국제법과 국내법의 관계 = The Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law: is any change of the attitude of municipal law towards international law to be seen?

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 논문에서는 주요 국가의 최근 판례를 중심으로 국내재판소들이 국제법의 국내적 수용 문제에 어떻게 접근하고 있는지, 어떤 변화는 감지되는지를 가늠해 보았다. 국제법의 눈으로 보면 결과는 아직 미흡하다. 근본이유는 물론 국제법과 국내법은 여전히 별개의 법체계로서 국제법은 국내법에 대해 자동적으로 혹은 그 자체로 국내법의 연원이 될 것을 요구할 수는 없다는 데에 있다. 반면에, 국제재판소에게 있어 국내법이 단지 한 개의 사실에 불과하다는 것은 세계재판소들 뿐만 아니라 국제중재재판소들도 확인하고 있다. 그러나 국제재판소들은 각 국의 재판소에 의해 해석되고 적용되는 국내법을 매우 조심해서 다루지 않으면 안된다. 기본적으로 국제법은 그 이행을 국내법과 국내기관(특히 국내재판소)에 의존하고 있기 때문이다. 국내재판소들은 여전히 헌법의 핵심가치를 수호함에 있어서는 별 양보를 보이지 않고 있다. 국제관계의 본질이 여전히 상호주의에 의존하고 있는 것을 고려하면 이를 비난만 할 수는 없다. 그러나 이것이 국제법을 이행할 국내재판소의 의무를 면제시켜 주지는 않는다. 국제법의 해석과 적용과정에서 국제법을 위반하면 소속국가는 국가책임을 부담하지 않을 수 없다. ICJ는 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State에서－ILC초안 제35조(와 제30조 (a))를 원용하여－사법부의 국제의무 위반의 경우에도 판결을 파기하는 등 원상회복 의무가 부과될 수 있음을 시사하면서, 다만 본 사건에서 결과를 달성할최선의 방법은 피고국가가 선택할 권리가 있다고 하였다. 국제법과 국내법이 상호 어떻게 교류할 것인지, 그리고 이를 위해 국제재판소와 국내재판소간에, 혹은 서로 다른 국가의 국내재판소들 상호간 司法對話(judicial dialogue)를 어떻게 확대해 나갈 것인지를 묻고, 또 고민해야 할 것이다. 법의 국제적 지배라는 암묵적 목표를 향한 국제법과 국내법의 상호교류는 계속될 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

International law and municipal (domestic, or national) law are separate entities, and as the result the former is not competent to require that it is as such or automatically accepted and applied on the domestic plane. On the other hand, municipal law is basically just a fact before the international courts whose mission is by definition to apply international, not municipal, law; this is confirmed by arbitral courts as well as World Courts (i.e. the PCIJ and its successor the ICJ). However, international courts must be keen of watching what is made as law within states and of hearing what the domestic courts say in interpreting and applying domestic law. For international law is very much dependent on municipal law and domestic organs (especially domestic courts) in its implementation. The survey of major national case law leads us to the conclusion that the domestic courts are still not ready to give up the autonomy of the domestic legal order as far as core values embedded in their constitutions, written or unwritten, are concerned. But this does not mean that the domestic courts are not exempt from the obligation to carry out the obligations on the states imposed by international law: if a national court breaches a certain international obligation imposed on the state of which the organ it is, international responsibility accrues to the state. The ICJ ruled in the recent decision of 3 February 2012, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy ; Greece Intervening) that even in the case of breach by a national court of an international obligation, “the State responsible is under an obligation to re-establish, by way of reparation, the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided that re-establishment is not materially impossible and that it does not involve a burden for that State out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation,” －which “rule is reflected in Article 35 of the International Law Commission’s Articles.”－but that “the Respondent has the right to choose the means it considers best suited to achieve the required result.” In this paper, it has been examined how the national courts react to the influx of international law and obligations, based on some major municipal cases; although the situation as it stands now is not so different from that as it stood in the past, national courts are treating this theme with very much caution, probably keeping in mind that they too are organs of international law in a sense. The judicial dialogue between international and national courts in the form of decisions and judgments will and should go towards the goal of the international rule of law.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서 론
• Ⅱ. 국제적 차원에서의 국내법의 역할
• Ⅲ. 국제법의 국내적 도입과 효력: 일반론
• Ⅳ. 각국의 최근 경향
• Ⅴ. 한국: 2011년 8월 30일 헌법재판소 결정을 중심으로
• Ⅵ. 결 어
• 참고문헌
• <국문 초록>

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 Germany, Maastricht Treaty Case,
• 2 "협정 근거 첫 위안부 협의제안 성사될까"
• 3 "일본군 위안부⋅원폭 배상 문제 국가가 해결 안나서는 건 위헌"
• 4 "외교통상부 검색＞대변인 정례브리핑＞2011년 9월 1일(목), 14:30, 조병제 대변인"
• 5 "미하원 청문회 섰던 ‘성노예’ 피해자 이용수 할머니의 호통, ‘정부는 이제 와서 협의하나, 배상금은 다 죽고 무덤에 줄 건가’"
• 6 헌법재판소, "대한민국과 일본국간의 재산 및 청구권에 관한 문제의 해결과 경제협력에 관한 협정 제3조 부작위 위헌확인(일본군 위안부)"
• 7 헌법재판소, "대한민국과 일본국간의 재산 및 청구권에 관한 문제의 해결과 경제협력에 관한 협정 제3조 부작위 위헌확인(원폭 피해자)"
• 8 김대순, "국제법론(16판)" 삼영사 2011
• 9 "日 ‘위안부 문제 해결됐다’ 주장 되풀이"
• 10 Switzerland, Federal Supreme Court, First Public Law Chamber, "Youssef Nada v State Secretariat for Economic Affairs and Federal Department of Economic Affairs"
• 11 "USA, United States v. Stuart, 489 US 353(1989)"
• 12 "USA, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692(2004)"
• 13 "USA, Noriega v. Pastrana, 564 F3d 1290(11th Cir 2009)"
• 14 "USA, Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S.(2 Cranch.) 64(1804)"
• 15 "USA, Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 US 187(1961)"
• 16 "USA, Charlton v. Kelly, 229 US 447(1913)"
• 17 "USA, Breard v. Greene, 523 US 371, 118 S Ct 1352(1998)"
• 18 "UK, Salomon v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, [1967] 2 Q.B. 116"
• 19 Fox, Hazel, "The Law of State Immunity" Oxford university Press 2002
• 20 Hartley, T. C., "The Foundations of European Union law, 7th ed." Oxford University Press 2010
• 21 Uzman, J., "The Dutch Supreme Court: A Reluctant Positive Legislator?" 14 (14): 2010
• 22 Byrnes, Andrew, "Second-Class Rights yet Again?, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Report of the National Human Rights Consultation" 33 (33): 193-, 2010
• 23 "Routledge Lawcards Series, European Union Law 2010-2011, 7th. ed." Routledge 2010
• 24 "Restatement of the Law (Third), The Foreign Relations Law of the United States"
• 25 ICJ, "Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals(Mexico v. United States of America)"
• 26 Müller, Felix, "Report on the Bundesverfassungsgericht’s (Federal Constitutional Court) Jurisprudence in 2005/2006" 9 : 161-, 2008
• 27 UNILC, "Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-fifth session (3 May-23 July 1993)" UNILC 1993
• 28 Ott, Davis H., "Public International Law in the Modern World" Pitman 1987
• 29 Currie, John H., "Public International Law" Irwin law 2001
• 30 Italy, Court of Cassation, "Presidency of the Council of Ministers v. Markovic, Application for preliminary order on jurisdiction"
• 31 International Law in Domestic Courts(ILDC), "Oxford Reports" internet service of Oxford University Press
• 32 Bundesverfassungsgericht(Federal Constitutional Court), "Order of the Second Senate of 14 October 2004"
• 33 Armiger, Jason E., "Noriega v. Pastrana: The Supreme Court takes a step back from the table" 34 : 2011
• 34 Nollkaemper, André, "National Courts and the International Rule of Law" Oxford University Press 2011
• 35 Korowicz, Marek St., "Modern Doctrines of the Sovereignty of States" 5 : 32-, 1958
• 36 ICJ, "Jurisdictional Immunities of the State(Germany v. Italy; Greece Intervening)"
• 37 "Germany, Lisbon Treaty Case"
• 38 ICJ, "Elettronica Sicula S.p.A (ELSI) (USA v. Itlay), Judgment"
• 39 USA, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, "El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co v. US"
• 40 ICJ, "Effect of awards of compensation made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 13 July I954"
• 41 김대순, "EU法論" 삼영사 1995
• 42 김대순, "EU 준칙(Directives)의 회원국 내에서의 효력에 관한 연구" 한국유럽학회 29 (29): 1-35, 2011
• 43 Lübbe-Wolff, Gertrude, "ECHR and national jurisdiction-The Görgülü Case"
• 44 Netherlands, Supreme Court(Hoge Raad der Nederlanden), "Double Mothers case"
• 45 "Chevrol v. France, Application No. 49636/99"
• 46 Weatherill, Stephen, "Cases and Materials on EU Law, 9th ed." Oxford University Press 2010
• 47 "Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi v. Council of the EU and the Commission of the ECs"
• 48 PCIJ, "Case concerning the Payment in Gold of the Brazilian Federal Loans Contracted in France (France v. Brazil)"
• 49 "Case T-315/01, Kadi v. Council of the EU and the Commission of the ECs"
• 50 "Case T-306/01, Al Barakaat v. Council of the EU and the Commission of the ECs"
• 51 "Case E-1/07, Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht by decision of that court of 31 January 2007 in the criminal proceedings against Sedin Poric"
• 52 "Case C-61/94, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany"
• 53 "Case C-443/98, Unilever Italia v. Central Food"
• 54 "Case C-194/94, CIA Security International SA v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL"
• 55 "Case C-106/89, Marleasing v. La Commercial"
• 56 "Case 14/83, Von Colson and Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen"
• 57 Netherlands, Central Appeals Court for the Public Service and for Social Security Matters, "Board of the Teaching Hospital at the University of Amsterdam v FW and Others"
• 58 "Beaumartin v. France, Application no. 15287/89"
• 59 Botswana, Court of Appeal, "Attorney-General v. Dow, 3 July 1992"
• 60 Netherlands, Hoge Raad der Nederlanden(Supreme Court of the Netherlands), "Association of Lawyers for Peace v. the Netherlands, decision of 21 December 2001. Slovenia, the Constitutional Court of Slovenia, dated 19 November 2003, in proceedings to review the constitutionality of the Agreement between the Republic of Slovenia and the Holy See"
• 61 Williams, Sir John Fischer, "Aspects of Modern International Law" Oxford University Press 1939
• 62 "Arbitral Tribunal, Noble Ventures, Inc v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11"
• 63 Janis, Mark W., "An Introduction to Internationa Law, 3rd ed." Aspen 1999
• 64 Human Rights Committee, "Aalbersberg and 2,084 other Dutch citizens v. The Netherlands"