독도 영유권 문제에 관한 소고

문규석 ( Moon Kyu-seok ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2009 외법논집 Vol.33 No.2

Japan has contended persistently that Dokdo Island has been the territory of Japan after incorporating it with the territory of Japan in the course of colonization in 1905. On the contrary above the Japan's contention, it is needless to say that Dokdo Island which a specific place in Ulleung Island can see it with the naked eyes during the bright day belongs to Korea just as recognized by the various old documents. From the point of historical view, Japan had incorporated Dokdo Island with the purpose of military usage and security of fishery right. So, Japan has contended that Dokdo Island is an inherent Japan's territory or Japan's territory with the point of international law since Declaration peace line by Korea declared in 1952. Japan has also contended persistently that the best way to solve the issue of Dokdo Island dominion brings a lawsuit through the ICJ(International Court of Justice). Main purpose of this article has analyzed four suggestions(Bringing a lawsuit to ICJ, Joint administration or usage, mediation(or conciliation) by the third country, and blasting the Dokdo Island with the blasting powder or dynamite) to solve the Dokdo issue, and then suggests ideas for controlling Japan's desire to Dokdo Island Most of third people who do not belong to Korea and Japan can think that bringing a lawsuit to ICJ suggested by Japan is the best way to solve the Dokdo issue in case of not knowing the historical relations between Korea and Japan. However, to solve the Dokdo issue through ICJ which has jurisdiction on the basis of the consent of the parties is not really fair to Korea. A main reason is that there are not any reasons to be recognized by the ICJ because Dokdo Island belongs to the Korea's inherent territory without any doubts from the historical and international law point of view. Moreover, it is not fair that Korea will be unilaterally burdened an unimaginable shock such as explosion of an atomic bomb if Korea loses a lawsuit due to unskilled litigation capacity or any other reasons. Joint administration or usage is not a good idea for Korea because Dokdo Island is a inherent island of Korea which can see it with naked eyes in a specific place in Ulleung Island during a bright day. It is impossible to solve the Dokdo issue through mediation(or conciliation) by the third country due to extreme situation confronted between Korea and Japan with the sense of hostility as well. It is understood that the Idea about blasting the Dokdo Island with the blasting powder or dynamite is not reasonable but emotional speaking occurred in extreme situation confronted during the Korea-Japan talks. However, it is evaluated that an idea about bringing a lawsuit to ICJ is comparative advantage in any other solutions of Dokdo issue from the point of the third parties. If so, does Korea have to accept Japan's suggestion? Unfortunately, Japan can think that Japan is none the worse for the loss if Japan loses a lawsuit against Korea. Japan can also think that it is OK or does not mind if Japan loses a lawsuit against Korea even though Japan will be hurt her pride. Therefore, there are something to suggest in this article. Firstly, Korea has to control Japan's strategy which wants to guide worst dispute. Secondly, Korea has to prepare the situation that Security Council of UN makes a recommendation or decides a resolution with a means of settling the Dokdo issue under chapter 7 of UN Charter even though it is not much possibility to happen the situation in reality. Thirdly, in preparing the situation caused the pressure of international community such as resolutions or recommendations under the Security Council of UN, it is requested to research the study on the conditional lawsuit under the jurisdiction framework of the ICJ.

국제형사법원에서 검찰관의 수사권 행사

문규석 ( Moon Kyu-seok ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2007 외법논집 Vol.28 No.-

Crimes within jurisdiction of International Criminal Court are the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. These crimes can occur special situations such as in the course of civil war or international armed conflict. Criminal actors of these crimes have highest positions such as president, commander, political leader in his/her country. So, there are five barriers for the prosecutor of ICC to investigate these criminal actors. ① It is really difficult to investigate a country's president. ② It is really difficult to find and obtain smoking gun for proving charges of the accused, ③Even though the prosecutor has issued an arrest warrant to the accused in the world community after investigating the accused, it is still very difficult for the accused to surrender ICC from his/her present dwelling place. ④ In conducting international judicial cooperation among nations, international politics can intervene his/her surrender with the forms of for and against. ⑤ Even though arrest warrants for the accused have issued and delivered all countries in the international community, there are situations not to surrender the accused to ICC due to impunity agreement concluded by USA. Although much di fficulties above-mentioned are in the course of conducting investigation by the prosecutor, the accused who committed crimes within the jurisdiction of the court should be punished through the due criminal process because of the gravity of the crime, the interests of justice, interests of many victims and so on. That is why investigation of the prosecutor is the most important step in the criminal process on deciding whether or not to punish the accused Investigation of the prosecutor have started with three ways; referred by a state party, referred to the prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter Ⅶ of the Charter of the United Nations, and initiated an investigations proprio motu by the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s investigation constructs two dimension structures(first investigation(or preliminary examination) and second investigation) due to the check mechanism by pre-trial division. In preparing situations not to conduct judicial cooperation between ICC and the state which occurred crimes within the jurisdiction of the court, direct enforcement system which can conduct investigation on the territory of a state committed crimes has introduced on the conditions of article 54,2(b) and 57,3(d). Therefore, investigation of the prosecutor has run as follows: ① there are direct and indirect enforcement system, ② investigations are composed of two dimension structures, ③ Cases which referred by State and Security Council can be construed to satisfy the issue of complementarity and admissibility to some extent. Of course, after the issue of complementarity and admissibility should be satisfied through first investigation(or preliminary examination), second investigation can be implemented with the forms of issuing of arrest warrant, surrender the accused to ICC, activities related to amend or withdraw any charges to the accused and so on.

천안함 침몰과 연평도 포격 그리고 국제형사법원

문규석 ( Moon Kyu-seok ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2011 외법논집 Vol.35 No.2

There was an accident sinking of the Republic of Korea(ROK) Navy Ship called Cheonan(PCC-772, 1,200ton corvette) on 26 March 2010 in the territorial waters of the ROK 2.5km off the south-western coast of Baekryong Island, which resulted in the death of 46 military persons. Korea Government organized the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group of the ROK with the participation of international experts from 4 countries(Australia, Sweden, UK, and USA), because of not knowing the reasons why Cheonan Navy Ship was sinking at that time. Based on material evidence obtained through scientific and objective investigation, it was determined that the sinking of Cheonan Navy Ship was caused by an underwater explosion by a torpedo made in North Korea after 55 days from the day occurred the accident. Of course, Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK) totally rejected the investigation result and contended that the incident is a fabricated scenario, purely for the political and military purposes of the USA. There was an another accident on 23 November 2010 since the sinking of Cheonan Navy Ship. So called, DPRK fired on the Yeonpyeong Island about 170 shells without any lawful reasons. The Result was killed 2 marines and civilian of ROK respectively and injury of many others. The Office of the Prosecutor has received communications from a NGO(Non-Governmental Organization) alleging that DPRK forces committed war crimes in the territory of the ROK. Prosecutor of ICC(International Criminal Court), Luis Mereno-Ocampo, confirmed that the Office has opened a preliminary examination to evaluate if two incidents constituted war crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court. The author has examined whether the Prosecutor of ICC will request the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the person responsible for war crimes. The Prosecutor of ICC has a right to do preliminary examination because ROK is a state party of ICC, and two accidents had occurred in the territory of ROK. But, after deep researching this topic, I can not apply the accident sinking of Cheonan Navy Ship on Rome Statue of international Criminal Court because this accident is not war crimes or crimes against humanity. The shelling of Yeonpyeong Island is not also satisfied with the requirement assessing gravity which importantly considers the number of victims of particularly serious crimes such as killing. Therefore, the Prosecutor of ICC can arrive a conclusion that the Rome Statute requirements to seek authorization to initiate an investigation in the accidents have not been satisfied at this stage.

로마규정 제98조 제2항 : 이송금지협약

문규석(Kyu Seok Moon) 대한국제법학회 2006 國際法學會論叢 Vol.51 No.1

ICC는 모든 인류를 위한 보편적 정의의 성취, 국제형사범죄자에 대한 처벌 확보, 조직적 폭력으로 야기된 국제분쟁의 종결에 기여, 국제임시재판소의 결함의 구제, 국내재판소에 대한 보완 및 미래의 국제형사범죄자의 방지 등을 목적으로 탄생하였다. 형사관할권에 적용되는 원칙은 속지주의와 속인주이고 관할범죄는 군대와 경찰에 의해서 자행될 수 있는 국가의 범죄로서 보편적 관할권에 해당한다. ICC는 비록 관할권이 성립하고 재판적격성이 있다고 하더라도 결석재판을 인정하고 있지 아니하므로 ICC의 사법활동은 로마규정 당사국의 사법공조 여부에 달려 있다. 제기되는 이슈는 로마규정 당사국이 ICC가 요청한 사법공조를 이행한다는 전제하에 ICC로부터 체포영장이 발부된 자를 당사국이 ICC로 이송할 수 없어서 재판이 진행될 수 없는 경우가 있다는 점이다. 그것이 바로 로마규정 제98조 제2항을 근거로 미국이 여러 국가들과 체결한 ICC로 자연인의 이송금지협약이다. 미국이 이러한 협약을 다른 나라와 체결하는 이유는 미국의 군사적 간섭을 ICC 검찰관이 방해할 수 있다는 위험 때문이라는 것이다. 즉 전 세계 여러 국가에 파견된 미군이 평화유지활동 중에 ICC관할범죄를 자행할 가능성이 있고 그 군인들이 ICC에서 재판받을 가능성이 있다는 우려 때문이다. 따라서 미군이 ICC에서 재판받을 수 있는 가능성을 배제하기 위하여 미국은 로마규정 제98조 제2항을 근거로 미국인들이 ICC로 이송하기 위해서는 미국의 동의가 필요하다는 것을 내용으로 하는 협약을 여러 국가들과 체결하고 있다. 로마규정 제98조 제2항이 등장하게 된 원래의 목적은 로마규정이 발효된 이후에도 기존의 SOFA에 규정된 의무와 로마규정상의 의무 사이에 법적 충돌이 제기되는 경우에 그 문제를 해결하기 위한 것이라고 한다. 그런데 미국은 제98조 제2항에서 말하는 협정의 의미를 자의적으로 넓은 의미로 해석하여 자국민이 ICC로 이송을 금지하는 협약도 포함된다고 주장하고 있다. 또 그러한 해석을 근거로 전 세계 96개국과 이송금지협약을 체결하고 체결하지 아니한 국가에게 군사원조를 중단 또는 삭감하고 있다. 이것은 로마규정의 정신과 목적에 반하고 보충적 관할권 행사의 원칙이 미국인에게 적용되는 것을 배제하는 것이다. 따라서 이송금지협약은 로마규정의 목적과 원칙의 견지에서 볼 때 불법성과 부당성을 모두 지니고 있다. 미국과 한국간의 이송금지협약의 체결과 관련하여 한국은 동 협약을 체결하지 않아야 한다. 그 이유는 미군이 6.25때 자행한 노근리 사건을 미국은 50여년간 은폐하여 왔고 또 이와 비슷한 또는 동일한 사건이 재발을 방지하여야 하기 때문이다. 또한 이러한 사건이 발생한 경우에 SOFA협정에 의하여 전속적 또는 일차적 관할권을 가지고 있는 미국이 My Lai 사건처럼 미국 국내재판소에서 공정성이 상실된 재판이 행해지는 경우에 국가는 자국민을 보호할 수 있는 최소한의 제도적 장치가 필요하기 때문이다. Primary objectives of ICC(International Criminal Court) based on Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court which was adapted on 17th day of July 1998 are as follows; ① to achieve justice for all, ② to end impunity for the perpetrators who commit the crimes within the jurisdiction of the court, ③ to help the end of international or non-international armed conflicts through justice, ④ to remedy the deficiencies of ad hoc tribunals such as ICTY and ICTR, ⑤ to take over when national criminal justice institutions are unwilling or unable to act, and ⑥ to deter future perpetrators. The applicable principle of criminal jurisdiction are nationality and territoriality. Crimes within the jurisdiction of ICC are the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crimes of aggression. These crimes are belonged to universal jurisdiction and called state crimes because of mainly committed by military men or policemen under the order, direction or acquiesence of a military commend or head of state. Even though issues of admissibility and the condition of exercising jurisdiction meet the standard of Rome Statue, the continuity of judicial activity on a specific case depends on whether or not to surrender the requested person to ICC, because ICC does not permit any trial by default. The issue raised is that there are some possibility not to proceed a trial, because many state parties can not surrender the person that provisional arrest requested or red notice issued by ICC, even though all state parties implement judicial assistance requested by ICC fully. This is Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreement(BNSA) or Bilateral Impunity Agreement(BIA) which concluded by USA based on article 98(2) of Rome Statue. The main objectives that USA which concluded BNSA with about 96 states does not want to risk any danger that Americans may be charged crimes within the jurisdiction of ICC in the course of peace keeping operation or military inventions for humanitarian. USA, therefore, are being concluded BNSA with many states, whether they are state parties of Rome Statue or not, in order not to surrender Americans to ICC without permission of USA. Original objectives of article 98(2) of Rome Statue introduces to solve a problem raised by legal conflict between the obligation under existed Status of Forces Agreement(SOFA) and the obligation under Rome Statue. USA, however, sticks to her opinion that the meaning of the agreement written in article 98(2) of Rome Statue contained BNSA in the sight of the interpretation of wider meaning. Moreover, USA threats many states to cut down or suspend military aid if they do not want to conclude BNSA with her. All of these are against spirit and objectives of Rome Statue. ICC can not apply the rule on exercising complementary jurisdiction to Americans as well. Therefore, BNSA, itself, takes both illegality and unfairness from the viewpoint of international law. In relation to conclude BNSA with USA, Korea does not conclude BNSA with USA. The reasons are as follows: first, USA had been covering civilians massacre at No Gun Ri committed by US military men during Korean War for about 50 years. Second, in the case of committing similar case just like My Lai happened in 1968 in Vietnam, there are much possibility for USA to bring a unfair verdict. Third, in case of a specific situation which USA has the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction or the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of USA armed forces in accordance with SOFA, there are also much possibility for USA to bring to unfair verdict as well. If a terrible case just like above-mentioned happens again in Korea, Korea needs to have a last recourse mechanism in order to protect her people.

국제형사재판소의 보충적 관할권의 행사에 관한 연구

문규석(Kyu-Seok Moon) 大韓赤十字社 人道法硏究所 2006 人道法論叢 Vol.- No.26

국제형사재판소의 설립 목적은 ① 모든 인류를 위한 보편적 정의의 성취, ② 국제형사범죄자에 대한 처벌 확보, ③ 조직적으로 야기된 국제분쟁의 종결에 기여, ④ 국제임시법원의 결함의 구제, ⑤ 국내법원에 대한 보완 ⑥ 미래의 국제형사범죄의 방지 등이다. 위와 같은 목적을 실현하기 위하여 ICC는 국내법원과의 관계 설정을 위하여 보충성의 원칙을 도입하였다. 따라서 ICC는 보충성의 원칙을 구체적으로 어떻게 적용할 것인가하는 문제가 제기된다. 보충적 관할권의 행사와 관련하여 제기되는 핵심적인 이슈는 첫째, 특정 사건에 대하여 관할권을 가지고 있는 국가가 진정으로 수사 또는 기소할 의사가 없다는 것의 의미와 그러한 실제적인 상황을 어떠한 기준으로 결정할 것인가? 둘째, 관할권을 가지고 있는 국가가 진정으로 수사 또는 기소할 능력이 없다는 경우의 의미와 상황은 무엇이고 또 무엇을 근거로 수사 또는 기소할 능력이 없다고 결정할 것인가? 셋째, 수사, 기소 및 재판절차에서 독립적이고 공정하게 형사절차가 진행되지 아니하였고 피의자를 보호하기 위한 방편으로 형사절차가 진행되었다는 것을 어떠한 기준으로 결정할 것인가? 넷째, 위와 같은 상황과 의미를 결정하기 위하여 법원이 고려해야 할 사항은 무엇인지 여부이다. 필자는 ICC는 보충적 관할권의 행사(재판적격성의 문제)와 관련하여 검찰관의 수사권을 제1차적 수사권과 제2차적으로 구분하여 접근하였다. 구체적인 보충적 관할권의 행사를 제1차적 수사권의 행사가 진행 중인 경우, 제2차적 수사권의 행사가 허용되지 아니한 경우, 계류중인 경우 및 허용된 경우 그리고 이에 대한 이의제기를 상세하게 기술하였다. 아울러 국제형사범자를 국내법상 사면하는 경우에 그 사면에 대하여 일반사면과 특별사면으로 구분하여 평가하였고 진실과 화해위원회서 취해진 조치에 대하여 검토 하였다. Primary objectives of ICC(International Criminal Court) based on Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which was adopted on 17 July 1998 are as follows; ① to achieve justice for all mankinds, ② to end impunity for the perpetrators who commit the crimes within the jurisdiction of the court, ③ to help end international or non-international conflicts through justice, ④ to remedy the deficiencies of ad hoc tribunals such as ICTY or ICTR, ⑤ to take over when national criminal justice institutions are unwilling or unable to act, and ⑥ to deter future perpetrators. ICC introduces the principle of complementarity in order to institute the legal relationship between national criminal court and ICC. Therefore, there are big issues raised about application of complementarity as follows. ① what does it mean that a state which has jurisdiction over a case is unwilling genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution, and what are admissibility criteria to be unwillingness in an actual situation, ② what does it mean that a state which has jurisdiction over a case is unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution, and what are admissibility criteria to be inability in an actual situation. ③ what are criteria established to decide that the proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially and that the proceedings were not or are not being conducted in a manner which is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice. ④ In order to determine these meanings, situation and criteria above-mentioned, what are the factors that the court shall consider. In connection with the issues raised about exercising complementary jurisdiction(issues of admissibility), the author has approached it with 2-category investigation according as whether the prosecutor has an authorization of an investigation by pre-trial chamber. The actual exercise of complementary jurisdiction, therefore, has described four stages which are exercising the first category investigation, which are allowed and not allowed to exercise the second category investigation, and which is pending a ruling on authorization of the second category investigation by the pre-trial chamber. It has touched the issues of challenges to the admissibility of a case as well. Lastly, in relation to amnesty taken by a state which has jurisdiction over a case, amnesty has been evaluated after dividing it into general and special, and reviewed measures about amnesty taken by Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

國際法上 情報戰에 관한 硏究

문규석(Kyu-Seok Moon) 대한국제법학회 2003 國際法學會論叢 Vol.48 No.1

사이버상에서 발생할 수 있는 범죄는 행위자가 누구이냐에 따라서 사인인 경우와 국가인 경우로 나눌 수 있고, 국가에 의한 사이버범죄는 정보전으로서 국가의 활동과 관련된다. 사인에 의한 사이버범죄는 행위지와 결과발생지가 각각 다름으로 인하여 형사관할권의 문제, 죄형법정주의의 문제 및 형사사법공조의 문제가 있다. 반면에 정보전은 악성 컴퓨터프로그램으로 행한 다른 국가의 컴퓨터네트워크에 대한 공격이 UN헌장 제2조 4항에서 금지하고 있는 무력행사에 포함되는지 여부이다. 전시에 행해지는 정보전은 전쟁의 수단과 방법의 일부분으로 볼 수 있으므로 평시에 전개되는 정보전으로 한정하면, 첫째, UN헌장 제2조 4항에서 금지하고 있는 무력행사의 의미가 기동력이 있는 물리적인 힘으로 표출되는 다양한 형태의 군사활동으로 볼 수 있다. 둘째, 다른 국가의 컴퓨터네트워크에 대한 공격도 4가지의 근거 및 5가지의 전제조건하에 무력의 행사로 볼 수 있다. 셋째, 침략의 정의에 관한 UN총회의 결의에 따르면 최초의 무력의 행사는 침략 개시의 증거로 보고 있으므로 다른 국가의 컴퓨터네트워크에 대한 공격이 무력행사를 의미할 때 그것이 침략행위를 의미하는지 의문이 제기된다. 넷째, 컴퓨터바이러스는 비살상무기로 분류되고, 비살상무기로 침략행위가 개시된 사례가 없으므로 컴퓨터네트워크에 대한 공격 그 자체는 침략행위로 보기 어렵다. 다섯째, 다른 국가의 컴퓨터네트워크에 대한 공격이 5가지의 조건하에 무력의 행사로 본다고 하더라도 비례성의 원칙에 견지에서 보면 재래식무기로 자위조치도 할 수 없다. 여섯째, 현재까지 사이버공격으로 발생한 문제는 인명살상이 아니라 물질적 손실로 한정되고 또 모든 국가가 국제분쟁의 평화적 해결의무를 부담하고 있으므로 평화적인 방법으로 해결할 수 있다. 일곱째, 구체적으로 사이버공격과 관련된 범죄행위는 국제불법행위로서 국가책임과 개인에 대한 형사책임의 이론으로 처리가 가능하다. 현행 국제법의 패러다임은 주권과 영토의 개념이 전제가 된 국가를 기초로 한 구조로 되어 있다. 이러한 패러다임은 가상의 공간에서 또는 가상의 공간을 통하여 발생할 수 있는 국가의 범죄에 관련된 문제는 현행 국제법으로 규율할 수 없다. 따라서 인터넷을 통하여 형성된 사이버공간에 대한 새로운 패러다임의 형성이 필요하다. Cyber criminals can be grouped into state-actors and non-state actors. There are three main issues involved for non-state actors who attack a computer system or network on foreign soil because the place to be committed a crime and the place to be occurred the result of the crime are different states respectively. These are ① which country has criminal jurisdiction?, ② the issue of nulla poena sine lege, and ® the issue of mutual assistance in criminal matters. Cybercrime committed by a state-actor can be referred to information warfare(IW). The main issue in information warfare from the standpoint of international law is whether computer network attack(CNA) of any state by a state-actor can be considered as "the use of force" prohibited in Article 2(4) of U.N. Charter. During wartime, IW is a part of means and method of armed conflict. However, it is questionable whether it can be considered as a means of armed conflict during peace time. In this paper, I discuss this issue with the following seven points. First, the term of use of force prohibited in Article 2(4) of U.N. Charter is armed force described as various forms of kinetic or physical force related to military activity of a state. Second, CNA can be included the meaning of use of force under the four grounds and five pre-conditions. Third, the use of force is, in itself, aggression in accordance with Article 2 of Definition of Aggression(XXIX) under the Resolution of U.N. General Assembly, which prescribes, "the first use of force by a state in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression…. However, the arising question is whether CNA is considered the act of aggression if CNA meets the five pre-conditions to be considered as "the use of force". Fourth, CNA can not be act of aggression because of two facts. One is that malicious computer-program such as 'I Love You virus' and hacking programs which deny, destroy, corrupt, or exploit the enemy's information and its functions can be categorized non-lethal weapon. The other is that there is not even a case to have invaded with non-lethal weapon. Fifth, it is not legitimate to invoke the right of self-defence using conventional weapons against CNA in the light of the principle of proportion even though CNA is contained the meaning of use of force under five pre-conditions. Sixth, the problem raised by the attack through cyberspace can be solved by peaceful means because damage occurred is only limited by economic loss, not casualties, and all countries should be imposed the obligation of pacific settlement of disputes under Chapter Ⅵ of U.N. Charter as well. Finally, the act of crime related to CNA can be composed of state responsibility as an international wrongful act, and the actor of the crime who hold a position as an official capacity such as a Head of State or Government can be punished with the theory of individual criminal responsibility. Current paradigms of international law focus on a state-based structure that is preoccupied with the notions of sovereignty and territory. The problems raised through cyberspace or in the cyberspace can not be applied to current international law. So, tomorrow's world will require new paradigms which accommodate the imminent transnational society through Internet.

국제법상 산업스파이에 관한 연구

문규석(Moon Kyu-Seok) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2005 성균관법학 Vol.17 No.3

국제관계에서 경제문제가 차지하는 무게중심이 점차 확대됨으로 인하여 비정상적인 방법으로 첨단산업기술정보를 획득하기 위하여 산업스파이의 활동이 치열하게 전개되고 있다. 반도체 및 정보통신기술에서 우위를 점하고 있는 대한민국의 경우도 예외가 아니다. 문제는 평시에 국가가 파견한 간첩의 문제에 대하여 국제법적인 규범이 없는 것과 유사하게 산업스파이의 규제에 대한 국제법적인 근거 자체가 미약하다는 점이다. 국제경제의 활성화와 더불어 산업재산권에 관한 파리협약 및 WTO/TRIPS협정에 의하여 부정경쟁방지에 관한 규정이 있다고 해도 그 보호방법은 각 회원국의 법체계와 관행의 범위 내에서 적절한 이행방법을 결정할 수 있도록 허용하고 있다. 따라서 그 첨단산업기술을 보호하기 위한 방법과 그 보호정도는 국가에 따라서 다르다. 그러므로 산업스파이의 개념 속에 다음과 같은 사항이 포함되어 한다: 파견자가 누구인지, 파견된 자의 신분적 지위는 무엇인지, 목적물은 대규모의 재산적 가치가 있는 것으로 추정되어야 하며, 취득 방법은 법적으로 비난받을 수 있는 비정상적인 방법을 이용하여야 한다. 산업스파이의 규제에 관한 법적 근거는 WTO/TRIPS협정 제39조, NAFTA협정 제1711조, 파리협약 제10조 bis 및 각국의 국내법으로 볼 수 있다. 그 외에 UN헌장 제2조 4항을 근거로 영토의 불가침성 및 국제관습을 근거로 산업스파이에 대하여 규제가 가능한지 여부에 대하여 검토해 보았으나 그 근거를 제시하기에는 부정적으로 보였다. 따라서 산업스파이의 규제의 내용은 사실상 각국의 국내법에 위임되어 있는 것이 현실이다. 그러므로 산업스파이가 전시의 스파이(간첩)와 이중성 지위를 누리고 있다는 점을 고려할 때 산업스파이의 처벌에 관한 문제가 제기되고 그 핵심은 산업스파이가 정치범의 범주에 포함될 수 있는지 여부이다. The activity of industrial espionage due to gradually expand the relative importance of economic issues in international relation is displaying intensively in order to gain advanced technology-information. Korea which takes priority of semiconductor and information-communication technology is not a calm area excluded from the activity of industrial espionage. The problem is that there is not any firm legal ground from the standpoint of international law on the regulation of industrial espionage. It is similar not to have any legal ground on the activity of spy in peace time. Even though Paris Convention(Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property) and WTO/TRIPS(Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) have provisions on unfair competition, member states shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of both agreements within their own legal system and practice. That's why the protection method and level of advanced industrial technology differs from state to state. Therefore, the definition of industrial espionage should be contained as following elements: who is a seconding state of industrial espionage?, what is the legal status seconded?, the objects to be stolen must be presumed to have large-scale property value, and the way to get the information use unfair methods responsible for legal blame. Legal ground on regulation of industrial espionage considers to be article 39 of WTO/TRIPS, article 1711 of NAFTA, Article 10bis of Paris Convention, and municipal law of individual state. I have checked it out to be legal grounds whether industrial espionage can be regulated by the inviolability of territorial integrity based on article 2(4) of United Charter and international customary law, but the answer is negative. Therefore, contents of regulation of industrial espionage, in fact, is entrusted to each individual state. Consequently, it raises issues related to punishment of industrial espionage because an industrial espionage considers to enjoy double status just as a spy has in war time. And the most critical issue raised related to it is the point of whether or not to be contained with category of political offence