유럽헌법학회

The Basic Act on the Status and Service of Military Soldiers enacted to guarantee the basic rights of soldiers and to regulate matters related to military duties and military life includes the Basic Policy on Military Service, the Basic Rights of Soldiers, It regulates matters related to duties, matters related to barrack life, matters related to the remedy of soldiers' rights, and matters related to special work. This law was enacted ① the need for legislative response to human rights violations in the military, ② to overcome the limitations of existing legislation. Therefore, it is expected to be a great legislation of the legislation, as it provides a specific plan for remedy of rights, rather than simply regulating declarative rights and obligations. It is likely that the contents of the remedy for human rights violations and procedures are being prepared in the military, such as suggesting opinions, handling grievances, and deploying professional counselors. The ‘Basic Service for Military Personnel Service’ is an institutional mechanism for guaranteeing military service, and it is mandatory to establish a ‘military human rights guard’ to protect the basic rights of soldiers and to remedy the infringement of basic rights. Despite the fact that such legislative obligations have been granted as laws, the law has not been enacted until more than five years after the law is enacted. The reality is that discussions are not actively taking place. Therefore, it will be necessary to provide additional legislative measures to supplement the inadequacy of legislation and to seek institutional measures that can serve as a practical guarantee for military service. This could be an opportunity not only to establish a military guardian system, but also to find ways to utilize the system in connection with the actualization of the new Ombudsman system. First, as a military ombudsman, the legal meaning and contents of the military guard were reviewed, and the institutionalization plan was reviewed. To this end, the current status of debate on the introduction of the military protection officer system was reviewed since 2005, and the limitations on inadequate legislation were reviewed through the background and legislative framework of the Framework Act on Military Service. The matters related to the establishment of the military service protection center were developed with a focus on the matters regarding the organization and the duties. The debate on the organizational structure is as follows: ① The method of placing a military guard in the National Assembly, ② the method of placing it in the National Human Rights Commission, ③ the method of placing it in the National Human Rights Commission, the method of installing it in the Ministry of National Defense, and the method of placing an independent organization. Presented. In connection with the contents of the direct text, the ex post action and comparative laws of the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States were considered and presented together. The plan to institutionalize the military protection officer was to comprehensively review and present various opinions regarding the establishment and authority of the organization based on general matters such as expulsion, legislative purpose, scope of application, and scope of human rights. The legislative plan of the military protection officer system emphasized the need for separate independent legislation, and the legislative purpose was asked to clearly present the nature of the organizational law and the legislative purpose to protect the human rights of soldiers. The soldiers subject to this Act were to include military service personnel and cadets and candidates serving in active duty, as well as military service reserves and supplements. In addition, the scope of application was clearly presented so that military personnel could be applied according to soldiers. The scope of military rights was considered as a whole that could be recognized as a range encompassing the universal scope of basic rights or human rights. Organizational matters need to be discussed more, but the Ministry of National Defense, etc. has suggested ways to belong to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea to review related matters from a more objective perspective.