헌법재판과 헌법해석의 상호관계에 관한 연구

A Study on Interrelationship between Constitutional Adjudication and Constitutional Interpretation

A long-standing dispute in constitutional theory has gone under different names at different times, but today's terminology seems as helpful as any. Today we are likely to call the contending sides "interpretivism" or "originalism" and "noninterprerivism" or "neutral principle"-the former indicating that judges deciding constitutional issues should confine themselves to enforcing norms that are stared or clearly implicit in the written Constitution, the latter the contrary view that courts should go beyond that set of references and enforce norms that cannot be discovered within the four cornets of the document. Since that methodology in constitutional interpretation has been used in judicial review or constitutional adjudication, many scholars thought that both of them are a same thing. Always constitutional interpretation wears a colorful suit, which means constiutional adjudication. So the central question of constitutional interpretation is the propet role of the courts and Korean Constitutional Court in our system ofngovernment. They have been so stressed for an crucial role to interpret constitution. Finally constitutional adjudication will be a dish, which contains food, that is, constitutional interpretation. We should look on such a side interrelation between them.