Earticle

Despite the severity of child abuse in Korea, issues on child abuse have been relatively neglected in the shadow of other social issues. Due to the fact that the most of child abusers (“abuser”) are child’s parents or guardians, abusing acts have been considered mere domestic issues or child discipline issues as child abuse and neglect were interpreted in the view of child welfare and focused on protections of original family. Minimal interventions of national justice system and marginal criminal punishment on abusers caused by above reasons are often pointed as causes for the severity of child abuse and neglect. Governments have not made any noticeable efforts to correct the situations, and many children died of abuse and neglect in recent years. News on such inexcusable deaths, which have spread to general public through media, were an renewed awakening on severity of child abuse and neglect to the Korean society. As negative public sentiments turned to blame government’s indifference to the issue, public opinions demanded enactment of more stringent law that can impose more severe punitive measures and can entice government’s proactive interventions to prevent harms from abusers and to protect victimized children. In response to such public opinion, the National Assembly of Korea has legislated Act on Special Cases Concerning Punishments etc. of Crimes of Child Abuse and Neglect (Law Number 12341 enacted on January 28, 2014) on December 31, 2013 and additionally amended Child Welfare Act (Law Number 12361 partially amended on January 28, 2014.) The said acts are waiting to be implemented on September 29, 2014. The Act consists of 6 main articles and 64 supplementary provisions. The Act clarified that child abuse and neglect is a criminally culpable crime by utilizing a term, “Crimes of Child Abuse and Neglect.” (Article 2.4) On the other hand, the Act stipulates numerous special cases on criminal procedures in order for ‘protection of abused child.’ Some improvements were especially promising for prompt and appropriate disposal of child abuse cases and protection of abused child. Such promising improvements include expansive introduction of protective measures for abused child and prompt severance of abused child and abuser by intervention of child protection agencies and law enforcement officers at the initial stage of child abuse. The Act has some rooms to improve on following areas. First, because protection of original family is emphasized in children welfare, procedures to reflect abused child’s will must be established in order to protect child’s human rights even if required actions are protective measures for abused child. Second, the Act must be managed to focus on correction and reformation of abuser’s characters and behaviors rather than imposition of criminal punitive measures. Lastly, because authorities of child protection agencies have been significantly expanded in investigation and intervention of child abuse and neglect, systems for effective operations and prevention of abuse of authorities must be established.

There have been increasing demands for CSR from both of governments and corporations. Firstly, as social changes in postindustrial society created new social risks, the government faced to reform the governing system due to the financial difficulties. Under this situation, collaborative governance has been developed as a new strategy of governing that allocates resources and encourages participation of corporations as a major actor for social services. While governments discuss about new governing system that encourages social responsibility of businesses, corporations also faced to change their roles. As social, political and economic challenges affect corporations more than ever before, many companies recognize the need to collaborate and partner with governments, civil society, and labor. The corporations are expected to do not only making profits but also social responsibility for society. CSR has been promoted and implemented by both of governments and corporations. CSR is expected to reduce financial difficulties of governments and solve social problems at the same time. The appearance of mutual cooperation indicates that various social agents need to cooperate with governments in order to solve the social problem. CSR seems to be inevitable for sustainability of society. International standards such as UN Global Compact and GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines have emerged to support CSR. Although both of standards have been successful amazingly, there are some criticisms about them, particularly about their effectiveness as they have no legal binding force. However, it is important to recognize their contributions to the ongoing discourse on accountability, corporate social responsibility and the appropriate roles of the business, government, civil society and professional sectors.

On 1979, after the sudden death of former president Park Chung-hee, the new military junta of Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo took power through a military coup on December 12, 1979 by organizing the Army Security Command. Then on May 17, 1980, Chun Doo-hwan extended emergency martial law nationwide and conducted a coup. As nationwide protests and the Gwangju Democratization Movement took place against the coup, Chun crushed the protests with military power. On August 22, 1980, Chun discharged as a four-star army general, and the following month became the 11th president of Korea with rubber-stamp electorates. Chun held his presidency until February 1988. On December 12, 1979, when Chun and Roh Tae-woo took power by coup, they imprisoned any opposing individuals and promoted themselves as high-ranking generals while ignoring military law. While Chun and Roh ignored the Awarding Law, they awarded the Order of Military Merit to whoever cooperated during the December 12 military revolt in 1979. Also, on June 20, 1980, just one month after the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement, they awarded Orders of Military Merit to their military followers. The “Order of Merit party” is not just a past incident in Korean society. Not only under Chun’s military junta, but also under later democratic governments, such overissuances took place. Even under the Roh Moo-hyun and Lee Myung-bak governments, the military held such “parties” by themselves. The “self-awards” of the military were mocked by the general public. On March 12, 2006, the Roh Moo-hyun government held a Cabinet meeting and decided to do the following : Cancel and collect 16 Orders of Military Merit from former awardees, including Chun and Roh Tae-woo, in relation to the December 12, 1979 military revolt and suppression of the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement in 1980; 􁭑 According to Article 7 of the “May 18 Democratization Movement Special Act,” cancel and collect Orders of Merit from 67 awardees, including Park Jun-byung, in relation to the suppression of the Gwangju Democratization Movement. However, until now, of the cancelled awardees, only Chun and Jang Sae-dong have returned their Orders of Military Merit to the government. What is worse, although Chun and Roh Tae-woo both received the “Grand Order of Mugungwha” after retiring from the presidency, these orders were not cancelled. This is the shape of our society. In this paper, I will examine the “Order of Merit party” and cancellations of Orders of Merit issued to Chun Doo-hwan’s new military junta. Then I will look into the situation of this period as a “struggle of memory” in our forgetful society.

Korean Constitutional Court has substantially cut back the power of the state to encroach upon the citizens’ basic rights. Through such decisions, it has also been instrumental in changing the people’s attitude toward law and the Constitution. There may be several explanations for this change in the way the constitution is perceived and utilized by the people. In short, main stream of judicial review compare to the past constitutionalism by the C.Ct are considerably active and progressive. In the same context, judicial activism trends were sequentially augmented and expanded in the ordinary court. In the current political climate, positive changes in governmental attitudes towards civil rights are taking place. Through the democratization process, powers the state may apply to its citizens are now perceived to be limited. The ordinary courts and the Constitutional Court are gaining importance as organs for the institutionalization of the rule of law. Meanwhile, the general principle of law such as proportionality, coupling ban, equitable estoppel, etc. or it’s organon orthodoxly has been contributory to the result that the course of justice have shown some remarkable progress within legislation and the judicial system. This paper begins in part II Rule of Law & Due Process of Law, and Equality in part III. I seek to establish in Part IV – Proportionality & Prohibition of Abuse – the plausibility of understanding the legal issues. Additionally, I investigate miscellaneous doctrines in part V such as Coupling Ban, Subsidiarity, etc.. In conclusion, one of the most controversial aspects of the living Constitutional framework has been its association with broad interpretations of the general principle of public law, which is inevitably retains judicial activism whether desirable or not. And my own view is that administrative constitutionalism’s virtues precisely and decisively outweigh the concerns with unauthorized administrative or judicial action.