국방관련 보도의 공법적 규제에 대한 소고

안준형(Ahn, Jun Hyeong) 행정법이론실무학회 2013 행정법연구 Vol.- No.35

언론과 군은 그 성격과 목적상의 본질적 차이로 인하여 역사적으로 갈등관계가 오랫동안 지속되어 왔다. 우리나라에서는 1987년 ‘6.29 선언’ 이후 언론의 자유가 정착되기 시작하면서 국방관련 보도 제한이 대폭 완화되었으나, 언론보도를 통하여 군사기밀이 누설되는 사례가 점차 증가하기 시작하였다. 그러나 이를 적극적으로 해결하여야 할 정부가 제도적 장치마련에 고심하기보다는 정보원(情報源)에 대한 언론의 접근권 자체를 제한하거나 임시방편적으로 법적 구속력이 없는 ‘엠바고’를 보도규제의 수단으로 활용하면서 비공식적인 보도규제의 적법성에 대한 논의가 점차 심화되었다. 본 연구는 이와 같은 문제의식을 바탕으로 공법적 관점에서 국방관련 보도규제를 다루었다. 이를 위하여 먼저 현행법상 국방관련 보도에 대한 공법적 규제수단들을 살펴보고, 이들을 공법적 논의의 대상으로 포섭하고자 하였다. 특히 본 연구는 미국, 영국, 이스라엘의 법체계와 제도를 비교법적으로 검토함으로써 국방관련 보도규제에 대한 체계적 연구의 필요성을 강조하는 한편, 우리나라의 실정에 맞는 법체계 확립과 발전 방향을 제시함으로써 향후 우리나라의 법제정비에 필요한 이론적 토대를 마련하고자 하였다. 국방관련 보도의 규제는 국민이라는 존재의 전제가 되는 국가존립을 위하여 필수불가결한 수단이 된다. 그러나 그 중요성에도 불구하고 사후적 보도규제로서의 엠바고는 사적합의에 불과한 것으로 치부되어 관련 영역에서 분쟁이 발생하는 경우에도 실무상 민사소송의 형식으로 가처분을 구하거나 민사상 손해배상을 구하는 경우가 많았다. 언론의 자유든 그것의 규제든 이들의 궁극적인 목적은 ‘국가안전보장’이라는 공익추구이므로 보도규제를 위한 행정작용들은 모두 공법적 규제의 틀에서 이해되어야 할 것이며, 관련 영역에서 나타나는 분쟁 역시 행정소송에 의하여 해결될 필요가 있다. Conflict between the media and the military is historically long lasting due to inherent differences in nature and goals. Since South Korea’s ‘6.29 Declaration for Democratization’ in 1987, freedom of speech has seen an easing of restrictions in defense-related media coverage. However, the press did not fulfill responsibilities corresponding to freedom of speech in constitutional law, revealed by increased leakage of military secrets through media coverage. The government was supposed to resolve this, but lacked sufficient determination to implement institutional strategies. Instead, the government restricted ‘the right of access to information’ from the press or adopted a non-binding ‘news embargo’ as a stopgap measure. This regulated the press and led to increased debate on the legality of unofficial media regulations. This study dealt with regulation of defense-related media coverage from the perspective of public law based on this critical mindset. In particular, in regards to the ‘news embargo’, used primarily as a means of ex-post administrative regulation, this study intends to define the role of administrative law in regulating press coverage by subsuming it under the regulatory area of public law as private law, in legally non-binding private agreements. While emphasizing the need for a systematic study on regulations for defense-related media coverage by comparatively reviewing the legal system and institutions of the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel, this study intends to establish a theoretical foundation necessary for redesigning South Korea’s legal system by suggesting the establishment and development of an appropriate legal system, unique to South Korea"s circumstances. The regulation of defense-related media coverage is an essential means for the existence of a state, which is the premise of the people"s existence. Despite its importance, however, ‘news embargo’ as a means of ex-post regulation has been regarded as a mere private agreement, and even if a dispute arose from relevant areas, it often sought injunction in the form of civil action or civil compensation in practice. Since the ultimate goal of either freedom of speech or its regulation is the pursuit of the public interest called ‘National Security,’ the administrative action for the regulation of media coverage should be understood in the framework of public law, and the disputes appearing in the relevant area also need to be addressed by administrative litigation. Accordingly, this study placed a focus of discussion on the legality of the current regulatory system and the possibility of administrative litigation as its limits.

해방직후 주한미군정의 국제법적 성격

안준형(Jun-hyeong AHN) 서울국제법연구원 2018 서울국제법연구 Vol.25 No.2

그 동안 우리나라는 일제 강점(1910-1945), 미·소 군정(1945-1948), 한국전쟁(1950-1953) 등의 역사적 굴곡을 겪으면서 헤이그 육전규칙이 채택된 1899/1907년 이래 수차례에 걸쳐 외국의 ‘점령’을 경험한 바 있다. 각각의 경우 그 역사적 진행과정이나 정치사적 의미에 대해서는 이미 수많은 논의들이 있어 왔으나, 그 국제법적 성격과 적법성에 대한 규범적 평가는 깊이 있게 논의되지 못했던 것이 사실이다. 이 글에서는 먼저 한반도 점령의 특수성과 그에 따른 국제법적 지위에 관한 기존 논의의 한계를 지적하였다. 이어서 미국의 점령에도 불구하고 국제법상 이전이 허용되지 않는 ‘기존 주권’의 귀속 주체가 누구인지, 그와 같은 경우 미국에 의한 점령의 국제법적 성격을 어떻게 이해할 수 있을 것인지에 대하여 검토하였다. 1949년 제네바 제4협약 제2조는 그 적용범위에 어떠한 예외도 설정하지 않고 있을 뿐 아니라, 제7조에서는 교전국 간에 체결된 어떠한 특별협정도 조약상 부여된 권리를 제한하지 못하도록 하고 있으므로, 독일과 일본 및 한반도에서의 ‘변형적 점령’ 사례는 오늘날 더 이상 유효한 선례로 작용한다고 보기 어려울 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 한반도 점령의 특수성과 그 규범적 특성을 성찰하는 과정에서 국제점령법의 발전과정에 대한 여러 시사점을 얻을 수 있다는 점에서 이와 같은 논의는 일정한 의미를 지니고 있다고 본다. Until now, The Korean Peninsula has undergone several times of foreign occupation by experiencing historical flexures such as the Imperial Japan’s forced occupation(1910-1945), the US-Soviet Union’s military governments(1945-1948) and Korean War(1950-1953) since 1899/1907, when the Hague Regulations were adopted. In each case, there have been a lot of discussions about its historical progress and meaning of politics history, but the normative evaluation of its legal nature and legality in the perspective of international law has not been discussed in depth. This study, above all, pointed out the limitations of existing discussions on the specificity of the occupation of the Korean peninsula and its international legal status. Then, this study examined who is the attribution subject of the "existing sovereignty" that is not allowed to be transferred under the international law despite the US occupation, and, in such a case, investigated how the international legal nature of occupation by the United States can be understood. As Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949 sets no exceptions in its scope and moreover, in Article 7, no special agreement between the belligerents adversely restricts the rights granted by the convention, the cases of "transformative occupation" in Germany, Japan, and the Korean peninsula will no longer be a valid precedent. Nevertheless, this discussion may find a significant meaning in that there are several implications for the development process with regard to the international law of occupation in the process of reflecting on the specificity and normative characteristics of occupation of the Korean peninsula.

점령지역에서 국제점령법과 국제인권법의 상호관계

안준형(Ahn, Jun Hyeong) 대한국제법학회 2018 國際法學會論叢 Vol.63 No.1

오늘날 국제점령법의 적용영역은 국제인도법에 한정되지 아니하고, 국제인권법이나 무력사용 금지의 원칙, 자결권 등과 같은 일반국제법상의 원칙, 경우에 따라서는 안보리결의 등 국제법상 상이한 법체계에 속하는 다양한 규범들을 모두 아우르는 것으로 이해되고 있다. 이와 같은 국제점령법의 외연 확장에 따라 특별히 주목이 요구되는 부분은 점령지역에서 권한을 행사하는 점령국의 권리와 그 의무를 평가하는 데 있어서 새롭게 나타난 다양한 규범적 층위들이 어떻게 고려되고 상호 조정되어야 하는가를 살피는 데 있다고 보아야 할 것이다. 2005년의 Armed Activities case에서 ICJ는 2004년의 Palestinian Wall case에서의 권고적 의견을 원용하면서, 점령지역에서 국제인권법과 국제인도법은 동시에 고려되어야 하며 국제인권규범은 국가가 자국 영토의 외부지역 특히 점령지역에서 관할권을 행사한 경우에도 적용가능하다는 점을 재차 강조하였다. 그러나 이와 같은 일련의 사건들에서 ICJ는 점령지역에서 적용되는 국제인도법인 국제점령법과 국제인권법 상호간의 관계가 구체적인 상황에서 어떠한 관련성을 갖는지에 대해서는 언급하지 않았다. 특히 ICJ는 헤이그 육전규칙 제43조가 국제인도법 뿐만 아니라 적용가능한 국제인권법 준수를 확보하는데 필요한 조치를 취할 의무까지 포함한다고 설시함으로써, 양 법체계 상호간의 관계에 대한 의문점은 오히려 증폭되고 말았다. 본고에서는 (ⅰ) 점령국 또는 피점령국이 특정 인권조약의 당사국일 경우 문제된 점령지역에서도 당해 인권조약이 적용된다고 볼 수 있는가? (ⅱ) ICJ가 Armed Activities case에서 설시한 바와 같이, 국제점령법의 적용기준이 충족되면 국제인권법도 당연히 적용된다는 논리는 타당한 것인가? (ⅲ) 점령지역에서 국제점령법과 국제인권법이 동시에 적용된다고 할 경우, 국제점령법과의 관계에 있어서 국제인권법은 어떠한 역할과 기능을 수행하는가의 문제를 순차적으로 검토하였다. 첫 번째 문제와 관련하여 2005년의 Armed Activities case에서 ICJ는 해외 점령지역에 대한 국제인권법의 역외적용 가능성을 일반적으로 인정하였다고 보는 것이 타당한 결론일 것이다. 두 번째 문제와 관련해서는 ‘영토에 대한 실효적 지배’가 이루어진 경우 이외에도 납치, 구금 등 ‘개인에 대한 사실상의 지배’가 확보된 경우까지 국제인권법의 적용기준으로서의 ‘관할권’이 성립된다는 점을 고려하면, 일반적으로 국제인권법의 장소적 적용범위는 국제점령법의 경우에 비해 광범위한 것으로 볼 수 있을 것이다. 이렇게 볼 때 점령상태가 존재하면 국제인권법의 역외적용도 당연히 수반되는 것으로 보는 것이 타당할 것이다. 마지막으로 ICJ는 국제인도법과 국제인권법 양 법체계 상호간의 관계를 ‘특별법 우선의 원칙’으로 설정하였으나, 이는 규범충돌을 해결하는 기제로서가 아니라 규범충돌을 방지하기 위한 해석의 원칙으로 이해할 필요가 있다. 따라서 양 법체계 상호간의 관계는 우선순위 관계에 기초한 상호 배제적인 것이 아니라 ‘체계적 통합’의 관점에 기초한 상호 보완적인 것으로 보아야 할 것이다. 특히 동일 사안을 각 규범체계가 각기 달리 규율하고 있을 경우에는 특별법 우선원칙에 따라 가장 상세한 지침을 제시하고 있는 규정이 보다 우선적으로 고려되어야 한다. 이에 따라 점령지역에서 국제인권법은 국제점령법의 집행에 있어 발생하는 흠결을 보충하고 감독하는 ‘소극적 기능’과 함께, 일정한 경우 점령국에게 확대된 의무를 부과함으로써 점령지역 주민들의 인권을 증진시키는 보다 ‘적극적 기능’을 수행한다고 평가할 수 있을 것이다. The International Law of Occupation today extends beyond the realm of international humanitarian law and encompass a multitude of norms belonging to different legal regimes within international law, which includes human rights law or general international law and, in some cases, resolutions of the Security Council. Along with this extension of the international law of occupation, the part which requires the special attention is to be seen that the various normative strata that are emerging are to be considered and to be reconciled in assessing the rights and obligations of an occupant. In the 2005 Armed Activities case, ICJ emphasized that international human rights law and international humanitarian law would have to be taken into consideration in occupied territories, and that the international covenant on human rights is also applicable when a state exercises jurisdiction in the external territory, in particular in occupied territories. However, in these series of events, the ICJ did not mention how the relationship between international human rights law and international law of occupation has any particular relevance. In particular, as the ICJ held that Article 43 of the Hague Regulations comprise the obligation to take measures to secure respect for the applicable rules of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the question of the relationship between the two branches of international law has been rather amplified. In this study, the following questions were examined sequentially: (i) If the occupying power or the occupied state is a party to a specific human rights treaty, can it be considered that the human rights treaty applies also to the affected occupied territory? (ii) As stated in the ICJ Armed Activities case, is it reasonable to assume that international human rights law also applies if the criteria of international law of occupation are met? (iii) What role and function does the international human rights law play in relation to the international law of occupation if the international law of occupation and the international human rights law are applied at the same time? With regard to the first question, in the 2005 Armed Activities case, it would be a valid conclusion that the ICJ generally recognized the possibility of extra-territorial application of international human rights law to occupied territories. Regarding the second question, besides the case of fulfilling the ‘effective territorial control’ test, considering that ‘jurisdiction’ test as an application standard of international human rights law is established, in general, the scope of the international human rights law is broader than that of the international law of occupation. In this sense, if the status of occupation exists, it is reasonable to assume that the international human rights law is also accompanied by extra-territorial application. Lastly, the ICJ has established the relationship between the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law as ‘lex specialis’ principle. However, it is necessary to understand this as a principle of interpretation to prevent normative conflicts, not as a mechanism to resolve normative conflicts. Therefore, the relationship between the two legal systems should be regarded as complementary based on the viewpoint of ‘systematic integration’ rather than mutual exclusion based on the priority relation. In particular, where each normative system governs the same issue differently, the provisions providing the most detailed guidance in accordance with lex specialis principle should be considered as a priority. Accordingly, it can be said that the international human rights law in the occupied territories carries out more ‘active function’ which promotes the human rights of peoples in the occupied territory by imposing extended obligations on the occupied country in certain cases together with the ‘passive function’ to supplement an

‘변형적 점령’과 국제점령법의 적용

안준형(Ahn, Jun Hyeong) 국제법평론회 2018 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.51

Until the 19th century, ‘occupation’ made it possible to immediately acquire all the titles of the region by excluding the sovereignty of the territory. Until the medieval period, occupation was synonymous with ‘conquest’ or ‘exploitation’. Thus, the transfer of sovereignty through occupation included not only the territory and the public property of the country, but also all private property. However, as political and ideological changes such as the principle of balance of power, humanitarian ideology, the development of modern military organizations, and emergence of nation states, etc. appeared in the nineteenth century, the concept of traditional occupation in the same sense as conquest gradually disappeared, and the concept of occupation based on the idea of ‘t emporary control’ on the occupied territories became firmly established. Thus, ① temporality of occupation, ② the principle of the inalienability of sovereignty through sheer force, and ③ the ‘conservationist principle’ based on preservation of status quo ante in the territory were regarded as core principles of International Law of Occupation. However, the occupation of Iraq in 2003 brought a chance to trigger a debate on whether to provide adequate function as a normative framework that governs the rights and obligations of the occupant with the existing International Law of Occupation. The ‘transformative occupation that emerged in 2003 with the occupation of Iraq is that the conservationist principle, which forms the core of the International Law of Occupation, no longer meets the demands of the times, which was linked to the argument that an alternative legal system reflecting state practice should be sought. However, the existence of the occupation is not a matter of law but merely a matter of fact. No matter how denied the status of occupying power, the effectiveness of the International Law of Occupation cannot be denied in that it is enough to establish ‘effective control’ by the occupying power. Of course, it cannot be denied that recent occupation patterns have been unusual circumstances that were not envisioned at the time of the adoption of the Hague Regulations of 1907. Nevertheless, as long as the effective control test of Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 are met, the occupying power should still be seen as being bound by the International Law of Occupation.

점령지역에서의 무력행사 기준과 그 한계: ‘법집행’과 ‘적대행위’ 간의 구별을 중심으로

안준형(Ahn, Jun Hyeong) 대한적십자사 인도법연구소 2020 人道法論叢 Vol.- No.40

점령상태는 기본적으로 ‘국제적 무력충돌’에 해당하며 국제인도법과 국제인권법이 동시에 적용되는 점령지역에서 국제인도법이 특별법에 해당한다고 해서 점령국이 국제인도법상의 적대행위 기준에 따라 자유롭게 무력을 사용할 수 있는 것은 아니다. 점령 상황은 구체적인 적대행위의 정도에 따라 전쟁과 평화 사이에서 양극단을 연결하는 선의 어느 한 지점에 위치할 수 있는 만큼, 국제인도법에 기초한 적대행위 모델을 적용하여 적극적인 무력사용이 필요한 경우와 함께 국제인권법에 기초한 법집행모델을 적용하여 무력사용을 최소화해야 하는 경우가 공존한다는 특수성을 갖기 때문이다. 이론적으로 볼 때 국제인도법이 우선 적용되는 ‘적대행위’와 국제인권법이 우선 적용되는 ‘법집행’ 간에는 상당한 차이점이 존재한다. 점령국이 법집행을 위해 무력을 사용하고자 할 경우에는 사실상 경찰력을 발동하는 것인 만큼, 그 물리력의 사용은 절대적으로 필요한 상황으로 국한되어야 하며 최후의 수단일 것이 요구된다. 이 경우 생명권은 두텁게 보호되므로 그 피해 역시 최소화될 것이 요구됨은 물론이다. 이와 달리 국제인도법상의 ‘적대행위’는 애당초 합법적인 군사목표물인 전투원을 대상으로 하는 것인 만큼 생명권의 박탈을 전제하고 있다. 점령법의 소헌법에 해당한다는 평가를 받고 있는 1907년 헤이그 육전규칙 제43조는 점령국에게 공공질서와 시민생활을 회복 및 보장할 의무를 보장하고 있으나, 실제 점령지역에서 발생하는 무력충돌이 국제인권법에 따른 경찰력을 행사해야 하는 상황인지, 군사활동에 준하는 무력대응이 필요한 상황인지를 구별하는 구체적인 기준에 대하여 명확한 지침을 제시하지 못하고 있다. 이에 따라 본 연구에서는 점령국이 무력행사가 필요한 상황에서 국제인권법과 국제인도법 가운데 구체적으로 어떠한 규범체계를 일차적으로 고려하여야 하는지, 이를 결정짓는 기준은 무엇인지를 종합적으로 검토하였다. 이와 같은 논의는 향후 휴전선 이북지역에서의 안정화 작전을 수행함에 있어 구체적인 무력행사의 기준과 그 한계를 정립하는데 일정한 시사점을 제공함으로써, 궁극적으로 북한지역 주민들의 인권 보호를 향상시키는데 기여할 수 있을 것이다. The occurrence of occupation basically corresponds to "international armed conflict", and in an occupied territory where international humanitarian law and international human rights law apply simultaneously, although international humanitarian law is a lex specialis, the occupying power is not free to use force in accordance with the standards of hostilities in international humanitarian law. As an occupied situation can be located at any point on the line that connects the extremes between war and peace, depending on the specific degree of hostilities, it is because it has the special characteristic of coexistence in that there are cases that need minimized use of force applying the law enforcement model based on international human rights law along with cases that need active use of force adopting a model of hostilities based on international humanitarian law. Seen from a theoretical perspective, there is a significant difference between ‘hostilities’ in which international humanitarian law takes precedence and ‘law enforcement’ in which international human rights law takes precedence. As long as the occupying power wants to use force for law enforcement, it is in effect acting as a police force, so the use of the physical force should be limited to absolutely necessary circumstances and required to be the last resort. In this case, the right to life is thickly protected, so the damage is also required to be minimized. On the other hand, ‘hostility’ in international humanitarian law presupposes the deprivation of the right to life, as it is intended primarily for combatants who are legitimate military targets. Article 43 of the 19707 Hague Regulations, which is considered to be a small constitutional law of the law of occupation, guarantees the occupying power the obligation to restore and ensure public order and civil life, but it has not been able to provide clear guidance on specific criteria for distinguishing whether the armed conflict actually occurring in the occupied territory is a situation where police force under international human rights law should be exercised from whether a military response to military activity is necessary. Thus, this study comprehensively reviewed which of the two such as human rights law and international humanitarian law should be considered in the first place in a situation where the occupying power needs armed forces, and what criteria should be used in determining it. The discussion as such may provide certain implications for establishing the standards and limitations of armed forces in carrying out stabilization operations in the North Korean territory in the future, and ultimately, it could contribute to improving the protection of human rights for North Koreans.

다국적 군사작전 시 국제인도법의 상호운용성 확보방안

안준형(Ahn, Jun-Hyeong) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2023 서강법률논총 Vol.12 No.2

춘원(春園) 이광수(李光洙)의 생애와 법의식

안준형 ( Ahn Jun Hyeong ) 연세법학회 2016 연세법학 Vol.28 No.-

Ch`unwon Yi Kwang Soo was a literary person. He was not only a novelist but also he was a poet, critic and essayist. Moreover, he was also an educator and nationalist activist who was not afraid of taking the social responsibility at the time. On that account, he has constantly been a subject of study for a countless number of researchers. As a result, there have been a considerable number of high-quality research achievements on Ch`unwon Yi Kwang Soo. So far, Ch`unwon has been studied from various aspects, including literature, history, geography, medicine, psychology, politics, philosophy and Korean studies. Still, many researchers are examining his life and achievements from diverse angles. Nonetheless, Ch`unwon Yi Kwang Soo has not gained a lot of attention from the legal field. In fact, Ch`unwon had never worked in the legal field. He had never studied law. That is, he was far from being a renowned jurist with important achievements for the legal field. As is generally known, he was the novelist who helped found the study of journalism in Korea. Also, he was a poet, journalist, educator, independence activist and thinker. In this respect, it would be extremely difficult to verify his unique legal awareness from the specific events and achievements in his life. Nevertheless, we should admit that his legal awareness is very unique and also of great significance because he had to endure and embrace all the changes in Korea`s legal system amid the turmoil in Korean peninsular at the time, which included the unstable situation in the Late Chosun Dynasty, Japanese imperialism, Korean liberation, national foundation and division. In the light of the fact that each person`s legal experience constitutes his or her legal awareness or thought, this study first aimed to verify the legal awareness of Ch`unwon Yi Kwang Soo on the basis of his legal experiences and writings throughout his entire life. To this end, this study traced the aspects forming the basis of his thought from his life and then attempted to analyze his legal awareness. In particular, this study conducted a brief review on the ideological currents of Tolstoy who seems to have influenced the formation of his legal awareness. His legal awareness, which was revealed through the preliminary analysis conducted in this study, was the ideological discourse in which the existential experience of a contextually “deprived” intellectual, who had spent most of his life under Japanese colonial rule and who had to live in exile as being blamed as a national traitor and who ended his life in the Korean war, was deeply reflected. In his literature containing his intellectual insight, Ch`unwon Yi Kwang Soo had not only included the social, political and ideological basis of his legal thought but also his macroscopic and comprehensive review. The analysis conducted in this study on the legal awareness of Ch`unwon Yi Kwang Soo is one such example. We often think of his “pro-Japanese” actions whenever we talk about Ch`unwon Yi Kwang Soo. Hence, many discussions on Ch`unwon Yi Kwang Soo have mainly attempted to verify whether his actions during the Japanese colonial rule were really intended to help the Japanese imperialists or to disguise himself for national independence. However, regardless of whether he was really a pro-Japanese national traitor or not, our duty would be to inherit and evolve his academic legacy. That is to say, we would have to make efforts to advance his legal thought, which was left to us as an unfinished task.

국제인도법의 이행 확보 메커니즘

안준형(Ahn, Jun Hyeong) 국제법평론회 2021 국제법평론 Vol.- No.60

Although international humanitarian law has been constantly developed in the direction of strengthening the protection of victims of armed conflict after the two World Wars, one of the most important and difficult issues facing the international community to this day is to effectively secure the implementation of such developed international humanitarian law. To this end, the International Committee of the Red Cross has tried to enhance the effectiveness of the mechanism for securing the implementation of international humanitarian law until recently. Nevertheless, it remains one of the key challenges facing the international community. At the time of the outbreak of the Korean War, the four Geneva Conventions in 1949 had yet to take effect, so the major international humanitarian norms that South Korea and other belligerent parties had to comply with were only the Hague Regulation of 1907. In particular, the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949, i.e. the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners, was applied as a de facto guideline to the extent that the UN commander ordered to comply scrupulously , and later Korea ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as two additional protocols. In South Korea s security situation, which is still in a armistice and has to prepare for armed conflict, “the importance of exploring ways of enhancing and ensuring the effectiveness of mechanisms of compliance with international humanitarian law, with a view to strengthening legal protection for all victims of armed conflict” needs to be further emphasized. In order to secure the effectiveness of the mechanism for implementing international humanitarian law, multilateral efforts by a number of actors are required. However, for this, above all, the will of individual States, which are the original subjects of international law, is important. Until recently, discussions on how to improve the implementation of international humanitarian law have continued through intergovernmental procedures, but revising existing international humanitarian law more thoroughly or introducing a new implementation mechanism does not ensure its effectiveness. Rather, efforts by States to thoroughly comply with the existing mechanism of implementation of international humanitarian law, whether individually or collectively, should be preceded through more organized and diverse cooperation. This paper comprehensively summarizes the mechanisms for securing the implementation of the current international humanitarian law and examines the implementation of Korea in each mechanism. Such discussions will provide the theoretical basis necessary to make the most of and develop the existing international humanitarian law compliance mechanism.

SNS 공간에서의 군인의 표현의 자유와 그 규제에 대한 연구

안준형(Jun-Hyeong Ahn) 서울대학교 공익산업법센터 2014 경제규제와 법 Vol.7 No.1

인터넷의 전 세계적 확산과 함께 시작된 정보통신기술의 발달은 그에 따른 안보위협요소에 대한 정부규제의 필요성 역시 증대시켰다. 그러나 이러한 정부의 ‘규제’를 무조건 시대착오적인 정치적 산물로 치부하는 것은 바람직하지 않다. 헌법상 공화주의 원리에 따라 공익에 부합하게 활동할 헌법적 의무를 지닌 국가는 국민의 기본권 실현뿐만 아니라 국민이라는 존재의 전제가 되는 ‘국가안전보장’을 보다 근본적으로 고려하지 않을 수 없기 때문이다. 21세기에 들어 사이버 공간을 활용한 다양한 소셜미디어가 등장함에 따라 SNS는 정치·경제·문화 등 사회 전반으로까지 확산되어 국민의 생활환경 자체를 확장시켜주었다. 그러나 사실 국가안보차원에서는 마냥 긍정적인 측면만 강조할 수 없는 것이 현실이다. 특히 주로 20대 장병들을 구성원으로 하고 있는 군에서는 대다수의 장병들이 군 안팎에서 SNS를 활용한다는 점에서, SNS 사용으로 인한 다양한 문제가 예정되어 있다고 해도 과언이 아니다. 2012년 초, 현역 육군대위가 자신의 트위터에 이명박 前대통령을 비난하는 글을 올리고 자신의 상관인 정보학교장을 모욕하는 발언을 게시함으로써 상관모욕죄로 기소되면서, 군인의 표현의 자유의 범위와 그 한계에 대한 논의가 사회적인 이슈로 부각되기 시작하였다. 뿐만 아니라, 카카오톡을 활용한 훈련지점 및 진돗개 훈련상황 전파, 정밀군사지도 전송 등 다양한 유형의 군사보안 위배행위가 공공연하게 이루어지고 있다. 이에 따라, 본 논문에서는 현역 군인의 SNS 사용규제를 염두에 두고, 군인의 SNS상 표현의 자유를 어디까지 인정하여야 할 것인지에 대한 논의를 전개하고자 한다. 미국의 사례에 대한 비교법적 검토는 우리나라의 실정에 맞는 법체계의 확립과 발전을 도모함에 있어서 이론적 토대가 될 것이다. SNS 공간은 그 본질적 특성상 사적인 성격보다 공적인 성격이 강하다는 점에서 이러한 공간에서 군인의 표현의 자유는 일정부분 제한되어야 한다. 다만, SNS 공간의 특성상 행정작용에 있어서도 규제행정은 표현의 자유 등의 기본권 침해의 위험이 매우 크기 때문에 비례의 원칙 등 규제법의 일반원칙들을 준수하여야 하고, 그 필요성의 한도 내에서 최소한으로 이루어져야 할 것이다. The spread of the internet around the world have led to a rise of government regulations. However, it would not be appropriate to dismiss government “regulations” as a product of unconditional, anachronistic political outcome for the following reason. It is inevitable for a sovereign state, with the constitutional obligation to act in favor of the public interest-in accordance with the constitutional republican principle-to fundamentally consider “national security”. After all, national security is a prerequisite for its people’s existence as well as the realization of their fundamental rights, since the concept of regulations is defined as “a public entity intervening the activities of a private entity to achieve the objectives for the public interest”. Hence, this is no longer an issue of whether the cyberspace should be a target of regulations; instead, one needs to ask what should be regulated and how, as well as the question of who would regulate. With the emergence of various social media that utilize such cyberspace in the 21st century, SNS has enhanced the people’s living conditions as it has been expended across all areas of the society including politics, economy and culture. However, it is not plausible to blindly emphasize its positive aspects from the perspective of national security. In particular, with the military personnel consisting mainly of soldiers in their 20s, with most of them actively utilizing the SNS, the increasing use of the SNS has led to various unforeseen issues. In early 2012, Captain Lee, while serving his military duty, posted some abusive remarks against the President on SNS. In March 2012, he also posted an article on the SNS insulting the head of the army information school, who was his superior at the time. As a result, Captain Lee was charged of contempt of superiors by the military prosecutor; therefore, the debate on the scope and limitation of freedom of expression for soldiers became a social issue. In the end, the Ministry of National Defense laid out the “SNS guideline” in 2012 to prevent cases violating the military security or impeding the military discipline in the wake of the spread of smartphones in the military. However, a variety of practices violating the military security, such as using Kakaotalk for transferring the information relating to the training venue, Jindo-dog training status, military maps, etc. commonplace in practice. However, there has been insufficient discussion regarding the extent of the freedom of expression that could be guaranteed for solders in light of the problems over the use of SNS. This paper aims to develop this discussion. In order to do so, it firsts examine the legal nature of the SNS space based on the concept of SNS. It then reviews whether SNS space would really be subject to legal regulations. In particular, it aims to investigate the extent to which the freedom of expression of soldiers on SNS space is recognized in the US, where the freedom of expression is regarded as the highest value from the comparative legal view. From this, the paper explores the implications for appropriate regulations by analyzing the current legal regulatory measures of South Korea based on the aforementioned points.

국제인도법상 불법전투원의 법적 지위

안준형(Jun-hyeong AHN) 서울국제법연구원 2021 서울국제법연구 Vol.28 No.1