국제인도법상 통제 기준에 관한 소고 = Various Control Tests in International Humanitarian Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article reviews control tests under international humanitarian law. First of all, it reviews the effective control standard under the law of state responsibility and overall control standard under international humanitarian law, and how they two are related but different. It also finds that the two tests do not conflict, and their applications should be flexible depending on the context they are used. In determining the existence of an international armed conflict under international humanitarian law, the overall control standard seems to have established its solid status and there is even a possibility of it being used in the area of state responsibility. In addition, the effective overall test has been formed by ECtHR to impute responsibility to a state which exercises effective control outside of its territory indirectly through a third party there.
Next, the article examined the effective control test under occupation law, which is an important specific area of international humanitarian law. The early origin of the test is found in the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions and the Article 42 of the Hague Regulation is recognized to form customary international law. Cumulative criteria for the effective control test have been developed through international precedents and state practice. The indirect effective control test has been proposed regarding occupation. According to the test, occupation occurs if a state controls the territory through a local proxy without exerting direct influence over a territory. The subject of ‘control’ in international law is sometimes associated with the fragmentation of international law. However, the author believe that the segmentation is inevitable considering the diversification of entities of and behaviors in international law. The control tests in international law, including the law of state responsibility and international humanitarian law, are interrelated and often cross-examined regardless of the area of international law they are applied. In addition, the new control tests were derived by combining the traditional control tests. The new control standards would help eliminate the blind areas of international humanitarian law, embracing new actors and behaviors.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

일반적 맥락에서 통제는 방향성을 가지고 일방 당사자가 타방 당사자의행위에 제약을 가하는 제반 행위를 의미한다. 국제법상 통제는 국제책임법, 국제인도법, 국제인권법, 영토 권한의 확인 등 다양한 맥락에서 사용되는데 이 논문에서는 그 중 국제인도법상 통제 기준들에 대해 논한다. 국제인도법에서도 통제는 복수의 목적으로 활용되는 바 이들을 함께 검토한다.
먼저 조직된 무장집단의 행위가 특정 국가의 행위로 귀속될 수 있는지를 판단하는 데 사용되는 통제 기준을 검토한다. 우선 국가책임법상 비국가행위자의 행위를 특정 국가의 행위로 귀속시키기 위한 통제 기준인 실효적 통제 기준과, 비국제적 무력충돌을 국제적 무력충돌로 변환시킴에 있어 조직된 무장집단의 행위가 특정 국가의 행위로 귀속될 수 있는지를 판단하는 데 사용되는 전반적 통제 기준의 등장배경과 구성요소를 각각 살펴본다. 특히 국제법상 양 기준의 관계와 유효성 및 한계를 다룬 판례와학설들을 중심으로 검토하였다. 그 결과 전반적 통제 기준이 실효적 기준이 아닌 엄격한 통제를 대체하기 위해 등장한 기준이며 전반적 통제와 실효적 통제 기준이 양립할 수 있음을 논하였다. 한편 유럽인권재판소는 간접적인 외부 세력의 존재나 비국가행위자 행위의 다변화를 반영할 수 있는 ‘전반적 실효적 통제 기준’을 고안하였다. 이 기준은 특정 지역에 실효적 통제를 가하고 있는 외부의 국가가 존재할 경우, 지역 내에서 발생하는개별 행위에는 실효적 통제가 없더라도 행위 귀속을 가능케 한다.
이후 점령법상 점령의 존재를 확인하는 데 사용되는 실효적 통제 기준에 대해 논의한다. 점령의 법적 근거와 외국 군대의 주둔, 점령 영토에서권한의 행사, 그리고 군사 점령에 대한 비동의라는 세가지의 누적적 요건을 확인하였다. 비교적 최근에 제시되고 있는 ‘간접적 실효적 통제 기준에대해 논의한다. 이 기준은 특정 국가가 전반적 통제를 가하고 있는 현지권한 당국을 통해 이루어지더라도 점령이 인정될 수 있음을 시사한다. 기존의 엄격한 통제, 실효적 통제, 전반적 통제를 기반으로 하면서도 새로이제시되는 통제 기준을 통해 국제인도법은 보완되며 발전할 것이다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김석현, "영유권 귀속에 있어서의 ‘effectivité(s)’" 국제법평론회 (56) : 1-42, 2020

2 정인섭, "신국제법강의" 박영사 2017

3 오미영, "비국제적 무력충돌 시 국제인도법의 적용" (32) : 2012

4 "네이버 국어사전, 통제"

5 안준형, "국제인도법상 무력충돌의 유형과 그 적용" 대한국제법학회 63 (63): 403-442, 2018

6 정인섭, "국제법판례 100선" 박영사 2012

7 Carron, Djemila,, "When is a conflict international? Time for new control tests in IHL" 98 : 2016

8 ICRC, "Updated Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949" Cambridge University Press 2016

9 "US Tribunal of Nuremberg, Wilhelm List and Others, Law Reports of Trial of War Criminals, Vol. Ⅷ, 1949"

10 "US Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, Law of War Manual"

11 "UK Ministry of Defence, The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict"

12 Pejic, Jelena, "The protective scope of Common Article 3: more than meets the eye" 93 (93): 2011

13 Talmon, Stefan, "The Various Control Tests in the Law of State Responsibility and the Responsibility of Outside Powers for Acts of Secessionist Entities" 58 : 2009

14 Rooney, Jane M., "The Relationship between Jurisdiction and Attribution after Jaloud v. Netherlands" 62 : 2015

15 Glahn, Gerhard Von, "The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation" University of Minnesota Press 1957

16 Von Glahn, Gerhard, "The Occupation of Enemy Territory : A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation" University of Minnesota Press 1957

17 Cassese, Antonio, "The Nicaragua and Tadić Tests Revisited in Light of the ICJ Judgment on Genocide in Bosnia" 18 (18): 2007

18 Dinstein, Yoram, "The International Law of Belligerent Occupation" Cambridge University Press 2009

19 Milanovic, Marko, "The ICRC’s Position on a Functional Approach to Occupation"

20 Milanovic, Marko, "State Responsibility for Genocide" 17 (17): 2006

21 Mills, Alex., "Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law" 84 (84): 187-239, 2014

22 "Protocol Additions to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)"

23 "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)"

24 ICTY, "Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškic" Trial Chamber 2000

25 ICTY, "Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., Case No. IT-04-74-A"

26 ICTY, "Prosecutor v. M. Naletilic and V. Martinovic, Judgment, Case No. IT-98-34-T"

27 ICRC, "Occupation and other forms of administration of foreign territory" 2012

28 ICJ, "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua V. United States of America), Merits, Judgement, ICJ Reports 1986"

29 ECtHR, "Loizidou v Turkey, Application no. 15318/89, Merits"

30 ICRC, "International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts" 2015

31 NATO CCECOE, "International Cyber Law: Interactive Toolkits, Legal Concepts, International Armed Conflict"

32 "Institute of International Law, Manual on the Laws of War on Land (the Oxford Manual)"

33 Kapoor, Radhika, "Indirect Occupation and the ICTY: It’s Not So Complicated"

34 ECtHR, "Ilaşcu and others v . Moldova and Russia, Judgment"

35 "ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Trial Chamber, case IT-94-1-T"

36 "ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Appeals Chamber, case IT-94-1-A"

37 "Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land"

38 "Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land"

39 "Germany, Federal Ministry of Defence, Joint Service Regulation (ZDv) 15/2 Law of ARmed Conflict Manual"

40 "Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War"

41 ILC, "Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law"

42 ILC, "Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts"

43 Ferraro, Tristan, "Determining the beginning and end of an occupation under international humanitarian law" 94 : 2012

44 ECtHR, "Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment"

45 ICRC, "Customary International Humanitarian Law" Cambridge University Press 2005

46 Stockburger, P. Z., "Control and capabilities test: Toward a new lex specialis governing state responsibility for third party cyber incidents" 2017

47 ICJ, "Case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) ICJ Reports 2007"

48 "Canada, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, B-GJ-005-104/FP- 021"

49 Duttwiler, Michael, "Authority, Contol and Jurisdiction in the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights" 30 (30): 137-162, 2012

50 ICJ, "Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005"

51 Boon, Kristen E., "Are control tests fit for the future? The slippage problem in attribution doctrines" 15 : 2014