OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인에 따른 한국 연락사무소(NCP)의 기능 부전 ― ‘미얀마 로힝야족 관련 이의신청 사건 1차평가서’(2021)의 비판적 평석 ― = Malfunctioning of Korea National Contact Point under OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises — Critical Appraisal on ‘Initial Assessment of Complaint concerning the 2017 Rohingya Massacre in Myanmar’ —

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 2017, Myanmar witnessed atrocious human rights violations which allegedly amounted to an international crime of genocide, where more than 10,000 Rohingya people were killed with much more tortured or raped. The UN special rapporteur on the incident wrote in his report that several Korean companies were not unrelated to the incident. If such was the case, what kinds of actions were expected for the Korean companies in Myanmar? OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the Guidelines) provide, as an authoritative international instrument, substantive norms and procedures to address such hard questions. Referring to the Guidelines, A group of Korean civil society organizations filed a complaint against the companies listed in the UN report to the Korea National Contact Point (K-NCP) in 2020. After reviewing the complaint at the initial assessment stage, K-NCP ruled that the issues raised didn’t merit further examination, thereby dismissing the complaint. This paper makes three arguments after the critical appraisal of the Initial Assessment of K-NCP.
Firstly, as expressly written in the Guidelines, the role of NCP is to further the effectiveness of the Guidelines, for which the Guidelines provide each NCP with three functions, namely, information and promotion, implementation of specific instances, and reporting. This paper argues that if an NCP performs its functions as expected by the Guidelines, it will contribute significantly to the effectiveness of the Guidelines as a soft law.
Secondly, K-NCP’s dismissal of the complaint was based on its analysis in terms of six reference points provided by the Guidelines’ Commentary, which include i) the identity of the party concerned and its interest in the matter, ii) whether the issue is material and substantiated, iii) whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise's activities and the issue raised in the specific instance, iv) the relevance of applicable law and procedures, including court rulings, v) how similar issues have been, or are being, treated in other domestic or international proceedings, and vi) whether the consideration of the specific issue would contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the Guidelines. After detailed review of each analysis done by K-NCP, this paper argues that K-NCP reached a wrong conclusion due to its misunderstanding of the Guidelines and its Commentary.
Thirdly, this paper argues that if K-NCP had proceeded to the next stage, which is further examination, it could have furthered the effectiveness of the Guidelines in a significant way, for example, by clarifying the meanings of the Guidelines in the specific instance, by determining the violation or compliance of the Guidelines by enterprises concerned, or by issuing proper recommendations.
Based on these arguments, this paper concludes that the absurdity of the initial assessment in this case was clear and that it resulted not from the inherent limitations of the Guidelines but from the malfunctioning of K-NCP.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

2017년 미얀마에서는 로힝야족 1만명 이상이 살해되는 제노사이드 수준의 심각한 인권침해 사건이 있었다. 이 사건을 조사한 유엔 보고관은 한국의 기업도 이 사건과 무관하지 않다고 밝혔다. 그렇다면 이런 사건이 발생한 경우 미얀마에 진출한 한국 기업은 어떻게 처신해야 하는가? ‘OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인’(이하 가이드라인)은 이런 논란을 해결하는 권위 있는 규범과 절차를 제공한다. 이에 한국의 시민단체는 유엔 보고서에 거론된 한국 기업들을 상대로 한국 연락사무소(National Contact Point, 이하 NCP)에 이의신청을 제기했다. 그런데 한국 NCP는 제기된 문제가 추가검토(further examination)의 가치가 없다고 판단하고 1차평가(initial assessment)에서 이의신청을 각하했다. 본고는 이 결정에 대한 평석으로서 세 가지 주장을 한다.
첫째, 본고는 가이드라인이 규정한 NCP의 역할은 가이드라인의 효과성(effectiveness) 제고이며, 이를 위해서 NCP에 부여된 세 가지 기능—정보와 홍보, 구체적 사안에 대처, 그리고 보고—을 잘 이용하면 NCP는 가이드라인의 효과성을 현저하게 제고할 수 있다고 주장한다.
둘째, 한국 NCP는 1차평가에서 이의신청을 각하하면서, 그 근거로서 가이드라인이 제시한 1차 평가의 6가지 기준—① 관련 당사자의 신원 및 당해 쟁점에 대한 이해관계, ② 당해 쟁점이 중대하고 입증된 것인지 여부 ③ 기업활동과 이의신청에서 제기된 쟁점 간의 연관성 여부, ④ 법원 판결을 포함하여 적용 가능한 법령 및 절차의 관련성, ⑤ 유사한 쟁점의 국내･외 처리결과, ⑥ 구체적인 쟁점의 검토가 가이드라인의 목적 및 효과성에 기여 여부—에 따른 상세한 분석을 제시했다. 본고는 한국 NCP의 분석 및 주장 각각에 대해 세밀하게 검토함으로써, 한국 NCP가 가이드라인을 제대로 이해하지 못하여 잘못된 결정을 했다고 주장한다.
셋째, 만약 한국 NCP가 1차평가에서 이의신청을 각하하지 않고 적정하게 추가검토 절차를 진행했더라면, 이 분쟁이 합의를 통해서 해결됐을지 여부와 무관하게, 가이드라인이 가진 법리적 모호함을 해소하고 피신청기업의 가이드라인 위반여부를 판단하며 적절히 권고를 내리는 등의 활동을 통해 가이드라인의 효과성을 크게 제고할 수 있었다고 주장한다.
이상의 논의에 기초하여 본고는 한국 NCP의 1차평가는 명백히 잘못된 것이며 그 원인은 가이드라인 자체에 있었다기보다 한국 NCP에 있었다고 결론내리고, 이의 해결을 위해 NCP의 개혁을 촉구한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이상수, "인권경영, 세상을 바꾸는 패러다임" 태학사 2022
• 2 "미얀마 로힝야족 관련 OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인 이의신청사건 1차평가서"
• 3 "라오스 세피안ᆞ 세남노이 보조댐 붕괴사고 관련 OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인 이의제기사건 최종성명"
• 4 이상수, "다국적기업에 의한 인권침해와 OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인" 법학연구소 55 (55): 221-255, 2014
• 5 이상수, "기업의 인권침해 연루에 관한 법적 규제- 국제법상 연루의 법리를 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 8 (8): 53-83, 2018
• 6 "‘로힝야와 연대하는 한국시민사회모임’, ‘기업과인권네트워크’, 그리고 ‘미얀마에게 정의를’, “미얀마에서 포스코 등 관련 진정서”"
• 7 UK Department of International Trade, "UK National Contact Point Procedures for Dealing with Complaints Brought under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises"
• 8 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, "Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Vol 4" 1998
• 9 Juan Carlos Ochoa Sanchez, "The Roles and Powers of the oecd National Contact Points Regarding Complaints on an Alleged Breach of the oecd Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by a Transnational Corporation" Brill 84 (84): 89-126, 2015
• 10 Packer, John, "The ICJ and Lawful Representation of Myanmar"
• 11 Foort, Sander van‘t, "The History of National Contact Points and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises" 25 : 2017
• 12 UN Human Rights Council, "The Economic Interests of the Myanmar Military"
• 13 OECD, "Structures and Procedures of National Contact Points for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises"
• 14 Australian National Contact Point, "Statement by the Australian National Contact Point Specific Instance G4S Australia Pty Ltd"
• 15 UN Human Rights Council, "Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar since 1 February 2021"
• 16 OECD Investment Committee, "Response by the Investment Committee to the Substantiated Submission by OECD Watch regarding the Australian National Contact Point"
• 17 UN General Assembly, "Report of the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporation and other Business Enterprises, Business, Human Rights and Conflict-Affected Regions: Towards Heightened Action" 2020
• 18 Norwegian National Contact Point, "Procedural Guideline for Handling Complaints"
• 19 Debevoise Business Integrity Group, "Practical Definitions of Cause, Contribute, and Directly Linked to Inform Business Respect for Human Rights"
• 20 "OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인 이행을 위한 국내연락사무소의 운영규정"
• 21 "OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인 이행을 위한 국내연락사무소 운영규정"
• 22 "OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인 이의제기에 대한 1차 평가서(이의제기자 : Korean Trans National Watch, Cotton Campaign, Antislavery International, 피제기자 : 대우인터내셔널, 포스코, 국민연금공단, NBIM(노르웨이 은행 투자위원회), 한국조폐공사)"
• 23 "OECD 다국적기업 가이드라인 이의제기사건 1차평가( 미루시스템즈이의제기사건)"
• 24 OECD, "OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises"
• 25 OECD, "OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises"
• 26 OECD, "OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas"
• 27 OECD, "OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct"
• 28 Scott Robinson, "International Obligations, State Responsibility and Judicial Review Under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises Regime" Ubiquity Press, Ltd. 30 (30): 68-81, 2014
• 29 National Contact Point for Responsible Business Conduct Norway, "Initial Assessment: The Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) on behalf of 474 Myanmar-Based Civil Society Organizations vs. Telenor ASA"
• 30 National Contact Point for Responsible Business Conduct Norway, "Initial Assessment: Committee Seeking Justice for Alethankyaw (CSJA) vs. Telenor Group"
• 31 Canada's National Contact Point, "Initial Assessment of the Specific Instance under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises relating to Corriente Resources’ Mirador Mine in Ecuador"
• 32 OECD, "Implementing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: The National Contact Points from 2000 to 2015"
• 33 Ruggie, John Gerard, "Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Normative Innovations and Implementations Challenges" 22 : 99-, 2015
• 34 Shift, "Human Rights Due Diligence in High Risk Circumstances: Practical Strategies for Businesses" 2015
• 35 OECD Watch, "Get Fit: Closing Gaps in the OECD Guidelines to Make them Fit for Purpose"
• 36 OECD, "Due Diligence for Responsible Corporate Lending and Securities Underwriting: Key considerations for banks implementing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises"
• 37 OECD Watch, "Civil Society Recommendations on Topics of Focus for Update in the OECD Guidelines"
• 38 Maheandiran, Bernadett, "Calling for Clarity: How Uncertainty Undermines the Legitimacy of the Dispute Resolution System Under the OECD Guideline for Multinational Enterprises" 20 : 205-, 2015
• 39 Australian National Contact Point, "Appeal Statement: This appeal was submitted by the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) and Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) following the ANCP’s statement of 10 June 2015 in relation to a specific instance involving G4S Australia Pty Ltd"