국제개발협력으로서 사회권 -사회권규약 제2조 상 “국제지원과 국제협력” 조항을 중심으로-

오시진 ( Si Jin Oh ) 안암법학회 2016 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.49

사회권규약의 당사국은 타국의 사회권 실현을 위하여 “국제지원과 국제협력”을 해야 할 의무가 있을까? 기존의 사회권 연구는 주로 사회권규약을 국내적으로 어떻게 이행할지와 밀접한 관련을 맺고 있다. 그러나 기존의 시각에 반향을 일으킬 국제문서가 등장하였다. 2011년 9월 28일 여러 명의 학자들과 전문가들이 마스트리트 원칙을 체결하였다. 이 문서에 따르자면, 모든 국가는 자국 영역 내와 역외에서 자유권과 사회권을 존중, 보호, 실현할 의무가 있다. 그러나 마스트리트 원칙은 국가 실행으로 볼 수 없기 때문에, 국제법적으로 필수적 국제문헌이라고 하기에는 무리가 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 사회권규약을 다시 한 번 검토해 보아야할 필요성이 대두된다. 사회권규약 제2조 1항에서 “개별적으로 또한 특히 경제적, 기술적인 국제지원과 국제협력을 통하여, 자국의 가용 자원이 허용하는 최대한도까지 조치를 취할 것을 약속한다”고 규정되어 있다는 점을 간과한 측면이 있기 때문이다. 과연 타국의 사회권 실현을 위하여 국제지원과 국제협력을 하여야할 역외 의무가 있을까? 이 글에서는 사회권규약 제2조 1항을 중심으로 당사국에게 역외 의무가 발생하는 사안을 연구 하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 이 글의 주장은 먼저 사회권규약을 분석 하였을 때, 사회권규약의 역외 의무를 인정할 수 있다는 것이다. 국제개발협력 개념이 현 사회권규약 문안에서 규정되어 있을 뿐 아니라, 사회권규약 일반논평에서 직접적으로 국가의 역외 의무를 규정하고 있다. 그러나 이 의무의 성질은 기존 사회권규약 상 논의되던 실현 의무와 차이가 있을 수 있다. 이 글의 주장은 사회권에 대한 국제협력 의무는 개별 국가가 국내적으로 사회권을 실현하기 용이(facilitate)하게 할 국제지원과 국제협력 의무 성격을 가진다는 것이다. 이 연구의 의의는 학문적 측면과 실천적 측면이 있다. 학문적으로 기존 사회권 연구의 초점은 인권의 국내 이행이라 할 수 있다. 즉, 사회권의 역외 의무(extraterritorial obligation)에 대해서는 논의를 하지 않고 있다. 따라서 기존 연구의 흐름에 빈 공간을 채운다는 측면에서 이 연구의 의의가 있다. 실천적으로 원조를 받던 국가에서 원조를 제공하는 국가로 발전하게 된 대한민국 입장에서, 그리고 1990년 4월 10일 사회권규약에 가입한 대한민국 입장에서 국제사회에서의 사회권 실현과 국제개발협력 간의 관계를 명확히 파악할 필요가 있다. 또, 1981년 9월 14일 사회권규약의 당사국이 된 북한 정부를 고려하여 보았을 때, 북한 주민들의 사회권 실현 문제를 어떻게 이해해야 할 필요가 있는지 판단할 필요도 없지 않다. Does the party to the ICESCR have the obligation to international assistance and cooperation in order to realize socio-economic rights of other states? Previous studies have focused on domestic implementation of the ICESCR. The approach has been framed into the domestic implementation of human rights standard. However, there has been a sensational international document which draws our attention recently. In 2011, several human rights experts established the Maastricht Principle. According to this document, all states are obliged to respect, protect, and fulfill “civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights both within their territories and extraterritorially.” This document cannot be taken as a state practice. Therefore, this document is not an essential reference of international law. Nonetheless, there is a need to review ICESCR once again, as long as the previous studies have neglected that the article 2(1) of ICESCR stipulates that “ individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources. . . .” Does the party to the ICESCR have the obligation to international assistance and cooperation in order to realize socio-economic rights of other states? The purpose of the paper is to study the case of extraterritorial obligation focusing on the article 2(1) of the ICESCR. The argument is that as the analysis demonstrates the extraterritorial obligation of the ICESCR can be verified. Not only that the concept of international development is stipulated in the wordings of the ICESCR, the General Comments of ICESCR explicitly states the extraterritorial obligation. However, the nature of the obligation could be different from that of the domestic implementation. The argument is that international society does not have obligation to fulfill the socio-economic rights of individual states. Rather it has the obligation to facilitate the realization of the socio-economic rights of individual states by international assistance and cooperation. The significance of the study lies on two grounds. First, it is academically relevant as long as the previous study has neglected the issue of extraterritorial obligation aspect of the ICESCR. Second, on practical level, this study will clarify the relationship between socio-economic rights and the obligation of international development. Such clarification is relevant to the South Korean government as it is the party of the ICESCR since 1990 and it recently has stepped into donor state stage in the realm of international development. Furthermore, as the North Korea government is the party of the ICESCR since 1981, the issue of socio-economic rights along with the concerns for international development is significant.

국제개발협력으로서 사회권- 사회권규약 제2조 상 “국제지원과 국제협력” 조항을 중심으로 -

오시진 안암법학회 2016 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.49

Does the party to the ICESCR have the obligation to international assistance and cooperation in order to realize socio-economic rights of other states? Previous studies have focused on domestic implementation of the ICESCR. The approach has been framed into the domestic implementation of human rights standard. However, there has been a sensational international document which draws our attention recently. In 2011, several human rights experts established the Maastricht Principle. According to this document, all states are obliged to respect, protect, and fulfill "civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights both within their territories and extraterritorially." This document cannot be taken as a state practice. Therefore, this document is not an essential reference of international law. Nonetheless, there is a need to review ICESCR once again, as long as the previous studies have neglected that the article 2(1) of ICESCR stipulates that " individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources. . . ." Does the party to the ICESCR have the obligation to international assistance and cooperation in order to realize socio-economic rights of other states? The purpose of the paper is to study the case of extraterritorial obligation focusing on the article 2(1) of the ICESCR. The argument is that as the analysis demonstrates the extraterritorial obligation of the ICESCR can be verified. Not only that the concept of international development is stipulated in the wordings of the ICESCR, the General Comments of ICESCR explicitly states the extraterritorial obligation. However, the nature of the obligation could be different from that of the domestic implementation. The argument is that international society does not have obligation to fulfill the socio-economic rights of individual states. Rather it has the obligation to facilitate the realization of the socio-economic rights of individual states by international assistance and cooperation. The significance of the study lies on two grounds. First, it is academically relevant as long as the previous study has neglected the issue of extraterritorial obligation aspect of the ICESCR. Second, on practical level, this study will clarify the relationship between socio-economic rights and the obligation of international development. Such clarification is relevant to the South Korean government as it is the party of the ICESCR since 1990 and it recently has stepped into donor state stage in the realm of international development. Furthermore, as the North Korea government is the party of the ICESCR since 1981, the issue of socio-economic rights along with the concerns for international development is significant. 사회권규약의 당사국은 타국의 사회권 실현을 위하여 “국제지원과 국제협력”을 해야 할 의무가 있을까? 기존의 사회권 연구는 주로 사회권규약을 국내적으로 어떻게 이행할지와 밀접한 관련을 맺고 있다. 그러나 기존의 시각에 반향을 일으킬 국제문서가 등장하였다. 2011년 9월 28일 여러 명의 학자들과 전문가들이 마스트리트 원칙을 체결하였다. 이 문서에 따르자면, 모든 국가는 자국 영역 내와 역외에서 자유권과 사회권을 존중, 보호, 실현할 의무가 있다. 그러나 마스트리트 원칙은 국가 실행으로 볼 수 없기 때문에, 국제법적으로 필수적 국제문헌이라고 하기에는 무리가 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 사회권규약을 다시 한 번 검토해 보아야할 필요성이 대두된다. 사회권규약 제2조 1항에서 “개별적으로 또한 특히 경제적, 기술적인 국제지원과 국제협력을 통하여, 자국의 가용 자원이 허용하는 최대한도까지 조치를 취할 것을 약속한다”고 규정되어 있다는 점을 간과한 측면이 있기 때문이다. 과연 타국의 사회권 실현을 위하여 국제지원과 국제협력을 하여야할 역외 의무가 있을까? 이 글에서는 사회권규약 제2조 1항을 중심으로 당사국에게 역외 의무가 발생하는 사안을 연구 하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 이 글의 주장은 먼저 사회권규약을 분석 하였을 때, 사회권규약의 역외 의무를 인정할 수 있다는 것이다. 국제개발협력 개념이 현 사회권규약 문안에서 규정되어 있을 뿐 아니라, 사회권규약 일반논평에서 직접적으로 국가의 역외 의무를 규정하고 있다. 그러나 이 의무의 성질은 기존 사회권규약 상 논의되던 실현 의무와 차이가 있을 수 있다. 이 글의 주장은 사회권에 대한 국제협력 의무는 개별 국가가 국내적으로 사회권을 실현하기 용이(facilitate)하게 할 국제지원과 국제협력 의무 성격을 가진다는 것이다. 이 연구의 의의는 학문적 측면과 실천적 측면이 있다. 학문적으로 기존 사회권 연구의 초점은 인권의 국내 이행이라 할 수 있다. 즉, 사회권의 역외 의무(extraterritorial obligation)에 대해서는 논의를 하지 않고 있다. 따라서 기존 연구의 흐름에 빈 공간을 채운다는 측면에서 이 연구의 의의가 있다. 실천적으로 원조를 받던 국가에서 원조를 제공하는 국가로 발전하게 된 대한민국 입장에서, 그리고 1990년 4월 10일 사회권규약에 가입한 대한민국 입장에서 국제사회에서의 사회권 실현과 국제개발협력 간의 관계를 명확히 파악할 필요가 있다. 또, 1981년 9월 14일 사회권규약의 당사국이 된 북한 정부를 고려하여 보았을 때, 북한 주민들의 사회권 실현 문제를 어떻게 이해해야 할 필요가 있는지 판단할 필요도 없지 않다.

법정채권의 준거법 분야 「국제사법」 개정 검토 - 주요국 국제사법 관련 규정의 비교를 중심으로 -

천창민 한국국제사법학회 2022 國際私法硏究 Vol.28 No.1

In 2001, when full-fledged amendments were made to the Private International Law Act (PILA) in Korea, there were relatively few revisions in the field of non-contractual obligations compared to the field of contracts. Compared to the previous PILA i.e., Seopwoesabeop, no substantive amendment to the essential part of the connection factors in the field of non-contractual obligations. Accordingly, the PILA was intended to provide mere separate articles for negotiorum gestio, unjust enrichment and torts, which embody the location of cause of the acts that was the connection fact of non-contractual obligations in the Seopwoesabeop. Of course, there was some advanced aspects in the PILA compared to the Seopwoesabeop, such as the ex post change of the applicable law, the accessory connection, and the introduction of the common habitual residence as new connection factors. The reason that any provision for special connection rules for specific types of torts has not been newly placed in the PILA does not lie in the no necessity, but discussion and consensus as for the types of torts and connection rules suitable for the characteristics of specific types of torts were not sufficiently progressed and formed. The other reason is that related substantive civil laws or special laws have not been sufficiently developed in the field. However, 20 years have passed since the enforcement of the fully revised PILA, and the private international law Acts in Japan, China and Taiwan in Northeast Asia that completed modernization of private international law later than Korea introduced specific rules for torts. Besides, it is time to consider how to legislate the established precedents of international torts in terms of improving predictability. In addition, in the field of substantive law, the Product Liability Act came into effect on July 1, 2002, and the need to introduce separate connecting factors for torts in relation to the international product liability has increased. Accordingly, in order to examine issues to be considered when revising the PILA in relation to the special rules for non-contractual obligations, this paper comparatively reviews the rules for non-contractual obligation under the Rome II Regulation and the private international law Act of Switzerland, Japan, China and Taiwan, and suggests implications that could be referenced in the revision of the PILA. In the field of non-contractual obligations where party autonomy is allowed only to a limited extent, the need to enhance legal certainty and predictability is superior to that of the contract field. One of the important functions of private international law is that although the exact outcome of a dispute cannot be known, the parties can control their legal risks to a certain extent by allowing them to have predictability as for which law will govern their legal relations. This kind of function of private international law is a more necessary where party autonomy is limited. In this regard, it is suggested that the current connection policy that makes the connection factor of general torts too advantageous to victims needs to be balanced. However, it is also necessary to consider that the trend of modern tort liability is more concerned with the protection of victims. In particular, it should be taken into account that these characteristics are more clearly required in the field of special torts where consideration of substantive law has more influence on the connection policy of private international law. 2001년 「국제사법」으로 우리 국제사법을 전부개정하였을 때, 법정채권 분야는 계약 분야에 비해 상대적으로 그 개정이 많지 않았다. 구 「섭외사법」에 비해 사무관리, 부당이득, 불법행위로 조문을 분리하여 규정하였을 뿐 연결점의 본질적인 부분에 대한 개정은 없었다. 이에 따라 국제사법은 법정채권과 관련한 섭외사법상 연결점이던 ‘원인사실발생지법’을 학설에서 구체화한 사무관리지법, 부당이득지법, 불법행위지법을 별도의 조문으로 각각 규정하는 방식을 위하였다. 물론 준거법의 사후적 변경, 종속적 연결, 공통상거소지법을 새로운 연결점으로 도입하는 등 섭외사법에 비해 진보한 측면도 없지 않지만, 법정채권의 연결점과 관련하여 이 같은 소폭의 개정만 하고 주요국의 사례와 같이 불법행위와 관련하여 유형별로 세분화된 특별연결규칙을 두지 않은 것은 그 필요가 적었던 것이 아니라 불법행위의 유형과 그 특성에 부합하는 연결규칙에 대한 논의와 공감대가 충분히 진행·형성되지 못하였고, 실질법 분야에서 관련 민법이나 특별법의 발전이 충분하게 이루어지지 않았기 때문이었다. 그러나 전부개정된 국제사법의 시행 이후 20년이 흘렀고, 우리보다 늦게 국제사법의 현대화를 완료한 동북아의 일본이나 중국, 대만 등의 국제사법은 법정채권 분야에서 보다 정치한 연결규칙을 도입하였다. 그리고 무엇보다 그간 불법행위 분야에서 의미 있는 판례가 축적되어 예측가능성 제고 측면에서 확립된 판례에 대해 이를 어떻게 입법화할 것인가를 고려할 때가 되었다. 또한 실질법 분야에서도 2002년 7월 1일부터 「제조물 책임법」이 시행되어 국제제조물책임법 등과 관련한 특수불법행위의 개별적인 연결점을 도입할 필요성도 높아졌다. 이에, 이 글에서는 법정채권 분야의 연결규칙과 관련한 국제사법 개정 시에 고려할 쟁점을 점검하기 위하여 로마Ⅱ규정, 스위스, 일본, 중국, 대만의 국제사법 규정상 법정채권 관련 연결규칙을 비교법적으로 분석하고 개정 시 참고할 수 있는 함의를 제시한다. 당사자자치가 제한적으로만 허용되는 법정채권 분야에서 법적 확실성과 예측가능성 제고의 필요성은 계약 분야에 비해 월등하다. 국제사법의 중요한 기능 중 하나는 분쟁의 정확한 결과는 알 수 없지만 자신이 어느 국가의 법률에 의해 판단될 것이라는 것에 대해 예측가능성을 가질 수 있게 함으로써 자신의 행위에 따른 법적 위험을 일정 정도에서 통제할 수 있게 한다는 점이다. 이는 당사자자치가 제한되어 있는 경우 더 필요한 기능이라 할 수 있다. 이런 점에서 일반불법행위의 연결점을 피해자에게만 너무 유리하도록 하는 현재의 연결정책은 균형을 맞출 필요가 있다는 점을 제시하였다. 그러나 현대 불법행위책임의 경향이 침해법익에 대한 피해자 보호 쪽에 더 관심한다는 점도 아울러 고려할 필요가 있다. 특히, 이러한 특성은 실질법적 고려가 국제사법의 연결정책에 더 많은 영향을 미치는 특수불법행위 분야에서 더 뚜렷하게 요구되는 사항이라는 점도 고려하여야 할 것이다.

The Scope of ESG-Related Obligations Under International Supply Contracts* -Focusing on the Obligations related to the Social Factorsㅡ

김효정 국제거래법학회 2022 國際去來法硏究 Vol.31 No.2

The recent trend emphasizing ESG has brought a shift in the corporate management paradigm. ESG goes beyond the emphasis on corporate social responsibility and extends the legal liability of corporations for breach of contractual obligations. If the contract does not contain explicit and specific provisions regarding ESG-related obligations, it is difficult to define the content and scope of ESG-related obligations. This article examined how S-related obligations, especially the obligations related to the human rights and work environment can be derived under traditional contract law principles and reviewed how S-related obligations can be effectively incorporated into contracts. This article focused on the legislation and precedents in the United States and made a practical implication for Korea. S-related obligation can be divided into (1) the obligation to accurately state S-related information, and (2) the obligation to perform social factors. First, regarding the obligation to accurately state S-related information, the US courts does not interpret S-related information as “material” fact that companies have duty to disclose. According to the US precedents, the materiality could only be established when there is physical defect relating to the central function of the product or a safety defect causing a safety hazard. And the claims based on aspirational statements articulating a company’s forward-looking goals also have been dismissed. Unless the S-related statements of a company amount to concrete and specific commitments, the company will not be held liable for violating the consumer protection laws. On the other hand, California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 (hereinafter “CTSCA”) is a positive step to combat forced labor and human trafficking in supply chain, but it has some structural deficiencies; (1) it merely mandates disclosure of information and does not ask for accurate and up-to-date information to be disclosed, and (2) it does not establish sufficient penalty scheme for the non-compliance by companies. Next, regarding the obligation to perform social factors, it is difficult for a buyer who does not exercise control over a foreign supplier’s way of performing work or the employment of workers to be obligated to manage the social factors in international supply chain unless expressly provided in the contract. And international norms such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, etc. are insufficient to recognized as a binding “usage”. When incorporating S-related obligations into a contract, it is important to provide explicit regulations on the disclosure and performance of social factor in the contract. This article examined the American Bar Association’s Model Contract Clauses (hereinafter “MCCs”) version 1.0 and version 2.0, and recommended companies to use MCCs version 2.0 in practice. MCCs version 2.0 manages supply chains balanced and efficient way by establishing a regime of human rights due diligence. Considering the above analysis, the implications for Korea can be summarized as follows. Regarding the practical implications, Korean companies need to make more concrete and specific commitments on S-related information rather than making abstract and aspirational forward-looking statements. Accordingly, the S-related liabilities of companies will be recognized in more cases, but it will ultimately contribute to realizing the ESG value in the international supply chain. And when concluding international supply contracts, Korean companies can efficiently manage social factors in international supply chains by inserting model contract clauses such as MCCs version 2.0, which introduces human rights due diligence system, into contracts. As a legislative implication, it is desirable for Korea to enact a special law regulating international supply contracts in the near futu...

국제환경법과 WTO법상 의무의 충돌 해소에 관한 연구

이경화(Lee Kyoung Hwa) 국제법평론회 2014 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.39

What once appeared to be governed by 'general international law' has become the field of operation for specialist systems such as 'international economic law', 'environmental law'- each possessing their own legal principles, and autonomous institutions. This is a consequence of the fragmentation of international law. If a party were to implement an obligation under a certain law, it would be in conflict with implementing another law. This issue is called a 'conflict of obligation.' In 2006, an International Law Commission(ILC) report stated that traditional legal principles, such as lex specialis or lex posterior, can be applied to resolve the issue. Moreover, the ILC suggested the method called 'systemic integration' which stipulates that one law can be interpreted in the context of another law because international law is 'a legal system.' However, some international environmental law have no legally binding force but have normative values. This is a characteristic of 'soft law.' If an international environmental law is breached, it affects the entire international community and breaches 'obligation erga omnes.' On the other hand, World Trade Organization(WTO) laws have some tendency to exclude the other legal applications in the field of trade. However, WTO DSU Article 3.2 states that "The Members recognize that it serves … to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law." This has a tendency to avoid isolation from general international law. Every member of the WTO has an legal interest in implementing WTO law. In this sense, it can be said that an obligation under the WTO law is an obligation erga omnes partes. Many Multilateral Environment Agreements(MEAs) allow or prohibit the trade of certain products, commodities, plants or animals for environmental reasons. The purpose of the WTO is trade liberalization but it also focuses on environmental protection and they have some exceptional cases regarding the environment. However, there is a possibility of conflict between the MEAs and WTO rules. This paper attempts to resolve the conflict with the assumption that the WTO avoids isolation from general international law and international environmental law has the characteristics of obligations erga omnes. The suggested ex ante solution is to apply lex posterior provided in Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(VCLT) or providing the conflict clause. This ex ante method is a rare case and normally the conflict can be resolved through ex post interpretation. The presumption against conflict is the starting point, then Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT can be applied to draw teleological interpretation. If the text of a treaty can be interpreted in two ways and if the one interpretation has an effect on the treaty and the other does not have any effect, the interpretation that does have effect in accordance with the principles of 'good faith' and the 'objectives and purposes' provided for in Article 31, is generally taken. That is called 'principle of effectiveness.' Also, 'systemic integration' can be pursued by applying Article 31.3(c) of the VCLT. Here, integration does not prioritize one segment of one law over another. However, it harmonizes the different values. It connects specialized segments and links them with universal principles. In order to utilize Article 31.3(c) which states that 'any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties', the scope should be narrowed to the disputing party. The scope of the 'relevant rules of international law'should not be confined to the time of conclusion but expanded to its interpretation as well. An example of this attitude can be found in case law, vis-a-vis the US-Shrimp case, where the WTO Appellate Body referred to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, CITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity when it interpreted 'exh

국제사법 제54조 제2항의 적용범위에 대한 소고 - 대법원 2022. 7. 28. 선고 2019다201662 판결을 중심으로 본 면책적 채무인수와 병존적 채무인수의 준거법 논의 -

이주연 한국국제사법학회 2023 國際私法硏究 Vol.29 No.2

The Supreme Court of Korea, in its decision 2019da201662, ruled on the scope of application of Article 34 (2) of the former Private International Law Act (Article 54 (2) of the current Act) with respect to the assumption of contractual obligation. In this decision, it was held that the concept of assumption of contractual obligation under the Korean Private International Law Act includes not only the discharging assumption of contractual obligation but also the cumulative assumption of contractual obligation. However, assumption of contractual obligation under the Korean Private International Law Act must be interpreted to mean only discharging assumption of contractual obligation because: (1) assumption of contractual obligation under the Korean Civil Code means only discharging assumption of contractual obligation; and (2) the structure of the Korean Private International Law Act and the legislative intent, purpose and function of Article 34(2) of the former Private International Law Act (Article 54(2) of the current Act) do not allow a broad interpretation of the provision in question. In addition, this decision is problematic because the Court held that the law applicable to claims based on a contract is not the law applicable to the contract itself, but the law applicable to another legal relationship. Furthermore, the Court gave an overly broad list of factors to be taken into account in determining the implicit choice of law.

남중국해중재사건의 국제환경법 쟁점

이재곤(Jae Gon Lee) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2021 法學硏究 Vol.66 No.-

이 논문은 필리핀과 중국간에 남중국해에 대한 여러 쟁점을 다루었던 남중국해중재사건에서 국제환경법 쟁점에만 초점을 맞추어 고찰하였다. 즉 어떤 국제환경법 쟁점이 제기되었는지, 이들 쟁점에 대한 당사국의 주장 또는 입장은 무엇인지, 재판소는 어떻게 판정하였는지, 판정이 국제환경법 발전에 미친 영향 또는 의미는 무엇인지 등에 대하여 살펴보았다. 남중국해사건에서 다루어진 국제환경법 쟁점에 대한 중재재판소의 판정은 판정 시점에서의 해당 쟁점에 대한 국제환경법 상황을 정리하거나 진전시켜 일정한 기여를 한 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 구체적으로 보면 우선, 남중국해사건은 해양환경을 보호하고 보전하는데 있어 국가가 부담한 상당한 주의의무의 적용대상 해역, 적용대상 환경요소 및 의무내용을 구체화하였다. 이를 통해 국제환경보호를 위한 상당한 주의의무라는 실체적 의무위반을 근거로 국제적 환경 분쟁을 해결하는데 도움을 주었다. 또한 국제적 환경협력 의무, 환경영향평가 의무 내용을 좀 더 명확하게 하는데 있어서도 일정한 기여가 있었다. 나아가 해양법협약의 강제적 분쟁해결절차의 정립, 과학전문가의 자체 임명을 통한 객관적 증거 판단능력 제고, 국제환경규범의 통합적 해석 적용 등을 통하여 국제환경분쟁을 사법적 수단으로 해결하는 유인을 제공하였다. 반면에 환영영향평가의 대상이 되는 활동의 기준의 불명확성과 같은 과제로 남겨진 문제도 있다. 아울러 국제환경분쟁을 포함한 국제분쟁에 대한 중재판정을 인정하지 않는 일방 당사자에 대하여 어떻게 판정을 실효적으로 집행할 것인가의 숙제도 남아 있다. This article focused on international environmental law issues in the South China Sea Arbitration, which dealt with various legal issues in the South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and China. In other words, what kinds of international environmental law issues were raised, the claims or positions of the parties on these issues, how the court made a decision, and what impact or meaning the judgment had on the development of international environmental law were examined. The award of the arbitral tribunal on the issue of international environmental law dealt with in the South China Sea Arbitration can be evaluated for its contribution to a certain extent by clarifying or advancing the situation of international environmental law issues at the time of the decision. Specifically, first of all, the South China Sea Award materialized the applicable sea area, the applicable environmental factors, and substantial obligations of due diligence of states in the protection and conservation of the marine environment. Through this, it helped to settle international environmental disputes based on the violation of the substantial duty of due diligence for international environmental protection. In addition, there was a certain contribution in clarifying the contents of international environmental cooperation obligations and environmental impact assessment obligations. Furthermore, it provided incentives to resolve international environmental disputes by international judicial means through firm recognition of compulsory dispute resolution procedures under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, enhancement of objective evidence judgment capability through self-appointment of scientific experts, and application of integrated interpretation of international environmental norms. On the other hand, there are issues left as a task, such as the ambiguity of the criteria for activities subject to the environmental impact assessment. In addition, there remains a problem how to effectively enforce the award against one party that does not recognize the award of arbitration in international disputes, including international environmental disputes.

국제법상 인권보호 의무의 대세적 성질

김석현(KIM Seok-hyun) 대한국제법학회 2014 國際法學會論叢 Vol.59 No.4

인권보호 의무의 대세적 성질은 일반국제법에서 뿐만 아니라 주요 인권규약들에서도 인정되어 왔다. 모든 국가들은 국제공동체 전체를 상대로 인원보호 의무를 부담하며, 공동체 구성원 모두가 그 의무의 준수에 대하여 법적 이익을 갖는 만큼, 그 침해에 대하여 공동체의 여하한 구성원도 책임을 추궁할 수 있다는 것이다. 나아가, 인권 관련 몇몇 협약들은 한 당사자의 협약 상 의무 위반에 대하여 여하한 타 당사국도 국제사법재판소에 제소할 수 있도록 함으로서, 인권보호 의무의 대세적 성질을 부각시키고 있다. 인권 보호 의무의 위반 시 해당 공동체의 여타의 구성원도 그에 대하여 책임을 추궁 할 수 있다는 사실은 이 의무의 대세적 성질을 단적으로 확인시켜 주는 것이다. 그러나, 그러한 가능성은 현실적으로 크게 제한적임을 부인할 수 없다. 일반국제법상 한 국가에 의한 인권침해에 대하여 여하한 타국도 위반의 중지, 재발방지, 피해국 또는 피해자에 대한 손해배상 등을 요구할 수 있다. 그러나 제3국이 국제소송을 통하여 그러한 책임을 추궁할 수 있는 가능성은 주어지지 않고 있는 것이다. 그러한 책임 추궁의 가능성은 국제법정에서의 임의관할권 원칙에 가로 막혀 있는 상황이다. 한 국가가 타국의 심각한 인권침해를 이유로 국제사법재판소에 소를 제기하는 경우, 재판소는 이들 양국이 모두 이 문제에 대한 재판소의 관할권을 수락한 경우에 한하여 그에 대한 사법적 판단을 할 수 있는 것이다. 한편, 몇몇 인권 협약들은 한 국가의 협약 상 의무 위반이 ICJ에 회부될 수 있도록 규정한 분쟁해결조항을 두고 있으나, 학 협약의 많은 당사국들이 이 조항에 대하여 유보를 가함으로써 그 실효성을 저하시키고 있는 것이다. 국제법정의 임의관할권이든 인권협약의 분쟁해결조항에 대한 유보이든 간에, 이들 모두가 국가주권 존중 원칙에 기초하고 있는 것이다. 오늘날, 국제공동체는 인권을 그 근본적 이익으로 간주하고 인권보호 의무에 대하여 강행적 성질을 부여하고 있으며, 이는 인권이 개별 국가의 주권보다 상위의 가치를 갖는다는 것을 보여주는 것이라 할 수 있다. 그리고, 같은 맥락에서 인권보호 의무의 대세적 성질이 일반국제법에 의하여 그리고 인권관련 협약들에 의하여 인정되고 있는 것이다. 그러나, 인권침해에 대하여 국제소송을 통한 책임 추궁의 측면에 있어서는, 그러한 대세적 성질이 충분히 반영되지 못하고 있음이 사실이다. 인권보호 의무의 이행이 보다 실효적으로 확보되기 위해서는, 그 위반에 대해서는 여하한 타국의 제소에 의해서도 국제법정이 이를 다룰 수 있도록 보장하는 제도적 장치가 마련되어야 할 것이다. The erga omnes character of the obligations to protect human rights has been recognized not only in general international law but also by principal conventions in this field. It has been generally noted that Every State owes the obligations to protect human rights to the international community as a whole and the responsibility could be invoked by any member of the community for a violation of the obligation, in as much as all members of the community has an legal interest in the respect of fundamental rights and freedoms. Some conventions bring into relief the status of human rights obligations as erga omnes rules, recognizing the possibility for any State Party to bring to the ICJ the violations of the obligations in question. What highlights the erga omnes character of the obligations to protect human rights is the fact that any member of the community can invoke the responsibility for violation of those obligations. It is, however, true that such a possibility is very limited. In general international law, a violation of human right obiligation by one State permits any other State to require the cessation of the violation, the non-repetition, the reparation for the victims etc. In fact, it is not possible for third States to invoke the responsibility by way of instituting of proceedings before international courts, such a possibility being blocked by the consent-based jurisdiction. In case one State files with the ICJ a complaint over a serious violation of human rights by another State, the Court couldn′t judge the matter unless those two States have accepted its jurisdiction over the question. On the other hand, some of human rights conventions have compromissory clauses for the submission of the violation thereof by one State Party to the ICJ any other State. Nevertheless, not a few States Parties have formulated reservations to the clauses, which reduces the effectiveness of the Third Party litigation. Both the consent-based jurisdiction and the reservation to conventions are based upon the principle of respect of State sovereignty. Today, the international community recognizes human rights as its fundamental interests and accepts as jus cogens the obligations to protect human rights, which shows the human rights have priority over the obligations to protect human rights, which shows the human rights have priority over the State sovereignty. Although the erga omnes character of the obligations to protect human rights have been recognized in general international law as well as on conventional dimension, such character has not been sufficiently reflected in the invocation of the responsibility for the violation of those obligations before international courts. In order for the implementation of the human rights obligations to be secured more effectively, there should be an institutional guarantee that enables any State to bring the violation of the obligations to competent international courts.

國際的 扶養義務에 관한 硏究

李秉和(Byung-Hwa Lee) 한국비교사법학회 2008 비교사법 Vol.15 No.3

  With latest rapid increase of international marriage and divorce cases today, Korea now faces gradually increasing number of claims for financial maintenance recovery from and to overseas, and it is forecast that international maintenance will be ever-complicated and ever-diversified problem in near future. Accordingly, this study discusses and addresses overall considerations about international maintenance obligations. First, as a part of review about the maintenance obligations from the perspective of comparative law, this study deals with major relevant domestic laws, jurisprudential theories and judicial precedents in UK, Japan and Korea. In UK, this study reviews Child Support Act(1991) and the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act(CSPSSA, 2000). In Korea and Japan, the living maintenance of people in need relies broadly on two major systems, i.e. assistance from relatives and governmental assistance. Particularly, current jurisprudential theories take qualitative categorization of financial assistance among relatives into two different types of maintenance obligations, i.e. essential(primary) and exceptional(secondary) maintenance obligation.<BR>  Next, this study addresses historical backgrounds, significance and major considerations of UN Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance(1956). The purpose of this UN Convention is to establish a collaborative system between transmitting and receiving agency in order to facilitate claims of maintenance creditor for financial maintenance recovery to maintenance debtor residing in another contracting state. Korea is not yet a member of this Convention, and has not yet built up its independent maintenance recovery system, even though it is a country concerned on UN Convention on the Rights of the Child(1989).<BR>  And this study makes an overall review on Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations towards Children(1956) and the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations(1973). These Conventions adopt phased application of governing law in the priority of the law of the habitual residence of the maintenance creditor, the law of the creditor and debtor"s common nationality and the law of the forum, in terms of governing law on maintenance obligations, ultimately for the benefit of realizing the idea of favor creditoris. In addition, the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance(2007) proclaims the promotion of cooperations among contracting states in the interest of international recovery for child support and other forms of family maintenance.<BR>  Finally, this study compares and analyzes practical legislative cases on international maintenance obligations, particularly focusing on those cases in German, Japanese and Korean. Germany ratified UN Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance(1956), and enacted Auslandsunterhaltsgesetz(AUG). Moreover, Germany enforced Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations(1973) and comprehensively stipulated further descriptions of said Convention in the Article 18, Einf?hrungsgesetz zum B?rgerlichen Gesetzbuche(EGBGB). Japan also effectuated the said Hague Maintenance Conventions(1956 and 1973) and has enforced corresponding special act customized for its domestic conditions. In Korea, the Article 46 of revised Private International Law accepts major considerations of the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations(1973) in order to protect maintenance creditor, but Korea has not yet joined the said Convention. For judgment on whether to join these Conventions in near future, it is advisable to conduct formulated studies on this issue in advance. Based on findings from the studies, it is required to seek for effective ways to resolve maintenance problems through extensive collaborations among a variety of Conventions co

아동양육 및 기타 가족부양의 국제적 청구에 관한 헤이그협약 연구

이병화(Lee Byung-Hwa) 한국법학원 2009 저스티스 Vol.- No.112

최근에 우리나라에서는 국제혼인 및 국제이혼이 급증하고 있으며, 이로 인해 국제적 부양과 관련된 섭외가사사건의 발생도 점차 빈번해질 것으로 예상된다. 따라서 본고에서는 2007년에 새롭게 채택된 「아동양육 및 기타 가족부양의 국제적 청구에 관한 헤이그협약」(일명 헤이그국제부양청구협약)을 중심으로 살펴보고 있다. 동 협약은 아직 발효되고 있지 않지만, 지금까지 현존하는 부양관련 여러 헤이그협약들과 1956년의 유엔외국부양료청구협약(일명 뉴욕협약) 및 1989년의 유엔아동권리협약 등을 기반으로 하여 총체적으로 국제적 부양청구를 위해 체약국간의 협력증진을 꾀하고 있는 점에서 그 의미가 상당하다고 하겠다. 그러므로 본고에서는 헤이그국제부양청구협약의 성립배경과 의의 및 조문별 해석을 통해 구체적으로 내용을 검토하고, 기존의 국제부양 관련협약들(유엔외국부양료청구협약ㆍ헤이그아동부양협약ㆍ헤이그일반부양협약ㆍ헤이그일반부양승인집행협약ㆍ헤이그부양준거법의정서)과의 차이점을 비교법적으로 분석하고 있다. 또한 헤이그국제부양청구협약의 국내적 이행가능성을 모색하기 위한 사전연구로서 동 협약과 민법상 부양의무와의 관계, 국제사법상 부양의무와의 관계, 외국부양판결의 승인ㆍ집행문제를 다루고 있으며, 동 협약의 실시에 있어서 국내 시행법의 제정문제 등을 논의하고 있다. 향후 우리나라가 헤이그국제부양청구협약의 체약국이 되어 동 협약을 국내에서 유효하게 실시하기 위해서는 동 협약에 관한 이론 및 사례를 풍부히 제시할 수 있도록 인적ㆍ물적 자원의 지원이 필수적이며, 국제적 부양문제에 관한 꾸준하고도 깊이 있는 연구가 계속되어야 할 것이다. 본고를 통해 이러한 필요성을 어느 정도 충족시킬 수 있는 사전준비의 기회가 되길 바라고, 동 협약의 올바른 해석과 적용을 위해 유용하게 활용될 수 있는 기본연구로서 그 역할을 기대해본다. There is lately a rapid increase in the cases of international marriage and divorce in our country, and international family cases linked to international maintenance are expected to take place more often. The purpose of this study was to examine Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, which was a new convention concluded in 2007. This convention doesn’t yet go into effect, but has a significant meaning in that it attempts to boost collaboration among parties to the convention to bolster the recovery of international maintenance based on existing relevant Hague Conventions and two additional conventions. One is the UN Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance(the so-called New York Convention) of 1956, and the other is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989. The background and significance of Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance were discussed in this study, and the text of it was interpreted. And the convention was compared to five existing relevant conventions to find out the differences between it and the others: the UN Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance(New York Convention), Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations towards Children, Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating to Maintenance Obligations, and Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations. The relationship of that convention to domestic civil law and private international law related to maintenance obligations was investigated to explore the applicability of the convention to our country, and the recognition and enforcement of abroad maintenance judgment were discussed. Besides, the enactment of domestic law necessary for the execution of the convention was discussed as well. A supply of human and material resources required for the successful execution of Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance as one of the parties to that convention is mandatory so that people concerned could be informed about the theoretical background of it and actual enforcement cases, and sustained and prolonged research efforts should be directed into this issue. This study is expected to lay the groundwork for the introduction, right interpretation and execution of the convention.