Javascript must be enabled to continue!
The Legal Review and Exclusion Rights of Administrative Public Officials
View through CrossRef
There are few constitutional and administrative law scholars discussing whether administrative officials should recognize the right to refuse to apply illegal laws, and they all deny or partially recognize the right of administrative officials to refuse to apply laws. Existing views appear to be those that place more importance on legal stability (one of the Rule of Law) or the hierarchical order of administration. It does not make sense considering that there are no objections to the “Principle of Practical Rule of Law” or “Principle of Legal Superiority” today.
The question of whether or not the right to reject the application of laws and regulations is recognized is questionable whether unnecessary controversy has arisen due to a misunderstanding of when it is finally determined. Whether or not the right to reject the application of laws and regulations is recognized should be the best answer when asking legal responsibilities to the relevant public officials, such as disciplinary responsibility and liability for damages, not when the right to reject the application is exercised. It is absolutely unacceptable as self-denial of the law to hold public officials accountable for exercising the right to reject the application without applying illegal laws. In theory, it is the same as above, but the cases where there are provisions in the actual law can be viewed differently. Since Article 107 of the Constitution of Korea grants the right to jurisdiction of unconstitutional laws to the Constitutional Court, not to the Supreme Court, it can be said that it is difficult to recognize the right to reject the application of unconstitutional laws, which is not recognized even by judges, to administrative officials, which is a reason to treat the case of a law and a regulation.
Even if administrative officials are granted the right to refuse to apply unconstitutional or illegal regulations, there are no side effects such as paralysis of state affairs, and even if the rights are recognized, it is not likely that officials under a strict hierarchy will actually exercise them, so rather than worrying about side effects that will not exist for the protection of people’s rights and the development of democracy, they should consider ways to increase the possibility of actual exercise.
Title: The Legal Review and Exclusion Rights of Administrative Public Officials
Description:
There are few constitutional and administrative law scholars discussing whether administrative officials should recognize the right to refuse to apply illegal laws, and they all deny or partially recognize the right of administrative officials to refuse to apply laws.
Existing views appear to be those that place more importance on legal stability (one of the Rule of Law) or the hierarchical order of administration.
It does not make sense considering that there are no objections to the “Principle of Practical Rule of Law” or “Principle of Legal Superiority” today.
The question of whether or not the right to reject the application of laws and regulations is recognized is questionable whether unnecessary controversy has arisen due to a misunderstanding of when it is finally determined.
Whether or not the right to reject the application of laws and regulations is recognized should be the best answer when asking legal responsibilities to the relevant public officials, such as disciplinary responsibility and liability for damages, not when the right to reject the application is exercised.
It is absolutely unacceptable as self-denial of the law to hold public officials accountable for exercising the right to reject the application without applying illegal laws.
In theory, it is the same as above, but the cases where there are provisions in the actual law can be viewed differently.
Since Article 107 of the Constitution of Korea grants the right to jurisdiction of unconstitutional laws to the Constitutional Court, not to the Supreme Court, it can be said that it is difficult to recognize the right to reject the application of unconstitutional laws, which is not recognized even by judges, to administrative officials, which is a reason to treat the case of a law and a regulation.
Even if administrative officials are granted the right to refuse to apply unconstitutional or illegal regulations, there are no side effects such as paralysis of state affairs, and even if the rights are recognized, it is not likely that officials under a strict hierarchy will actually exercise them, so rather than worrying about side effects that will not exist for the protection of people’s rights and the development of democracy, they should consider ways to increase the possibility of actual exercise.
Related Results
On the Status of Rights
On the Status of Rights
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
In cases where the law conflicts with bioethics, the status of rights must be determined to resolve some of the tensions. ...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Bioethics-CSR Divide
Bioethics-CSR Divide
Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were born out of similar concerns, such as the reaction to scandal and the restraint ...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
A Review of the Constitutional Court's Use of International Human Rights Norms
A Review of the Constitutional Court's Use of International Human Rights Norms
Since the World War, international cooperation has been made to preserve the peace and interests of the human community, and representative results include the creation of internat...
Re Application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland); Reference by Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland Pursuant to Paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Abortion) (Northern Ireland)
Re Application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland); Reference by Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland Pursuant to Paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Abortion) (Northern Ireland)
531Human rights — Rights of women in Northern Ireland — Pregnant women and girls — Autonomy and bodily integrity — Right to respect for private and family life — Rights of persons ...
THE ANALOGY OF STATUTE AND THE ANALOGY OF LAW AS DOCTRINAL INSTRUMENTS FOR LEGAL RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC CHALLENGES
THE ANALOGY OF STATUTE AND THE ANALOGY OF LAW AS DOCTRINAL INSTRUMENTS FOR LEGAL RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC CHALLENGES
Ukraine's contemporary legal system is undergoing a period of significant transformation, which necessitates not only a robust and stable legal framework, but also a flexible doctr...
Corporations in Ukrainian Law
Corporations in Ukrainian Law
This article deals with the special development of the company (or rather corporate) law in Ukrainian legal system. The current legislation does not set the concept of corporation....

