혁명과 저항권에 관한 소고 - 헌법전문의 개정과 관련하여

Abstract

This article identifies the legal characteristics of historical events after the March 1st Movement, such as the Jeju 4·3 incident, the Daegu 10·1 incident, the Yeosu·Suncheon 10·19 incident, and the Buma Democratic Uprising, the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement, and the June 10th Uprising, and suggests the direction of the revision of the full text of the constitution. I think the March 1st Movement should be called a revolution, not a movement, because it has several characteristics that are different from many existing domestic uprisings. During the independence revolution of the United States, the US Declaration of Independence signed by 33 representatives did not separately specify the right to revolution and resistance, but only the right to resistance. During the war of independence against Japanese imperialism, Korea followed the example of the United States, the world's first civil revolution, and signed the Declaration of Independence. Second, the Jeju April 3rd Incident, the Daegu October 1st Incident, and the Yeosu/Suncheon October 19 incident correspond to insurrection or uprising, not rebellion or riot. The focus should be on the slaughter of civilians by public power. Constitutional theory would correspond to the exercise of the right to resist illegal power. Third, April 19 overturned the regime and instilled the spirit of democracy in Korean citizens. April 19 was the first victory of Korean democracy and was a revolution of great political significance in that it was the first direct power in modern history. So political scientists point out that if August 15 liberation was the 'first liberation', the April Revolution was the 'second liberation'. However, legally, it is more appropriate to understand the legal nature of April 19 as the exercise of the people's right to resist Syngman Rhee's illegal power rather than a revolution for active purposes such as socio-economic system transformation. It is true that language is familiar with the expression April 19 Revolution, but apart from appreciating its meaning politically, it is considered unreasonable to view it as a revolution legally. The full text of the constitution has never been described as the April 19 Revolution in our constitutional history. Fourth, I think it is correct to view the legal nature of the Buma Democratic Uprising, the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement, and the June 10 Uprising as the exercise of the people's right to resist illegal power. There is a need to revise the full text of the constitution to clarify the national identity and the values the state should aim for. Whether to add new constitutional facts and present new constitutional values in a future-oriented manner should be decided after much discussion. The fact that the repetition of the May 18 distortion can be fundamentally solved is the full text of the May 18 Constitution, and I think one way is to push for amendments even if the ruling and opposition parties have formed a consensus. However, it is a problem that including the democratization movements after April 19 in the full text of the constitution, such as the Buma Democratic Uprising, the June 10 Uprising, and the candlelight protests, may harm the simplicity of the specialist. Gwangju, where the May 18th Movement took place, is the parent of all democratization movements that have taken place since 1980.