포스트 브렉시트와 향후 유럽연합의 통합 쟁점 소고 - 「유럽연합 탈퇴법(WA) 2018」을 소재로 -

김용훈 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2021 서울법학 Vol.29 No.3

Britain has claimed to play a role as a balancer in European history and adhered to a policy of keeping a certain distance from European continental countries. However, this basic position of the UK was maintained in the policy on European Union integration after UK joined the EU. And in the long run, in June 2016, the UK declared a withdrawal from the European Union (namely Brexit). The European Union is proud of its status as a local community(sui generis entity) distinct from the state and international organizations, which are considered as major actors in the international community, and accordingly EU clarifies its own direction of integration by trying to enact the its own constitution. Actually, the constitution is usually the supreme or fundamental law of the state, and it occupies its status as a domestic law in that it guarantees the fundamental rights of the people and further confirms the power of governing organizations and various principles such as the principle of democracy and rule of law. Therefore, the fact that the European Union attempted to enact its own constitution has made the identity of the European Union more clear. In other words, the European Union held the key to integration in its own way despite the fact that EU had the problem of “deficiency of democracy,” and the problem of confliction against the policies or insistence of member states, especially sovereignty. Eventually, the UK made a definite decision to withdraw from EU in order to regain its sovereignty. Someone may say that it is difficult to expect the European Union's integration to progress in the future due to the Brexit, but there is also another opinion that integration will continue. It is true that there is considerable possibility of conflict between the European Union and member states over the initiative of integration in the future. In other words, this conflict can be interpreted as a conflict between a member state's position to protect its own constitution and European Union’s position to strengthen the substantial constitutional contents in the EU law, which enable us to examine the direction and level of European Union integration closely in the future. 영국은 유럽 외교사에 있어 균형자로서의 역할을 자처하면서 유럽 대륙 국가에 대하여 일정 정도 거리를 유지하는 정책을 고수하였다. 그런데 이와 같은 영국의 기본 입장은 유럽연합 통합에 대한 정책에서도 답습이 되었는데 급기야 2016년 6월 영국은 유럽연합으로부터의 탈퇴를 통한 결별을 선언하게 된다. 유럽연합은 국제사회에서의 주요 행위자인 국가와 국제기구와 구별되는 지역공동체로서의 위상을 강조하며 그 통합의 수준을 강화하고 있으며 급기야 유럽연합 수준의 헌법 제정까지도 도모하는 등 자신만의 통합 방향성을 명확히 하고 있다. 헌법은 통상적으로 국가의 최고법 혹은 근본법으로서, 국민의 기본권을 보장하고 나아가 국가의 통치조직과 작용의 원리를 정하는 법이라는 점에서 국가법으로서의 위상을 차지하는 법이다. 따라서 유럽연합이 당해 헌법을 제정하려는 시도를 하였다는 것은 유럽연합의 정체성의 평가에 있어 상당한 함의를 차지한다고 볼 수 있다. 즉, 유럽연합은 ‘민주주의의 결핍’이라는 문제를 안고 있음에도 자신의 방식으로 통합의 키를 쥐고 있었던 것인데 이와 같은 유럽연합의 고집은 회원국의 정책, 특히 주권과 충돌하였음은 물론이다. 급기야 영국은 자신의 주권을 되찾기 위하여 탈퇴라는 강수를 두었던 것이고 유럽연합과의 결별을 선언한 것이다. 브렉시트를 계기로 유럽연합의 통합이 진전되는 것을 기대하기 힘들다는 견해도 있지만 오히려 통합이 가속화될 것이라는 견해 역시 존재하고 있다. 향후 통합이라는 주도권을 두고 유럽연합과 회원국 간 갈등의 소지는 상당한 것이 사실이다. 이는 달리 말해 회원국 자신의 헌법을 보호하기 위한 입장과 유럽연합 수준의 실질적인 헌법을 강화해나가기 위한 입장간의 갈등으로 구체화될 것이고 결국 이를 통하여 유럽연합 통합의 방향과 수준을 보다 면밀하게 확인할 수 있을 것으로 보인다.

영국의 EU 탈퇴와 국제사법 - 불법행위에 관한 준거법 선택규칙을 중심으로 -

오석웅 한국국제사법학회 2023 國際私法硏究 Vol.29 No.1

The United Kingdom decided to withdraw from the European Union through a national referendum held on June 23, 2016, and officially withdrew from the EU on February 1, 2020, with the entry into force of the 「Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community」. The UK's withdrawal from the EU(Brexit) means that EU law no longer applies in all areas where EU law prevails, including the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. Consequently, the Rome II Regulation no longer applies to legal disputes involving the UK as a relevant party. Without the application of the Rome II Regulation, the choice of law rules for non-contractual obligations in the UK will return to its domestic legal system. Without appropriate transitional provisions, this may lead to an undesirable situation where different systems apply to the same set of facts based on the date of withdrawal. To ensure the maintenance of a functional legal framework in international legal disputes in response to such changes, the UK enacted the 「European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018」. Additionally, in relation to the choice of law rules, the UK implemented 「the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations(Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019」, which replaced the existing Rome I and Rome II Regulations with UK law. This regulation explicitly states that certain provisions of the existing Rome II Regulation continue to apply as part of UK law (UK Rome II) through modifications, ensuring the preservation of its content even after the EU withdrawal. Therefore, it is difficult to say that the UK's withdrawal from the EU has brought significant changes to the choice of law rules for torts. However, it should be noted that the UK's adoption of the Rome II Regulation as part of domestic law is based on the current legal status. EU laws, including the Rome II Regulation, can be amended in the future, and specific provisions will not automatically apply in the UK. Any amended provisions would need to be expressly adopted through UK domestic legislation. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the legal measures that the UK may take if the Rome II Regulation is amended in the future. Furthermore, the UK's withdrawal from the EU also necessitates consideration of the fact that the UK is no longer bound by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU). While the UK has chosen to retain the Rome II Regulation as part of domestic law, the absence of CJEU jurisdiction raises uncertainty about how UK courts will interpret and apply retained EU law provisions. EU legislative activities have been closely linked to CJEU case law, with the CJEU primarily responsible for interpreting EU law and providing new directions for EU legislative activities. The UK's withdrawal from the EU will inevitably remove the influence of CJEU case law on UK court decisions, and CJEU interpretations and judgments will no longer have a direct impact on UK court determinations. This also applies to the field of determining the law applicable to torts and other non-contractual obligations. While the persuasive power of CJEU rulings may still be considered to some extent, UK courts will develop their own jurisprudence in this field, and it is expected that different interpretations of the same Rome II provisions may arise between the CJEU and UK courts. This study aims to examine the application relationship between the choice of law rules for torts under the Rome II Regulation, which applied before the UK's EU withdrawal, and to review the modifications to the domestically enacted Rome II Regulation (UK Rome II) after the withdrawal.

영국법의 동향 -브렉시트의 영향을 중심으로-

오성근 한국상사법학회 2020 商事法硏究 Vol.39 No.3

This study focuses on the effects of the UKʼs Brexit on UK law, especially corporate law. In addition, in order to undertake such study, an analysis was made of the business activities of the European Union (UE) and European Economic Area (EEA) and related basic rights of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), EU directives, and the overall UK legal system. In the case that there is a hard Brexit, it appears that there will be many restrictions on the operations of UK companies in the EU and EEA. For this reason, the establishment and transfer of companies that want to acquire legal status in the EU as well as cross-border mergers will be much more difficult than now. With regard to tender offers for companies, little impact is expected in the short term because of the history of UK and EU legislation; however, in the medium to long term, the gap between the laws of the UK and those of the member states of the EU may widen. Therefore, it is important for Korean companies to prepare for this situation. An alternative is a soft Brexit. That is, if the UK participates in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) after Brexit and becomes a member of the EEA, there should be no significant impact on corporate activities such as freedom of movement. Therefore, in this case, the content of the agreement between the UK and the EU will be important. To describe these contents, this study is developed in the order of: Ⅱ EU legal system and the influence of Brexit on UK law, Ⅲ the impact of Brexit on corporate legislation, and Ⅳ concluding remarks. 이 글에서는 영국의 브렉시트가 영국법 특히 회사법제에 미치는 영향을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 그리고 그 수단으로서 EU 및 유럽경제지역(EEA)의 기업활동과 관련이 있는「EU운영조약」(TFEU)상의 기본권, EU의 지침 및 영국의 법제를 개괄적으로 분석하여 보았다. 검토의 결과 하드 브렉시트로 귀결되는 때에는 EU 또는 유럽경제지역에서의 영국의 기업이 EU에서 활동을 하는 데에는 많은 제약이 있을 것으로 보인다. 이 때문에 EU의 법인격을 취득하고자 하는 기업의 설립이나 기업의 이동, 그리고 국제적 합병이 현재보다 크게 어려워질 것으로 예상된다. 기업의 공개매수와 관련하여서는 영국과 EU법제의 연혁상 단기적으로는 우려만큼의 영향은 없을 것으로 보이지만, 중장기적으로는 영국과 EU회원국 법률 간의 간극이 확대될 수 있다. 그러므로 우리기업으로서는 이러한 상황에 대비를 하는 것이 중요할 것으로 보인다. 이에 비하여 소프트 브렉시트, 즉 영국이 브렉시트 이후에도 유럽자유무역연합(EFTA)에 참가하고, 유럽경제지역(EEA)의 가입국이 되면, 기업의 이동의 자유 등 기업의 활동에는 큰 영향이 없을 것으로 보인다. 따라서 이 경우에는 영국과 EU 간의 개별협정의 내용이 중요할 것으로 보인다. 이러한 내용을 기술하기 위하여 이 글의 전개순서는 Ⅱ. EU의 법체계와 브렉시트로 인한 영국법의 영향, Ⅲ. 브렉시트가 회사법제에 미치는 영향, Ⅳ. 맺음말 순서로 하였다.