[법학] 미국과 한국의 법원의 역할 비교 분석(영문)
등록일 / 수정일- 페이지 / 형식
- 자료평가
- 구매가격
- 2011.08.29 / 2019.12.24
- 25페이지 /
ppt (파워포인트 2003) - 평가한 분이 없습니다. (구매금액의 3%지급)
- 2,100원
최대 20페이지까지 미리보기 서비스를 제공합니다.
자료평가하면 구매금액의 3%지급!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
추천 연관자료
- 목차
-
1. Comparing systems of judicature
2. Role of the Constitutional Court
Background information before we go on
‘Political Question’ & ‘Standing’
1. ‘Political Question’ in U.S.
2. Act of Government in Korea
3. Comparative Study(2)
Comparavive Study in Standing between U.S. & Korea
1. Concept of Standing Doctrine
2. Elements of Standing Doctrine
3-1. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law
3-2. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law
3-3. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law
3-4. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law
3-5. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law
4. Comparative Study(1)
4. Comparative Study(2)
4. Comparative Study(3)
4. Comparative Study(4)
- 본문내용
-
In Korea, because the Constitutional Court has the sole power of impeachment, it will try a judge if the National Assembly passes motions for his impeachment according to Article 65 and 111 of the constitution.
Article 65 of Korea Constitution states that "In case the President, the Prime Minister, members of the State Council, heads of Executive Ministries, Justices of the Constitutional Court, judges, members of the National Election Commission, the Chairman and members of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and other public officials designated by Act have violated the Constitution or other Acts in the performance of official duties, the National Assembly may pass motions for their impeachment."
Article 111 of Korea Constitution states that “(1) The Constitutional Court shall have jurisdiction over the following matters: 2. Impeachment”
the element of justiciability that measures whether the plantiff has alleged direct, personal, and sufficiently substantial injury to entitle him or her to have the suit heard by the court
① Injury in fact
The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical’.”
② Concrete and Particularized
The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized.
③ Causation & Redressability
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.”
It must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S.(1992) at 560~61
자료평가
-
아직 평가한 내용이 없습니다.
