[법학] 미국과 한국의 법원의 역할 비교 분석(영문)

※ 미리보기 이미지는 최대 20페이지까지만 지원합니다.

분야
등록일
페이지/형식
구매가격
적립금

레포트 > 법학계열
2011.08.29
25페이지 / ppt
2,100원
63원 (구매자료 3% 적립)

자료 다운로드 네이버 로그인

추천자료

우리나라 법제도의 대륙법적 특성

[특허소송]특허소송의 의의,실태, 특허소송의 당사자,절차, 특허소송의 준비절차제도,소제기, 특허소송의 효력,대응전략 분석

사회복지법의 이해00

서울대학교 법학도서관과 법원도서관의 장서관리정책 분석 및 비교

소개글

[법학] 미국과 한국의 법원의 역할 비교 분석(영문)에 대한 자료입니다.

1. Comparing systems of judicature
2. Role of the Constitutional Court
Background information before we go on

‘Political Question’ & ‘Standing’
1. ‘Political Question’ in U.S.
2. Act of Government in Korea
3. Comparative Study(2)

Comparavive Study in Standing between U.S. & Korea
1. Concept of Standing Doctrine
2. Elements of Standing Doctrine

3-1. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law
3-2. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law
3-3. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law
3-4. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law
3-5. Sachlegitimation in Korean Constitutional Law

4. Comparative Study(1)
4. Comparative Study(2)
4. Comparative Study(3)
4. Comparative Study(4)

본문내용

In Korea, because the Constitutional Court has the sole power of impeachment, it will try a judge if the National Assembly passes motions for his impeachment according to Article 65 and 111 of the constitution.

Article 65 of Korea Constitution states that "In case the President, the Prime Minister, members of the State Council, heads of Executive Ministries, Justices of the Constitutional Court, judges, members of the National Election Commission, the Chairman and members of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and other public officials designated by Act have violated the Constitution or other Acts in the performance of official duties, the National Assembly may pass motions for their impeachment."

Article 111 of Korea Constitution states that “(1) The Constitutional Court shall have jurisdiction over the following matters: 2. Impeachment”

the element of justiciability that measures whether the plantiff has alleged direct, personal, and sufficiently substantial injury to entitle him or her to have the suit heard by the court

① Injury in fact
The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical’.”
② Concrete and Particularized
The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized.
③ Causation & Redressability
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.”
It must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S.(1992) at 560~61

#비교 #역할 #법학 #분석 #법원

오늘 본 자료

오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.

이 분야 인기자료

이 분야 신규자료