Earticle

본 연구는 2024년 12월 3일 발생한 비상계엄 선포 관련 국민의 체제수호 의식에 관한 연구를 실증적으로 분석하는 데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 사건 이후 형성된 언론보도와 포털 빅데이터를 수집하여 텍스트마이닝과 사회연결망 분석(SNA)을 실시하였다. 분석 결과, 국민들은 12·3 비상계엄을 민주주의와 헌정질서를 위협하는 중대한 사건으로 인식한 것으로 나타났다. 특히 ‘내란’, ‘쿠데타’, ‘탄핵’, ‘민주주의’, ‘헌법’, ‘수호’ 등의 키워드가 핵심 담론으로 도출되었으며, 이는 체제수호 의식이 국가권력 자체가 아닌 자유민주주의와 헌법적 가치의 보호를 중심으로 형성되고 있음을 보여준다. 또한 민주주의 수호와 헌정질서 회복을 요구하는 담론의 배경에는 4·19혁명, 5·18민주화운동, 6월 민주항쟁 등 민주화 과정에서 축적된 역사적 경험과 집단 기억이 작용한 것으로 분석되었다. 연구 결과를 바탕으로 본 연구는 민주주의 시민교육과 헌법교육의 강화, 민주화 역사에 대한 기억의 계승, 그리고 건전한 디지털 공론장 형성을 체제수호 의식 함양의 핵심 과제로 제시하였다. 또한 12·3 비상계엄이 역설적으로 국민의 민주주의 가치와 체제수호 의식을 재확인하는 계기가 되었음을 확인하였다. 이는 한국 사회의 자유민주주의 체제에 대한 회복탄력성과 시민적 체제수호 의식을 데이터 기반으로 실증하였다는 점에서 학술적 의의를 가진다.

This study aims to empirically examine the impact of the December 3, 2024 (12·3) Martial Law Declaration on the public's consciousness of regime protection in South Korea. To achieve this objective, the December 3, 2024 (12·3) Martial Law Declaration was established as the independent variable, while public consciousness of regime protection was designated as the dependent variable. Media reports and portal-based big data generated in the aftermath of the event were collected and analyzed using text mining and Social Network Analysis (SNA). The findings indicate that the public perceived the December 3, 2024 (12·3) Martial Law Declaration as a significant event that threatened democracy and the constitutional order. In particular, keywords such as “insurrection,” “coup d’état,” “impeachment,” “democracy,” “constitution,” and “protection” emerged as central themes within the discourse. These findings suggest that public consciousness of regime protection was formed not around state authority itself, but around the preservation of liberal democratic values and constitutional principles. Furthermore, the discourse advocating the protection of democracy and the restoration of constitutional order appeared to be influenced by historical experiences and collective memory accumulated through South Korea’s democratization movements, including the April 19 Revolution, the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement, and the June Democratic Uprising. Based on these findings, this study identifies the strengthening of democratic citizenship education and constitutional education, the preservation and transmission of historical memory related to democratization, and the cultivation of a healthy digital public sphere as key tasks for fostering consciousness of regime protection. The results also reveal that the December 3, 2024 (12·3) Martial Law Declaration paradoxically served as an opportunity for citizens to reaffirm democratic values and their commitment to protecting the constitutional system. Accordingly, this study holds academic significance in that it empirically demonstrates, through data-driven analysis, the resilience of South Korea’s liberal democratic system and the civic consciousness underpinning the protection of the constitutional order.

李适의 난과 『호남모의록』金景淑 이 논문은 영조대 간행된 『호남모의록』을 중심으로 이괄의 난에 대응 한 호남 사림의 募義活動과 그 특성을 검토한 글이다. 이괄의 난이라는 국가적 위기 상황에서 왕대비와 국왕이 직접 나서서 전국의 민인들에게 의병 봉기를 독려하였고, 이에 부응하여 전국적으로 義兵 및 義穀 모금 활동이 전개되었다. 호남 지역에서는 영광에서 모의 활동이 시작되어 도내 전체로 확대되 었다. 모의 활동은 영광의 都廳을 중심으로 도내 고을을 都會官 - 屬邑 체제로 편제하고 각 고을 간에는 향교를 매개로 소통하는 지역 연결망을 갖추어 체계적으로 추진되었다. 모곡 대상자는 모든 민인을 대상으로 하 였고, 모곡량은 신분에 따라 차등있게 배정하였다. 그 결과 도내에서 모금 한 의곡량이 3천여석에 달하였다. 모곡 활동은 서인계 인물들이 주도하였 고, 그 때문에 북인 계열은 모곡 대상에서 배제되었다. 이들은 이괄의 난 뿐만 아니라 그 전후에 있었던 국가적 위기 상황에서도 의병을 일으키는 등 적극적으로 활동한 사실을 확인할 수 있다. 모의활동의 전말을 기록한 『호남모의록』은 향촌사회에서 붕당간의 대 립이 첨예했던 1760년(영조 36)에 모의 활동 주도층의 후손들을 중심으로 간행되었다. 이는 『호남모의록』의 간행 배경과 관련하여 주목되는 현상이 다. 17세기 이후 호남 사림의 학문적 성향은 철학적인 이기심성론보다는 의리명분론에 바탕하는 節義와 忠烈을 강조하는 방향으로 전개되고 있었 다. 『호남모의록』은 충절을 강조하는 호남 사림계의 성향 속에서 형상화 된 산물인 동시에 호남 사림의 충절 전통을 확립하고 더욱 강화시키는 역 할을 하였다. 그 과정에서 서인 노론 계열이 충절의 전통을 확립시키는 데 주도적인 역할을 하였던 것으로 파악된다.

Yi Gwal/李适’s Insurrection and the 『Ho’nam Mo’eui-rok/湖南募義錄』 Kim, Kyeong Sook Examined in this article is a publication named 『Ho’nam Mo’eui-rok(“The Record of ‘Righteous Volunteers Recruitment’ within the Ho’nam Region”)』, which was compiled and published during the reign of King Yeongjo. The reason for such examination is to clarify the role played by the Ho’nam Sa’rim figures, and determine their actions of recruiting ‘righteous volunteers(righteous militia members)’ as their efforts to respond to the insurrection of Yi Gwal. When the insurrection broke out, the king had to leave the capital, and in order to overcome the dynastic crisis, recruitments of ‘righteous soldiers’ and ‘righteous resources(“Eui’gok,” 義穀)’ continued throughout the country. This act of “Mo’eui(募義)” began in the Yeong’gwang area, and spreaded to the entire province. The people who led the recruiting were the “Westerners” party members who supported King Injo’s takeover of the government and also the New regime. They categorized the counties inside the province into ‘Large ones(“Dae’eub,” 大邑)’ and ‘Sub-units(“Sog’eub,” 屬邑),’ and then launched a systematic campaign of raising money. The entire sum of grain collected inside the province mounted to 3 thousand Seok units. In 1760(36th year of King Yeongjo’s reign), the descendants of the leaders of the righteous militias also led the task of compiling and publishing 『Ho’nam Mo’eui-rok』, which was a record of recruiting ‘righteous volunteers’ from the Ho’nam region. Since the 17th century, the academic trend of the Sa’rim figures in the Ho’nam region displayed a tendency of emphasizing the importance of ‘Honor(節義)’ and ‘Loyalty(忠烈),’ based upon the discourse of loyalty and righteousness, instead of endeavoring in philosophical studies of ‘Yi’ and ‘Gi’ and the Human nature(理氣心性). 『Ho’nam Mo’eui-rok』 was a result of the trends inside the Ho’nam region’s Sa’rim society, and reinforced the tradition of loyalty for the Ho’nam Sa’rim figures. And it was the Westerners(the No’ron faction to be exact) who led that trend and promoted it.

이 글은 현대한국철학의 역사를 정립하기 위한 예비적 시도다. 이 시도는 우선 최근 정 치적 주체로 급부상한 '페미니즘 주체'의 탈역사적 성격, 즉 선험적 통일성을 담지하지 않 는 역사 이후의 주체로서의 성격을 적극 참조한다. 이른바 칸트가 개진했던 '이성의 역사'라고 하는 이성의 자기발전에 대한 역사적 성찰에 대해 이 탈역사적 주체는 그 뿌리에서부 터 문제제기를 하고 있다. 다시 말해 현대한국철학사 역시 서양철학사와 동일하게 '철학적 문제는 어떻게 발생하는가'(철학의 체계)와 '이 문제를 정식화하기 위한 개념들의 역사적 발생(철학사)', 이 양자의 이율배반적 관계에 직면할 수밖에 없다. 현대한국철학을 규정하기 위해 우선 푸코를 따라 현대철학은 '계몽'의 문제인 동시에, 서양의 보편적, 계몽적 주체에 대해 유대인이 갖는 역사적 특수성에 유비적으로 한국의 계몽적 주체 또한 계몽의 반대항으로 역사적 경험으로서의 파국 의 축을 노정한다. 서구라는 타자에 의한 자기상실과 절망으로서의 파국 그리고 타자의 보편적 계몽주의를 번역하고 전유하려는 집단적 시도 로서의 계몽 . 이 양축은 타자의 침입에 대한 민중의 '봉기'의 축과 이것을 헌법의 이념으 로 정립하는 '헌정'의 축(3ㆍ1운동 등)과 교차한다. 그렇다면 '누가 철학자인가?'라는 철학 자의 정체성과 관련한 문제에 대하여 우리는 철학이 철학자의 삶의 방식과 분리될 수 없고 도리어 철학의 성격을 규정한다고 주장한다. 그러면서 모방이 가능한 철학자의 사회적, 집단적 인격을 페르소나 라고 정의하고 이 페르소나에 바탕을 두고 자기를 형성하는 '아스케시스'가 철학자의 정체성을 규정하는 근거가 된다고도 주장할 것이다. 이 네 개의 축(계몽, 파국, 봉기, 헌정)과 두 개의 근거(페르소나, 아스케시스)는 현대한국철학의 역사를 쓰기 위한 개념적 도구들이 될 것이다.

This thesis is a preliminary attempt to construct the history of the modern philosophy in South Korea. This attempt refers actively to the post-historical character of feminist subject , which is the subject after history without any transcendental unity, who has risen suddenly since 2015. This post-historical subject questions radically the history of reason as the historical reflection of self-development of reason set forth by Immanuel Kant. In other words, the history of modern philosophy of South Korea also must confront itself with the antinomy between how does the philosophical problem generate (the system of philosophy) and the historical genesis of concepts to formulate this problem (history of philosophy) as West does. In order to determine the modern philosophy in South Korea, firstly we argue that modern philosophy is the question of the enlightenment , but also the subject of enlightenment in Korea takes course of axis of catastrophe as historical counter experience against enlightenment. He is analogous to Jew, who has the historical specificity compared to the universal subject of enlightenment in West. Both of axis, namely catastrophe as self-loss and despair by West as the Other and enlightenment as collective attempt to translate and appreciate the universal enlightenment of the Other as West, intersect with the axis of insurrection of people against the invasion of the Other and of constitution to incorporate the insurrection into the idea of constitution (ex. March First Movement). Then given the question of identity of philosopher, Who is philosopher? we argue that philosophy could not be separated from the way of life of philosophers and it determines rather the character of philosophy. We also define persona as the social, collective personality, which could be imitated by others and argue that ascesis as self-formation based on this persona could be the basic ground to determine the identity of philosopher. With these four axis (enlightenment, catastrophe, insurrection, constitution) and two grounds (persona, ascesis) as tools we could write the history of modern philosophy in South Korea.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the process of illness adaptation of patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF). Methods: Data were collected from December 2017 to July 2018 through individual in-depth interviews with thirteen patients with AF. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using the grounded theory methodology developed by Corbin and Strauss. Results: The core category about the illness adaptation process of patients with AF was identified as “living a life managing the silent insurrection of the heart.” The process of illness adaptation of patients with AF consisted of four phases: “withdrawal”, “transition”, “practice”, and “adeptness”. Conclusion: An in-depth understanding of the illness adaptation process of patients with AF will guide nurses in proactively developing and implementing effective nursing interventions to better support patients with AF in Korea.

본 연구는 통합진보당(통진당) 해산결정 문제에 관한 법적 사실의 논의가 아니다. 정치의 시각을 통해 문제에 접근할 필요가 있다. 베버와 하버마스의 사상은 이러한 취지에 부합되는 이론적 토대를 제공한다. 이들 두 이론은 공통적으로 관료주의 내지는 관료·행정권력에 대해 비판적인 입장을 취한다. 베버가 관료·행정권력에 대항하는 의회권력의 정치적 중요성을 강조하고 의회권력의 토대로서 공론의 역할을 강조했다면, 하버마스는 이러한 베버의 문제의식에 입각해 의회권력과 공론장에서의 협의가 강조되는 심의정치에 주목한다. 두 이론은 통진당 해산이 정치적으로 다음과 같은 문제들을 내재하고 있다는 것을 알게 해준다. 첫째, 해산이 의회권력과는 무관하게 검찰 관료권력의 주도로 이루어 졌다는 것이다. 이것은 의회권력의 통제를 받아야 할 관료권력이 의회권력에 대해 사실상의 지배를 관철시켰다는 것을 의미한다. 둘째, 통진당 해산이 검찰 관료권력의 지배의 관철을 의미한다는 점에서 그것은 10년 뒤인 2024년의 12.3 내란의 전초전적인 성격을 갖는다. 셋째, 통진당 해산(2014)과 내란(2024)은 모두 의회권력의 약화 내지는 붕괴를 목적으로 했던 것으로 관료주의와 관료권력의 지배의 표현물이다.

This study does not discuss the legal fact of whether the decision to dissolve the Unified Progressive Party (UPP) was made in accordance with constitutional principles. It approaches the issue from a political perspective. Weber and Habermas provide theoretical guiding principles for the purpose of this study. Both theories share a common critical stance toward bureaucracy or bureaucratic and administrative power. While Weber emphasizes the political importance of parliamentary power in opposition to bureaucratic and administrative power and highlighted the role of public discourse as the foundation of such power, Habermas, based on Weber's critical perspective, focuses on deliberative politics, which also emphasizes parliamentary power and discussion within the public sphere. The following conclusion regarding the dissolution of the UPP is drawn from their theories. First, the dissolution of the Unified Progressive Party was orchestrated by a bureaucratic power centered on two former prosecutors who had seized control of the prosecution, which is opposed to parliamentary power; this signifies de facto dominance by bureaucratic power over parliamentary power. Second, in the sense of the dominance by the prosecution bureaucracy, the dissolution carries the character of a prelude to the December 3 Insurrection/ Treason of 2024. Third, both the dissolution of the Unified Progressive Party (2014) and the Insurrection (2024), which were led by the prosecution bureaucracy, aimed at the weakening or collapse of parliamentary power, thereby demonstrating the omnipotent of bureaucracy or bureaucratic power.

Lee, Geon-Geun. “Wall-E and Star Trek IX: Insurrection: Romance Surviving Space Dystopia and Schopenhauer’s Voluntarism.” Studies in English Language & Literature. 42.4 (2016): 91-113. Science fiction films, since the release of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis in 1927, have consistently covered the topic of space dystopia based on the conflicts between the strong and the weak. Over time, the ruling classes in the movies are distinctive of using their advantage of scientific and technological weapons by giving superiority to material affluence and mechanical amenities rather than human love and natural environment. This condition can be interpreted as the confrontation between intellectualism and voluntarism. Arthur Schopenhauer, a remarkable pessimistic philosopher supporting voluntaristic metaphysics, insists that the will is before the reason as a governing principle of the world, which is more appropriate for observing the dystopian scenes of the films, such as WALL-E and Star Trek Ⅸ: Insurrection. This paper aims to discuss the two works from Schopenhauer’s angle so as to illuminate the relationship between human reason and will (or strengthened emotion) around the space dystopia. Through this analysis, the films share an ecological theme that humans’ body is an essential part of nature, and only love can save the deplorable world. On the other hand, the intellect is just a representational phenomenon of the will, which should be trained and controlled by romantic love following the nature’s law. (Chosun University)

Organizations, leaders, employees, customers, citizens, business communicators, these are contested labels with a wide range of discursive value/significance depending on multiple factors within evolving environments. These factors and environments should be as much a part of our evolving understanding of our objects of study as they already are in many of our sister communication fields as rhetoric, media studies, and cultural studies. Yes, such examinations are likely to be messier, less linear, and more provisional/discursive than we may be used to or comfortable with. And yet, if the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that the distinctions we make and the boundaries we draw between work and home, life and career, ”business communication“ and ”communication,” are not given in Nature but are rather artifacts of human doing that can?must?be prodded and questioned if we ever hope to understand what we are talking about when we talk about ”business communication.“ So, why not let a thousand BCOMs bloom?

Lee, Geon-Geun. “Wall-E and Star Trek IX: Insurrection: Romance Surviving Space Dystopia and Schopenhauer’s Voluntarism.” Studies in English Language & Literature. 42.4 (2016): 91-113. Science fiction films, since the release of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis in 1927, have consistently covered the topic of space dystopia based on the conflicts between the strong and the weak. Over time, the ruling classes in the movies are distinctive of using their advantage of scientific and technological weapons by giving superiority to material affluence and mechanical amenities rather than human love and natural environment. This condition can be interpreted as the confrontation between intellectualism and voluntarism. Arthur Schopenhauer, a remarkable pessimistic philosopher supporting voluntaristic metaphysics, insists that the will is before the reason as a governing principle of the world, which is more appropriate for observing the dystopian scenes of the films, such as WALL-E and Star Trek Ⅸ: Insurrection. This paper aims to discuss the two works from Schopenhauer’s angle so as to illuminate the relationship between human reason and will (or strengthened emotion) around the space dystopia. Through this analysis, the films share an ecological theme that humans’ body is an essential part of nature, and only love can save the deplorable world. On the other hand, the intellect is just a representational phenomenon of the will, which should be trained and controlled by romantic love following the nature’s law. (Chosun University)

이 논문은 고위공직자범죄수사처(이하 “공수처”라 한다)의 내란죄 수사와 관련된 쟁점인 ‘직접관련성’ 조항의 해석 문제를 분석한 글이다. 12･3 비상계엄 사태 이후 윤석열 대통령에 대한 내란 혐의에 대한 공수처의 수사가 개시되자, 내란죄가 공수처의 수사대상 범죄와 ‘직접관련성’이 없다는 주장이 제기되었으며, 이로 인해 해당 조항의 해석을 둘러싼 광범위한 법적 논란이 촉발되었다. 공수처는 검찰 권력의 과도한 비대화를 견제하고 현직 권력에 대한 실효성 있는 수사를 수행하기 위해 설립된 ‘절충형 모델’의 수사･공소기관이다. ｢공수처법｣ 제2조 제4호 라목에 규정된 ‘직접 관련성’ 조항은 당초 포괄적인 ‘합리적 관련성’ 개념을 예정하여 논의되었으나, ‘별건수사’의 폐해를 방지하고 ‘해당 고위공직자가 범한 죄’로 수사 주체를 제한하는 방향으로 범위가 축소되어 현재에 이르고 있다. 외형상 유사한 ｢검찰청법｣의 ‘직접 관련성’ 문구와 비교할 때, 입법 취지 및 실제 운용 방식에서 ｢공수처법｣과 차이가 있다는 점을 고려하야 양 법률의 ‘직접관련성’은 달리 해석되어야 한다. 필자는 ‘직접 관련성’ 개념이 별개의 범죄 간에 한정되어 적용되어야 하며, ‘사건의 동일성’이 인정되는 경우에는 본래범죄의 수사 과정에서 당연히 수사가 가능하다고 판단한다. 또한 ｢공수처법｣은 수사 권한의 범위를 원칙적으로 규정하고 있으므로, ｢검찰청법｣에서의 예외적 제한 해석보다 더 유연한 해석이 가능하다고 본다.

This paper examines the interpretation of a key clause that has been a central point of contention regarding the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and its authority to investigate insurrection. When the CIO launched an investigation into President Yoon Suk-Yeol on charges of insurrection following the December 3, 2005, Martial Law incident, it was argued that the crime of insurrection did not fall within the CIO’s jurisdiction, thereby sparking a broad legal controversy over the clause’s interpretation. The CIO is an investigative and prosecutorial agency established to curb the excessive expansion of prosecutorial power and to conduct effective investigations into incumbent power figures. The ‘Directed Relatedness’ clause, stipulated in Article 2, Subparagraph 4, Item (d) of the CIO Act, was initially framed under the broad concept of ‘Rational Relatedness’ but was subsequently narrowed. Its scope was limited to prevent the detrimental effects of ‘fishing expeditions’ (or collateral investigations) and to restrict investigations solely to crimes committed by the specified high-ranking official. Compared to similar provisions in the Prosecutor's Office Act, the CIO Act differs both in legislative intent and practical application. The author argues that the concept should be limited to its application between distinct crimes. Once the facts of the case are established, the investigation is naturally permissible within the investigative process of the primary crime. Furthermore, the author asserts that because the CIO Act defines the scope of investigative authority as a general principle, it allows for a more flexible interpretation compared to the restrictive and exceptional interpretation applied under the Prosecutor’s Office Act.

이 논문의 목적은 공화력 7년 왕정주의 봉기(l’insurrection royaliste de l’an VII) 당시 오트가론느(Haute-Garonne) 도의 정부위원(commissaire du Directoire exécutif)의 역할을 통해서 정부위원이라는 집단의 성격을 파악하는 것이다. 도내 여러 소요 및 각종 사건들이 왕정주의 봉기로 이어지고 있는 상황에서 도 정부위원의 역할은 강제성을 가진 ‘독려’였다. 스스로 독립적인 결정을 할 수 없었고, 또 행정적인 명령을 할 수 없었지만, 정부위원들은 상위법의 집행을 감독해야 한다는 본인들의 역할을 빌미로 공직자들이 특정한 행동을 하도록 요구했다. 따라서 법의 엄격한 집행을 감독한다는 측면에서 ‘행정적 중앙집중화’(centralisation administrative)가 아니라 입법부 중심주의(légicentrisme)를 보여주는 관직으로 정부위원을 보는 시선에서 벗어나, 구체적인 사례를 통해서 활동 영역에 따라 달라질 수 있는 이들의 성격을 다층적으로 이해해야 할 것이다.

The purpose of this article is to understand the character of the Commissaire of the Directoire executif through his role in the department of Haute-Garonne during the Royalist insurrection of year VII. Under the situation where numerous riots and various incidents against the Republic lead to the monarchical uprising, the major role of the commissaire is coercive encouragement. While he cannot make independent decisions and issue administrative orders, the commissaire orders specific actions under the pretext of supervising the application of the higher law. Therefore, it should be understood through concrete examples of its characteristics that may vary depending on the area of activity, rather than simply considering it as the embodiment of legicentrism rather than administrative centralization, in terms of the exact application of laws.

5.18재판에서 사법부의 판결은 1) 서울지방법원 판결문(1996. 8. 26.), 2) 서울고등법원 판결문(1996. 12. 16.), 3) 대법원 판결문(1997. 4. 17.)으로 이루어져 있다. 5.18재판은 12.12 군사반란과 5.17 내란에 초점을 맞추고 5.18의 학살은 제대로 다루지 못했다. 그럼에도 불구하고 서울고등법원의 판결은 5.18을 가장 급진적으로 재현하고 있다. 서울고등법원은 5.18에서 국민의 저항이 헌법제정권력이자 헌법기관이며, 학살자들의 국헌문란이 1987년 6월 항쟁에서 종료된다고 판결했다. 그러나 이와 같은 급진적인 재현은 대법원에서 기각된다. 이는 대법원이 국민의 저항권 이론을 적극적으로 수용하지 않기 때문이다. 서울고등법원과 대법원 간의 판결의 차이에서 드러난 중요한 쟁점은 국민의 저항권을 어떤 차원에서 수용하느냐에 있다. 현행 헌법에 국민의 저항권은 구체적으로 등록되어 있지 않으며, 4.19 민주 이념의 계승이라는 표현에서 유추해석되고 있을 뿐이다. 하지만 저항권을 명문화하는 것과 유추해석하는 것은 큰 차이가 있다. 또한 헌법재판소의 판례처럼 일정한 조건의 제약이 있는 소극적인 저항권만이 아니라 적극적 저항권까지 헌법에 수용되어야 한다. 이것은 5.18 당시 국민의 결집된 저항을 헌법제정권력이자 헌법기관으로 승인했던 서울고등법원의 급진적 재현을 복원하는 일이기도 하다. 사법부의 판결은 5.18을 헌법수호운동으로 재현하고 있으며, 이는 비록 5.18이 1987 년 헌법의 전문에 명문화되지는 않았지만 이미 대한민국 헌정체제의 일부로 인정되었다는 것을 보여준다. 그러나 5.18의 법적 재현은 헌법에 국민의 저항권이 명시되어야 한다는 과제를 남기고 있다.

The judiciary's ruling in the 5.18 trial consists of 1) the Seoul District Court's ruling (1996. 8. 26.), the Seoul High Court's ruling(1996. 12. 16.), and 3) the Supreme Court's ruling (1997. 4. 17.). The May 18 trial focused on the 12.12 military rebellion and the 5.17 civil war, but the massacre of the 5.18 was not handled properly. Nevertheless, the Seoul High Court's ruling represents the 5.18 uprising most radically. The Seoul High Court ruled that the people's resistance is constitutional power and a constitutional institution, that constitutional disorder crime of the massacres ends in the June 1987 uprising. But it was rejected by the Supreme Court. This is because the Supreme Court does not actively accept the theory of people's right to resistance. An important issue revealed in the differences in rulings between the Seoul High Court and the Supreme Court lies in what dimension the people's right to resistance is accepted. The people's right to resistance is not specifically registered in the current Constitution, and it is only being inferred from the expression of inheriting the 4.19 democratic ideal. However, there is a big difference between specifying the right to resist and interpreting it in analogy. Also, as in the Constitutional Court's case, not only the right to passive resistance with certain conditions of constraints, but also the right to active resistance should be accepted by the Constitution. This is to restore the radical representation of the Seoul High Court, which approved the people's united resistance of the 5.18 as a constitutional power and a constitutional institution. The May 18th Trials shows that the 5.18 uprising is not stipulated in the Constitution but already forms a part of the constitutional system of the Republic of Korea. The legal representation of the 5.18 uprising leaves the task that the people's right to resistance should be specified in the Constitution.

2024년 12월 3일 대통령 윤석열의 비상계엄 선포는 헌법상 요건을 충족하지 못함은 물론 그 내용상 민주공화국을 부정하는 내란이다. 현직 대통령의 내란인 점에서 72년 ‘10월 유신쿠데타’와 유사한데, 비상계엄을 통한 내란인 점에서는 80년 5·17 내란과 유사하다. 한국 사회에서 비상계엄은 정부 수립 전후의 10·19 여순과 제주 4·3, 한국전쟁 시기, 64년 6·3항쟁, 72년 유신쿠데타, 79년 부마항쟁, 79년 10·26과 80년 5·17 등과 관련하여 오・남용된 역사가 있다. 12·3 내란 사건은 민주화 과정에서 과거청산을 통한 비상계엄의 오・남용 재발 방지에 실패한 결과라고 볼 수 있다. 12·3 비상계엄과 내란이 실행되었지만, 비상계엄이 곧바로 해제되고 내란이 성공하지 못했다. 87년 민주화 이후 40년에 가까운 시간이 흘렀음에도 이러한 내란이 일어난 것은 87년 헌법 체제에 대한 비판적 성찰을 요구한다. 민주화는 권위주의 헌법 체제에서 민주공화국 헌법 체제로 이행을 추구하는 점에서 과거청산의 이행기 정의를 요청한다. 12·3 내란의 발생은 87년 헌법 체제가 이행기 정의 관점에서 어떤 한계를 안고 있었는지 그 평가를 요하는 장면이다. 12·3 내란에 대응하는 과정에서 무엇을 해야 하는가 하는 과제는 이러한 평가를 통해 끌어낼 수 있다. 이 글에서는 비상시 인권 보장과 권력 통제 그리고 평시 재량 권력 통제의 문제를 제기하면서 민주공화국 회복을 위한 입법 주도의 ‘헌법 체제’ 개혁을 주장한다.

President Yoon Seok-yeol’s declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024 not only fails the constitutional requirements, but is also an insurrection that denies the democratic republic in its content. While it is similar to the ‘October Yushin Coup d’etat’ in 1972 in that it is an insurrection by a sitting president, it is similar to the May 17 Rebellion in 1980 which is an insurrection through martial law. In Korean society, martial law has a history of abuse and misuse, including the Jeju April 3 Incident and the Yeosun October 19 Incident before and after the establishment of the government, the Korean War, the June 3 Uprising in 1964, the Yushin Coup d'etat in 1972, the Busan-Masan Uprising in 1979, October 26, 1979, and May 17, 1980. The December 3 insurrection can be seen as a result of the failure to prevent recurrence of the abuse and misuse of martial law by clearing up the past during the democratization process. Fortunately, however, the 12·3 martial law and insurrection were implemented, but the martial law was lifted immediately and the insurrection did not succeed. However, the fact that such insurrection occurred despite nearly 40 years having passed since the democratization in 1987 demands a critical reflection on the constitutional regime of 1987. Democratization demands a transitional justice of liquidation of the past in that it seeks to transition from an authoritarian constitutional system to a democratic republican constitutional one. The occurrence of the 12·3 insurrection is a scene that requires an evaluation of the limitations of the 1987 constitutional regime from the perspective of transitional justice. The task of what to do in the process of responding to the 12·3 insurrection can be derived through this evaluation. This article argues for reform of the ‘constitutional regime’ led by legislation, to restore the democratic republic, while raising the issues of guaranteeing human rights and controlling power in times of emergency and controlling discretionary power in times of peace.

이 글은 내란사태가 들추어낸 한국 민주주의의 위기구조를 논의한다. 심대한 권력위기에 처한 윤석열은 비상계엄을 통해 반헌법적·반민주적·반인륜적 친위 쿠데타를 기도했다. 내란사태는 결코 우발적으로 일어난 것이 아니다. 내란범죄의 주요 동인을 아무리 대통령 부부의 사적 탐욕이나 권력의 오남용과 연결 짓는다 할지라도, 계엄 이후에 펼쳐진 내란의 풍경은 또 다른 구조적 해석이 필요하다. 내란사태의 전조증상을 사후적으로 추론하는 것보다 더 중요한 과제는 내란사태가 어떤 구조적 준비상태에서 촉발되었는지를 이해하는 데 있다. 이 글은 87년 체제의 권력구조와 정당정치의 불안정성에 초점을 맞추어 내란사태에 투영된 민주주의의 위기구조를 살펴본다.

This paper diagnoses the crisis structure of Korean democracy revealed by the insurrection. Facing a severe power crisis, Yoon Suk-yeol attempted an unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and inhumane self-coup through the proclamation of martial law. The insurrection was by no means accidental. While the primary motives for the insurrectionary crimes may be linked to the private greed of the presidential couple or the abuse of power, the landscape of the insurrection that unfolded after the declaration of martial law requires a different structural interpretation. More crucial than retrospectively inferring the prodromal symptoms of the insurrection is to analyze the structural preparedness from which the insurrection was triggered. This paper focuses on the regression of the 1987 regime and the instability of party politics to diagnose the crisis structure of politics and democracy projected onto the insurrection.

This article analyzes how the “word-image chain of anti-insurrection” operates, and how the locality of Gwangju is relocated through that process, by examining the citizens’ free speeches delivered at the Gwangju Citizens’ General Rally held after the declaration of emergency martial law on December 3, 2024. The study draws on an archive of 64 free-speech transcripts compiled by the Truth Foundation, together with video footage from the Gwangju Emergency Action YouTube channel. On the night martial law was declared, citizens across the country almost simultaneously recalled a “Gwangju image”; this article traces how that image was again spoken, seen, read, and recorded in the free speeches given in Gwangju itself, reading the words citizens generated against the language of insurrection as a chain in which historical images, the memory of place, literary texts, and recorded testimony call out to one another. It first examines how the post-May 18 memory is rearranged in multiple layers—through historical indebtedness and guilt, the generational experience of disasters such as the Sewol ferry and Itaewon, and the positionalities of minority subjects. It then reads, as a movement of agencement, the way two moments—the influx into Gwangju of experiences from the Namtaeryeong and Hannamdong rallies, and the nationwide solidarity provoked by the far-right rally at Geumnamno—relocate the locality of Gwangju as a relational position beyond its fixed image as a “sacred site of democracy.” Turning to performative reading and the chain of testimony, it analyzes the repeated invocation of Han Kang’s Human Acts in the free speeches, arguing that the free speeches of the postmemory generation realize the methodology of literary testimony in the form of civic public address; here the reading of the plaza both risks a “monumental circulation” that binds the novel’s ambiguity into a historical sign and, at once, twists that circulation to connect the dead with the vulnerable of the here and now. Finally, by way of Chung Bora’s novel Punishment, it proposes thinking together about the spatiotemporal conditions of the non-Gwangju, the non-lifting-of-martial-law (非解嚴), and the non-citizen—the conditions of a world in which martial law was never lifted. By approaching Gwangju not as a place subsumed under the past symbolism of May 18 but as a relational position in which words from different sites call out and respond to one another, the discussion contributes to a theorization of the new forms of civic address and the modes of sociality they generate in contemporary plaza politics.

2024년 12월 3일에 선포된 대통령의 비상계엄은 국회의 요구로 해제되었지만 헌법과 법률을 위반하여 탄핵사유에 해당한다. 헌법과 법률이 요구하는 절차적 요건으로 국무회의의 심의, 국무총리와 국무위원의 부서, 국회에 대한 통고가 생략되었다. 또한 헌법과 법률이 요구하는 실체적 요건으로 전시, 사변 또는 이에 준하는 국가비상사태도 존재하지 않았다. 더욱이 비상계엄에 따른 특별조치(포고령)는 국회의 활동을 금지하는 내용을 포함함으로써 정부나 법원의 권한에 대한 특별조치만을 허용하는 헌법을 정면으로 위반하였다. 게다가 특별조치에는 정당의 자유, 정치적 표현의 자유, 언론의 자유, 노동3권, 강제노동금지 등을 침해하는 내용이 포함되어 있다. 특별조치를 시행하기 위한 구체적 조치로서 국회 봉쇄와 국회 난입은 국회의 계엄해제요구를 방해하기 위한 목적에서 이루어졌는데 이러한 조치는 대통령의 직접적인 지시에 의한 것이라는 점에서 탄핵사유에 해당한다. 특별조치에 포함되지는 않았지만 대통령이 독립적 헌법기관인 중앙선거관리위원회에 군병력을 투입시킨 행위도 탄핵사유에 해당한다. 결론적으로 12･3비상계엄과 관련된 대통령의 모든 행위는 국민의 신임을 배반한 중대한 법위반에 해당하여 대통령에 대한 파면이 요구된다.

The Martial Law (the state of emergency) declared by the President on December 3, 2024, was lifted at the request of the National Assembly but still constitutes grounds for impeachment as it violates the Constitution and laws. Procedural requirements mandated by the Constitution and laws, such as deliberation by the Cabinet, countersignatures by the Prime Minister and Cabinet members, and notification to the National Assembly, were omitted. Furthermore, substantive requirements under the Constitution and laws, such as a state of war, an armed rebellion, or an equivalent national emergency, were absent. Moreover, the special measures (proclamations) under the state of emergency directly violated the Constitution by including provisions that prohibited the activities of the National Assembly, despite the Constitution only allowing special measures regarding the powers of the government or judiciary. Additionally, these special measures infringed upon fundamental rights, including the freedom of political parties, freedom of political expression, freedom of the press, the three labor rights, and the prohibition of forced labor. Concrete actions taken to enforce the special measures, such as the blockade of the National Assembly and its forced entry, were carried out to obstruct the Assembly’s ability to demand the lifting of the state of emergency. These actions were directly ordered by the President, further constituting grounds for impeachment. In conclusion, all acts related to the December 3 emergency declaration constitute serious legal violations that betray the trust of the people, necessitating the removal of the President from office.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the perception of rebellion in a book 『Hwa-Chon documentary literature[和村實記]』 and 『Juk-Nam Yeon- Bang-Rok[竹南聯芳錄]』 that records the activities of Lee Sul-won[李述原] and his son and Bae Du-pil[裵斗必] brothers. 『Hwa-Chon documentary literature』 and 『Juk-Nam Yeon-Bang-Rok』 is rare in that it describes the differences in the activities and methods of the people who directly resisted or led the subjugation without much specific data on the Mu-sin rebellion. It is more important in that it is written by a group of local scholars, not by a prestigious nobleman or a high-ranking official who occupies a dominant position in terms of status, revealing the awareness and sentiment of local scholars about the Mu-sin rebellion. In addition, it is particularly important in that it represents the position and situation of those who caused the righteous army based on moral theory through criticism of the irresponsible leader at the time, unfortunate feelings about the innocent victims, and descriptions of difficult creative activities. In the 『Hwa-Chon documentary literature』, they accepted an argument made by a writer Seo-Geo-jeong(徐居正) from the early Joseon Dynasty that officials should keep their posts, criticized local officials who left their posts without permission, and accused them of betraying their ancestors, kings, and fathers from the standpoint of practitioners of righteousness. 『Juk-Nam Yeon-Bang-Rok』, which mixes one's own and others' perceptions of the Mu-sin rebellion, confirmed the connection between the teachings of the family to practice loyalty based on filial piety and the achievement of the meritorious deeds of “preservation of the state and relief for the people.” In addition, after arresting the head of the traitors, he refused to reward and resign for his achievements, disappearing and confirming his humble and bold resignation without regret.

이 논문은 ‘12.3 내란’ 이후 극우가 준동하는 등 한국 민주주의의 변화된 새로운 조건에서 민주시민교육의 활성화를 위해 필요한 새로운 접근법을 모색한다. 우선, 우리 민주주의가 지금 전 세계적인 극우 포퓰리즘의 확산 속에서 마주하고 있는 ‘파시즘적 정치’라는 낡고도 새로운 도전에 관해 살펴본 뒤(II), 그 배경에 있는 우리의 자유주의적 민주주의 모델의 한계를 ‘공화’의 가치라는 관점에서 검토할 것이다(III). 이런 바탕 위에서, 우리 사회에서 민주시민교육의 활성화를 위해 오랫동안 독일로부터 모방하여 실현해 보려 했던 ‘보이텔스바흐 합의’를 오늘날 우리나라의 조건에서 나름의 방식으로 수용하면서도 그 한계를 보완할 수 있는, 새로운 ‘공화적 시민교육’이라는 접근법의 얼개를 소개하려 한다(IV).

This article explores new approaches necessary to revitalize educationn for democratic citizenship under the changed conditions of Korean democracy, including the rise of the far right following the ‘December 3rd Insurrection’. First, it examines the old yet new challenge of ‘fascist politics’ that our democracy now faces amid the global spread of far-right populism (II). It then reviews the limitations of our liberal democratic model, which underlies this challenge, from the perspective of the value of ‘republic’ (III). Building on this foundation, we will introduce the framework for a new approach called ‘Republican Civic Education’ (IV). This approach seeks to activate civic education in our society by adopting the ‘Beutelsbach Consensus’?long emulated from Germany-in a manner suited to Korea's current conditions, while also addressing its limitations.

YoungmeeKimThe Confessions of Nat Turner represents a historical figure who led a slave rebellion in Virginia, 1831. Before the publication of this novel, Nat Turner was rarely known in the official history. He was just told as ‘an old prophet' in black people's oral tradition. From a small amount of documents about him we can find two opposite perspectives of him. One is the perspective of Southern whites who wanted to reconstruct him as a ‘religious fanatic.' The other is the viewpoint of North abolitionists who wanted to reconstruct him as ‘a romantic hero.'Styron's Nat Turner is represented as a slave leader who loved a white girl whom he had to kill to prove his leadership. The relationship between him and this white girl, which is highly important in Styron's novel, is problematically represented. That's because Nat is seen to be almost obsessed with his sexual desire for this girl's white young body. Although they share spiritual and intellectual sensibility, Nat's attention is too much focused on her physical attraction, especially when they are alone. In his sexual fantasy he seems to be too aggressive to the pure white body. Even just before his death his sexual fantasy is reexperienced. In this aspect of Nat, the myth of black men's sexuality and the fear of rape of white women are reflected, which has been constructed since the reconstruction period.

이 연구는 12·3계엄과 탄핵 국면에서 나타난 10대의 정치적 참여와 발언을 분석하여, 10대가 경험한 민주주의의 의미와 그 사회적 조건을 탐구한다. 12·3계엄 이후 민주주의 위기와 극우화, 세대 정치에 대한 논의가 확산되었으나, 계엄 반대와 탄핵 촉구 집회에 참여한 10대의 경험과 인식은 충분히 연구되지 않았다. 10대는 계엄이 가져온 공포와 정치적 무력감을 경험하는 동시에, 투표권이 없는 현실에 대한 불만과 민주주의에 대한 책임 의식을 함께 드러냈다. 집회 현장에서는 연대와 감사의 감정과 장기화된 시위 과정에서 피로와 자기 돌봄의 필요성에 대한 인식도 나타났다. 또한 가족의 우려, 입시 중심의 교육 구조, 학교의 정치적 중립성 규범 등은 10대의 정치적 참여를 제약하는 조건으로 작용하고 있었다. 학생들은 학교에서 접한 민주주의 교육, 문학과 철학적 사유를 바탕으로 계엄을 비판했지만, 학교에서는 계엄을 충분히 토의하거나 학습할 기회가 제한되었다. 보수적인 지역 정치 환경 속에서 변화를 요구하는 목소리도 확인되었다. 이러한 조건 속에서도 청소년 단체와 시국선언 등 집단적 활동이 지속되었다. 집회에 참여한 10대의 연대 경험을 존중하고, 10대가 인문적 성찰과 정치 참여를 할 수 있게 돕는 인식 변화와 기성세대의 성찰이 필요하다.

This study examines youth political participation and expression during the December 3 insurrection and the subsequent impeachment movement, focusing on young people’s democratic experiences and the social conditions that shaped their participation. While discourse on democratic crisis, far-right politics, and generational politics has expanded following the crisis, scholarly attention to youth participation in protests against martial law and in support of impeachment remains limited. Youth experienced fear and political powerlessness despite the insurrection, while also expressing frustration over political exclusion and a strong sense of democratic responsibility. At protest sites, solidarity and gratitude coexisted with fatigue and an increasing awareness of the need for self-care amid prolonged demonstrations. Family concerns, exam-centered education, and school norms of political neutrality constrained youth political participation. Although students engaged critically with the insurrection through democratic education, literature, and philosophical reflection, opportunities for substantive engagement in schools remained limited. Demands for change also emerged within conservative regional political environments, while collective actions such as youth organizations and public declarations persisted. This study argues that recognizing youth solidarity and cultivating broad social support, alongside intergenerational reflection, are essential for supporting young people’s humanistic reflection and political participation, as well as for imagining the future of democracy.