창조된 역사,웨스트팔리아조약의 함의에 대한 비판적 고찰

김성원(Kim Sung Won) 국제법평론회 2016 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.44

International law scholars would not have any difficulty to agree with the notion that the very birth of international system composed of states would be traced back to the conclusion of the Treaty of Westphalia. Also, if international law scholars would be asked to pick up one event that could not be perishable forever, the answer to this would be going to the peace of Westphalia. Put it differently, the term ‘Westphalia’ could be regarded as the starting point of international law and the turning point of international system. Generally, the Treaty of Westphalia is understood as revolutionary historical records which witnessed the collapse of the universal spiritual actor (the Holy Roman Empire) and the rise of individual secular actor (Sovereign States). The argument that the medieval feudal system of world was vaporized and modern state system of world was emerged at the moment of conclusion of the Treaty of Westphalia would be accepted as the inexorable truth among scholars of international law and international relations. Through heuristic reproduction, the story of the Westphalian aftermath would acquire the status of the myth, which should not be challenged or modified among the fields of international law and international relations. Is it true about above mentioned adoration of the Westphalian myth? What if real things carved in the Treaty of Westphalia would not be identical to the common understanding of the Westphalian myth? If this could be, what would be the milestone event for the creation of international system operated by sovereign states? This could require us to make the painstaking effort to explore the deepest abyss of historical records touching on the notion of state sovereignty and international system. Recently, the painstaking effort has been made in the support of revisionist approach to the Treaty of Westphalia generally backed up by historians and some of international relations scholars. Their revelation of crude nature of the Treaty of Westphalia could be powerful weapons for destroying the ghost of the Westphalian myth. Despite historical truth about the Treaty of Westphalia which could not be compatible with the Westphalian myth, international law and international relations scholars would still take a stubborn position to the real images of the Treaty of Westphalia. Reasons for this would be found at the various sources. However, the main reason for that could be found at the unstinting effort of international law and international relations scholar: No matter what, the Treaty of Westphalia could be remembered as the very origin of sovereign states and international system. This effort undoubtedly makes a huge contribution to keep the Westphalia myth be survived. The challenges to the Westphalian myth should not be understood as the total negation of the Westphalian Treaty’s historical values. Without doubt, the Treaty of Westphalia did make a substantial and material contribution to the creation of international system composed of sovereign states. However, acknowledging the value of the Westphalian Treaty is one thing, the search for the real contents of the Westphalian Treaty is another thing. With the help of authentic interpretation of the Treaty of Westphalia, the future of international law addressing with the activities of sovereign states could be prospected in the relevant and desirable way. What is definitely needed is not the adoration of the Treaty of Westphalia as the turning point of international relations history. What is definitely needed is the dramatic change turning attitudes of international law and international relations scholars toward the Treaty of the Westphalia.

조약과 일반적으로 승인된 국제법규의 법적 효력 – 헌법재판소와 대법원의 해석을 중심으로 -

노기호 한국법정책학회 2022 법과 정책연구 Vol.22 No.4

Article 6 (1) of the Constitution states, “The treaties concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized international laws has the same effect as the internal law.” In this regard, the Constitutional Court concluded that a treaty as referred to herein is an explicit agreement that has legal effect between states, and the relationship between rights and obligations between the parties. In addition, as a distinguishing criterion for judging whether a treaty is authorized, the Court of Justice is presented in two ways : a formal aspect and a substantive aspect. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court ruled that the general international treaties and international. Although the judgment seems to be regarded as a concept of a generally accepted international law, Conventions that correspond to general international treaties to which Korea has not acceded are already acceded to. Because the treaty is in effect as a manufacturing method, 'Treaties approved in the provinces which Korea did not join but many countries join' should be seen as difficult to find any more. A treaty concluded and promulgated under the Constitution pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Constitution has the same effect as the domestic law. In this regard, the Constitutional Court first decided on what “domestic law” means in detail. It is made clear that the Constitution is not included in the seeing it happen. In addition, the Constitutional Court has a question on what order of effect has the effect of the legal system of domestic law. Based on the treaty supremacy of the Constitution, the court has the legal effect on treaties concluded with the consent of the National Assembly. Although it does not explicitly state whether it has the effect of domestic legal status, it is an indirect interpretation can be regarded as having the same effect as a command. Important issues that may arise in treaty practice in the domestic application of treaties and generally accepted international law. One issue is how to set the effective date of the treaty, and the national government in concluding and ratifying the treaty. In the case where a treaty requiring the consent of the meeting is being implemented in Korea without the consent of the National Assembly, the validity of the treaty is recognized. In the former case, the date of entry into force of the treaty at the time of conclusion of the treaty is directly [Keywords:treaty, general approval international law, conclusion and promulgation of treaty, same effect as domestic law, consent of the National Assembly related to the treaty. 헌법재판소는 조약이란 국가 간에 법적 효과를 가져 오는 명시적인 합의로서, 당사국 간에 권리·의무 관계를 발생시키는 문서를 말한다고 한다. 그리고 조약인가의 여부를 판단하는 구별기준으로 헌법재판소는 형식적인 측면과 실체적인 측면으로 나누어 제시하고 있다. 한편, 우리나라가 가입하지 않은 일반성을 지닌 국제조약에 해당하는 조약들은 이미 우리나라가 가입하여 국제법으로서의 조약의 효력을 발휘하고 있기 때문에 ‘우리나라가 가입하지는 않았으나 많은 국가들에서 승인된 조약’은 더 이상 찾아보기 어렵다. 헌법 제6조 제1항에서 언급하고 있는 “국내법”이 구체적으로 무엇을 의미하는가에 대해 헌법재판소는 일단, 이 “국내법”에 헌법은 포함되지 않는다는 것을 분명히 하고 있으며, 국내법의 법체계상 어떠한 순위의 효력을 가지는가에 대해서는 헌법의 조약우위설에 입각하여, 국회의 동의를 얻어 체결된 조약에 대해 법률적 효력을 가지는 것으로 보고 있다. 헌법재판소가 ‘일반적으로 승인된 국제법규’에 대하여 헌법적 효력을 가지고 있어 위헌심사의 기준이 된다거나 직접적으로 이 조약에 위반되어 위헌이라고 분명하게 밝힌 적은 없다. 조약과 일반적으로 승인된 국제법규의 국내적용에 있어 조약 실무상 문제될 수 있는 중요한 사안으로는 조약의 효력발생 시기를 어떻게 설정할 것인가와 조약의 체결·비준에 있어 국회의 동의를 요하는 조약을 국회의 동의 없이 국내에 시행하고 있는 경우의 그 효력의 인정 여부를 들 수 있다. 조약의 시행 후에 발생하는 여러 가지의 국제법적인 문제와 국내법적인 문제를 고려하여 조약실무 차원에서 적용할 수 있는 기준을 마련할 필요가 있다고 하겠다.

국제적 헌법주의의 실현형태로서 국제적 인권보장체계에 대한 검토

박진완(PARK Zin Wan) 유럽헌법학회 2014 유럽헌법연구 Vol.15 No.-

아시아에서의 국제적 인권보장체계의 확립과 이러한 인권보장체계의 재판기관을 통한 실행의 문제에 대한 검토의 시발점은 우선적으로 국제인권법질서의 보장의 문제의 측면에서 헌법주의(constitutionalism)의 국내적 보장을 넘어서는 국제적 전개과정에 대한 분석이 될 것이다. 왜냐하면 아시아에서의 유럽인권협약(European Convention on Human Rights) 혹은 유럽연합의 기본권 헌장과 같은 인권보장체계의 확립과 유럽인권법원 혹은 유럽연합법원과 같은 법원을 통한 권리보장의 관철의 문제는 오늘날 개인의 근본적 권리(fundamental rights)로서 인권을 보장하는 두개의 중요한 중요한 시스템(system)인 헌법과 국제인권법에 의해서만 가능하기 때문이다. 특히 적극적으로 헌법규범을 집행하는 자유주의 국가(liberal states)에서는 이 두 시스템 사이의 관계의 중요성은 점점 더 증가하는 것으로 나타난다. 조약의 헌법에로의 전환의 두 번째 유형인 합의(cosens)에서 강제(compulsion)로의 이행의 대표적인 전형은 유럽연합이다. 그래서 일반적인 유럽연합의 거버넌스 구조(governance structure)에 있어서 조건이 부여된 다수결(qualified mojority voting)의 강제적 요소가 존재하고, 유럽연합법원(ECJ)은 구성국가자격 유지조건으로서 모든 구성국가에 대하여 강제적 관할권(compulsory jurisdiction)을 행사하여 왔다. 유럽연합과 달리 일반적으로 국제법의 범위내서는 강제적 거버넌스 구조(compulsory governance structure)가 안보이사회(Security Council)에 제한된 사안에 대한 관할권이 주어진 유엔(UN), 국제무역기구(World Trade Organization) 항소부(Appellate Body)의 강제적 재결(compusory adjudication) 그리고 유럽인권법원(European Court of Human Rights) 속에서 아주 제한적으로 구현되었다. 유럽연합을 제외한 강제적 거버넌스를 통한 헌법화 모델(model of constitutionalization via governance)은 불가피하게 모든 지배적 기능을 동원하여 적용하는 인권법체계보다는 국제무역기구(WTO)와 같은 기능적으로-완비된 국제적 체제(Regime)와 가장 관련성을 가지는 것으로 보여진다. 게다가 권리장전들(bills of rights)은 물론 어떤 지배적 구조를 구성하는 것을 목적으로 하기 보다는 오히려 이러한 지배구조가 성립되는 것을 혹은 이미 성립한 그러한 구조를 제한하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 엄격한 의미에서의 구성국가자격유지의 조건으로서 인권법원의 강제적 관할권(compulsory jurisdiction)은 유럽인권법원(European Court of Human Rights)에만 한정된 상태로 존재한다. 미주간 인권법원(Inter-American Corut of Human Rights)은 단지 강제적 관할권을 수용하는 것을 선택한 당사자 국가에 대해서만 이를 행사하여 왔다. 헌법규범들은 일반적 국제법(ordinary international law)의 제정을 가능하게 만든다 (이른바 규범형성적 헌법화(enabling constitutionalization)). 국제기관에 대하여 제2차적 국제법(secondary international law)을 제정하는 능력을 부여하는 조약조항이 이에 해당한다. 예컨대 유럽연합을 창설하는 조약들은 제2차적 유럽연합입법의 제정을 위한 복잡한 절차를 마련해 준다. 이와 유사하게 국제연합헌장(United Nations Charter)은 안전보장이사회(Security Council)에 대하여 확실한 상황하에서 국제연합 구성국가들에 대하여 구속력을 가지는 규범을 제정할 권한을 부여한다. 이러한 예들은 규범형성적 헌법화의 명백한 예들에 해당한다. 국제재판소들 역시 규범형성적 헌법화에 관여한다. 아시아에서의 이러한 규범형성적 헌법화로서 지역적 인권보장체제와 이의 실현을 뒷받침하는 인권법원의 성립을 희망해본다. The starting point for the inquire about establishment of international system for protecting human right and practical enforcement of this sysytem through the international judiciary with compulsory jurisdiction in Asia would be the investigation into development of international constitutionalism beyond domestic constitutionalism for guarantee of international human rights system. Constitutional law and international human rights law are two important system for providing protecting insurance against infringemt of individual human rights in the domestic or international area. The relationship between two legal system is being more and more closed and improved. In Aisa as a place where there is no formal treaty based regime to make sure human rights, it is very necessary to make discussion about international compensatory constitutionalism as legitimate foundation for protecting human rights, because constitutionalism ist not related to interpretation of legal document, but provide legal frame as justifiable basis bringing to realization of constitutional ideas. The European Union can testified constitutionalization of international law through shift of characteristic as international treaty from multilateral treaty by way of state consenus to constitutional compulsory treaty. The direct effect of the european union law made important contributions in passover of the European Union from international regime based on international treaty to supranational constitutional treaty. In this shift the European Court of Justice play a very important role through its compulsory jurisdiction. The European Convention on Human Rights as regional international treaty in a different way from law of the European Union with direct effect achieved its function for protecting fundamental rights through the compulsury jurisdiction of Europena Court of Human Rights. These two international regimes for protecting human rights in Europe could be as good discription of a system used for adopting Asian international human rights treaty. International constitutional norms would be considered as fresh impetus to establish international treaty regime for protecting human rights in Asia. It is a important function of compensatory constitutionalizaion for proctecting human rights.

미국의 조약체결 관행과 국내적 시사점

김인숙 한국법제연구원 2012 법제연구 Vol.- No.43

The process for making binding international agreements in the United States today proceeds along two separate but parallel tracks. Submitted to the Senate under the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, the treaty must gain the consent of two-thirds of the Senate in order to become law for the United States. The other hand, these international agreements are generally called executive agreements, are proceeding not through the Treaty Clause, but subject to approval by a majority of both houses of Congress. There are three types of executive agreements: Congressional-Executive Agreements, Treaty Implement Agreement and Presidential Agreement. The three are distinguishable by the legal authority upon which they rest. Because the Treaty Clause requires that all but thirty-three members of the Senate assent to a treaty and includes no provision for participation by members of the House, it surely makes a substantial difference which of these two methods is used. Relying on customs and practices, the Senate has unsuccessfully sought to distinguish between treaties and executive agreements by claiming that the former is reserved for substantive agreements and the latter for routine and essentially non-political business. Especially US Department of primary concern of treaty and courts have been endeavoring to establish standards to secure procedural legitimacy of executive agreements for a long time, because the agreements that the president concludes under the constitutional authority have been causing lots of confusions about procedures and domestic legal effects. On the one hand, in the Korean legal system there are two categories of treaties. According to the Articles 60, paragraph 1 of Korean Constitution, the National Assembly shall have the right to consent to the conclusion and ratification of treaties. Like the executive agreements in the United States, international agreements concluded without the consent of the National Assembly in korea have been causing lots of confusions about procedures and domestic legal effects. We have no reason to consider or follow US traditions strictly because domestic managements of international agreements are rulled by relevant countries' respective codes, and new legal principles which accords with Korean domestic affairs and which sets up the relationship between subordinates and superiors about the international treaties and domestic laws needs to be developed in accordance with the international obligations. Especially we need to take into account that US Congress have their limits to control the executive agreements because of their international effects, even though they are subordinated to domestic laws. It is the same in Korea that we need to pay attention to the fact that we cannot be sure of the actual effect of control to any kinds of international agreements which is subordinated to domestic laws. It means that apart from the domestic possibility of the administrational control to the international agreements, still international obligations remains. So conclusions and revisions of international agreements should be in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution securing procedural controls on the basis of the Articles 60, paragraph 1 of Korean Constitution, and we need to establish flexible practices to obtain practical interests by not formalizing the relationship between subordinates and superiors of the international agreements and domestic laws excessively. 미국에서 국제합의를 체결하는 과정은 두 개의 독립된 절차로 나뉜다. 그래서 미국은 일반적으로 타국과 체결하는 국제합의를 그 체결절차에 따라 ‘조약’과 행정협정으로 구분하는 관행을 학립하고 있다. 우선 미국에서는 헌법상 대통령이 상원의 조언과 동의를 얻어 조약을 체결하도록 규정하고 있는바, 동 규정에 따라 상원의 동의를 얻어 체결한 국제합의를 ‘조약’으로 명칭하고 있다. 한편 미국에서는 행정부가 헌법상 규정하고 있는 상원의 동의절차를 거치지 않고 단독으로 국제합의들을 체결하는 경우가 더 빈번한데 이를 ‘조약’과 구분하여 행정협정이라 총칭하고 있는 것이다. 미국의 학설 및 판례 등을 종합적으로 고려할 때 행정협정은 대통령 행정협정, 의회수권 행정협정, 조약이행 행정협정 등으로 구분된다. 그러나 특히 대통령이 헌법에 따라 부여된 권한의 범위내에서 체결하는 행정협정이 그 절차 및 국내법적 효력과 관련하여 많은 혼란을 초래하면서 조약 주무부서인 미 국무성과 법원은 오랜 세월에 걸쳐 행정협정의 절차적 정당성을 확보하기 위한 기준마련에 노력을 기울여왔다. 한편 우리나라에서도 조약은 크게 두 개의 범주로 구분된다. 대통령은 우리 헌법 제60조 제1항 규정에 따라 일정한 조약을 체결・비준할 때는 국회의 동의를 받도록 하고 있다. 따라서 국제합의의 유형에 따라 국회의 동의를 받는 것과 그렇지 않는 것이 존재한다. 미국에서처럼 우리나라에서도 국회의 동의를 받지 않고 체결한 국제합의의 절차적 문제와 국내적 효력에 관한 문제가 논란이 되어왔다. 국제합의의 국내적 효력을 어떻게 운영할 것인지는 국가마다 각각 다른 관행들에 의해 운영되므로 우리나라가 미국의 관행만을 일방적으로 참작하거나 따를 필요는 없으며, 국제의무에 부합하는 한도 내에서 우리의 국내사정에 맞는 국제조약과 국내법의 상위관계에 대한 법리를 개발할 필요가 있을 것으로 판단된다. 특히 미국도 행정협정이 체결되어 국내법보다 하위규범으로 인정된다 할지라도 동 행정협정의 국제법적 효력 때문에 의회에 의한 통제가 실효성을 갖추지 못하는 한계에 직면하고 있다는 점을 고려할 필요가 있다. 우리의 경우에도 어떤 형태의 국제조약이든 국내법보다 하위 규범으로 인정한다고 하여 그에 대한 통제가 실효성을 확보할 수 있을 것이라고 단정할 수는 없다는 점에 유의할 필요가 있는 것이다. 국내적으로 행정부의 국제합의 체결에 대한 통제가 가능할 수는 있으나 여전히 국제적 의무는 남아있게 된다는 점을 감안해야 한다는 것이다. 따라서 국제합의의 체결은 헌법 제60조 입헌목적에 근거한 절차적 차원에서의 통제를 통해 헌법정신에 위배되지 않도록 하되, 국내법과의 상위관계를 지나치게 형식화하지 않음으로서 대외적 관계에서 실리를 얻을 수 있는 융통성 있는 조약의 실행관행을 확립해 나갈 필요가 있을 것으로 판단된다. 주제어:국제합의, 조약, 행정협정, 미국헌법 조약조항, 헌법 제60조1항, 대통령행정협정, 의회수권행정협정, 조약이행행정협정

1910년 ‘한·일병합조약’의 국제법적 재조명

도시환 ( Doh See-hwan ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2010 외법논집 Vol.34 No.1

The year 2010 is marking the centennial of Japan's forced annexation of Korea. Japan has claimed that the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty of 1910 was legally and morally valid. Or, it has made a far-fetched argument that the treaty was, at least, legal, even though it was seen as lacking in moral validity. It is a task of historical importance as well as a call for justice to get a glimpse of the true nature of the ongoing conflict between Korea and Japan over the shameful modern history ahead of the 100th anniversary of the annexation treaty. In the 21st century, the two countries need to work together to contribute to peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia through mutual understanding and cooperation. For this, they should first overcome the painful legacy of the 20th century and their dark history. But the deep-rooted memories of aggression and the scars of plunder and exploitation still remain a barrier to a better future for co-existence and co-prosperity. It goes without saying that Japan's coerced annexation of Korea is the root cause of the conflict over history. This conflict is the vestiges of Japan's imperialism and aggression that should be eliminated. The pending historical issue confronting the two countries stems from the annexation. In judgment the effect of the Korea-Japan forcible annexation in 1910 as a historical event from the perspective of international law, we can divide it into the following three opinions based on reviews based on the relations between legality and legitimacy. First, legality theory beors the position held by then Japan, which claims that the annexation was for the sake of Oriental peace without the p and legal problems, asserting the treaty was made under a due process based on free will and equalon heSecond, the vsiti but un but theory roces view held by the majority of scholarocend polonicians in Japan todayheIt claims that the treaty of annexation was not prohibited by the then positive lawheLastly, Korean and conscientious Japanese scholarocessert the treaty failed to have legal requirementscondit was made in forcible means without permit from then emperor. According to this, legality and legitimacy should not be separated in the assessment of Japan's annexation of Korea. Legitimacy is a basic prerequisite and a common value that should be met to fulfill the legality and therefore must be considered together when assessing an international act or event from the legal point of view. Nevertheless, what matters is that majority of Japanese relevant figures see this as separable. First, Article 2 of the Treaty on the Basic Relations between Korea and Japan stipulates that “All treaties and agreements made between the Empire of Korea and the Empire of Japan are confirmed as null and void already.” With regard to the ‘void’ period, the government of Japan claims that old treaties and agreements were made in both legality and validity until the 15th of August in 1948. However, the article can be reasonably understood as to mean and confirm that the past annexation was retroactively invalid, because ‘void’ was used instead of ‘voidable’ when selecting the legal terms. Second, the treaty failed to fulfill the requirements for the validity of an international treaty according to the international law for the following reasons: Japanese demonstration of its military power and threatening up to the point of annexation of Korea, coerced conclusion of a treaty, omission of Korean emperor’s signature and seal on the original treaty document and non-existence of the ratification of the treaty. Third, an absolutely invalid treaty in its essence can not be changed in the status of its validity by the approval of a third party country. Therefore, approval of the annexation by a third party country can not create any legal effect at all. Fourth, with regard to the ‘Intertemporales Recht’ which is claimed by Japan as a reference for legal judgment, it was commonly said even at that time that a treaty without a commission of full powers or ratification was invalid when we analyzed the forms and procedures for concluding a treaty explained in well-known introductory books on international law in 1910 such as L. Oppenheim and Ariga Nagao. Fifth, even though Japan claims legality of the treaties, colonization through annexation is an international crime against peace and humanity, infringing the rights to live peacefully, from the viewpoint of ‘lex ferenda.’ Now we are seeking to establish the right history and promote historical reconciliation as the centennial of Japan's forced annexation and colonization of Korea approaches. Japan's colonial rule in Korea was illegal because it was made possible due to the invalid annexation treaty. As such, the conscription of young Koreans was illegal. Besides, the mobilization of comfort women was the violation of jus cogens, as a peremptory norm of general international law. Japan should recognize that its denial of disgraced history is tantamount to a negation of justice and a refusal of peace. The Tokyo government ought to resolve the history conflict by respecting the universal values of justice and conscience. Only after that can Japan truly become a peace-loving member of the international community.

국제인권규범의 국내법적 효력 - 국제인권규범의 수용과 효력을 중심으로 -

조재현,김형섭 한국비교공법학회 2023 공법학연구 Vol.24 No.2

Since compliance with international human rights norms can provide a better space for humanity, individual countries must respect international human rights norms. Today, the scope of member countries of international human rights treaties is expanding because human rights are not a problem of a specific region, but a problem to be shared by all mankind. Our Constitution also recognized international human rights norms and joined major international human rights treaties. International human rights treaties are bound by the terms of the treaties by accession and ratification. The binding force of a treaty can require each country to faithfully fulfill its obligations under the treaty, but it leaves it up to each country to choose how to implement it domestically. Although individual states are required to submit periodic reports on their efforts to implement the terms of international human rights treaties, there is no mechanism for implementing the treaty through sanctions or retaliatory measures for violations of the terms of the treaty. Nonetheless, most countries domestically ratify treaties designed to protect or promote human rights, and observe and implement human rights norms. Regarding the normative nature of trial, the international human rights treaties accepted in Korea are directly recognized as the norms of trial by themselves or indirectly by domestic implementing laws. However, there is some controversy about the normative nature of constitutional adjudication of international human rights treaties. According to the decision of the Constitutional Court, which recognizes the superiority of the constitution over treaties, international human rights treaties cannot be regarded as equivalent to the constitution, and therefore cannot be direct constitutional adjudication norms in principle. In the end, the Constitutional Court cannot directly apply international human rights treaties as constitutional adjudication norms, and international human rights treaties serve as reference or supplementary interpretations or evidence for constitutional interpretation, or indirectly interpret the constitution through the constitutional spirit of respect for international law. It can act as an indirect trial rule as a basis for constitutional review or as a measure of constitutionality review. 국제인권규범의 준수는 인류에게 보다 나은 공간을 제공할 수 있기 때문에 개별 국가는 국제인권규범을 존중해야 한다. 오늘날 인권은 특정 지역의 문제가 아니라 전 인류가공유해야 할 문제이기 때문에 국제인권조약의 회원국의 범위는 확대되고 있다. 우리 헌법도 국제인권규범을 승인하고 주요 국제인권조약에 가입하였다. 국제인권조약은 조약에 가입하고 비준함으로써 조약의 조건에 구속된다. 조약의 구속력은 개별 국가에게 조약상 의무를 성실하게 이행할 것을 요구할 수 있을 뿐 이를 국내적으로 어떻게 이행할지는 각국의 선택에 맡기고 있다. 국제인권조약의 집행력 또한 조약이 가지는 특성상 약한 집행메커니즘으로 특징된다. 개별 국가에게 그들이 국제인권조약의 조건을 이행하기위해 노력하고 있다는 정기적 보고서를 제출하도록 하고 있지만, 조약 조건위반에 대한제재나 보복조치 등을 통한 조약의 실행메커니즘이 없다. 그럼에도 불구하고 대부분의국가는 국내적으로 인권을 보호하거나 신장시키도록 설계된 조약을 비준하고, 인권규범을 준수하고 이행한다. 이러한 조약의 준수와 이행에 관하여는 합리주의적 관점과 외부적 압력의 관점으로 설명할 수 있다. 재판규범성과 관련하여 국내에 수용된 국제인권조약은 그 자체로서 직접적인 재판규범으로서 또는 국내 이행법률에 의해서 간접적으로재판규범성이 인정된다. 다만 국제인권조약의 헌법재판규범성에 관하여는 다소 논란이있다. 조약에 대한 헌법의 우위를 인정하는 헌법재판소의 결정에 의할 때 국제인권조약은 헌법과 동위라고 볼 수 없으므로 원칙적으로 직접적인 헌법재판규범이 될 수는 없다. 따라서 위헌법률심판이나 헌법소원심판에서 국제인권조약의 위반 여부만으로 곧바로위헌 또는 기본권침해 여부를 결정할 수는 없다. 결국 헌법재판소는 국제인권조약을 헌법재판규범으로 직접 적용할 수는 없으며, 국제인권조약이 헌법해석에 관한 참고적․보충적 해석이나 근거자료로서, 또는 국제법 존중이라는 헌법정신을 매개로 우회적인 헌법해석의 근거나 위헌심사의 척도로서 간접적인 재판규범으로 작용할 수 있다.

조선의 조약체제 편입과 조약 관련전문용어의 인식 및 발전

한성민 고려대학교 아세아문제연구원 2023 亞細亞硏究 Vol.66 No.3

근대 조약체제는 19세기 이래 서양 제국주의 국가들의 주도로 성립되었다. 서양 열강으로부터 조약 체결을 강요당한 국가들은 조약이란 제도와 관련 용어들을 제대로 이해하기도 전에 그들의 위압에 불평등조약을 체결해야 했다. 조선은 1876년 일본과 ‘朝日修好條規’를 체결하면서 근대 조약 체제에 편입하였으나, 동양의 전통적인 국제질서체제가 혼용되어 불완전한 편입이었다. 조선은 당시의 조약형식에 충실한 1882년의 ‘조미수호통상조약’을 통해 근대 조약체제에 확실히 편입하였다. 조선이 근대 조약 체제에 편입하고, 朝鮮策略 이 국내에 소개되면서 만국공법과 조약 관련 용어들에 대한 사회적 인식이 크게 확산되기 시작했다. 이때 중요한 역할을 한 것이 萬國公法 인데, 청국의 문화와 언어생활에서 비슷한 뜻을 가지고 있는 용어를 차용하여 번역되었다. 이 때문에 초기에는 동양사회 에서 상대적으로 빠르게 국제법의 이해도를 높이는데 기여했으나, 점차 본뜻에 충실하지 않은 번역의 문제가 나타났다. 그리고 1880년대 후반부터는 조선 사회에서도 만국공법 및 힘에 의해 좌우되는 국제관계, 조약의 현실에 대한 회의가 표출되기 시작했다. 이는 국제 관계의 현실을 냉정하게 바라보게 되었다는 조선사회의 인식의 진보를 보여주는 것이기도 했다. 이는 조약이 결코 조항대로 작동하지 않는다는 현실 경험, 만국공법 외에 다른 국제법 서적들도 소개되어 비교가 가능해졌다는 점, 조약 및 국제법 관련 용어에 대한 새로운 번역의 시도 등이 작용한 결과였다. The modern treaty system has been established since the 19th century, led by Western imperialist countries. Countries forced to conclude treaties by Western powers had to sign unequal treaties under their pressure before they could properly understand the treaty system and related terms. Chosun was incorporated into the modern treaty system by signing the ‘Treaty of Peace, Amity between Chosun and Japan’ in 1876, but it was an incomplete incorporation because the traditional international order system of the Orient was mixed. Chosun was firmly incorporated into the modern treaty system through the ‘Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and Kingdom of Chosun’ in 1882, which was faithful to the treaty format of the time. As Joseon was incorporated into the modern treaty system and Chosun strategy( 朝鮮策略 ) was introduced in Korea, social awareness of public laws and terms related to treaties began to spread greatly. What played an important role at this time was Elements of International Law( 萬國公法 ), which was translated by borrowing terms that had similar meanings in the culture and language life of the Qing Dynasty. Because of this, it contributed to relatively quickly increasing the understanding of international law in Eastern societies in the early days, but gradually the problem of translation that was not faithful to the original meaning appeared. And from the late 1880s, skepticism about the reality of international relations, the international law and treaties swayed by power of all countries began to be expressed in Chosun society. This also showed the progress of the Joseon society's perception that it came to look at the reality of international relations calmly. It was the result of the practical experience that treaties never work according to their provisions, In addition to Elements of International Law( 萬國公法 ) other international law books were introduced and made comparable. and new attempts to translate terms related to treaties and international law.

헌법재판과 국제법의 존중

성재호(Sung, JaeHo) 미국헌법학회 2020 美國憲法硏究 Vol.31 No.3

Decisions of Constitutional Court showed ‘respect of international law’ by analyzing the preamble and Article 6 (1) of the Constitution of Korea. However, the meaning and status of the ‘treaty and generally accepted rules of international law’ has not defined and clarified in the constitution itself. This article, accordingly, will clarify the meaning of the Article 6(1) of Korean Constitution by examining the decisions of the Constitutional Court from the perspective of international law. The Article 6(1) of Korean Constitution provides that ‘treaty and generally accepted rules of international law have same effect as domestic law’. This provision implies two aspects which should be clarified. Firstly, what’s the meaning of the term ‘treaty and generally accepted international law rules’, secondly, what’s the meaning of the ‘same effect as domestic law’. The Constitutional court defined the treaty as an international agreement concluded between States in written form, and it admit the customary international law as a generally accepted rules of international law. With regard to the effect of the treaty and generally accepted rules of international law, these have same effect as the statutes. This means that the treaty and generally accepted rues of international law do not prevail the provisions of constitution in Korea. However, treaties as a source of international law can only be concluded in the crossroads of international agreement and domestic procedures. Therefore, the issues regarding the effect of the treaties in domestic court should be decided with the consideration of international law. Where the treaties became the objects or criteria of interpretation for the cases, the constitutional court should consider the effect of treaty carefully. The Constitutional court has emphasized that the purport of the treaties shall be used to decide the effect of the relevant treaty. In other words, the assumption of concurrence has been admitted in the Constitutional court in Korea.

법원의 국제인권조약 적용 -판결문 전수조사를 통한 현황 진단 및 적용단계별 논증 분석-

이혜영(Lee Hyeyoung) 대한국제법학회 2020 國際法學會論叢 Vol.65 No.1

국제인권조약의 적용이 문제가 되는 사건은 국내 법원에서 일상적으로 자주 다루는 유형의 사건은 아니지만, 최근 들어 법원의 판결에서 국제인권조약이 원용되는 빈도가 급증해 왔으며 국제인권조약의 국내적 효력과 지위, 해석 원칙에 대해서 비교적 구체적으로 설시한 판결이 등장하고 있어서 국내 재판에서 국제인권조약의 중요도가 한층 높아지고 있다. 그러나 여전히 법원이 국제법적으로 타당한 해석 기준에 따라 국제인권조약을 성실하게 해석하여 적용한 사례가 드물고 사법부가 전반적으로 국제인권조약을 생소해 한다는 평가가 지배적이다. 이에 본 논문은 법원에서의 국제인권조약의 적용 현황을 양적․ 질적으로 분석하여 법원이 국제인권조약을 적용하는 데 실제로 한계로 작용하는 요인이 무엇인지 진단함으로써 향후 법원을 통한 인권조약의 실현을 위한 방향성을 모색하는데 시사점을 얻고자 한다. 이를 염두에 두면서, 본 논문은 법원에서의 국제인권조약 적용의 양적 현황을 살펴보기 위하여 법원에서 선고되고 전산으로 확인 가능한 판결 중 대한민국이 가입 ․ 비준한 7대 주요 국제인권조약이 적용된 모든 판결을 전수조사하여 조약별, 시기별, 소송유형별 선고된 판결문 현황을 소개하고, 국제인권조약에 근거한 주장이 인정 ․ 불인정된 비율의 통계를 소개한다. 또한, 질적 현황을 살펴보기 위하여 법원에서 국제인권조약에 근거한 주장 취지가 인정 ․ 불인정된 각 경우의 주요 논거를 유형화하여 판단단계별로 분석하고, 법원이 국제인권조약을 적극적으로 적용하는 데 실제 한계로 작용하는 요인이 무엇인지 검토한다. 판결문에 대한 이러한 실증적 연구를 통하여 도출할 수 있는 주요한 시사점으로, 국제법이 생소하고 국내 법리에 익숙한 국내 판사의 상당수가 국내 법리에 경도된 해석, 즉 조약을 해석하면서 유사한 국내법에 대한 법원의 기존 주류적 해석에 귀속시켜 해석하는 경향이 있으며, 이는 조약에 관한 국제적 해석 기준이 국내에서 수용되는 것을 차단하는 기능을 한다는 문제의식을 확인한다. 이를 통해서 인권조약에 충실한 사법구제가 이루어질 수 있도록 사법 지원이 필요함을 논변하는 것으로 결론에 갈음한다. The application of international human rights treaties may not be a day-to-day task for domestic judges in Korea. Statistics have, however, shown that it has become more frequent occurrence. Additionally, judgments providing concrete reasoning of domestic effect and status of international human rights treaties and interpretive principles of them began to appear. Nevertheless, many commentators have still argued that such recent practices are not yet sufficient to dispel concerns over the legal culture in Korea in which judges are mostly unfamiliar with international human rights treaties. Moreover, the provisions of these treaties are not sufficiently effective in application in Korean courts. With these concerns in mind, this article aims to examine the quantity and quality of judgments that apply international human rights treaties in Korean courts. For quantitative evaluation, a complete enumeration-based survey through an internal data search system on judgments that applied the seven core international human rights treaties shows variations in the number of judgments that applied the seven core treaties by each treaty, year, and litigation type. In addition, it provides statistics on the acceptance/rejection rates of claims involving violations of the core seven treaties in judgments. Using qualitative evaluation methods, this article divides judgments into two groups, and examines the reasoning adopted and steps taken by judges to arrive at different conclusions-judgments that accepted and judgments that rejected claims involving international human rights treaties. By applying such analytical methods, this research shows that Korean courts tend to avoid making determinations upon international law in dealing with cases involving violations of international human rights treaties; instead, Korean courts tend to base their decisions on more familiar, national laws. This tendency effectively prevents developing jurisprudence in international human rights treaties from being incorporated domestically. Based on the implications drawn from the empirical research on judgments rendered from Korean courts, this article offers suggestions to increase judges’ familiarity in international human rights treaties and assist judges in engaging with those human rights treaties, which ultimately helps the Korean Judiciary to fulfill its obligation to interpret national law in a way compatible with treaty obligations in order to protect and promote universal human rights.

일본의 독도영유권 주장과 일제식민지책임의 국제법적 검토

도시환 영남대학교 독도연구소 2017 독도연구 Vol.- No.23

주지하다시피 일본은 1952년 이래 한국의 독도에 대한 영유권을 본격적으로 제기하기 시작했으며, 고유영토론, 선점론 그리고 샌프란시스코평화조약을 근거로 한 3대 권원에 대한 주장을 지속적으로 강화해 오고 있다. 일본이 주장하는 독도영유권은 17세기 중반에 확립되었고, 1905년 각의 결정을 통해 재확인되었으며, 샌프란시스코평화조약에 의해 국제적으로 공인되었다는 것이다. 그러나 일본의 독도영유권 주장은 시계열상 1905년 선점론에서 시작하여 1952년 고유영토론을 경유한 뒤 최근 샌프란시스코평화조약으로 무게 중심을 전환하는 과정속에서, 국제법상 요건의 충족 여부 문제로 환치 및 축소, 역사적 권원으로서의 사실에 대한 왜곡에 더하여 국제법상 법리의 정합성에 대한 자의적인 해석을 통해 근본적으로 일제식민주의의 침략이라는 본질을 은폐하고자 하는 한계를 노정하고 있다. 그것은 결국 일본의 주장이 국제정치적 역학관계를 바탕으로 이미 결정했거나 실행한 불법행위를 사후적으로 합법화하고 정당화하기 위한 수단이자 명분에 다름 아닌 것이다. 요컨대, 일본의 독도영유권 주장은 메이지 유신이래 제국 형성을 위한 대외팽창적 침략정책과 연동됨으로써 1875년 운요호사건, 1894년 청일전쟁, 1904년 러일전쟁 등 동아시아 전역에 걸친 일본의 침략전쟁 가운데 한국의 독도주권에 대한 침탈을 무주지선점이란 이름으로 합법화한 것이다. 그러나, 운요호사건을 통해 1876년 2월 26일 근대 조선과 일본이 체결한 불평등조약인 강화도조약에는 국경획정문제가 언급되지 않았기 때문에 이를 보완한 태정관(太政官)의 1877년 3월 29일 결정으로 ‘독도 외 1도’는 일본 영토가 아니라는 것을 분명히 하고 있음에 주목해야 할 것이다. 왜냐하면 일본 외무성의 홈페이지에는 이러한 메이지 정부의 중대한 결정을 전혀 찾아볼 수가 없을 뿐만 아니라, 1962년 7월 13일 한국에 보내온 일본의 의견서에는 오히려 “메이지 초기에도 일본 정부가 다케시마를 일본의 고유영토로 인식”하고 있었다는 상반된 주장을 하고 있기 때문이다. 나아가 선점론과 고유영토론의 이러한 상충적 한계를 전제로 최근 일본이 주장하는 독도영유권 주장의 핵심은 샌프란시스코평화조약으로, 그 기초과정에서 독도의 이름이 누락되었으나 일본이 제공한 정보에 입각한 딘 러스크(Dean Rusk) 서한을 전제로 실질적으로 일본 영토로 남게 되었다는 논거 역시 일제식민주의의 연장선상에서 제기되고 있음을 간과해서는 안 될 것이다. 그것은 1951년 샌프란시스코평화조약의 성격이 징벌적 조약에서 냉전을 전제로 한 반공조약으로 전환됨으로써 1905년의 가쓰라-태프트밀약으로 상징되는 식민주의를 기저에 둔 독도주권 침탈행위의 합법화로 이에 대한 국제법적 불법성과 문제점의 규명이 요구되고 있기 때문이다. 환언하면 일본정부는 1910년 한일강제병합 관련 조약의 경우 무력을 사용한 강박 하에 체결된 조약으로서 법적 효력이 존재하지 않음에도 불구하고 일본군‘위안부’ 문제를 비롯한 일제식민지책임의 면탈을 위해 ‘당시의 법’에서는 합법이라고 강변하고 있는 반면, 한일간 협약체제를 일탈하여 주장하고 있는 독도영유권은 선점론에서 시작하여 고유영토론을 경유한 뒤 샌프란시스코평화조약으로 무게중심을 전환해 옴으로써 국제법상 시제법의 적용에 있어서도 상충되는 법리를 주장하고 있는 것이다. 그 ... Japan began claiming territorial sovereignty over Dokdo since 1952 and has since strengthened its argument on the three grounds: inherent territory from the 17th century, the doctrine of terra nullius and the San Francisco Peace Treaty. In other words, it argues that territorial sovereignty was established in the mid-17th century, reconfirmed with the Cabinet decision of 1905 to incorporate Dokdo, which was internationally recognized through the Peace Treaty. In the course of Japan‘s changing focus in its assertion over Dokdo―from acquisition of the land in 1905, its statement made in 1952 claiming Dokdo being the inherent territory of Japan from 17th century, to recently the San Francisco Peace Treaty―it fundamentally reveals limitations in time series. By using the ground of occupancy, it changes and minimizes the issue into an international legal condition; its claim of Dokdo being the inherent territory of Japan distorts historical facts; it attempts to conceal its colonial aggression by arbitrarily interpreting conformity with the international legal principles. This series of assertions are a mere justification used to legitimize the assertions and illegal acts that have already been decided or executed based on the dynamics of international politics. In essence, as its claim to sovereignty over Dokdo was integrated with its aggressive expansionist policies to build an empire since the Meiji Restoration, it was intended to legitimize its claim under the doctrine of terra nullius amid wars of aggression in East Asia including the Unyoho Incident of 1875, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. The unequal treaty signed as a result of the incident between modern Joseon and Japan on February 26, 1876, known as the Treaty of Ganghwa Island, did not state territorial demarcation. The order of Dajokan, the Grand Council of State, issued to complement the treaty on March 29, 1877 stated ‘Takeshima and the other island’ did not belong to Japan. This significant decision of the Meiji government should be noted because the order cannot be found on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and because the letter sent by Japan to Korea on July 13, 1962 made a contradictory argument that the early Meiji government recognized Takeshima as its territory. Under the premise of contradictory limitations of arguments for acquisition of the land without sovereignty and that Dokdo was the Japanese territory from the Meiji government, the gist of the assertion Japan recently makes is the San francisco Peace Treaty and Dean Rusk letter: the name of Dokdo was omitted in the process of establishing the treaty but the island remained the territory of Japan as evidenced by the Dean Rusk letter, which was written based on the information given by Japan. It should be noted again that the basis of such argument is in line with Japanese colonialism. As the nature of the San Francisco Treaty of 1951 changed from a punitive treaty to an anti-communist treaty based on the Cold War, Japan’s claim to Dokdo is being legitimized based on colonialism as symbolized by the secret Taft-Katsura Agreement of 1905, and this calls for a review on illegality under international law. In other words, Japan strongly argues its acts were legal under the law at that time in an effort to be exonerated from its colonial responsibilities even when the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty of 1910 holds no legal effects as the treaty was forcibly signed. In contrast, it claims sovereignty over Dokdo, deviating from the treaty between Korea and Japan, by changing the ground of argument from acquisition under terra nullius, being the inherent territory of Japan, to the San Francisco Treaty. Such arguments and their grounds are contradictory in applying the international intertemporal law. Against this backdrop, it is noteworthy to review the criticism on Japan’s claim to Dokdo sovereignty raised in the Japanese academia. The bases fo...