헌법과 통일문제

Abstract

우리 헌법은 통일에 관련된 조항을 몇군데 두고 있다. 그 중 영토조항(제3조)와 평화통일조항(제4조)이 서로 상충되는 것처럼 규정되어 있어 기의 해석에 대하여서로 다른 학설이 대립되어 왔다. 다수설과 판례는 북한지역도 대한민국의 영토라고 해석하고 북한의 국가성을 인정하지 않을 뿐만 아니라 불법반국가단체로 보아왔다. 그런데 이러한 해석은 오늘날의 국내외 상황과 부합되지 않으므로 헌법개정론, 헌법변천론 등이 제기되었다. 영토조항은 대한민국이 앞으로 달성해아 할 목표를 제시하고 있는 이념적·역사적·미래지향적·프로그램적 성격의 조항이고, 평화통일조항은 그 목표를 달성하기 위한 절차와 방법과 내용을 규정하고 있는 구체적·법적 성격의 조항이라고 보아야 한다. 이러한 우리 헌법의 해석에 따르면, 남한주도의 흡수통일방안과 제3의 체제로의 합의통일방안만이 헌법에 합치되는 통일방안이 된다. 정부는 헌법에 합치되는 통일방안을 수립·추진하여야 할 것이다.

There are several clauses related to reunification of Korea in the constitution. In them, two clauses, the territory clause (art. 3) and the peaceful reunification clause(art. 4) look contradictory each other, so there are several views on their interpretation. Majority views and the Supreme Court decision deny North Korea as a state, and say that the northern part of the Korean Peninsula is a part of terriotry of the R.O.K. As for today's domestic and international situation, such an interpretation cannot be justified. So some say that the constitution should be revised, others explain the territory clause as a theory of constitutional change.

But I interprete two clauses as following;

The territory clause with ideologic, historical, future-oriented, and programmatic character prescribes a goal that Korea should attain in the future, and the peaceful reunification clause with concrete and legal character presecribes a procedure, method and content that Korea should follow in order to attain such a goal.

According to our interpretation, two methods of reunification are constitutional. One is absorption of North Korea by South, the other is reunification to the 3rd system on the basis of consensus between South and North Korea. Korean government should formulate and carry out the constitutional reunification policy.

There are several clauses related to reunification of Korea in the constitution. In them, two clauses, the territory clause (art. 3) and the peaceful reunification clause(art. 4) look contradictory each other, so there are several views on their interpretation. Majority views and the Supreme Court decision deny North Korea as a state, and say that the northern part of the Korean Peninsula is a part of terriotry of the R.O.K. As for today's domestic and international situation, such an interpretation cannot be justified. So some say that the constitution should be revised, others explain the territory clause as a theory of constitutional change.

But I interprete two clauses as following;

The territory clause with ideologic, historical, future-oriented, and programmatic character prescribes a goal that Korea should attain in the future, and the peaceful reunification clause with concrete and legal character presecribes a procedure, method and content that Korea should follow in order to attain such a goal.

According to our interpretation, two methods of reunification are constitutional. One is absorption of North Korea by South, the other is reunification to the 3rd system on the basis of consensus between South and North Korea. Korean government should formulate and carry out the constitutional reunification policy.