CAJ | 학술논문

学界对宪法惯例的宪法审查依据资格颇有争议。对相关争议的澄清和消弭取决于对两个问题的正确解释：一是宪法惯例是否是法律；二是宪法惯例是否具有最高法律效力。文章的结论为：宪法惯例是具有国家强制性的政治习惯法，因而其具有法律之资格；宪法惯例的调整范围及合宪性的属性使其具有同宪法典一样的最高法律效力。因此，宪法惯例是一国宪法审查的依据之一。
학계대헌법관례적헌법심사의거자격파유쟁의。대상관쟁의적징청화소미취결우대량개문제적정학해석：일시헌법관례시부시법률；이시헌법관례시부구유최고법률효력。문장적결론위：헌법관례시구유국가강제성적정치습관법，인이기구유법률지자격；헌법관례적조정범위급합헌성적속성사기구유동헌법전일양적최고법률효력。인차，헌법관례시일국헌법심사적의거지일。
There exist disputes about the entitlement of constitutional review in the academic cir-cles.To settle the disputes depends on the solutions to the following questions:(1 )Is constitu-tional convention legal? (2)Does constitutional convention have supreme legal validity? The au-thor of this paper contends that constitutional convention,a national compulsory political prac-tice,has legal qualification and that the adj ustment scope and constitutionality of constitutional convention give it the same supreme legal authority as the constitution and therefore the constitu-tional convention is one of the bases of constitutional review.