Abstract
The paper attempts to deal with the element of generic section within the Korean constitutional law. Although the translation of Constitution or case laws of Korea is available for the English-speaking scholarship, the typology and epistemology elaborated by legal scholars through texts or classroom have been entirely discrete and do not appear in academia globally. An earlier generation of scholars who had in mind to disseminate the basics of Korean law plays their part, and yet their work is outdated and needs to be amended such that foreign lawyers and academics can more readily be exposed to Korean law updated for contemporary discourse. The law is a social product and its language often has a repercussion with a great import concerning the court matters and legal scholarship as is apparent from the legal interpretation and work of annotators. An abysmal confusion inherent within the national jurisprudence surrounding its linguistic elements may be comparable to the chaos of the Babel tower when viewed within global legal scholarship. On the other hand, Korea has long been one of the rising states in terms of the national economy and diplomatic prestige. Under this backdrop, it became embarrassingly clear that an English version of legal scholarship on the basics of Korean law is necessary for peers working in jurisprudence and other interested scholars. This project may require an extensive period of time and energy along with other numerous areas of concern in Korean law. While the pioneers may already have initiated this kind of endeavor as mentioned, this engagement will hopefully aid in reworking the old versions of introduction works on Korean law. In this paper, I introduced a general overview of constitutional law over seven sections and entailed a reflexivity related with the introduction.
Highlights
It became embarrassingly clear that an English version of legal scholarship on the basics of Korean law is necessary for peers working in jurisprudence and other interested scholars
The domains of the two legal frameworks can be distinguished in that administrative law is technical, realistic and specific to dispose of disputes against government action or inaction whilst constitutional law is prescriptive, idealistic and abstract to deal with the challenge and universality of politics and public life
Because the nature of constitutional law involves the dual facets of political facts and basic normative order, its epistemology (Habermas, 2007; Foucault, Faubion, & Hurley, 1998) can be shaped in two dimensions, i.e., the constitution as a sociological concept or as defined by legal scholarship
Summary
Constitutional law in Korea is the supreme law of the land and functions to protect fundamental rights and organize the branches of government. The domains of the two legal frameworks can be distinguished in that administrative law is technical, realistic and specific to dispose of disputes against government action or inaction whilst constitutional law is prescriptive, idealistic and abstract to deal with the challenge and universality of politics and public life. Schmitt advises his theory of political determinism to explain the nature of constitutional law. The constitutional law from normative understanding is distinct in that it confronts, regulates the political reality and provides a legal yardstick to measure public and political life in the nation. Kagi describes it as the framework of national supreme laws (Gozzi, 2007) while K Stern defines it as supreme law establishing the principles that create the governmental system and public values (Borowski, 2003; Engel, 2001)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
