평화적 생존권의 보장을 위한 한일판례 분석 ― 일본 나가누마(長沼) 판결에 대한 연구를 중심으로 ―

The Constitutional Court of Korea traces the origin of the right to live in peace to Japanese academia and lower court rulings. However, it denies recognizing it as a basic constitutional right for several reasons: the Japanese Supreme Court itself has denied the right’s justiciability; Korea, with a different constitutional framework, lacks explicit provisions supporting it; and the concept of “peace” itself is too abstract to establish a concrete, enforceable right. Yet, is it inevitable for Korean discourse on the right to live in peace to follow Japan’s trajectory? The study begins with this question and seeks to analyze, in historical sequence, the full proceedings of the Japanese Naganuma case—the most significant among the lower court rulings referenced by the Constitutional Court. If Japan’s conception of the right to live in peace arose from its unique legal and historical context, there is no necessity for Korea to tread down the same path. Nevertheless, the Korean Constitutional Court continues to adopt an excessively narrow interpretation of the right to live in peace. By referencing recent U.N. resolutions, this study suggests developing a framework in which individuals could also invoke this right in response to domestic acts that undermine peace and stability of the people. Such an approach would better serve the constitutional purpose of guaranteeing fundamental rights.