Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T05:28:15.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Two Modes of Foreign Engagement by the Constitutional Court of Korea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2021

Soojin Kong
Soojin Kong*
Affiliation:
Constitutional Court of Korea, Republic of Korea
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Constitutional Court of Korea (CCK) has engaged with foreign law and practices in two distinct manners. While the CCK has interacted with foreign constitutional adjudicatory organs outside the courtroom, it has also developed comparative law practices inside the courtroom. This article aims to examine the interaction between the CCK's two modes of foreign engagement. The chronological inquiry, substantiated by the interviews with former and current legal practitioners of the CCK, demonstrates the gap between the CCK's two modes of foreign engagement. The CCK's evolving extrajudicial activities have provided the repositories of information adequate for the deliberation of individual cases. However, the CCK's rigid structure for comparative law practices, which was established in its initial years to learn from traditionally influential jurisdictions, restricts these repositories from being fully utilised inside the courtroom. The CCK's failure to fully incorporate its developments in its extrajudicial activities into comparative law practices disallows the CCK to grasp an evolving picture of foreign constitutional adjudicatory organs.

Type
Article
Information
Asian Journal of Comparative Law , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , December 2021 , pp. 338 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the National University of Singapore

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Constitutional Rapporteur Judge, Constitutional Court of Korea. An earlier version of this paper was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the LLM degree at the London School of Economics. I would like to thank Jo Eric Murkens, Yoon Jin Shin, and Fabian Duessel for their valuable comments.

References

1 Maartje De Visser, ‘We All Stand Together: The Role of the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions in Promoting Constitutionalism’ (2016) 3 Asian Journal of Law and Society 105, 106; Maartje De Visser, ‘Patterns and Cultures of Intra-Asian Judicial Cooperation’, in David S Law, Holning Lau & Alex Schwartz (eds), Oxford Handbook of Constitutional Law in Asia (Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

2 ibid De Visser, ‘Patterns and Cultures of Intra-Asian Judicial Cooperation’.

3 Law, David S, ‘Judicial Comparativism and Judicial Diplomacy’ (2015) 163 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 927Google Scholar, 1011.

4 ibid 1011–1015.

5 Shin, Yoon Jin, ‘Transnational Constitutional Engagement: A Contextualization of Global Constitutionalism by the Constitutional Court of South Korea’ (2021) 10 Global Constitutionalism 256, 272–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Tom Ginsburg, ‘Rule by Law or Rule of Law? The Constitutional Court of Korea’, in Tom Ginsburg (ed), Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases (Cambridge University Press 2003) 208.

7 Constitutional Court of Korea, Thirty Years of the Constitutional Court of Korea (Constitutional Court of Korea 2018) 69–70.

8 ibid.

9 ibid 75–76.

10 ibid 77–78.

11 Ahn, Kyong Whan, ‘The Influence of American Constitutionalism on South Korea’ (1997) 22 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 71, 86–87Google Scholar.

12 ibid.

13 Constitutional Court of Korea (n 7) 82–83.

14 Constitutional Court of Korea (n 7) 87–89.

15 Constitutional Court of Korea, The First Ten Years of the Korean Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court of Korea 2001) 16–17.

16 West, James M & Yoon, Dae-Kyu, ‘The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea: Transforming the Jurisprudence of the Vortex’ (1992) 40 American Journal of Comparative Law 73, 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Law (n 3) 967.

18 Interview with Official C, former or current constitutional researcher with the CCK (Seoul, 10 Dec 2020); Interview with Official D, former or current CRJ with the CCK (Seoul, 15 Jun 2021).

19 For the list of justices, CRJs, and constitutional researchers who have gone overseas for foreign engagement outside the courtroom, see Constitutional Court of Korea, ‘History of the Constitutional Court of Korea’ (Constitutional Court of Korea) <https://history.ccourt.go.kr/site/history/05/10506000000002020101203.jpg> accessed 16 Aug 2021 (in Korean).

20 Email from Official A, former or current CRJ with the CCK, to author (14 Jan 2021).

21 Interview with Official A (Seoul, 8 Jan 2021).

22 ibid.

23 ibid; Interview with Official D (n 18).

24 See Lee, Shi-yoon, ‘Personal Views on Consitutional Adjudication (1)’ (1990) 1 Constitutional Law Review 57Google Scholar; Lee, Shi-yoon, ‘Personal Views on Consitutional Adjudication (2)’ (1991) 2 Constitutional Law Review 111Google Scholar; Lee, Shi-yoon, ‘Personal Views on Consitutional Adjudication (3)’ (1992) 3 Constitutional Law Review 101Google Scholar (in Korean).

25 Interview with Official A (n 21).

26 Lee, ‘Personal Views on Consitutional Adjudication (1)’ (n 24) 60.

27 Interview with Official A (n 21).

28 ibid.

29 88 Hun-Ka 6, 1 KCCR 199 (8 Sep 1989).

30 For the status of Member States and observers, see Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Resolution (2002) 3 adopting the revised Statute of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 Feb 2002 at the 784th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) (henceforth ‘Res (2002) 3’), art 2.

31 For the list of members and liaison officers from the CCK, see Constitutional Court of Korea, ‘History of the Constitutional Court of Korea’ (n 19).

32 Constitutional Court of Korea, Thirty Years of the Constitutional Court of Korea (n 7) 153.

33 Res (2002) 3, preamble.

34 As of December 2020, non-European Member States included Algeria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Israel, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Tunisia, and the United States.

35 Interview with Official B, former or current CRJ with the CCK (Seoul, 18 Dec 2020).

36 Sung-jin Kim, ‘Special Protection for Europeans: European Court of Human Rights’ Law Times (16 Feb 2012) <https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Legal-Opinion/Legal-Opinion-View?serial=62356> accessed 16 Jan 2021 (in Korean).

37 Sung-jin Kim, ‘Positive Obligations of the State to Protect Human Rights’ Law Times (7 May 2012) <https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Legal-Opinion/Legal-Opinion-View?serial=64214&kind=BA09&key=> accessed 16 Jan 2021 (in Korean).

38 Sung-jin Kim, ‘European Court of Human Rights and Constitutional Complaints’ Law Times (20 Sep 2012) <https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Legal-Opinion/Legal-Opinion-View?serial=67323> accessed 16 Aug 2021 (in Korean).

39 Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Supporting the Rule of Law Worldwide: The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Rule of Law Programme (Konrad Adenauer Stiftung 2019) 14–15.

40 Colin Durkop, ‘Preface’, in Umbach Dieter (ed), Present Status and Future Development of Constitutional Jurisdiction in Asia (Konrad Adenauer Stiftung 2004) 5.

41 AACC, ‘The History of AACC’ <http://aacc-asia.org/en/2/1/profile.aacc> accessed 1 Jan 2021.

42 ibid.

43 Kang-kook Lee, ‘Keynote Speech’ (International Symposium in celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the Constitutional Court of Korea, Seoul, 1–4 Sep 2008).

44 Constitutional Court of Korea, Twenty Years of the Constitutional Court of Korea (Constitutional Court of Korea 2008) 143.

45 ibid.

46 Interview with Official B (n 35).

47 ibid. For the CCK's strategic reasons in taking initiatives in the creation of an association of constitutional courts in Asia, see Law (n 3) 975; De Visser, ‘We All Stand Together’ (n 1) 115–116.

48 Interview with Official B (n 35).

49 ibid; Interview with Official C (n 18).

50 99 Hun-Ba 74, 13-1 KCCR 250, 266 (22 Feb 2001).

51 2008 Hun-Ma 385, 21-2(B) KCCR 647, 662 (26 Nov 2009).

52 2012 Hun-Ma 409, 2012 Hun-Ma 510, 2013 Hun-Ma 167 (consolidated), 26-1(A) KCCR 136, 144 (28 Jan 2014).

53 2013 Hun-Ma 142, 28-2(B) KCCR 652, 663 (29 Dec 2016).

54 2011 Hun-Ba 379 and 27 other cases (consolidated), 30-1(B) KCCR 370, 409 (28 Jun 2018).

55 Interview with Official B (n 35).

56 De Visser, ‘Patterns and Cultures of Intra-Asian Judicial Cooperation’ (n 1). See also Law (n 3) 974.

57 AACC, ‘The History of AACC’ (n 41).

58 AACC, The Statute of the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions, art 3.

59 For agendas of the previous congresses in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2020, see AACC, ‘Congress’ <http://aacc-asia.org/en/2/3/congress.aacc> accessed 27 Dec 2020.

60 For the mandates and structures of each permanent secretariat, see AACC, Amendment of Article 5 on Working Language and Article 22 on Secretariat of the Statute of the Association of Asian Constitutional Court and Equivalent Institutions, art 5, item 5.

61 AACC SRD, Jurisdictions and Organization of AACC Members (Constitutional Court of Korea 2018).

62 AACC SRD, Constitutional Review at AACC Members (Constitutional Court of Korea 2019).

63 AACC SRD, Freedom of Expression: Experience of AACC Members (Constitutional Court of Korea 2020).

64 AACC SRD, ‘Secondment Program’ <http://www.aaccsrd.org/en/secondment.do> accessed 26 Dec 2020.

65 Law (n 3) 976; De Visser, ‘We All Stand Together’ (n 1) 118; Shin (n 5).

66 Hanchul Park, ‘Keynote Speech on International Standards for Social Integration’ (The Third Congress of the World Congress on Constitutional Justice, Seoul, 28 Sep to 1 Oct 2014).

67 The Third Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice, ‘Seoul Communiqué’ (The Third Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice, Seoul, 28 Sep to 1 Oct 2014).

68 Shin (n 5) 271.

69 Constitutional Court of Korea, ‘Visits by Foreign Dignitaries’ <https://english.ccourt.go.kr/site/eng/ex/bbs/List.do?cbIdx=1083> accessed 16 Aug 2021.

70 Constitutional Research Institute of the Constitutional Court of Korea, ‘Programs’ <http://ri.ccourt.go.kr/eng/ccourt/instruction/programs.html> accessed 6 Feb 2021.

71 Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, ‘Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea visits the Federal Constitutional Court’ (10 May 2010) <https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2010/bvg10-031.html> accessed 27 Dec 2020 (in German).

72 Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, ‘Visit of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea to the Federal Constitutional Court’ (30 Oct 2015) <https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2015/bvg15-079.html> accessed 27 Dec 2020 (in German).

73 Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, ‘Visit of the Federal Constitutional Court to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea’ (6 Dec 2016) <https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-089.html> accessed 27 Dec 2020 (in German).

74 Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, ‘Delegation from the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea visits the Federal Constitutional Court’ (30 Oct 2019) <https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2019/bvg19-071.html> accessed 27 Dec 2020 (in German).

75 See Law (n 3) 1007; De Visser, ‘Patterns and Cultures of Intra-Asian Judicial Cooperation’ (n 1).

76 Interview with Official C (n 18).

77 See Ilwon Kang, ‘The Constitutional Globalization in Korea’, in Seoul National University Asia-Pacific Law Institute (ed), Global Constitutionalism and Multi-layered Protection of Human Rights (Constitutional Court of Korea 2016) 250.

78 2013 Hun-Da 1, 26-2(B) KCCR 1 (19 Dec 2014).

79 Kang (n 77) 249.

80 Interview with Official A (n 21).

81 Interview with Official B (n 35). For similar observations concerning the domestic population, see Shin (n 5) 272.

82 Interview with Official C (n 18).

83 ibid.

84 Shin (n 5) 272.

85 Interview with Official D (n 18).