ILO 핵심협약의 비준과 노조법 개정안을 둘러싼 쟁점과 과제

박지순,최홍기 안암법학회 2020 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.61

Recently, there have ben increasing cals from politcal circles and labour groups to ratify the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO). The Korean government has submited an amendment to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA) to the 21st National Asembly to ratify these Conventions. Social discusions are also actively underway. In the age of globalization, it is important to consider Korea’s international status; by acepting international labour standards, the colective labour–management relations law and system raise the level of and face the oportunity for realising labour-management autonomy. Korea only ratifed 29 of the ILO’s 189 Conventions, which contrasts with the average of 61 Conventions ratifed by OECD countries. In particular, since it did not ratify four of the ILO’s eight fundamental conventions, the Korean government is facing domestic and international critcism that the guarante of fundamental labour rights is fragile. This situation makes it feasible to ratify the ILO fundamental conventions and improve the colective labour–management relations law. However, to ratify the fundamental conventions, it is imperative to consider various factors, such as normative necesity; the formation of a consensus amongst labour, management and government; the problems and riple efects of the ratifcation of ILO fundamental conventions; and the conformity with labour–management relations law and order in Korea. The diverse opinions and evaluations amongst individual isues on the amended TULRAA proposed by the government require a cautious aproach. This oportunity is necesary to consider deply reforming the colective labour–management relations order in a reasonable and rationale maner. To achieve stable development of labour–management relations and the national economy in Korea, it is vital to promote legislation and ratifcation by discusing detailed analysis and isues on the amended TULRAA on the premise of the future-oriented labour– management relations model. The ratifcation of the ILO fundamental conventions and the improvement of the colective labour–management relations laws and systems can be an oportunity to develop the nation’s labour–management relations to a new level. Labour, management and the government ned to discus this mater cautiously and actively and with a sense of mision. 최근 정치권과 노동계 등을 중심으로 ILO 핵심협약(Core Convention) 을 비준해야 한다는 목소리가 고조되고 있다. 정부는 ILO 핵심협약의 비준을 위해 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법(노조법) 개정안을 제21대 국회에 제출한 바 있으며, 이와 관련한 사회적 논의도 활발하게 진행되고 있다. 오늘날과 같은 세계화 시대에 있어서 우리나라의 집단적 노사관계법ㆍ제도가국제적 노동기준을 수용하여 그 수준을 제고하고, 노사자치가 실질적으로구현될 수 있는 기회를 갖는다는 것은 중요한 과제가 아닐 수 없다. 우리나라는 ILO의 190개 협약 중 단지 27개 협약만을 비준하고 있는데, OECD 국가가 평균적으로 61개 협약을 비준하고 있는 것과 크게 대비된다. 특히 ILO의 8개 핵심협약 중 4개 협약을 비준하지 않고 있어 노동기본권의 보장이 취약하다는 국내의 비판으로부터 자유롭지 못한 상황임을 감안하면, ILO 핵심협약의 비준 및 집단적 노사관계법제의 개선을 도모하는 것은 그 타당성이 충분히 인정될 수 있을 것이다. 다만, ILO 핵심협약의 비준을 위해서는 그 필요성이나 당위성 이외에도ILO가 강조하고 있는 노사정 당사자의 공감대 형성, ILO 핵심협약의 비준에 따른 문제점과 파급효과, 우리나라 노사관계 법질서와의 부합성 등 여러가지 요소를 종합적으로 고려해야 할 뿐만 아니라, 정부가 제시한 노조법 개정안에 대해서도 개별 쟁점별로 분석과 평가가 다양하게 나타나고 있는 만큼 충분한 토론과 논의가 요구된다. 노조법의 개정은 단순히 ILO 핵심협약의 비준만을 그 목적으로 삼아서는 아니된다. 이번 기회를 통해 집단적 노사관계 질서를 공정하고 합리적으로 개편해야 한다는 법 개정의 목표도 분명히 세워야 한다. 우리나라 노사관계와 국민경제의 안정적 발전을 위해서는미래지향적 노사관계 모델을 전제로 노조법 개정안에 대한 치밀한 분석과협의를 거쳐 입법과 비준을 추진하는 것이 중요하다.

결사의 자유에 관한 국제노동기구(ILO) 기본협약 비준과 노동법의 쟁점

김동현 ( Kim Donghyeon ),이혜영 ( Lee Hyeyoung ) 사법정책연구원 2022 연구보고서 Vol.2022 No.8

On 20 April 2021, Korea deposited its instrument of ratification for the fundamental Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on freedom of association (No. 87 and No. 98), which will enter into force on 20 April 2022. Since the ratified Conventions are directly incorporated into domestic law under Korea’s Constitution, this ratification is expected to bring about a major change in the field of collective labour law in Korea. A particularly important change is that domestic judges are now required to have a deep understanding of how to interpret Korea’s collective labour laws in a way that is compatible with international obligations under the ILO Conventions on freedom of association. Domestic judges must accept that international labour standards are now a part of Korean labour laws that are directly applied in daily trials or, more precisely, must recognize that Korean labour laws are a part of a larger international labour law system. This research is, thus, intended to provide readers with an important reference for guiding how the ILO fundamental Conventions on freedom of association should be interpreted and applied, considering their relationship with collective labour law in Korea. With this purpose in mind, this research seeks to provide an overview of the ILO and its labour standards that are backed by its supervisory system comprised of independent legal experts and tripartite bodies. In particular, this research provides an article-by-article annotation of the ILO No. 87 and No. 98 Conventions. In order to enhance readers’ understanding of each provision of these Conventions, this research introduces examples of foreign courts’ judgments that directly applied provisions of these Conventions, and also briefly identifies Korea's collective labour-related legal systems and practices that may be problematic in implementing obligations under each provision of the Conventions. This research then examines legal consequences of ratifying the ILO Conventions. One of the most important consequences to follow in the ILO system is that Korea, as a ratifying state, becomes subject to the strengthened ILO’s supervisory system/mechanism that is designed to help ensure that state parties implement the conventions they ratify. In particular, Korea’ periodic reports on the measure it has taken to implement the provisions of the ratified Conventions will be comprehensively and regularly reviewed by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. Furthermore, the ILO’s special supervisory procedures that are based on the submission of representation (ILO Constitution, art. 24) or complaint (ILO Constitution, art. 26) become applicable. Among these, it is particularly significant that a question as to whether Korea’s law and practice in matters concerning freedom of association are in line with the ILO standards could be referred to the Commission of Inquiry, the ILO’s highest-level investigative procedure. The Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations are legally binding upon states, and the states subject to the complaint could challenge the recommendations before the International Court of Justice. Moreover, as more Korea’s Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) include provisions to comply with the ILO standards on freedom of association, it is more likely that Korea may become involved in trade disputes if its law and practice are not in line with ILO standards. In addition, this research examines the relationship between the ILO Conventions and national legislation, and reviews ways for domestic judges to resolve inevitable clashes between them. In this regard, this research emphasizes that interpretations of the ILO supervisory bodies on the ILO Conventions are authoritative. This research then reviews ways to resolve conflicts between interpretations of the ILO supervisory bodies on the Conventions and interpretations of domestic courts on the relevant national legislation. In a situation where courts could interpret national legislation in a way that is in line with legal obligations under the Conventions, courts are required to do so to prevent the Korean government from violating international obligations. If there is, however, an evident incompatibility between the Conventions and domestic legislation that cannot be reconciled by means of interpretation, courts might want to consider resolving the conflicts by applying the principle of lex posterior or lex specialis. In such a situation, however, judges are required to keep in mind that preferential application of domestic laws that are inconsistent with the Conventions would be con trary to the Constitutional principle of respect for international law. Alternatively, courts could consider either setting aside the application of domestic laws that are less favourable to workers by opting to apply the Conventions directly, or requesting adjudication by the Constitutional Court as to the constitutionality of the legislation as a violation of a ratified treaty may be an important indicator of the unconstitutionality of the legislation. Lastly, even in a case in which courts decide to apply domestic law that is inconsistent with international obligations by setting aside an application of the Conventions for whatever reason, it cannot be overemphasized that courts will always have the chance in their judgments to draw legislators’ attention to the need to bring domestic legislation in line with international obligations under the Conventions. Based on the above understanding, this research finally reviews long-discussed issues of collective labour laws regarding which interpretive challenges may arise following the ratification of the ILO fundamental Conventions on freedom of association. The issues that are expected to change their interpretations in a direction consistent with international obligations are as follows: the scope of “workers” as subjects of the right to organize under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act, public officials’ right to organize, subcontracted workers’ right to collective bargaining, the prohibition of industrial action by public officials and teachers, laws concerning essential public-business, purposes and types of industrial action, emergency arbitration and compulsory arbitration, charging peaceful strikers with obstruction of business, and the prohibition of political activities by public officials’ unions and teachers’ unions. Certain labour rights, such as freedom of association, are not merely rights in labour contracts, but are recognized as fundamental human rights. This research hopes that the ratification of the ILO fundamental conventions will not only bring Korea’s law and practice in line with international standards, but also serve as a chance for Korea to develop into a country that leads international labour standards.

결사의 자유에 관한 국제노동기구(ILO) 기본협약 비준과 노동법의 쟁점

김동현(Kim, Donghyeon),이혜영(Lee, Hyeyoung) 사법정책연구원 2022 사법정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.2022 No.-

결사의 자유에 관한 ILO 기본협약 비준은 법원에 복잡하고 어려운 해석 과제를 안기고 있다. 우리 정부가 결사의 자유에 관한 ILO 기본협약인 제87호, 제98호 협약을 비준한 것을 계기로, 집단적 노동관계법의 현실에는 혁신적 변화가 찾아올 것으로 예상된다. 여러 변화에 대해 이야기할 수 있겠으나, 한 가지 확실한 것은 과거에는 국제노동기준에 대한 무관심이 일면 당연한 것으로 받아들여지기도 하였지만 협약 비준 이후 더 이상 그런 태도는 가능하지 않게 되었다는 점이다. 법해석의 실무를 맡은 이들에게 가장 시급한 과제는 국제노동기준을 당장 현실에 적용될 우리 노동법 체계의 일부로 받아들이는 것, 보다 정확하게 말하자면 우리 노동법이 크나큰 국제노동법 체계의 일부에 속해 있다는 엄연한 현실을 직시하는 것이다. 이 연구는 이처럼 국제법적 현실에 맞닥뜨린 법해석자가 검토하고 기준으로 삼아야 할 ILO 기본협약 관련 국제법 문서들은 어떠한 것이 있는지를 소개하고, 이를 국내법 해석에 활용하는 방법과 유의할 사항을 고찰하며, 비준 준비 과정에서 논의되었던 쟁점들과 향후 예상되는 쟁점들에 대하여 해석의 참고자료를 제공하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위해 우선 국제노동기구와 국제노동법 전반에 대한 개론적 지식을 전달하고자 하였다. 즉 ILO의 연혁과 구성 현황을 소개하였고, 국제노동기준의 개념 및 종류, 이에 대한 이행감독절차를 살펴보았다. 특별히 이번에 비준한 제87호, 제98호 ILO 기본협약에 대해서는 조항별로 상세한 주석적 설명을 제공하였다. 개별 조항 상의 구체적 의무에 대한 이해를 제고하기 위해서 개별 조항이 해외법원에서 적용된 사례가 있다면 이를 함께 소개하였으며, 관련 국내쟁점도 개괄적으로 살펴보았다. 다음으로 결사의 자유에 관한 ILO 기본협약의 비준에 따른 법적 효과를 검토하였다. ILO 협약의 비준국은 절차적으로 ILO의 강화된 이행감독을 받게 되는데, 특히 협약의 이행에 관한 보고서를 정기적으로 제출함에 따라 국내법제도와 관행이 결사의 자유 협약상 의무에 부합하는지에 관하여 전문가위원회의 포괄적 심사를 받게 되었다는 점이 중요하다. 또한 ILO 헌장 제24조(진정제기)와 제26조(조사위원회 이의제기)에 의한 특별감독절차를 받을 수 있게 되었다. 이 중 조사위원회 절차에서 협약 위반으로 판정될 경우 이는 권고적 효력을 넘어 법적 구속력을 가질 수 있으며, 궁극적으로는 국제사법재판소에 제소될 가능성이 있음을 의미한다. 국제사법재판소에 제소되는 경우는 매우 드물겠지만, 우리나라가 각국과 맺고 있는 자유무역협정(FTA)에는 국제노동기준을 준수하기로 하는 조항이 포함된 경우가 다수 존재하며, 우리나라의 노동법 실무가 국제노동기준을 충족하지 못하는 경우 거센 통상 마찰에 직면할 수 있게 된다는 점도 부수적으로 염두에 두어야 한다. … On 20 April 2021, Korea deposited its instrument of ratification for the fundamental Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on freedom of association (No. 87 and No. 98), which will enter into force on 20 April 2022. Since the ratified Conventions are directly incorporated into domestic law under Korea’s Constitution, this ratification is expected to bring about a major change in the field of collective labour law in Korea. A particularly important change is that domestic judges are now required to have a deep understanding of how to interpret Korea’s collective labour laws in a way that is compatible with international obligations under the ILO Conventions on freedom of association. Domestic judges must accept that international labour standards are now a part of Korean labour laws that are directly applied in daily trials or, more precisely, must recognize that Korean labour laws are a part of a larger international labour law system. This research is, thus, intended to provide readers with an important reference for guiding how the ILO fundamental Conventions on freedom of association should be interpreted and applied, considering their relationship with collective labour law in Korea. With this purpose in mind, this research seeks to provide an overview of the ILO and its labour standards that are backed by its supervisory system comprised of independent legal experts and tripartite bodies. In particular, this research provides an article-by-article annotation of the ILO No. 87 and No. 98 Conventions. In order to enhance readers’ understanding of each provision of these Conventions, this research introduces examples of foreign courts’ judgments that directly applied provisions of these Conventions, and also briefly identifies Korea s collective labour-related legal systems and practices that may be problematic in implementing obligations under each provision of the Conventions. …

일본 공무원의 노동기본권과 노동조합 - 입법 논의의 검토를 중심으로 -

노상헌 노동법이론실무학회 2017 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.21

In Japan, the Supreme Court has concentrated on the theory of interpretation of the Constitution in the case of the post – strike liability of civil servants who are prohibited from engaging in industrial action, and has accumulated legal logic on the limitation of basic labor rights in a way that changes its own logic. As such, in Japan, fundamental rights to labor of the public employee was the subject of important issues that span not only the constitution but also Labor Union Law and administrative law. In the reform of the public service system, which has been in full swing since the 2000s, fundamental rights to labor of the public employee have received attention in Japan. In particular, November 20, 2002, the ILO Board of Governors expressed the freedom of association, stating that it violates ILO Fundamental Conventions No. 87 and No. 98, which has already been ratified by Labor Relations Adjustment Law of Japanese civil servants, and recommended that the system is improved in accordance with the Convention. Adopted the Commission's report. Therefore, the focus of discussion on the fundamental rights of public servants in Japan is the re-establishment of Civil Servant Law in compliance with Article 28 of the Japanese Constitution and ILO Conventions 87 and 98 on the premise of the Supreme Court's case law. In Korea, the founding constitution in 1948, in principle, did not restrict the fundamental rights to labor of the public employee, but they could not discuss the basic labor rights of the public officials due to division and war. In 1962, as a military regime came into being, basic labor rights were totally denied to a general public employee in accordance with Article 33 (2) of the Constitution and Article 66 of the National Public Service Act. The two countries are: ① guaranteeing fundamental rights to labor by seeing the public employee as workers in the Constitution; ② the legal system of labor relations is very similar; and ③ there is little difference in the constitutionality of restricting the fundamental rights to labor(right to strike). Since the democratization of Korea, January 28, 2006, the act of public officials' trade unions was enacted to lay the foundations for the formation of labor-management relations among civil servants. However, there are many challenges related to the ratification of the ILO Fundamental Conventions. It is when we need to make efforts to reduce our trial and error by taking advantage of Japan 's experience.

ILO 기본협약의 의의와 비준 방향

이승욱 한국노동법학회 2019 노동법학 Vol.0 No.71

Among the fundamental Conventions in the International Labour Organization(‘ILO’), Korea has not yet ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) in the field of the freedom of association. As the Korean Government appears to keep its promises for the ratification of these Conventions, the obstacles to the ratification needs to be identified in law as well as in practices in the light of international labour standards. For this purpose, firstly this article tries to focus on the implication of the ratification of fundamental Conventions to the Korean legislation and practices. After exploring the background of ‘core labour standards’ and the adoption of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work in 1998 which have played a significant role to clarify the international labour standards, this article identifies several legal and practical issues in Korean labour system presumably in conflict with the international labour standards. Lastly, it suggests several alternatives to resolves these conflicts and obstacles to the ratification of these fundamental conventions.

ILO 핵심협약 비준을 위한 노동법 개정 방안의 모색

이승욱 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2019 法學論集 Vol.24 No.1

ILO 제87호 협약, 제98호 협약은 ILO의 기본협약으로서 우리나라가 수차례에 걸쳐 국제사회에 비준을 약속하였으나, 아직 비준하지 못한 상황이다. 이에 경제사회노동위원회 소속 의제별위원회인 노사관계제도・관행개선위원회에서는 제87호 협약및 제98호 협약 비준에 수반한 국내 법제도・관행을 위한 논의를 하였으나 노사정위원 사이에 합의를 보지 못하고, 결국 공익위원안이 제시되는 데 그쳤다. 그러나 공익위원안은 그간의 위원회 논의를 반영한 것이기 때문에 독자적인 의미가 있다고 평가할 수 있다. 이 논문은 추상적인 내용으로 되어 있는 공익위원안을 중심으로 하여 선택가능한 구체적인 입법방안을 제시하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 특히 이 논문은 유럽연합(EU)이 우리나라에 자유무역협정 위반을 이유로 공식적인 분쟁해결절차에 따라전문가패널 소집을 요구한 현 상황에서 국제노동기준과 EU와의 자유무역협정에 기한 노동기준을 감안하면서 현실적으로 실현가능한 입법방안을 모색하고 있다. Although over decades Korea has promised to ratify the International Labour Organization(‘ILO’)’s fundamental Conventions including Conventions No. 87 and No. 98, these Conventions are not ratified yet. Considering the urgent and persistent pressures from the international community, the ‘Committee for the Improvement of Laws, Measures, and Practices for Labor Relations Development’ was launched in ‘Economic, Social and Labor Council’, a presidential advisory body composed by tripartite members as well as public members, to make social dialogue and consultation between tripartite members in order to identify the obstacles to the ratification of the ILO Conventions No. 87 and No. 98 and to seek consensus for the amendment of labor relations law. However, as it failed to reach an agreement, the public members made their own recommendations for fulfillment of the mandate. Based on these recommendations, this article tries to suggest several concrete methods and ways in order to amend labor legislation which does not seem to comply fully to the above ILO fundamental Conventions. In doing so, this article considers broad context of international labor standards as well as the complaint made by the European Commission based on the Korea-European Union Free Trade Agreement.

결사의 자유에 관한 ILO 기본협약 비준과 노사관계법의 과제

김동현 서울대학교노동법연구회 2023 노동법연구 Vol.- No.54

Republic of Korea ratified the International Labor Organization (ILO) fundamental conventions Nos. 87 and 98, and they took effect on April 20, 2022. The ratified conventions have been incorporated into the domestic legal system through Korea's monism. However, we have a lot of difficulties applying the provisions of the conventions to actual issues. First of all, difficulties begin in that domestic legal interpreters are not familiar with the application of international law to domestic law. It is next to grasp the meaning and content of the provisions of the conventions. This article aims to prepare for the domestic legal application of International Labor Standards by overseeing some significant issues to overcome these two difficulties. First, we examine how the ILO fundamental conventions will be incorporated into domestic law after the ratification. It is said that the recommendations and interpretations of the supervisory bodies that embody the contents of the conventions consisting of comprehensive and abstract texts have effect of literally recommendations. However, its authority of interpretation should not be neglected and needs to be respected in interpretation of domestic laws. There are issues that have been debated since before the ratification of the conventions. These matters were petitioned to the Committe of Freedom of Association, the ILO supervisory body, even before the ratification, and there are already so many recommendations of the Committee on sharp domestic law issues. We briefly looked at what recommendations were issued to each issue, what differences they have from domestic legal practices, and what should be the future direction of those practices. The ILO's stances should be respected when the right to organisation of self-employed workers and civil servants, the right to select executives, the prohibition of full-time union officers' payment and the Time-Off system, the autorities' correction order on rules and resolutions, the issues such as the right to collective bargaining, are examined. Of collective actions, the teachers' right to strike, the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action, penal sanctions for peaceful strikes, and damage claims for strikes, were examined in this article. Of course, there are far more legal systems and practices that are actually problematic. 우리나라는 2021. 4. 20. 결사의 자유에 관한 국제노동기구(ILO) 기본협약인 제87호, 제98호 협약을 비준하여 2022. 4. 20. 효력이 발생하였다. 국제법・국내법 일원론을 취하는 우리나라의 법체계상 이제 비준된 협약들은 국내법체계로 편입되었다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 현실 문제에 협약 규정을 적용하는 데에는 난관이 많다. 우선 국내의 법해석자들은 국제법질서를 국내법에 적용하는 그 자체에 익숙하지 않다는 데에서 어려움이 시작된다. 협약의 조문이 어떤 의미와 내용을 가지고 있는지 파악하는 것은 그 다음이다. 이 글에서는 이러한 두 가지 난관을 헤쳐나가기 위한 실마리들을 풀어봄으로써 앞으로 본격적으로 펼쳐질 국제노동기준의 국내법적 적용에 대비하고자 한다. 먼저 ILO 기본협약이 비준 이후 국내법으로 편입되어 어떤 효력을 갖게 되는지 살펴본다. 포괄적・추상적 문언으로 이루어진 협약의 내용을 구체화하는 이행감독기구의 견해와 해석은 권고적 효력을 갖는다고 하지만, 그 해석적 권위는 소홀히 취급되어서는 안 되며 국내법 해석에 있어서 존중될 필요가 있다. ILO 기본협약 비준 이전부터 국내법에서 쟁점이 되어 왔던 사항들이 있다. 이러한 사항들은 비준 이전에도 ILO 이행감독기구인 결사의 자유 위원회에 진정이 되어 이미 첨예한 국내법 쟁점들에 많은 결사의 자유 위원회 권고들이 존재하고 있다. 각 쟁점별로 어떠한 권고들이 있는지, 이들이 국내의 법실무와 비교하여 어떤 차이가 있으며 앞으로의 실무 방향은 어떻게 되어야 할지 간단하게라도 살펴보았다. 자영근로자의 단결권 문제, 특수형태근로종사자와 업무개시명령 문제, 공무원의 단결권 문제, 비종사자의 임원 선출 자격 문제, 노조 전임자 급여 금지 및 근로시간면제 제도, 행정관청의 규약 및 결의처분 시정명령, 단체교섭의 대상 사항, 단체협약 시정명령, 간접고용 근로자의 단체교섭권 문제 등은 단결권과 단체교섭권 관련하여 ILO의 입장을 주의해야 할 부분이다. 단체행동권과 관련하여서는 교원의 단체행동권, 쟁의행위 목적의 정당성 문제, 평화로운 파업에 대한 형사처벌과 파업을 이유로 한 손해배상청구 문제 등을 살펴보았다. 물론 실제로 문제의 소지가 있는 법제도와 실무는 이보다 훨씬 많다.

노동과 무역의 연계 강화와 노동법 해석- 국제적 보편성 획득의 필요성을 중심으로 -

장우찬 인하대학교 법학연구소 2023 法學硏究 Vol.26 No.4

ILO의 기본협약 비준과 우리가 여러 나라와 체결한 FTA는 우리나라 노동환경에 있어서 다음과 같은 변화를 가져왔다. 첫째, 기본협약의 비준을 통해 노동의 규범적 환경이 변화되었다. 즉, 노동법이 변화하였다. 헌법에 따라 비준된 기본협약은 발효되면 국내법과 동일한 효력을 가지게 되기 때문이다. 둘째, 노동법의 해석도 국제적 수준에서의 보편성을 획득하여야 한다. 규범 환경의 변화는 좁은 의미에서 법률 변화만을 의미하지 않는다. 기본협약의 비준에 입각하여 우리나라는 ILO 회원국으로서의 의무 수행에 적극적으로 노력해야 한다. 셋째, 노동기본권의 문제는 통상무역의 문제와 직결된다. 즉, 이제 노동문제는 통상문제이다. FTA의 노동장 내지 노동조항은 ILO 회원국의 의무를 재확인하는 것을 전제로 한다. ILO 권고에 부합하지 않는 법제도·관행이 지속되면 FTA 노동분쟁으로 연결될 수 있다. 기본협약의 비준과 발효에도 불구하고 이에 배치되는 법제도와 관행이 지속되고, 강화된 이행감독절차에서 ILO의 이행감독기구로부터 권고 등을 받게 되면, FTA 노동장·노동조항 위반 여부의 판단에도 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 특히 한-미 FTA의 경우 노동장에 대한 위반 제재로서 무역제재 및 벌과금/관세혜택 적용 중지 등 강력한 이행확보 수단을 두고 있다. ILO 이행감독기구의 권고가 가지는 효력은 비구속적이다. 규범이 아니며 해석에 불과하다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 비준을 통해 기본협약이 국내법 질서에 편입된 변화된 규범현실에서 국제사회는 더욱 강하게 객관적이고 보편적인 해석을 요구하고 있다. 노동규범 해석에 있어서 국제적 보편성의 요청이 국내적 특수성을 도외시한 일률적인 해석이나 ILO의 권고에 대한 무비판적 수용을 의미하는 것은 아니다. 그러나 강화된 노동과 무역의 연계는 노동과 통상 차원에서도 우리 노동법을 실현하며 적용하는데 국제적인 보편성의 획득을 좀더 강하게 요구하고 있다. Republic of Korea has ratified the ILO's fundamental conventions and signed FTAs with many countries. Accordingly, the working environment in Korea has changed as follows. First, labor law and the labor standards are changed through the ratification of the fundamental conventions. If the fundamental conventions are ratified in accordance with the Constitution, it shall have the same effect as domestic law. Second, labor law should be interpreted in common, so that every countries can accept it. Changes in the normative environment do not mean changes in laws alone. They includes a change in legal interpretation in the field of labor. Thirdly, the issue of fundamental rights at work is that of trade. The FTA presupposes reaffirming the obligations of ILO member states. If legal systems and practices that do not comply with ILO recommendations continue, it can lead to FTA labor disputes. In the case of the Korea-U.S. FTA, trade sanctions, penalties, and suspension of tariff benefits are stipulated as violations of labor sites.

선원의 노동기본권과 근로조건에 관한 선원법과 해사노동협약의 비교분석

신동윤 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2014 서울법학 Vol.22 No.1

On the 9th of January 2014, Korea is a 56th member that ratified Maritime Labour Convention and a 14th country in Asia so that a comparative analysis of the Seafarer's Act and Maritime Labour Convention will be an important discussion before the point of the effectivation. In the last analysis, the Seafarer's Act satisfies the Maritime Labour Convention in a rough way since it was prepared in order to ratify the convention. However, the fundamental matter is that the Korean government have still not ratified the seafarer's fundamental labor rights indicated on the Maritime Labour Convention. Likewise, as the working conditions, the determination method of minimum wage shall be regulated on the Seafarer's Act or needed on legislative consideration and in the case of ‘a seafarer's special request' of the Maritime Labour Convention, it shall be interpreted that the seafarer's right of choice with holidays is included within the agreement between the shipowner and seafarer. Because the subject of financial guarantee with repatriation is limited under the Seafarer's Act, the scope of the subject shall be extended in order to satisfy the provision of‘all of the ship owners’ on the Maritime Labour Convention and the Seafarer's Act shall consider regulating that the compensation shall be given to the seafarer in the case of his/her unemployment due to the ship's destruction and submergence. As stated above, the Korean government has been with consistent its discussion and effort in order to ratify the Maritime Labour Convention and as a result, it is an undeniable fact that the Seafarer's Act is enacted. Merely, the Korean government shall affirm whether or not the seafarer's legal rights are protected and fulfilled through the regulation and fact finding survey. 2014년 1월 9일, 한국은 해사노동협약을 승인한 56번째 회원국이며 14번째 아시아 국가가 되었는바, 2015년 1월 9일 발효 시점에 앞서 선원법과 해사노동협약의 비교분석은 중요한 논의가 될 것으로 사료된다. 결론적으로, 선원법은 해사노동협약을 비준하기 위한 목적 하에 마련된 것이기 때문에, 전반적으로 당해 협약을 충족하는 것으로 판단된다. 그러나 근본적인 문제는 한국정부가 해사노동협약이 명시하는 선원의 노동기본권을 아직까지 승인하고 있지 않는 것이다. 아울러, 선원의 근로조건에 관한 사항으로, 선원의 최저임금결정방식은 선원법에서 명시하거나 최저임금법을 준용하는 입법적 고려가 필요하며, 해사노동협약의 ‘선원의 특별한 요구’하는 경우, 선원법상 선박소유자와 선원간의 협의라는 의미속에 선원의 휴가지정권이 포함되는 것으로 해석해야 할 것이다. 선원법 규정상, 송환의 재정보증의 대상자가 한정되어 있기 때문에 해사노동협약의 ‘모든 선박소유자’ 규정을 충족하기 위해서 그 대상 범위를 확장해야 하며, 선박의 멸실 또는 침몰로 인해 선원이 실직한 경우, 선원에게 보상을 해줘야 함을 명시하고 있다는 점은 선원법이 추후 입법을 고려해야 할 부분이다. 위에서 설명한 바와 같이, 한국정부는 해사노동협약 승인을 위해 계속적인 논의와 노력을 해왔으며, 그 결과 선원법이 마련되었다는 것은 어느 누구도 부인할 수 없는 사실이다. 다만, 한국정부는 법 규정뿐만 아니라 실태조사를 통하여 선원의 법적권리가 보호되고 있고 잘 이행되고 있는지 확인해야 할 것이다.

영국 기본권의 수평적 효력이론에 관한 고찰

이노홍 ( Noh Hong Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.1

For the reason that the UK has no written codified constitution, we have little about comparative studies about fundamental rights in UK, the land of Magna Carte, the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights. However, following of the enactment of the Human Rights Act (HRA) which means the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, HRA became the substantial constitution about fundamental rights and caused a lot of academic debates surrounding interpretation of HRA in UK. Especially the horizontal effect of Fundamental rights of HRA which means the binding effect of human rights provisions on private parties has been one of the hot issues. These constitutional debates come from the HRA provisions; Section 6(1) HRA provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act contrary to Convention rights. Section 6(3)(a) expressly includes courts within the definition of a public authority. Also, Section 6(3)(b) includes any person certain of whose functions are ‘functions of a public nature`` within the definition of a public authority. 6(3)(b) can create horizontal effect of HRA to the increasing private parties performing public duties and functions. The more difficult problem caused of a lot academic theories about horizontal effect is the interpretation about 6(3)(a) which requires courts to act in a manner compatible with Convention rights. The debates focus on the manner and the extent to which courts could modify the cause of action of the common law applying disputes between private parties in order to ensure their compatibility with Convention. This article aims to introduce the constitutional changes in UK after the adoption of HRA and examines the various theories surrounding the horizontal effect of HRA. It deals with various academic theories about the horizontal effect focusing on no horizontal effect, direct vertical effect, indirect vertical effect and constitutional constraint model and analyzes the court decisions related this issue. The study will be helpful to understand the change of UK constitutionalism, development of fundamental right and the effect of fundamental rights to the privates. Finally, it will give the chance to review the horizontal effect debates in Korea.