고용소송과 국가면제 ‒ 국제인권법과의 관계를 중심으로 ‒ = Employment and State Immunity ‒ Focusing on the Relationship between State Immunity and International Human Rights Law ‒

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The practice of today indicate that not every act of a foreign State is accorded State(or sovereign) immunity, and that many countries distinguish between acts jure imperii and acts jure gestionis and only accord immunity to the former. The United Nations Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property is reflective of this trend, stipulating in Article 11 that if a State employs a person in another State, the employment itself is in principle not a sovereign act, allowing that person to file suits against the employer State in cases of alleged violations of labour law. However, such employment contracts might at times be sovereign, for exmaple when the employee is responsible for acts performed in the exercise of sovereign authority, or when their work is closely related to such sovereign acts. Immunity might also be granted when the employee is more closely related to the employer State rather than the State of the forum, or when allowing the employee to sue the employer State at the State of the forum harms the former s security interests. State practice is not uniform in this area, but most States now take into account these factors in deciding whether to allow State immunity or not. This dissertation explores how according State immunity in employment disputes might clash with the right to access to court in international human rights law. Currently, the European Court of Human Rights accepts sovereign immunity rules, particularly those stipulated in the aforementioned UN Convention, as constituting a legitimate limitation to the right to access to court. This not only diminishes the unique aspects of proportionality analysis in international human rights law, it might in some circumstances constitute a violation on the duty not to discriminate based on nationality. This dissertation argues that this potential clash should be avoided by a fuller proportionality analysis, in particular taking into account whether the applicant has alternative effective remedies available

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서 론 Ⅱ. 고용분쟁에 있어서의 국가면제: 국가들의 관행 1. 국가면제의 일반적 경향: 절대적 면제에서 상대적 면제로 2. 고용소송에서의 제한적 면제이론 적용에 있어 국가들의 상이한 접근법 3. 고용소송에서의 국가면제에 대한 관습국제법의 현주소 Ⅲ. 고용분쟁에 있어서 국가면제와 국제인권법의 관계: ECHR의 법리에 대한 평가 1. 문제의 제기: 국제법상 국가면제와 국제인권법상 ‘공정한 재판을 받을 권리’의 관계 2. ECHR의 법리 발전 3. 최근의 접근에 대한 평가 Ⅳ. 대안적 접근의 가능성: 대안적 구제수단에 대한 심사 1. 규범충돌이론을 통한 해결? 2. 대안적 구제수단(alternative effective remedy) 기준의 도입을 통한 해결 Ⅴ. 결 론