대한민국임시정부의 입헌주의: ‘헌법국가’로서의 정당성 확보와 딜레마
Constitutionalism of the Korean Provisional Government : Its Legitimation and Dilemma as Constitutional State
오향미(고려대학교)
49권 1호, 277~304쪽
초록
대한민국임시헌법을 한국 최초의 근대헌법으로 규정하는 근거는 인민주권과 기본권 그리고 삼권분립 등과 같은“근대적”조항을 포함하고 있어서만은 아니다. 임시헌법이 근대헌법으로 이해될 수 있는 보다 본질적인 근거는 그 제정 주체와 헌법제정 목적이 근대헌법의 이념과 특성을 보여주기 때문이다. 대한민국임시헌법은 3.1운동에 자발적 으로 참여한 한국인의 독립 의지를 결집하여 망명지 상해에서 국내외 지역의 대표로 구 성된 임시의정원의 토론과 의결에 의해 제정되었다. 임시헌법은 군주정이라는 전통적 정치질서를 거부하고 일제의 식민통치권에 대항하여 민주공화제를 선포한 대한민국임 시정부의 토대이자 정당성의 원천이었다. 단순히 헌법에 의거하여 통치된다는 의미의 ‘입헌국가’와 달리 인민의 제헌권력에 의해 제정된 헌법을 토대로 수립되고 헌법으로부 터 정치권력의 정당성을 확보하는 국가를‘헌법국가’라고 할 때, 대한민국임시헌법을 토대로 수립된 임시정부는 헌법국가의 성격을 갖고 출발하였다. 헌법국가로서의 임시정부는 헌법의 적용과 실행을 통해 정당성을 확보하기 힘든 상황에서 근대 입헌주의에서 보기 어려운 두 가지 조항을 통해 이를 극복하고자 했다. 그 하나가 민주공화정체와 일 견 모순되어 보이는“구황실우대”조항이며, 다른 하나는 인민주권 조항과 모순되어 보 이는“광복운동자”조항이다.
Abstract
The basis for considering the Constitution of the Provisional Korean Government, enacted in September 1919, to be the first modern Constitution of South Korea is not limited to its introduction of modern provisions such as popular sovereignty, basic rights, and the separation of administrative, legislative, and judicial powers. It is also because the subjects and, in particular, the purpose of the Constitution reflect the conceptualization and characteristics of the modern constitution. The tentative Constitution of Korea was instituted through debate and voting by the Provisional National Assembly of Korea in Shanghai. It was the culmination of the political will of Koreans who voluntarily took part in the 1919 Independence Movement. Furthermore, it granted authority and legitimacy to Korea’s new governing order implemented against both the traditional monarchy and the Japanese colonial rule. In this regard, it can be argued that the nature of the tentative Constitution of Korea can be compared to the constitutions of the United States or France, which are deeply rooted in the political will of their sovereign people. The Provisional Government of Korea, which fell short of the conditions and capability necessary to secure its legitimacy by implementing the Constitution, adopted two uncommon provisions as part of an effort to compensate for its shortcomings: a provision of “preferential treatment for the ex-imperial family”, which contradicted its newly-acquired democratic identity, and a provision of “independence activists”, which causes complications in interpreting the Constitution from the viewpoint of modern constitutionalism. Given that the monarchy did not end due to strong resistance and desire for reform by the Korean people that and the Provisional Government lacked legitimacy, the former provision indicates that a symbol of legitimacy and succession was needed for the newly-conceived political order. The provision was not an expression of the government’s advocacy of the monarchy but rather a device to complement and sustain the constitutional state. On the other hand, the provision of “independence activists” may raise serious questions regarding the status of the ProvisionalGovernment as a constitutional state. This provision, which restricted its popular sovereignty to a limited number of independence activists, seems inevitable as a part of the process of changing direction for the independence movement. Since it compromised the foundation and basis for legitimacy of the Provisional Government, however, it weakened the status of the government as a constitutional state.
- 발행기관:
- 한국국제정치학회
- 분류:
- 정치외교학