國民代表關係의 法的 性格

A Study on the legal meaning of the Representation of the Nation in the Representative Democracy

&nbsp;&nbsp;Since the Civil Revolution in 18th century, European countries have introduced the Representative Democracy as political principle in their Constitutions. They have denied imperative mandate and have approved independence of the representatives from the Nation. If so, what is the legal meaning of the Representation of the Nation in the Representative Democracy? Many scholars have argued on it. Someone, for example P. Laband, H. Kelsen denied the legal meaning of it, but someone, for example G. Jellinek affirmed it.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;I think there are some issues to be argued to explain the legal meaning of the Representation of the Nation.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;A) What are the meanings of legal representation and of political representation, and what is difference between them? If the Representation of the Nation does not have any legal meaning, what&quot;s the legal meaning of many principles of the Constitution that are founded upon it?<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;B) Is the Nation an independent legal subject? Can it have the sovereignty, and can it be represented?<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;C) Who are the representatives of the Nation? Is there any connection between election and the representation?<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;I conclude that the representatives of the Nation are the organs of the Nation, and that there are no connection between election and the representation.