge-based ODA. In terms of the legal control theory in connection with ODA, the Constitution, the Administration, Congress, and the courts will be able to control. Also, legal control by Framework Act on International Development Co-operation and Enforcement Decree is possible. However, the problems related to the current ODA are emerging such as the segmentalization of aid system, the mismatch of purpose clause, the function of International Development Cooperation Committee, the range of information disclosure, participation and support of NGOs or Agencies, and ODA Evaluation System. These problems are applied to knowledge-based ODA. For these problems, the independence of the development cooperation partner should be maintained and ODAs concerning Economic Infrastructure and Basic Human Needs are necessary to perform in harmony. Also, establishment of structure for the reasonable agreement of lead agencies which are by separation of the current aid system and establishment of system related to the cooperation of the administration and Congress need to be considered.

There are increasing voices arguing to establish a system for evaluating the impact of legislation, especially on the bills proposed by Members of the National Assembly. The necessity of the evaluation of legislation at the National Assembly can be summarized as follows: To enhance the quality of the bill proposed by Members; To reduce various regulatory barriers and enhance the quality of regulations; To improve the legitimacy of legislation and legislative body. This paper also discusses on the way to institutionalize the evaluation of legislation at the National Assembly. It proposes a deliberate and step-by-step approach since Members can doubt that the evaluation system may become a barrier against Members active bill proposing initiatives. This paper also presents a practical way and procedure of impact analysis on the legislation, in ex-ante and in ex-post.