Regime Transition and the Judicial Politics of Enmity: Democratic Inclusion and Exclusion in South Korean Constitutional Justice

ISBN-13: 9781137575074 / Angielski / Twarda / 2016 / 248 str.

Justine Guichard

Opis

The issue of defining and redefining enmity has been at the heart of constitutional justice since South Korea's change of regime. This book explores how the Constitutional Court of Korea has addressed this challenge, carving the contours of who is included in or excluded from the body politic throughout its jurisprudence.

Spis treści

Prologue
1. Interrogating Constitutional Justice: Contingency and Ambivalence of the South Korean Court's Role as Guardian of the Constitution
2. Transitioning by Amendment: The 1987 Revision of Constitutional Norms and Institutions
3. Post-Authoritarian Contentious Politics: Constitutional Empowerment from Below
4. Reviewing how the Enemy is Defined: From the Security of the State to the 'Basic Order of Free Democracy'
5. Reviewing the Contours of the National Community: The Body Politic Beyond and Below the 38th Parallel
6. Reviewing how the Enemy is Treated: Criminal Rights even for National Security Offenders
7. Reviewing the Exigencies of National Defense: Citizens' War-Related Rights and Duties
Epilogue

O autorze

Justine Guichard is Research Associate at Sciences Po's Center for International Relations (CERI), France. She holds a PhD in political science from Sciences Po, France, and Columbia University, USA.

Blurb

Among the societies that experienced a political transition away from authoritarianism in the 1980s, South Korea is known as a paragon of 'successful democratization.' This achievement is considered to be intimately tied to a new institution introduced with the 1987 change of regime, intended to safeguard fundamental norms and rights: the Constitutional Court of Korea. While constitutional justice is largely celebrated for having achieved both purposes, this book proposes an innovative and critical account of the court's role. Relying on an interpretive analysis of jurisprudence, it uncovers the ambivalence with which the court has intervened in the major dispute opposing the state and parts of civil society after the transition: (re)defining enmity. In response to this challenge, constitutional justice has produced both liberal and illiberal outcomes, promoting the rule of law and basic rights while reinforcing the mechanisms of exclusion bounding South Korean democracy in the name of national security.