국제법의 국내 적용에 관한 영국의 법체계와 경험 = The U.K. Experiences with Respect to the Domestic Application of International Law

국문 초록 (Abstract)

국제법과 국내법의 관계에 대한 법원의 태도는 특정 국가의 법문화에 따라서 달라질 수 있다. 국제법원은 국내법 위반을 이유로 국제법상의 의무를 회피할 수 없다는 입장을 견지하고 있다. 주권원칙상 국가들은 국제법정에서 혹은 국제중재법정에서 소송하기를 원한다. 대륙붕, 영해 등 해양경계획정과 관련한 사항은 ICJ에서 다루어지는 전형적인 분쟁에 속한다. 하지만, 국내법원에서만 다루어지는 국제법문제도 있다. 국가의 영토관할권 행사로부터 면제되는지의 여부에 관한 국가 법원의 판단은 국가면제에 관한 국제법 법원의 상당부분을 차지한다. 국내법원은 국제인권기준, 외국인 재산의 국유화에 대한 보상기준, 국제환경기준, 관할권의 역외적용, 그리고 ‘국제법’ 문제라고 생각할 수 있는 수많은 사항들에 대해서 판단하고 있다. 또한, 국내법원은 국제조약의 해석 혹은 적용과 관련한 청구사항을 다룰 때, 국제관습법의 적용 여부를 결정하거나, 어떠한 인권기준을 적용할 것인지를 고민하고, 국내법인 준거법의 내용이 국제법을 위반하기에 적용되지 않는다는 판단을 내려달라는 요청을 받기도 한다. 법원에서 다투어지는 사항이 준거법인 국제법규범의 내용을 결정하는 것이 아니라 국제법과 국내법이 충돌하면 국내법령을 우선할 것인지, 아니면 국제법상의 의무를 우선할 것인지의 여부가 문제된다. 이러한 문제는 법이론으로 해결하기보다 해당 문제가 제기된 법원의 판단을 근거로 해결하는 것이 보다 현실적이다. 영국법상 조약은 기존 법령에 함축적으로 포함되어 있거나 기존 법령을 통해서 이행되지 않으면, 의회가 이행법률을 제정해야 영국 내에서 법적 효력을 갖는다. 국제관습법의 경우는 잉글랜드 법원이 내린 판결을 토대로 발달한 판례법의 일부이기에 법원이 판단근거로 삼을 수 있다. 영국과 같이 조약이 직접 국내법으로 수용되지 않으면 내부적으로 조약의 효력을 인정하지 않는 이원론국가 내에서 법원이 국제법적인 사항들을 검토할 기회는 현저히 줄어든다. 하지만, 영국의 법역 내에서 국제법과 국내법의 관계에 관한 법리 논쟁은 계속될 것이기에, 현재와 같은 분권화된 국제법질서에서 영국 법원이 국제법에 기여할 여지는 충분히 남아 있다. 이 점에서, 일견 국제법과 국내법질서가 혼재되어 있는 상황에서 질서를 찾기 위해서라도, 국내법원이 국제법문제에 봉착하게 될 때 닥치는 사항들을 유형화하고, 여러 쟁점들을 개념별로 분류하면 국제법을 이해하는데 많은 도움이 될 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The relationship between international law and domestic law can be varied by the legal culture of a state. It is established under international law that international responsibility cannot be avoided on the grounds of the breach of domestic law. States are usually litigating against another state before international courts or tribunals. Nevertheless, there are some international issues only dealt with by domestic courts. The issues on whether an entity enjoys immunity from the territorial jurisdiction of a state can only be dealt with by the competent courts in that state. The judgments or decisions made by national courts are prime sources of international law on the law of state immunity. National courts enter into the area of various issues on international law including the standards based on international instruments on human rights, treatment of foreigners in terms of nationalization, international environmental standards, extraterritoriality of national statutes. National courts are getting more involved in the interpretation and application of treaties, the effects of international customs, and are sometimes required to make a decision that a legislation should not be applied because of its breach of international law. When the effects of national law is questioned against the background of international law, the national courts do not decide whether the national law is void or not, but decide whether the national law applies before the international law does. Although there have been serious debates on different theories surrounding the effect of international law in a national state, it seems more reliable that the matter should be delivered on the basis of decisions by national courts rather than legal theories. Under the English law, treaties should be introduced or transformed into English laws before taking effects. International customary laws are consulted when they are developed as a part of English common law. Theoretically, dualist states such as the United Kingdom can not actively participate into developing international law since treaties are not effective before their introduction or transformation in the law of the U.K. Nevertheless, the English courts are one of the busiest courts in the world in dealing with cases on international law. Even though some lawyers are keeping on deaf ears in light of arguments based on international law, there are very active and experienced judges who are willing to determine the complicated issues on the relationship between international law and English law. With regard to English law, it seems helpful that issues on international law raised before the English courts should be categorized and classified to understand how the courts deal with those issues.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 사법권의 제한
• Ⅲ. 영국 법원의 국제법 적용
• Ⅳ. 결론
• <국문 초록>

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 "re McKerr[2004] UKHL 12; [2004] 1 WLR 807"
• 2 "Zoernsch v. Waldock[1964] 1 WLR 675, 682"
• 3 "The Restatement of the Law Third, The Foreign Relations of Law of the United States(1987), vol. 1, 27"
• 4 "The Republic of Ecuador v. Occidental Exploration & Production Co[2005] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 240[2005] EWHC 774"
• 5 Bruno Simma, "The Charter of the United Nations-A Commentary(2nd ed)" Oxford Univ. Press 2002
• 6 "The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, The Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, The Secretary of State for Defence[2002] EWHC 2777"
• 7 "Salomon v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise[1967] 2 QB 116"
• 8 "Saloman v. Commissioner of Customs and Excise[1967] 2 QB 143, 166"
• 9 "R.(on the application of Al-Skeini and others) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2004] EWHC 2911; [2005] 2 WLR 1401"
• 10 "R.(on the Application of Al-Jedda) v. Secretary of State for Defence[2005] EWHC 1809"
• 11 "R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind[1991] 1 AER 720"
• 12 "R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind[1991] 1 AC 696"
• 13 "R(on the application of Abbasi) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs[2002] EWCA Civ 1598"
• 14 "R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Launder[1997] 1 WLR 839, 867"
• 15 "R v. Lyons[2002] 3 WLR 1562"
• 16 "R v. Lyons and Others[2002] UKHL 44"
• 17 "R v. Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene[2000] 2 AC 326, 341 and 367"
• 18 Rosalyn Higgins, "Problems & Process-International Law and How We Use it" Oxford Univ. Press 1994
• 19 Ian Brownlie, "Principles of Public International Law(6th ed)" Clarendon Press 2003
• 20 "Post Office v. Estuary Radio Ltd.[1968] 2 QB 740; 43 ILR 114"
• 21 "Phillippson v. Imperial Airways Ltd.[1939] AC 332; 24 ILR 438"
• 22 "Philippson v. Imperial Airways Ltd.[1939] AC 332, 346"
• 23 "Pan-American World Airways Inc. v. Department of Trade[1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 257"
• 24 "Oppenheimer v. Cattermole[1976] AC 249, 277-278"
• 25 "Nottebohm 사건, ICJ Reports(1959) 4"
• 26 "Maclaine Watson and Co. Ltd. v. International Tin Council[1988] 3 WLR 1169"
• 27 "Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd. v. International Tin Council(No. 2)[1988] 3 WLR 1190; [1989] Ch 286, 298"
• 28 "Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd. v. International Tin Council(No. 2)[1988] 3 WLR 1169; 80 ILR 204"
• 29 "Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry[1988] 3 WLR 1169; 80 ILR 199"
• 30 "Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry[1988] 3 WLR 1033; [1989] Ch 72, 209-210"
• 31 "Lockerbie 사건, ICJ Reports(1992) 3"
• 32 "Kuwait Airways Corpn v. Iraqi Airways Co(Nos 4 and 5)[2002] UKHL 19; [2002] 2 WLR 1353.L.R. 1117; [2002] 2 A.C. 883"
• 33 "Kuwait Airways Corpn v. Iraqi Airways Co(Nos 4 and 5)[2001] 3 WLR 1117"
• 34 "J.H. Rayner(Mincing Lane) Ltd. Appellants v. Department of Trade and Industry and Others and Related Appeals Respondents, Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd. Appellants v. Department of Trade and Industry Respondents, Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd. Appellants v. International Tin Council Respondents[1989] 3 WLR 969; [1990] 2 AC 418, 440-441"
• 35 "J.H. Rayner(Mincing Lane) Limited v. Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418"
• 36 "J.H. Rayner Ltd. v. Department of Trade(HL)[1989]3 WLR 969, 1001-2"
• 37 "J. H. Rayner(Mincing Lane) Ltd. v. Department of Trade and Industry[1989] 3 WLR 969; [1990] 2 AC 418, 502"
• 38 Colin Warbrick, "International Law in English Courts Recent Cases" 52 : 815-,
• 39 "In re H[1998] AC 72, 87"
• 40 "Garland v. British Rail Engineering Ltd.[1983] 2 AC 751, 77, ILR1"
• 41 "Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd.[1981] AC 251"
• 42 "Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876(1980), 881"
• 43 "Court of Appeal in R.(on the application of B) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs[2004] EWCA Civ 1344; [2005] 2 WLR 618"
• 44 "Cook v. Sprigg[1899] AC 572, 578"
• 45 "CCSU v. Minister for Civil Service[1985] AC 374, 418"
• 46 "CCSU v. Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374, 398"
• 47 "Buttes Gas v. Hammer(Nos. 2 & 3)[1981] 3 All ER 616, 628"
• 48 "Buttes Gas and Oil Co. v. Hammer(No.3)[1982] AC 888, 931-932, 933"
• 49 "Buck v. Attorney-General[1965] Chancery 745, 770"
• 50 "British Airways v. Laker Airways[1985] AC 58, 85"
• 51 "British Airways Board v. Laker Airways Ltd. [1984] QB 142, 192; [1985] AC 58, 85 and 86"
• 52 "Bourne v. Colodense Ltd.[1985] ICR 291"
• 53 "Blackburn v. Attorney-General[1971] 1 WLR 1037, 1039"
• 54 "Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 US 398, 84 S.Ct. 923, 11 L.Ed.2d 804(1964)"
• 55 "Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario[1937] AC 326, 247"
• 56 "Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim(No.3)[1991] 2 WLR 729"
• 57 "Alien Tort Statute, 18 USC s. 1350(1982)"