국제인권규약상 자결권의 의미에 관한 소고 = The Meaning of the Right to Self-Determination in International Human Rights Covenants

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The right to self-determination is one of the controversial concepts in international law. There is no doubt that respect for the right to self-determination constitutes one of the fundamental principles of international law. However, there are still unclear points about the meaning of the right to self-determination in that/in terms of what is the definition of self-determination, and who are the subject of that right, what is the content and the forms for realization of that right is. In particular, when the right to self-determination is claimed outside the context of colonialism, it increases its indeterminacy on its content and the scope for application.
As the two main international human rights covenants, namely, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stipulated the right to self-determination in their common Article 1, the right to self-determination confirms its importance as an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of other individual human rights. Since then, the importance of the right to self-determination has been continuously emphasized and developed through various international documents. The question arises why the right to self-determination remains as the most political and controversial norm in international law despite the right has been stated in various documents? What is the meaning of the right to self-determination stipulated in the International Conventions on Human Rights? The purpose of this article is to examine the meaning of the right to self-determination as stipulated in the common Article of the two international human rights covenants, and to understand the controversial points around the right to self-determination, through the analysis of the travaux preparatoires and the Committee’s practices. Another purpose of this article is to discuss the reason why the right to self-determination has been intentionally broadly framed, while there is no way to clarify the meaning of the right to self-termination. To this end, this article examines the development and features of the right to self-determination (II) and the meaning and the scope of peoples as the subject of the right to self-determination (III). It furthers to examine the content and the forms of the right to self-determination (IV); and the obligations upon the State party to respect and to promote its realization (V). In the conclusion, considering the points where the controversy arises, it discusses inherent limitations to provide the concrete definition of the right to self-determination.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

자결권은 국제법상 가장 복잡하고 불명확한 개념 중 하나이다. 오늘날 자결권 존중은 국제법 기본원칙이고, 국제인권의 핵심이다. 그러나 자결권이 무엇이고, 자결권의 주체인 인민은 누구이며, 자결권의 내용과 실현방식은 무엇인지에 대해서는 여전히 불분명한 점이 많다. 특히 자결권이 식민주의 맥락을 넘어서 논의되는 경우 그 내용과 범위의 불확정성은 더 커진다. 자결권은 국가 성립의 근거가 되기도 하고 국가 분열의 근거가 되기도 한다. 또한 외부로부터 주권을 보호하기도 하지만 외부의 개입을 고무하기도 한다.
1966년 두 개의 국제인권규약이 인권조약 상 처음으로 자결권을 명시함에 따라 자결권은 기본적 인권의 지위를 확고히 하게 되었으며, 다른 개별적인 인권의 행사를 위해 필수적인 조건임이 확인되었다. 이후에도 자결권의 중요성은 여러 국제문서를 통해 지속적으로 강조되며 발전하였다. 이처럼 여러 문서에서 확인된 권리임에도 불구하고 자결권은 국제법상 가장 정치적이고 논란이 많은 규범이다. 그렇다면 국제인권규약에서 자결권은 어떻게 명문화되었고 그 의미는 무엇일까? 이 글은 1950년대 인권규약 성안 과정과 이후 규약위원회의 논의를 중심으로 두 규약 제1조에 명시된 자결권의 의미를 살펴보고, 이를 바탕으로 자결권을 둘러싼 주요 쟁점을 이해함을 목적으로 한다. 이 글의 또 다른 목적은 자결권이 인권규약에서도 의도적으로, 추상적으로 규정되었을 뿐 아니라 해당 법리를 발전시키고 개념을 명확히 할 수 있는 이후의 방법 또한 없다는 것을 논의하기 위함이다. 이를 위하여 먼저 자결권의 발전과정을 살펴보고, 자결권의 성격, 자결권의 주체, 자결권의 내용, 자결권에 대한 의무를 둘러싼 쟁점에 대해 검토하였다. 결론에서는 쟁점이 발생하는 영역에 대한 고찰을 통해 자결권에 내재한 논의의 한계에 대해 살펴보았다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이현택, "인민자결권의 현대적 의미와 그 한계" 국제법평론회 (60) : 167-192, 2021
• 2 클라우스 슈튀베, "분단국가의 통일과 사회통합" 서강대학교 출판부 2011
• 3 신용호, "민족자결권의 주체" 43 (43): 1998
• 4 정경수, "미완의 비식민화 잔여물의 탈식민적 청산 ‒ 차고스 군도에 관한 권고적 의견을 중심으로" 국제법평론회 (54) : 101-139, 2019
• 5 김석현, "대외적 자결권에 관한 국제법 상황 -피압박 소수자 집단의 일방적 분리독립권을 중심으로-" 국제법평론회 (46) : 1-55, 2017
• 6 이성덕, "국제법상 자결권의 개념과 그 형성과정" 대한국제법학회 48 (48): 8-246, 2003
• 7 박정원, "국제법상 인민자결권의 현대적 경향에 대한 소고" 한양법학회 22 : 265-281, 2008
• 8 박명규, "국민, 인민, 시민; 개념사로 본 한국의 정치주체" 소화 2009
• 9 "Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports"
• 10 Schabas, William A, "U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Nowak’s CCPR Commentary" N.P. Engel Verlag 2019
• 11 Klabbers, Jan, "The Right to be Taken Seriously: Self-Determination in International Law" 28 : 2006
• 12 Kiss, Alexander. C, "The Right to Self-Determination" 7 : 1986
• 13 Summers, James, "The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination in Article 1 of the Human Rights Covenant as a Claimable Right" 31 : 2019
• 14 Saul, Ben, "The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases, and Materials" Oxford University Press 2016
• 15 Joseph, Sarah, "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary" Oxford University Press 2013
• 16 Cassese, A, "The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" Columbia University Press 1981
• 17 Drew, Catriona, "The East Timor Story: International Law on Trial" 12 : 2001
• 18 Raič, David, "Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination" Kluwer Law International 2002
• 19 Summers, James, "Statehood and Self-Determination" Cambridge University Press 2013
• 20 McCorquodale, Robert, "Self-Determination: A Human Rights Approach" 43 : 1994
• 21 Cassese, Antonio, "Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Appraisal" Cambridge University Press 1995
• 22 Trinidad, Jamie, "Self-Determination in Disputed Colonial Territories" Cambridge University Press 2018
• 23 Higgins, Rosalyn, "Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It" A Clarendon Press Publication 1995
• 24 "Poma Poma v. Peru, Communication No.1457/2006"
• 25 Park, Ki-Gab, "Peremptory Norms of General International Law" Brill Nijhoff 2021
• 26 Higgins, Rosalyn, "Peoples and Minorities in International Law" Martinus NijhoffPublishers 1993
• 27 Summers, James, "Peoples and International Law" Brill Nijhoff 2014
• 28 Thürer, Daniel, "Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law" MPEPIL 2008
• 29 "Mahuika v. New Zealand, Communication No.547/1993"
• 30 "Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, Communication No.167/1984"
• 31 "Legal Consequences of the Separation offthe Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports"
• 32 "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports"
• 33 "Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports"
• 34 "Kitok v. Sweden, Commuication No.197/1985"
• 35 McCorquodale, Robert, "International Human Rights Law" Oxford University Press 2014
• 36 Bossuyt, Marc J, "Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" Martinus Nijhoff 1987
• 37 "Gillot v. France, Communication No.932/2000"
• 38 "East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports"
• 39 "Diergaardt v. Namibia, Communication No.760/1997"
• 40 Hannum, Hurst, "Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights" University of Pennsylvania Press 1990
• 41 "Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports"
• 42 Taylor, Paul M, "A Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" Cambridge University Press 2020