국민투표법에 관한 비교법적 연구-헌법개정을 위한 국민투표를 중심으로-

This study aims to explore legislative alternatives for amending the National Referendum Act, particularly as “constitutional amendment” has emerged as a top national priority in 2025. Despite this significance, no national referendum has been held since 1987, leaving several provisions impractical for contemporary application. Although the Constitutional Court of Korea issued a decision of “Constitutional Nonconformity” regarding provisions that infringe upon the voting rights of overseas citizens, follow-up legislation has yet to be enacted. In light of this, this research seeks to provide policy implications through a comparative legal analysis of six countries—Switzerland, Taiwan, Japan, Ireland, Denmark, and Australia—that mandate a national referendum for constitutional amendments. The comparative analysis yields the following key implications for the amendment of the National Referendum Act: First, to prevent disputes over the “majority of eligible voters” requirement for a referendum to pass, the definition of “voter” should be clarified. Following Japan’s legislative example, the term should be limited to “persons registered in the local or overseas voter registry among those eligible to vote for National Assembly members.”Second, regarding advance voting, international precedents show a common trend: if advance voting is implemented in general elections, it is also applied to national referendums. Therefore, unless advance voting is abolished in general elections, maintaining it for referendums is the most desirable path to minimize controversies over fairness. Third, under the current Korean system, abstaining from a vote can serve as a legitimate expression of opposition to a proposal. Consequently, it is more appropriate that the National Referendum Act excludes a “sincere voting duty” clause, distinguishing it from the Public Official Election Act. Fourth, Article 130, Paragraph 2 of the current Constitution, which mandates a referendum within 30 days of a National Assembly resolution, was enacted before the consideration of overseas voting. Adhering to this timeframe is currently impossible; thus, the procedural period must be significantly extended to accommodate the logistics of overseas voting. Fifth, the definition of referendum campaigning should explicitly include “the act of encouraging participation or abstention”, and the duration of such campaigning should be maximized to ensure sufficient public discourse. Sixth, to enhance the convenience of overseas voters, it is advisable to pilot a postal voting system starting with constitutional referendums. Finally, this study emphasizes that the decision to hold a national referendum concurrently with a general election should not be based solely on cost and convenience. Instead, it must carefully consider how such concurrency might significantly influence the referendum’s outcome.