earticle

영어

Culture, Cultural State, and the Constitutional Principle of Cultural State were topics that seldom received attention of constitutional scholars until recently. This late interest can be attributed to the fact that the term 'Cultural State' cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. Also, there was no consensus on how the constitution should address culture in general. The preamble of the Constitution mention the word ‘culture’ in the context of "to afford equal opportunities to every person … in all fields including political, economic, social and cultural life … ." However much of the focus had been on how to best reflect political, economic, social principles into the constitutional text. Cultural principles had been left aside. The 1980 Constitution is the first constitution to explicitly stipulate the concept of culture, cultural heritage, national culture. Article 9 of the current Constitution sets out that "the State shall strive to sustain and develop the cultural heritage and to enhance national culture." According to Article 69, the President at the time of his/her inauguration takes an oath which includes a duty of "endeavoring to develop national culture." After the promulgation of the 1980 Constitution, the constitutional academia incorporated the principle of cultural state as a fundamental constitutional principle. It must be noted, however, that the current article limits the breadth of the principle of cultural state to comprise only cultural heritage and ethnic culture. Despite the narrow construction, the constitutional academia and the Constitutional Court acknowledges the principle of cultural state as a fundamental principle of the Korean Constitution. Thus, the 1980 Constitution is the basis for the cultural state principle becoming a pillar of the constitution. Another aspect that should be considered is that Korea's GNI per capita surpassed the $10,000 mark in the 1990's. This meant that physiological needs such as food, clothing, shelter were satisfied to some extent, and that people could afford to become interested in higher needs such as culture. Subsequently, one can observe a change of what is being emphasized with regards to 'the right to a life worth of human beings.' In the early years of the Republic of Korea, material affluence was the key factor in determining whether the right to a life worth of human beings was fulfilled. Now the focus is on whether people are provided with an environment where one can live a mentally affluent life. While the 19th century saw the emergence of the liberal democratic government, the 20th century was dominated by the social welfare state. At this juncture, freedom could no longer be realized by simply ensuring political freedoms, such as the freedom of expression. The cry of "Give me liberty, or give me death" had its heyday in the 19th century but lost its significance in the 20th century. Freedom in the 20th century required both mental elements and material elements. A life worth of human beings meant freedom from both mental and material deficiencies. But the social welfare state which aimed to provide a system of social insurance 'from cradle to grave' emphasized fulfilling the material needs of individuals. With the recognition that the right to a life worth of human beings cannot be met solely by material conditions, social rights or right to live confronted a new challenge. Mental elements regained importance and the constitutional principle of cultural state was called upon. As the principle of cultural state is the most recently incorporated fundamental constitutional principle, the contours of the principle is uncertain. Further studies on the relationship between the long-standing constitutional principles of liberal democracy, rule of law, social welfare state, international peace and the fledgling principle of cultural state are ongoing. In understanding the raison d'être of the principle of cultural state, a harmonious interpretation of the constitutional principle with other conventional principles is needed.

한국어

헌법 본문에서 ‘문화’, ‘전통문화’, ‘민족문화’를 본격적으로 규정한 것은 1980년 헌법 제8조에서 비롯된다. 더 나아가 대통령은 취임에 즈음하여 “민족문화의 창달에 노력하여”라고 선서한다(제69조). 이로부터 헌법학에서도 본격적으로 헌법상 국가의 기본원리의 하나로 문화국가원리를 설명하기에 이른다. 하지만 현행헌법규정은 문화국가원리의 정립이라는 차원에서 본다면 전통문화ㆍ민족문화에 한정되어 있다는 점에 한계가 있다. 한국헌법의 기본원리로 문화국가를 드는 것은 오늘날 헌법학계 및 헌법재판소 판례의 일반적인 경향이다. 1990년대에 이르러 우리나라의 국민소득이 1만 달러 시대를 열면서 단순히 의식주에 집중되었던 삶의 관심이 문화라는 새로운 계명된 영역에까지 확대되었다. 사회권(생존권)으로서 ‘인간다운 생활을 할 권리’가 초기의 물질적 삶 중심에서 정신적 삶으로 옮겨가면서 그 정신적 삶의 중심에 문화가 자리 잡게 되었다. 생활의 기본적 소여 중에서 물질적 소여로는 인간이 인간다울 수 없다는 점이 드러나면서 생존권 내지 사회권은 새로운 시대적 상황에 직면한다. 인간의 정신세계에서의 생활의 기본적 소여를 요구받게 된다. 바로 여기에 문화국가론이 헌법의 기본원리로 요구받는다. 자유민주주의원리, 법치국가원리, 사회복지국가원리, 국제평화주의라는 전통적인 국가원리에 문화국가원리가 어떻게 접목되어 제자리를 잡을 수 있을 것인가에 대한 논의는 이제 본격적으로 시작되고 있는 단계에 있다. 문화국가원리가 이들 전통적이고 고전적인 국가와 헌법의 기본원리와 함께하는 길을 열어가면서 문화국가원리의 시대적 소명을 읽어나가야 할 것이다.