국제인권조약 당사국의 역외 인권의무: ‘관할’의 의미와 초국경적 인권문제를 중심으로 = Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations of States under International Human Rights Treaties: The Meaning of “Jurisdiction” and Transnational Human Rights Problems

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

With the growth of transnational mobility and global interdependence, human rights violations are increasingly acquiring transnational features. A territorial approach to the scope of states’ international human rights obligations is inadequate for effectively responding to the diverse and complex aspects of transnational human rights problems. It is first necessary to recognize important normative differences between the traditional concept of jurisdiction under public international law that delimits the scope of a sovereign state’s legal competence and the meaning of jurisdiction under international human rights law that is focused on the relationship between the state and the individual rights-holder. The European Court of Human Rights, however, interprets the term ‘jurisdiction’, a standard for defining the scope of protected individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights, as in principle identical to territorial jurisdiction as understood in general public international law. In relevant decisions, the Court has proceeded to review whether there are justificatory grounds in individual cases for the exceptional recognition of extraterritorial human rights obligations of states parties. While the Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have in recent years sought to deliver new interpretive approaches that more proactively address today’s transnational human rights issues, those attempts exhibit theoretical loopholes, conflating elements of the existence of obligations and those of their violations. On the other hand, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has confirmed the possibility of constituting human rights obligations in a way that does not confine the scope of protected individuals on the basis of specific jurisdictional links and instead emphasizes international cooperation for the universal realization of human rights. A critical examination of recent practices and scholarly proposals illuminates the urgent need to develop a systemic and detailed interpretive model that adequately reflects the diverse dimensions, types and features of human rights obligations. For negative human rights obligations (the duty to respect), jurisdictional restrictions on the scope of protected individuals should be eliminated. With regard to positive human rights obligations, including the duty to protect and the duty to fulfil, more comprehensive and contextualized approaches are needed that take into account the prescriptive jurisdiction of the relevant state and a duty of international cooperation. More precise interpretive approaches to states’ extraterritorial human rights obligations will reduce the gap in human rights protection and the risk of outsourcing human rights violations, and ensure that international human rights law will accomplish its intrinsic and contemporary roles in widely transnationalizing human rights realities.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

초국경적 이동성과 지구적 상호의존성이 증대하고 인권침해와 인권위기의 양상이 다변화, 초국경화되고 있는 현실에서 국제인권조약 당사국의 인권의무 범위에 대한 영토중심적 접근은 한계를 가질 수밖에 없다. 주권국가 간의 법적 권한 경계로서의 국제공법상 전통적 ‘관할권’ 개념과 국가와 인권주체 개인 간의 관계에 초점을 두고 국가가 가지는 인권의무의 상대방 범위를 정하는 국제인권조약상 ‘관할’(jurisdiction) 개념은 규범적으로 중요한 차이가 있다. 그러나 최근까지 유럽인권재판소는 유럽인권협약 당사국이 부담하는 인권의무 상대방 범위로서의 ‘관할’의 의미가 원칙적으로 일반 국제공법상 해당 국가의 영토적 관할권과 일치한다고 보면서, 개별 사안에서 ‘실효적 지배’라는 개념을 통해 예외적으로 당사국의 역외 인권의무가 인정될 수 있는지를 판단하는 방식을 취하고 있다. 자유권규약위원회와 미주인권재판소의 경우 초국경적 인권사안에 보다 적극적으로 대응하기 위한 새로운 해석적 접근을 제시하고 있으나, 의무의 존재 요건과 위반 요건을 혼용하는 등 이론적으로 정교하지 못한 모습을 보이고 있다. 한편 사회권규약위원회는 보편적 인권 실현을 위한 국제적 협력의무를 강조하여 특정 개인과의 관할 관계에 구속되지 않는 방식의 인권의무 구성이 가능함을 확인하고 있다. 인권조약 당사국의 인권의무 상대방 범위에 대한 현재까지의 해석 실무와 그간 국제학계에서 제안된 대안적 해석론에 대한 비판적 검토를 통해 인권의무의 다양한 층위와 종류, 성격을 반영한 보다 체계적이고 세분화된 해석 모델의 필요성이 도출된다. 소극적 인권의무인 인권 존중 의무에 대해서는 관할이나 상대방 범위의 제한을 두지 않는 것이 타당하고, 적극적 인권의무인 인권 보호 의무와 인권 실현 의무의 경우 관련 국가의 입법관할권과 국제 협력의무를 함께 고려한 종합적이고 맥락적인 접근이 필요하다. 국가의 역외 인권의무에 대한 보다 정교한 이론적 발전은 인권침해의 외주화 위험과 초국가적 인권사안에서의 인권보장 공백을 최소화하고 인권의 지구적 보편성을 지향하는 국제인권조약이 본래적, 그리고 시대적 역할을 수행하는 데 기여할 수 있다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 "외교부"
• 2 정인섭, "신국제법강의" 박영사 2020
• 3 최지현, "국제인권조약의 장소적 적용범위 확대 － 역외적용 가능성에 대한 일반적 고찰 －" 안암법학회 (34) : 995-1031, 2011
• 4 Oxman, Bernard H., "“Jurisdiction of States.” In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law"
• 5 "Öcalan v. Turkey"
• 6 International Law Commission, "Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II" 2001
• 7 "Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment" Inter-Am.Ct.H.R 1988
• 8 Annan, Kofi, "Two Concepts of Sovereignty"
• 9 "Trail Smelter Case (United States of America v. Canada)" International Arbitral Awards 1941
• 10 Møgster, Daniel, "Towards Universality: Activities Impacting the Enjoyment of the Right to Life and the Extraterritorial Application of the ICCPR"
• 11 Detrick, Sharon, "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires”" Martinus Nijhoff 1992
• 12 Van Hoof, Godefridus J.H., "The Right to Food" Martinus Nijhoff 1984
• 13 Sohn, Louis B., "The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather Than States" 32 (32): 1-64, 1982
• 14 "The Haitian Centre for Human Rights et al. v. United States, Case No. 10.675, Inter-Am" Comm’n H.R. 1997
• 15 Bhuta, Nehal, "The Frontiers of Human Rights" Oxford University Press 2016
• 16 CESCR, "Statement on Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights"
• 17 "State Obligations in relation to the Environment in the Context of the Protection and Guarantee of the Rights to life and to Personal Integrity: Interpretation and scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights" Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. 2017
• 18 Benvenisti, Eyal, "Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity: On the Accountability of States to Foreign Stakeholders" 107 (107): 295-333, 2013
• 19 Pogge, Thomas, "Severe Poverty as a Violation of Negative Duties" 19 (19): 55-83, 2005
• 20 Wilde, Ralph, "Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law" Routledge 2013
• 21 Mills, Alex, "Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law" 84 (84): 187-239, 2014
• 22 "Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, Decision"
• 23 Brownlie, Ian, "Principles of Public International Law" Oxford University Press 2003
• 24 "Pad and Others v. Turke"
• 25 "Osman v. the United Kingdom"
• 26 "Medvedyev and Others v. France"
• 27 "Manitaras and Others v. Turkey"
• 28 "M.N. and Others v. Belgium"
• 29 Stoyanova, Vladislava, "M.N. and Others v Belgium: No ECHR Protection from Refoulement by Issuing Visas"
• 30 "Lotus Case (France v. Turkey)"
• 31 Human Rights Committee, "Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay"
• 32 "Loizidou v. Turkey"
• 33 Ben-Nafli, Orna, "Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories" 37 (37): 17-118, 2003
• 34 "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion" I.C.J 2004
• 35 "Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia"
• 36 "Jaloud v. the Netherlands"
• 37 "Issa and Others v. Turkey"
• 38 De Schutter, Olivier, "International Human Rights Law" Cambridge University Press 2014
• 39 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "International Human Rights Law"
• 40 "Ilaşcu and Others v. Republic of Moldova and Russia"
• 41 Teitel, Ruti G., "Humanity’s Law" Oxford University Press 2011
• 42 Peters, Anne, "Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty" 20 (20): 513-544, 2009
• 43 Vega-Barbosa, Giovanny, "Human Rights and the Protection of the Environment: The Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights"
• 44 Raible, Lea, "Human Rights Unbound: A Theory of Extraterritoriality" Oxford University Press 2020
• 45 "Hanan v. Germany"
• 46 Salomon, Margot E., "Global Responsibility for Human Rights: World Poverty and the Development of International Law" Oxford University Press 2007
• 47 Heijer, Maarten den, "Global Justice, State Duties: The Extraterritorial Scope of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in International Law" Cambridge University Press 2012
• 48 Human Rights Committee, "General Comment No. 36: Article 6 (Right to Life)"
• 49 Human Rights Committee, "General Comment No. 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant"
• 50 Committee Against Torture, "General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties"
• 51 CESCR, "General Comment No. 24: State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities"
• 52 CESCR, "General Comment No. 23: The Right to Just and Favourable Condition of Work (Art. 7 of the Covenant)"
• 53 CESCR, "General Comment No. 20: Non-discrimination (Art. 2, Para. 22 of the Covenant)"
• 54 CESCR, "General Comment No. 19: The Right to Social Security (Art. 9 of the Covenant)"
• 55 CESCR, "General Comment No. 18: The Right to Work (Art. 6 of the Covenant)"
• 56 CESCR, "General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant)"
• 57 CESCR, "General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12 of the Covenant)"
• 58 CESCR(Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), "General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11 of the Covenant)"
• 59 United Nations Millennium Declaration, "G.A. Res. 55/2 (VIII)"
• 60 Declaration on the Right to Development, "G.A. Res. 41/128"
• 61 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "G.A. Res. 217 (III) A"
• 62 Brilmayer, Lea, "From ‘Contract’ to ‘Pledge’: The Structure of International Human Rights Agreements" 77 (77): 163-202, 2006
• 63 Künnemann, Rolf, "Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties" Intersentia 2004
• 64 Milanovic, Marko, "Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties" Oxford University Press 2011
• 65 "Ecuador v. Colombia, Inter-Am" Comm’n H.R. 2010
• 66 International Law Commission, "Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities"
• 67 "Cyprus v. Turkey"
• 68 Human Rights Committee, "Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Annex I"
• 69 Committee Against Torture, "Conclusions and Recommendations: United State"
• 70 Human Rights Committee, "Concluding Observations: United States of America"
• 71 CESCR, "Concluding Observations: Israel"
• 72 CESCR, "Concluding Observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of the Netherlands"
• 73 CESCR, "Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of Israel"
• 74 CESCR, "Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of Australia"
• 75 De Schutter, Olivier, "Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" 34 (34): 1084-1169, 2012
• 76 "Coard et al. v. United States, Case No. 10.951, Inter-Am" Comm’n H.R. 1999
• 77 "Catan and Others v the Republic of Moldova and Russia"
• 78 Joseph, Sarah, "Blame it on the WTO? : A Human Rights Critique" Oxford University Press 2011
• 79 "Ben El Mahi v. Denmark"
• 80 "Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others"
• 81 Shany, Yuval, "Bad Cases Make Bad Law, But Good Law Books!"
• 82 "BVerfG, 1 BvR 2835/17"
• 83 "Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment" I.C.J 2005
• 84 "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment" I.C.J 2007
• 85 "Alejandre et al. v. Cuba, Case No. 11.589, Inter-Am" Comm’n H.R. 1999
• 86 "Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom"
• 87 "Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom"
• 88 Papanicolopulu, Irini, "A Response to Milanovic on Extraterritorial Application of Human Treaties: The Significance of International Law Concepts of Jurisdiction"
• 89 Raustiala, Kal, "A Response to Milanovic"
• 90 Cleveland, Sarah, "A Response to Milanovic"
• 91 Commission of Human Rights, "6th Sess., Summary Record of the Hundred and Thirty-eighth Meeting"
• 92 Steiger, Dominik, "(Not) Investigating Kunduz and (Not) Judging in Strasbourg? Extraterritoriality, Attribution and the Duty to Investigate"