Suchergebnisse

International audience ; As modern constitutions speak in the name of the people, they contribute to constituting the body politic by making potentially contentious claims about its members' identity, rights, and duties. Focusing on the North and South Korean Constitutions, this article examines the claims about peoplehood articulated in both texts since their concurrent adoption in 1948. The analysis argues that these claims are irreducible to the North and the South competing over two ideologically antagonistic conceptions of the body politic—a rivalry supposedly embodied in and magnified by their constitutions' use of differentiated terms to designate the people: inmin and kungmin. Instead, these categories should be seen in light of their synchronic commonalities in the North and South Korean Constitutions as well as diachronic transformations throughout the successive versions of each text, revealing that constituting the people has been less a matter of conflict between both Koreas than within each.

AbstractAs modern constitutions speak in the name of the people, they contribute to constituting the body politic by making potentially contentious claims about its members' identity, rights, and duties. Focusing on the North and South Korean Constitutions, this article examines the claims about peoplehood articulated in both texts since their concurrent adoption in 1948. The analysis argues that these claims are irreducible to the North and the South competing over two ideologically antagonistic conceptions of the body politic—a rivalry supposedly embodied in and magnified by their constitutions' use of differentiated terms to designate the people: inmin and kungmin. Instead, these categories should be seen in light of their synchronic commonalities in the North and South Korean Constitutions as well as diachronic transformations throughout the successive versions of each text, revealing that constituting the people has been less a matter of conflict between both Koreas than within each.

The Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is often dismissed as a valid legal instrument within the larger framework of the North Korean legal system. This is an unsurprising outcome given the portrayal of North Korea as a totalitarian dictatorship, documented human rights abuses, and the lack of access to the country's lawmaking processes. It is also a foreseeable result if comparisons are made to liberal democratic constitutions where rights guarantees and judicial review are defining elements. However, the North Korean Constitution deserves more nuanced scrutiny in light of evolving research on socialist and authoritarian constitutionalism in Asia. This article argues that the DPRK Constitution should be included more substantively within the analytical frameworks of Asian, socialist, and authoritarian constitutionalism by virtue of how it functions to nation-build, legitimate institutional leadership, signal ideological shifts, regulate society on collectivist, duty-based principles, and guide economic reforms for development and modernization. (Asian Perspect/GIGA)

While the South Korean constitution has consistently guaranteed freedom of the press in much the same way as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, press freedom in South Korea in terms of practice is somewhat antithetical to that of the USA. The paper enquires why the South Korean press is "extremely careful" in its criticism of the South Korean government and what kind of political, legal and social measures have been employed by the government to tame the South Korean press. (DÜI-Sen)