Abstract
치안활동을 위한 군병력동원의 위헌여부와 관련하여, 군병력 출동과 관련된 개별법률과 법률안들을 살펴보면, 먼저 한시적으로 적용되었던 'G20 정상회의 경호안전을 위한 특별법' 제9조는 통제단장이 경호안전 목적달성을 위하여 필요한 경우, 경찰청장 등 경호안전 관련 기관의 장과 협의하여 필요한 인력을 배치 할 수 있도록 규정하고 있는데, 군을 경호안전 관련 기관으로 이해할 수는 없기에 동법은 군병력의 치안활동과 관련한 법적근거로 이해할 수 없겠다. 또한 통합방위법에 대해서는 '적의 침투 도발이나 그 위협에 대한 대응'을 목적으로 하고 있기에, 대테러활동 등 치안활동을 위한 군병력출동의 법적근거로 이해하기에는 힘들다고 생각한다. 그리고 국회에 제출된 테러방지법안들과 관련하여, 먼저 군병력으로 이루어진 대테러특공대의 출동에 대해서는 국방부장관이 지정 또는 설치한 대테러특공대의 출동은 헌법상의 계엄에 의하지 않고 군병력이 동원됨으로 위헌의 소지가 있다. 대테러특공대는 대테러활동에 전문적으로 훈련 되어진 병력이기에, 일반군인들이 대테러 등 치안활동에 투입되는 것보다는 인권침해의 소지가 크게 줄어 들 수 있지만, 입헌론적으로 헌법개정을 통하여 대테러활동과 관련하여 전문적으로 훈련되어진 특수부대의 투입이 가능하도록 하는 것이 바람직하다. As for the anti-terrorism bills, which were submitted to the National Assembly, the mobilization of anti-terrorism commando, which was designated or established by the National Defense Minister, is mobilized the military troops without being based on marital law in light of the constitutional law, thereby possibly violating the constitution, first of all, with regards to mobilization of anti-terrorism commando, which was formed with military troops. The anti-terrorism commando is the military force, which was trained professionally for the anti-terrorism activity. Thus, the violation of human rights may be greatly reduced rather than what general soldiers are putted in the public-order activity such as anti-terrorism. However, it is thought to be desirable to make it possible for the input of special forces, which were trained professionally in relation to anti-terrorism activity, through constitutionally revising the constitutional law. As for the provision of 'support for military troops' in the anti-terrorism bill, what is a case that the nation's important facilities and multi-use facilities are difficult to be protected from terror with the anti-terrorism commando and police force needs to be constitutionally regarded as resulting in reaching the level enough to correspond to 'a state of national emergency equivalent to wartime incident.' Thus, enacting the future anti-terrorism law, it is thought to be unnecessary for having the provision of 'support for military troops' with receiving criticism obstinately for possibly violating the constitution.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.