‘세월호 정치’의 표층과 심부

박명림(Park Myung-Lim) 역사비평사 2015 역사비평 Vol.- No.110

The appalling sinking of the Sewol in 2014 was a product of state failure and state missing. As an event, it was a condensed eruption of structure deeply coupled with the neo-liberal development. The disastrous mistakes of ship steering was not necessarily destined and resulted in the loss of people. But in the desperate moment of acute crisis, government and bureaucratic networks did not function at all for saving the people at the very sinking process of ship. Here the ship means living people. From the president to the bottom, state apparatuses all together lost in finding its own proper role. The long waning of state role was an inseparable offspring of theparticular trajectory of Korean modernization. After democratization coming with neo-liberal globalization, the institute, organization and scale of state were still very huge, but its spirit, capacity, and role were strikingly diminished. Market and enterprises profoundly replaced the state, and dominated the whole society. In that situation, the state of exception, crisis, barbarity, and nature became general, structural, and lasting. It was not exceptional. No one can escape from the ship/state of crisis even on the land. It is very difficult for the ordinary people to find a state of security, civilization, and liberty as a safe place. Without restoring the proper role of state and politics, we cannot cope with the enduring structural crisis. It can come from a strong democracy. The sinking was neither exceptional nor particular.Market and enterprises profoundly replaced the state, and dominated the whole society. In that situation, the state of exception, crisis, barbarity, and nature became general, structural, and lasting. It was not exceptional. No one can escape from the ship/state of crisis even on the land. It is very difficult for the ordinary people to find a state of security, civilization, and liberty as a safe place. Without restoring the proper role of state and politics, we cannot cope with the enduring structural crisis. It can come from a strong democracy. The sinking was neither exceptional nor particular. All of us must share both the traits of private individual and public citizen. If not, we cannot create any sphere of public appearance. Only public citizens can construct an empowered democracy. Through participation and representation from below, we establish the democratic state for acquiring our security, freedom and welfare. Then, without being qualified as citizen, we may not defend the private life and interest. In South Korea, the discrepancy between popular will and representative institution in constituting the democratic government is decisive. After democratic opening, the former and the latter showed, repeatedly, systematically and institutionally, the utterly distorted representation. Then, the close combination between high conflict and high crisis of life continues again and again. How to narrow down the institutionally distorted wide gap? The pure proportional representation system may be the best possible way, based on the popular will, with essential electoral and constitutional reform. That kind of democratically empowered human community will pave the way of both healing the injured people in short term range and constructing a state of security in long-term one. By then, through coping with the specific tragedy of the Sewol sinking, we will finally front the two tasks simultaneously: one is to transform from a private individual to a public citizen, another is to secure the right to life, right to security, right to truth, and right to remedy for genuine human life.

한국의 국가 형성기 "예외상태 상례"의 법적 구조

강성현 ( Sung Hyun Kang ) 한국사회사학회 2012 사회와 역사 Vol.0 No.94

이 글은 국가건설, 혁명, 내전, 냉전의 교차 속에서 창출된 예외상태 상례의 법적 구조라는 차원에서 ‘폭력적 법’이자 ‘법제화된 폭력’이었던 한국의 국가보안법과 계엄법을 분석했다. 두 법은 제주4·3사건과 여순사건을 계기로 ‘비상시기의 비상조치’로서 탄생해 각각 내전을 법제화하고 ‘계엄상태’를 창출한 예외상태 법이자 법정 립적 폭력이었다. 국가보안법은 내전적 상황에서 제정된 법으로, ‘사상’을 매개로 ‘마음속 목적’을 판단해 외부의 적과 내부의 적을 규정하고 적대적으로 배제하는 법이었다. 그런데 국가보안법은 1925년 치안유지법을 모델로 했기 때문에 법조문상으로는 ‘평시의 사상처벌법’이었지만, 내전적 상황 속에서 탄생했기 때문에 사실상 ‘전시법’적으로 운용되었다. 법의 조문과 운용 사이에 괴리가 있었던 것이다. 이 때문에 국가보안 법은 ‘평시의 계엄법’으로 평가되기도 했다. 이 괴리는 1949년의 국가보안법 전부 개정을 통해 해소되었다. 이렇게 명실상부한 전시법으로서의 국가보안법은 제헌헌법을 압도했고, 주권권력인 국민은 기본권을 박탈당한 채 처벌의 대상으로 전락하는 사태가 발생했다. 이런 의미에서 국가보안법은 내전을 법제화한 것이었고, 사회를 적대하는 합법적 내전 그 자체였으며, 예외상태 법이었다. 계엄법은 비상사태를 전제로 헌법의 일부 조항을 효력 정지시키는 국가긴급권을 법률화한 것이다. 이 법은 비상사태를 결정하는 자가 누구인지를 규정함으로써 진정한 주권자가 형해화된 국민이 아닌 대통령과 그 대리인(지역사령관의 임시계엄 의 경우)임을 분명히 했다. 계엄 선포를 통해 창출된 ‘계엄상태’에서 군은 헌법상 국민의 기본권을 정지시킨 채 생사여탈권을 휘둘렀다. “사람 죽이는 것이 계엄령” 이라는 인식이 생겨날 정도였다. 역설적인 것은 이 계엄법이 계엄법 부존재 상태에 서의 계엄 선포와 그것을 빌미로 자행된 국가폭력을 통해 정립되었다는 점이다. 아감벤과 벤야민식으로 말하면 ‘계엄법 없는 계엄 선포’에 근거한 국가폭력이 ‘법 정립적 폭력’으로 기능해 계엄법 제정을 이끌어냈다고 할 수 있다. 한국전쟁의 발발은 예외상태가 상례가 되는 상황을 초래했다. 예외와 상례가 전면적으로 혼동되는 상황이 펼쳐졌고 그 둘을 구분하는 것이 불가능하게 되었다. 국가보안법과 계엄법은 비상사태범죄처벌특조령과 함께 예외상태 상례의 법적 구 조를 구성하는 ‘트로이카’였다. 이 법적 구조물이 국민을 ‘빨갱이’로 낙인하고 대량학살한 것은 주지의 사실이 다. 한국전쟁기 ‘보도연맹원’, ‘사상범’, ‘부역자(附逆者)’ 등에 대한 집단학살이 바로 그것이다. 다시 말해 학살 등 국민에 대한 국가폭력은 법의 바깥(혹은 법의 폐지)에 서 발생한 것이 아니라 법질서와의 관계 속에서 집행되었던 것이다. This study analyzed the National Security Law(NSL) and the Martial Law of Korea, the ‘violent law’ and ‘legalized violence’, defining these laws as a legal structure of ‘usual state of exception’ rooted from the dynamics of state building, revolution, civil war, and cold war. These two law has been born as ‘emergency measure in the case of emergency’ via Jeju 4·3 Incident and Yo-sun Incident, each legalized civil war, created ‘state of siege’ as the law of state of exception and lawmaking violence. The NSL, which was enacted in state of civil war, judged the one’s ‘inner purpose’ through one’s ‘thought(political idea)’, defined the enemy inside or outside, and excluded them with hostility. Even though the legal provisions of NSL has defined it as the Thought Punishment Law ‘of peacetime’ by modeling Peace Preservation Law(1925), the NSL was used and managed as the legal system ‘of wartime’. It is that there was a certain gap between the legal provisions and management. As a result, the NSL has been evaluated as ‘the Martial Law of peacetime’. In 1949, this gap was reduced by the total revision of NSL. Then the NSL, the wartime legal system, started to overwhelm the First Constitution of Republic of Korea and this brought the many violent incidents shown as the national civilians became objects to be punished without fundamental human rights. For this context, the NSL is the legalized figure of civil war, is the legal civil war itself making the national society enemy, and is the law of the state of exception. The Martial Law is the legal form of State Emergency Power, stopping legal force of some articles in the constitution on the assumption of the emergency state. This law defined who can decide the emergency and clarified that the president or his deputy(in case of temporary martial law by the local commanding general) is to be the true sovereign, not the people who are legally invisible subjects. In ‘the state of siege’, created by the promulgation of the Martial Law, the military controlled the life-or-death authority by revocation of the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the constitution. It made even the phrase, “The martial law, the merciless killing weapon”. In fact, it is an irony that this martial law is rooted from these; the promulgation of the martial law in absence of the martial law and the national state violence justified by this law. To describe this situation using the notions and way of Giorgio Agamben and Walter Benjamin, the state violence based on ‘the promulgation of the martial law without the martial law(force of law without force)’, functioned as ‘the lawmaking violence(rechtsetzende Gewalt )’ and caused the enactment of the martial law. And the outbreak of Korean War transformed this state of exception into the usual state. This brought the complete confusion of the usual and exceptional state and no one able to differentiate them. Thus, NSL, the Martial Law and the Special Penalty under the State of Emergency, the three laws became the ‘notorious troika’ consisting the legal structure of the state of exception. It is very clear that this legal structure put stigma of ‘the Red’ on national civilians and brought the genocide in state. In period of Korean War, the massacre of ‘bo-do-yon-maeng won(member of national guidance alliance)’, ‘sa-sang-bum(thought criminal)’, ‘bu-youk-ja(traitor)’ were the byproducts of this legal structure. Thus, the state violence against the national civilians; the genocide was committed not outside of the legal system(or the revocation of the law), rather the problematic relation with law and order.

1970년대의 비상사태와 근대성

황정아 ( Jung A Hwang ) 민족문학사학회·민족문학사연구소 2016 민족문학사연구 Vol.60 No.-

1971년의 국가비상사태 선언 및 1972년 비상계엄 선포와 더불어 유신체제가 수립한 때부터 1979년 박정희정권이 마침내 몰락하면서 또다시 국가비상사태가 선언되기에이르기까지, 1970년대는 말그대로 비상사태가 일상이 된 시대였다. 유신체제가 한국 역사에서 비상사태를 가장 직접적이고 전형적으로 보여준다는 점에서 비상사태에 대한 이해는1970년대를 인식하는 한 가지 유익한 방도가 될 수 있다. 비상사태는 한편으로는 특정시기에 예외적인 사건으로 발생하지만 다른 한편으로는 ``예외상태의 상례화``라는 논제에 암시되어 있듯이 근대 역사 전반에 잠재한 요소이기도 하다. 근대적 법질서나 주권권력 같은 정치영역을 비롯하여 자본주의적 근대화가 구조적으로 비상사태를 포함하고 있다면, 1970년대비상사태의 함의를 더 복합적으로 인식하기 위해서는 이처럼 근대성 자체에 내장된 비상사태의 층위까지 고려해야 한다. 이 글은 예외상태에 관한 이론 및 본원적 자본축적에 관한 논의들을 참조하여 유신체제와 근대성에 동시에 걸쳐있는 비상사태의 의미망을 중층적으로 파악하고자 한다. 그럼으로써 궁극적으로는 1970년대의 현재성을 가늠하고 비상사태와의적대가 갖는 중요성을 강조한다. The South Korean government recently tabled an ``anti-terrorism bill``, a move that triggered a prolonged filibuster in the National Assembly, and in response the government threatened to invoke some long-forgotten provisions intended for a State of Emergency in a bid to justify the urgency of the proposition. In 1971 the Park Chung-hee regime was the first to declare a state of national emergency in South Korea, and then martial law in 1972, which led to the establishment of the so-called Yushin Regime. From this time until another state of national emergency was declared when the Park Chung-hee Regime eventually collapsed in 1979, the state of emergency pervaded all aspects of everyday life. Thus, developing an understanding of this state of emergency is an instructive approach to comprehending the 1970s, with the Yushin Regime as the archetypal template for all such state of emergency. Although a state of emergency arises at a specific point in time as an exceptional contingency, it can also be understood as a latent element that persists throughout modern history, as implied in Agamben`s thesis of the normalization of the state of exception. It appears that capitalist modernization, and also modern sovereign power, structurally encompass the state of emergency. In order to fully understand the implications of the 1970s state of emergency, it is therefore necessary to also consider a deeper layer in which the state of emergency is intrinsic to and embedded within modernity itself. This paper, by referring to the theoretical analysis of the state of exception, and also to discourses on the primitive accumulation of capital, seeks to understand the historical semantics of the state of emergency through a multi-layered approach, intending thereby to gauge the historical significance and continuing relevance of the 1970s.

국가통치성과 예외상태 ― 백정, 도축, 그리고 형평운동에 대한 재고찰

이향아 ( Lee Hyang A ) 한국사회사학회 2023 사회와 역사 Vol.- No.138

이 글은 형평사 창립과 형평운동의 성격을 재고찰하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 기존의 연구는 형평운동을 해석함에 있어, 백정이 주체가 되어 차별철폐와 신분해방, 나아가서 민족해방으로 나아간 인권보편적인 운동이라는 결론을 내고 있다. 이 글은 기존의 연구들이 왜 백정이 형평운동의 주체가 되었는지에 대해 본질적으로 설명하지 못하고 있음을 지적하며, 백정의 계급적, 직업적 정체성에 대한 분석이 선행되어야 함을 주장한다. 이를 위해서, 예외상태와 호모 사케르의 개념을 유비해 백정, 도축 그리고 국가의 변증법적 관계를 분석하며 그 내용은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 도축은 농경국가이자 유교국가였던 조선에게 예외상태로 설정되었고, 이에 따라 도축을 생업으로 삼았던 백정들은 예외상태에 놓인 호모 사케르의 존재였다. 둘째, 국민국가의 형성과 근대화과정에서 이러한 예외상태는 전환되게 되었고, 백정 또한호모 사케르에서 백성으로 신분적 전환을 경험하게 되는데, 도축의 탈예외상태화와 백정의 호모 사케르적 위치의 전환을 형평운동에 대한 논의의 무게추로 설정해야 한다. 셋째, 이러한 전환과정을 통해, 백정은 도축에 대한 직업정체성을 강화할 수 있었고, 이는 ‘쇠고기’에 대한 이윤을 독점하고자 했던 국가와 관계의 재구조화를 거치며 형평사 창립과 형평운동의 전개로 이어지게 되었다. This article aims to re-visit the dynamics for foundation of the Hyeongpyeongsa and the nature of the Hyeongpyeong movement. In interpreting of Hyeongpyeong movement, existing research tends to focus a universal human rights movement led by Baekjeong that sought to eliminate long-time class discrimination, liberate people’s status, and even liberate the nation. However, this article focuses on the ‘profession’ of Baekjeong in order to understand Hyeongpyeongsa and Hyeongpyeong movement. To do so, this article analyzes the dialectical relationship between Baekjeong, slaughter, and the state using the concepts of the “state of exception” and “homo sacre” suggested by Schumitt and Agamben. First, slaughter was set as a state of exception for Joseon Dynasty, which was both an agrarian and Confucian state, and accordingly, Baekjeong, who made slaughter their livelihood, became homo sacre in a state of exception. Second, in the process of formation and modernization of the nation-state, this state of exception was transformed, and Baekjeong experienced an identity transition from homo scare to people (who belonged to the state). Third, the de-exceptionalization of slaughter and the transformation of the Baekjeong’s status as homo sacre was the main driver behind the establishment Hyeongpyeongsa and continuation of the Hyeongpyeong movement. Because through this transition, Baekjeong were able to strengthen their occupational identity as a slaughterer through the establishment of a relationship with the

Criminal Proceedings Against Foreign State-Owned Enterprises and the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

최영란 동아대학교 법학연구소 2024 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.44

The United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) grants sovereign immunity to foreign states and may extend the immunity to instrumentalities and agents of foreign states, including state-owned enterprises. It has been clear that sovereign immunity under the FSIA can be addressed in civil cases where foreign states defendants may object jurisdiction of U.S. courts. However, whether such immunity of the FSIA can be granted in criminal proceedings had not been resolved. Finally, in April, 2023, in Türkiye Halk Bankasi S.A. v. United States (Halkbank), the United States Supreme Court clarified that a foreign state-owned enterprise can be subject to criminal proceedings in U.S. courts, but with regard to immunity, the FSIA does not cover criminal cases. Still, a question whether the foreign state-owned enterprise has the jurisdictional immunity under common laws needs to be solved. This paper reviews the FSIA and the Halbank case to discuss the jurisdictional immunity of foreign states in criminal proceedings. Then, the paper examines the extraterritorial application of some U.S. criminal statutes on foreign state-owned enterprises and relevant cases in order to find a way how to prosecute foreign state-owned enterprises involving criminal activities by stealing trade secrets, taking or paying bribes, and involving money laundering.

조르조 아감벤의 예술론을 통한 동시대 예술작업 연구

김지혜 한국미학예술학회 2022 美學·藝術學硏究 Vol.66 No.-

This article begins by explaining the most important concepts for Giorgio Agamben: Homo Sacer and the State of Exception. Agamben calls people living in-between the legal system Homo Sacer. He also described the state of exception as a state of exclusion from the protection and governance of the legal system. In addition, Agamben presents the singular “Form-of-Life” as a new political alternative to those who exist as Homo Sacer. In addition, Agamben divides the State of Exception into two concepts. One is the State of Exception declared by a sovereign as a state of emergency, and the other is the true state of exception, in which the governed decide for themselves. Agamben argues that this State of Exception manifests itself as a Form-of-Life. And artworks revealed through images and gestures make this Form-of-Life possible, and sometimes become Form-of-Life itself. Agamben explains the theory of art through several works. This article categorizes and describes his art theory with keywords such as Image, Gesture, and a Form-of-Life. Also, his art theory is based on dynamic images such as pathosformel and dialectical images. Finally, this article introduces artworks conducted by various artists based on Agamben's art theory and applies his art theory to other artworks. 아감벤의 정치철학에서 가장 많이 거론되어온 개념은 호모 사케르와 예외상태이다. 그리고 아감벤은 이러한 호모 사케르의 형태로 존재하는 이들의 정치적 대안으로 단수의 ‘삶-의-형태’를 제시한다. 여기서 단수의 삶-의-형태는 통치 시스템에 의해 규정되어온 여러 범주와 명칭인 ‘삶의 형태들’이 아닌 존재 그 자체만의 삶을 드러내는 것이라 말할 수 있다. 또한 아감벤은 예외상태에 대하여 상반된 개념으로 나누어 설명하는데, 주권자에 의해 법규범이 정지되는 주권적 예외상태(비상상태)와 이러한 상태에 놓인 이들이 자발적으로 그 예외상태에서 벗어나 법규범의 통치를 거부하는 진정한 예외상태가 바로 그것이다. 아감벤이 이렇듯 스스로 진정한 예외상태를 구축한 사례로 제시한 이들에는 내전이나 재난 등으로 국적이나 소속을 상실하였으나 그 상황 속에서도 자신의 삶-의-형태를 구축해온 자발적 난민이나 무국적자가 해당된다. 아감벤에게 이러한 호모 사케르의 자발적 예외상태, 즉 삶-의-형태는 무위의 잠재성, 즉 [비]잠재성을 포함하며, 이미지와 몸짓으로 드러나는 예술작품 역시 이러한 삶-의-형태를 가능하게 하고, 때로는 삶-의-형태 그 자체가 되기도 한다. 따라서 이 글은 그의 이러한 예술론을 이미지, 몸짓, 삶-의-형태 등의 키워드로 구분하여 서술하고자 한다. 그리고 마지막으로 아감벤의 예술론을 기반으로 이론가들과 예술가들이 기존에 진행하였던 몇 작업들을 소개하고, 국내외 예술작업 중 이러한 키워드로 읽을 수 있는 또 다른 작업들을 선정하여, 그의 예술론을 대입하는 실험을 진행해 보고자 한다.

‘예외상태’의 일상화와 통치술로서의 ‘국방위원장 체제’: ‘김정일 시대’ 북한의 국가성격을 중심으로

김종욱 통일연구원 2013 統一 政策 硏究 Vol.22 No.2

This article is defined as follows about characteristics of North Korea in ‘KimJong-il era.’ North Korea of ‘Kim Jong-il era’ is perpetuating ‘state of exception,’ andruling crafts to overcome the ‘state of exception’ has emerged ‘System of Chairman ofthe National Defense Commission.’ That’s why to overcome three kinds of crises facedthe North Korea. The three crises is the occurrence of cracks in the ‘suryung’ authorities,national authorities, and bureaucratic system. In this crisis, the state has given up caringabout the people. Instead, the supreme leader of North Korea was declared the ‘state ofexception’ in order to maintain government. That is ‘Arduous March.’ This is operateruling crafts of ‘Chairman of the National Defense Commission’ as system to overcomecrisis. People in North Korea by the this ruling crafts was reborn as the ‘HomoSacer’ and ‘state of exception’ was perpetuating. The measures to cope temporaryemergency is switched with the everyday ruling crafts. That was the principle of ‘KimJong-il era’ national operations. 이 글은 ‘김정일 시대’ 북한 국가의 특징을 ‘예외상태’의 일상화와 북한이 처한 위기를 극복하기 위한 통치술로서 ‘국방위원장 체제’가 등장했다고 판단한다. 북한이 처한 3대 위기는 ‘수령’의 사망, 증여시스템의 붕괴, 통치 인프라의 고갈로 인한 수령 권위·국가 권위·관료체제 등에서의 균열 발생이었다. 이 위기에서 국가는 인민에 대한 ‘돌봄’을 포기했으며, 식량난에 처한 북한주민의 삶을 방치했다. 그것이 바로 ‘고난의 행군’이었다. 이러한 상황을 ‘예외상태’로 선포할 수 있는 자는 주권자이며, 북한의 주권자는 바로 김정일이었다. 김정일은 김일성 주석의 사망과 이후 발생한 식량난으로 인한 긴급 사태를 ‘고난의 행군’이라는 ‘예외상태’로 선포하고, 전권을 행사하며 위기극복에 착수했다. 위기극복을 위한 시스템으로써 활용된 통치술이 ‘국방위원장 체제’였다. 국방위원회는 ‘예외상태’ 속에서 통치를 실행하는 즉내치와 치안을 담당하는 역할을 수행했다. 이 통치술이 작동하는 기간 동안 북한의 인민은 ‘벌거벗은 생명’인 ‘호모 사케르(homo sacer)’로 재탄생했고, ‘예외상태’는 일상화되었다. 일시적 긴급사태 극복을 위한조치가 일상적 통치술로 전환된 것이다. 이것이 바로‘김정일 시대’ 국가운영의 원리가 되었다.

Between Friends and Enemies : Ridley Scott’s Alien

Eli Park SORENSEN 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2016 탈경계인문학 Vol.9 No.3

This article presents a reading of Ridley Scott’s sci-fi classic Alien (1979), with a specific focus on the film’s latent political conflict. The film has often been read through feminist and psychoanalytic approaches, but such approaches essentially deflect attention from the literalness of the film’s political dimension. This political dimension is in many ways one that comes close to the problem Carl Schmitt discussed in connection with his concept of the state of exception, as well as his notorious reinterpretation of Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan. To Schmitt, power is ultimately justified through its right to rule over the exception. During the state of exception, the sovereign may legally suspend the social contract, or, the constitution — in order to protect, defend, and preserve it. In the absence of the anomaly, however, the state is in danger of losing its power. Thus, it is essential for the authoritarian, anti-liberal state to establish a relation to the anomaly — i.e. Behemoth, or the state of nature — in order to reassert itself. Alien envisions such a scenario, and it shows Ripley, as a loyal citizen, fighting against power’s sinister attempt to restore fear and terror — even if she thereby, simultaneously, comes to personify the absolute, unlimited sovereign, as well as the alien, that is, the outlawed, banned life; hero and enemy of the state — or friend and enemy — at one and the same time.

A Capitalist State of Exception in David Milch’s Deadwood

Kim Younghoon 한국중앙영어영문학회 2011 영어영문학연구 Vol.53 No.1

David Milch’s Deadwood features a 19th century mining camp of the same name, focusing on the interactions between the historic notables of the camp, such as Al Swearengen, Seth Bullock, and George Hearst. Deadwood is an illegal camp established in the Indian Territory as a result of the Black Hill Gold Rush (1874-77). The White men’s ventures in the Indian Territory outside the state turned Deadwood into a burgeoning town in need of law and order for its further development. And the camp’s notables desperately need the region’s annexation to the US in order to stabilize and legalize their expropriated property. In this paper, while taking a cue from Giorgio Agamben’s idea of state of exception—the suspension of laws by the sovereign becomes a dominant paradigm of government—I argue David Milch’s Deadwood reveals that the suspension of laws is an integral part of capitalist expansion and accumulation. In arguing about Deadwood’s resurrection of the 19th century mining camp in our 21st century, I propose that this TV show depicts a reiteration of a certain past that has become dominant again in our present: the resurrection and repetition of Marx’s primitive accumulation in the contemporary form of capitalism, whether it is dubbed neoliberalism, unfettered capitalism, or disaster capitalism. By exploring the main characters’ motives and struggles over the Deadwood camp’s annexation to which a drastic capitalist reform of the camp leads, this paper reveals that the same sovereign logic of exception is innate in primitive accumulation.

문화재 소송에서 국가면제에 관한 연구 - 미국 외국주권면제법상 수용예외 조항을 중심으로 -

박선아 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2017 法學論集 Vol.22 No.2

The history of cultural assets has been a series of desolation by an illegal act such as robbery, tomb theft and illegal shipping out and now, they are moaning while not being able to restore law and justice. This was an outcome of greed in mankind, hidden behind passion and concern about culture and art. Moreover, international agreement and domestic laws concerning cultural assets have not shown noticeable results for the solution of disputes over cultural assets. Even in such a pessimistic legal situation, subjects like individuals or countries that would get back their cultural assets continuously raised civil suits to domestic courts and obtained good results, sometimes. South Korea, too, raised an administrative litigation for the return of Oegyukanggak Royal Books of the Joseon Dynasty that France was holding by citizens in 2010 at a French court. Movement for the return of cultural assets has been carried out through civil suits in 2014, for the redemption of cultural assets leaked to overseas during the period of Japanese Colonial Rule and the period of the Korean War, lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and Japanese courts. The U.S. court reaches verdicts of return, actively, establishing the jurisdiction of foreign properties in a suit to ask for the return of cultural assets unduly forfeited by Nazi regime or Soviet Union Communist Party administration in the past, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (US FSIA) enacted in 1976. In lawsuits on the return of cultural assets raised in the U.S. court against a foreign government, establish international judicial jurisdiction and hand down a ruling on the return, Article 1605 (a)(3) “Takings Exception or Expropriation Exception” of the U.S. FSIA) applies mostly. The provision on the exception of ‘expropriation’ is provided only in the U.S. FSIA. In order to come under ‘expropriation exception’ in the U.S. FSIA, ‘the object of a lawsuit must be acquired by violating an international law.’ The ‘expropriation’ of which the ‘acquisition violates the international law’ refers to ① one that is not for a public purpose; ② one that should be differentiated; and ③ one for which no compensation is made. Even if the conditions for expropriation, which is the violation of the international law, the property or a property exchanged with the property should be located in the U.S., and it should be related to the commercial action performed by a foreign government. There is a criticism that the U.S. shows off its position as a power and shows a nationalist tendency in applying the provision of expropriation exception to a lawsuit on the return of cultural assets on the U.S. FSIA. However, it is considered the suggestion of a ground on the domestic jurisdiction of victim countries, including South Korea that do not get a number of important cultural assets cultural assets returned even if they were plundered of them. Moreover, it is judged that it is appropriate that it established the principle of the return to the original owner in accordance with the principles of law and justice in the international order concerning cultural assets. 문화재에 관한 역사는 도난, 도굴 및 불법 반출과 같은 불법행위에 의하여 황폐화되었고 현재에도 법과 정의를 회복하지 못한 채로 신음하고 있다. 이는 우리 인류가 문화와 예술에 대한 열정과 관심 이면에 숨겨왔던 탐욕의 결과였다. 더욱이 문화재에 관한 국제협약과 국내법은 문화재 분쟁의 법적 해결에 주목할 만한 성과를 보이지 못하였다. 이러한 비관적인 법적 상황 속에서도 문화재를 반환받고자 하는 개인 또는 국가 등 주체들은 국내 법원에 지속적으로 민사소송을 제기하였고, 반환의 성과를 내기도 하였다. 우리나라에서도 2010년 시민들이 중심이 되어 프랑스가 보유하고 있던 외규장각 도서의 반환을 위한 행정소송을 프랑스법원에 제기한 적이 있다. 2014년에도 일제 강점기와 한국 전쟁기에 해외로 유출된 문화재의 환수를 위해 미국과 일본 법원에 소송이 제기하는 등 민사소송을 통한 문화재 반환운동이 이루어지고 있다. 미국 법원은 1976년 제정된 외국주권면제법(Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act : 미국 FSIA) 아래에서 과거 나치정권이나 소련공산당 정부에 의하여 부당하게 몰수된 문화재의 반환을 구하는 소송에서 외국재산에 대한 재판관할권의 성립시켜서 적극적으로 반환판결을 내리고 있다. 미국법원에 외국 정부를 상대로 제기된 문화재 반환소송에서 국제재판관할을 성립시키고 반환판결을 선고하는데 주로 적용하는 것이 바로 미국 외국주권면제법(FSIA) 제1605조 (a)(3) ‘강제수용의 예외 (takings exception or expropriation exception)’이다. ‘강제수용’예외 조항은 오로지 미국 주권면제법에만 규정되어 있는 것이다. 미국 주권면제법의 ‘강제 수용 예외’에 해당하기 위해서는 ‘소송의 목적물이 국제법을 위반하여 취득’된 경우여야 한다. 그 ‘취득이 국제법을 위반’한 ‘수용’이라 함은 ① 공공의 목적이 아니어야 하고, ② 차별적인 것이어야 하며, ③ 아무런 보상도 이루어지지 않은 것을 말한다. 국제법에 위반한 수용 요건이 충족된다고 하더라도, 그 재산 또는 그 재산과 교환된 재산이 미국에 소재하여야 하고 그것이 외국정부에 의해서 수행된 상사적 행위와 관련이 있어야한다. 미국이 주권면제법상의 강제수용예외조항을 문화재반환소송에 적용하는 것에 대하여 강대국으로서의 면모를 과시하고 국수주의적 경향을 보인다는 비판이 있다. 그러나 수많은 중요 문화재를 약탈당하고도 이를 반환받지 못하고 있는 우리나라를 비롯한 문화재 반출 피해국들에게 문화재 반환의 국내 사법적 근거를 제시해주었다고 평가된다. 더욱이 문화재에 관한 국제질서에서의 법과 정의의 원칙에 따라 원소유자 반환 원칙을 확고히 하였다는 측면에서 타당하다고 생각된다.