사이버테러 규제입법과 국내법의 역외적용: 보호주의 관할권의 행사기준을 중심으로 = Cyberterror Regulatory Legislations and Extraterritorial Application of Domestic Law : Focused on Standards of Exercising Protective Jurisdiction

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

North Korea’s cyberterrorist acts, which have been repeatedly committed in recent years, is a part of its asymmetric strategy. North Korea has continuously attempted to commit a cyberterrorist acts. Furthermore, the impact and destructive power of North Korea’s cyberterrorist acts are getting much stronger. Hence, it is now imperative to establish an appropriate countermeasure for North Korea’s cyberterrorist acts. In March this year, ‘Bill on Anti-Terrorism for the Protection of Citizens and Public Security’ was enacted. Subsequently, the enforcement ordinance and regulation were made public in May and June, respectively. However, cyberterror related elements are not included in the definition of ‘terror’ stipulated in Article 2 of this law. Hence, it is hard to conclude that this law has a substantial significance in the cyberterror regulations.
Recently, a large number of cyberterror related studies have been conducted. It is important to note that many of the legal study theses have presented the measures to improve the current legal system against cyberterror. However, a majority of these theses have focused on the cyberterror response system along with the need for enacting an unified lay for cyberterror. That is, most of them have not examined thoroughly the problem associated with extraterritorial application of domestic laws, which might become an issue in the international law. For an effective response to cyberterror, we would inevitably face the issue associated with the extraterritorial application of domestic laws. As a result, this issue would certainly cause conflicts and disputes between the countries concerned. On that account, South Korea also needs to thoroughly review how far exercising the extraterritorial jurisdiction through an unified cyberterror regulatory legislation can be justified under the international law. This paper first aimed to examine why protective principle was proposed as a useful countermeasure to cyberterror on the basis of the development process and concept of protective jurisdiction. Moreover, this paper also aimed to examine the abuse problem caused by the ambiguity of the standards. In addition, this paper attempted to interpret the minimal standards for allowing the exercise of protective jurisdiction in consideration of the circumstance precluding wrongfulness under state responsibility and the determination rule of jurisdiction under the international law. That is to say, this paper can provide important implications for the aspects to be considered by South Korea in the relationship with its neighbors when legislating cyberterror law that will have the issue of extraterritorial application in the future.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

최근 거듭되고 있는 북한의 사이버테러는 비대칭전략의 일환으로서 끊임없이 시도되고 있을 뿐 아니라 그 영향력과 파괴력도 한층 강력해지고 있어 이에 대한 적절한 대응책 마련이 시급히 요구되고 있는 실정이다. 올해 3월 ‘국민보호와 공공안전을 위한 테러방지법’이 제정된 것을 시작으로 5월과 6월에 각각 그 시행령과 시행규칙이 마련되기도 하였으나, 동법 제2조에 규정된 ‘테러’의 정의를 살펴보면 사이버테러 관련 요소들은 포함하지 않고 있어 사이버테러 규제에 있어서는 이 법이 실질적인 의의를 갖는다고 보기 어렵다.
이와 같은 상황에서 최근 사이버테러를 주제로 한 연구가 적지 않게 제시되고 있는 가운데 법학논문들 중에서도 상당수가 현행 사이버테러 대응 법체계의 정비방안을 제시하고 있는 것이 눈에 띈다. 그러나 이와 같은 논의들은 대부분 사이버테러를 위한 단일 법률 제정의 필요성과 함께 사이버테러 대응 시스템에 집중된 것으로서, 이 법의 마련으로 국제법상 문제될 수 있는 국내법의 역외적용 문제는 거의 다루지 않고 있다. 사이버테러에 대한 효과적인 대응을 위해서는 국내법의 역외적용이 불가피하다는 점을 고려하면, 이는 관련 국가간 이견과 분쟁을 촉발할 것이 자명하다. 따라서, 우리나라 또한 단일의 사이버테러 규제입법을 마련시 이를 통한 역외관할권 행사가 국제법상 어느 범위까지 정당화될 수 있는지를 구체적으로 검토할 필요가 있다. 본고에서는 먼저 보호주의 관할권의 발전과정과 그 개념에 비추어 오늘날 특수한 성격을 갖는 사이버테러에 보호주의가 유용한 대응책으로 제시되게 된 배경을 고찰하면서, 그 기준의 모호성으로 야기된 남용문제도 함께 살펴보았다. 또한 국제법상 관할권의 결정준칙에 대한 검토를 바탕으로, 국가책임법상의 위법성 조각사유에 비추어 보호주의 관할권 행사가 명백히 허용될 수 있는 최소한의 기준에 대한 해석을 시도하였다. 이는 향후 역외적 효과를 갖는 사이버테러 입법 마련시 주변국들과의 관계에서 우리나라가 고려해야 할 사항들에 대한 일정한 시사점을 제공할 수 있을 것이다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 정인섭, "신 국제법강의" 박영사 2016
• 2 권한용, "사이버테러에 대한 국제적 대응방안과 한국에의 시사점" 법학연구소 (65) : 649-675, 2014
• 3 곽병선, "사이버테러 대응을 위한 법체계 검토" 한국법학회 (59) : 1-24, 2015
• 4 김흥석, "사이버 테러와 국가안보" 319-356, 2010
• 5 강정숙, "북한, 아프리카까지 진출해 대남 사이버테러 준비중"
• 6 장아영, "북 사이버테러 최소 10건, 심리전에도 활용"
• 7 김학재, "국제공조로 사이버테러 막자” 사이버범죄 대응 심포지엄"
• 8 이승현, "北, SK․한진그룹에 사이버테러... 방산자료 무더기 탈취"
• 9 O’Keefe, Roger, "Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept" 2 (2): 735-760, 2004
• 10 Shackelford, Scott J, "Toward Cyberspace: Managing Cyberattacks Through Polycentric Governance" 62 (62): 1273-1364, 2013
• 11 Margolies, Daniel S, "The “Ill-Defined Fiction” of Extraterritoriality and Sovereign Exception in Late Nineteenth Century U.S. Foreign Relations" 40 : 575-603, 2011
• 12 Mann, F. A, "The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law revisited after twenty years" 186 : 1984
• 13 Hathaway, O. A., "The Law of Cyber-attack" 100 (100): 817-885, 2012
• 14 Corn, Geoffrey S., "The Law of Armed Conflict:An Operational Approach" Aspen Publishers 2012
• 15 Castel, J. G., "The Internet in Light of Traditional Public and Private International Law Principles and Rules Applied in Canada" 39 : 2001
• 16 Beckett, W. E, "The Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction over Foreigners" 6 : 108-128, 1925
• 17 Parrish, Austen, "The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality's Fifth Business" 61 (61): 1455-1506, 2008
• 18 Mann, F. A, "The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law" 111 : 1964
• 19 Simma, Bruno, "The Cambridge Companion to International Law" Cambridge University Press 2012
• 20 Doyle, Charles, "Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B" CRS 1-30, 2010
• 21 Crawford, James., "State Responsibility : The General Part" Cambridge University Press 2013
• 22 PCIJ, "SS Lotus case (France v. Turkey)" (10) : 1927
• 23 Orakhelashvili, Alexander., "Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law" Edward Elgar Pub 2015
• 24 ILC., "Report of the Commission to the General Assembly" Ⅱ : 1980
• 25 ICJ, "Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2003"
• 26 PCIJ, "Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco, Advisory Opinion" (4) : 1923
• 27 ICJ, "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1986"
• 28 Joyner, Christopher C., "Libya and the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie: What Lessons for International Extradition Law" 14 (14): 222-261, 1993
• 29 Johnson, David R., "Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace" 48 (48): 1367-1402, 1996
• 30 Bowett, Derek W., "Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of authority over activities and resources" 53 (53): 1983
• 31 Akehurst, Michael, "Jurisdiction in International Law" 46 : 145-258, 1972
• 32 Ryngaert, Cedric., "Jurisdiction in International Law" Oxford University Press 2015
• 33 Olmstead, Cecil J, "Jurisdiction" 14 (14): 468-488, 1989
• 34 Schachter, Oscar., "International Law in Theory and Practice" Springer 1991
• 35 Gray, Christine., "International Law and the Use of Force" Oxford University Press 2008
• 36 Evans, Malcolm D., "International Law" Oxford University Press 2014
• 37 Bassiouni, M. Cherif, "International Criminal Law: A Draft International Criminal Code" Brill Archive 1980
• 38 Born, Gary B., "International Civil Litigation in United States Courts" Aspen Publishers 2007
• 39 이재민, "IUU 규제조치와 국내법의 역외적용 - 미국 및 EU의 관련 입법과 집행을 중심으로" 한국국제경제법학회 12 (12): 27-65, 2014
• 40 ICJ, "Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1997"
• 41 Robbins, Christopher W, "Finding Terrorists' Intent: Aligning Civil Antiterrorism Law with National Security" 83 (83): 1201-1274, 2009
• 42 Marcuss Stanley J., "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in United States Trade Law: The Need for a Consistent Theory" 20 (20): 439-484, 1981
• 43 Maier, Harold G., "Exterritorial Jurisdiction in Theory and Practice" Kluwer Law International 1996
• 44 Parrish, Austen, "Evading Legislative Jurisdiction" 87 : 1673-1708, 2011
• 45 Harvard Research in International Law, "Draft Convention on Jurisdiction With Respect to Crime" 29 (29): 439-635, 1935
• 46 Brenner, Susan W., "Cyberthreats and the Decline of the Nation-State" Routledge 2014
• 47 Cohen, Aviv, "Cyberterrorism: Are We Legally Ready?" 9 (9): 1-40, 2010
• 48 Biller, Jeffrey T, "Cyber-Terrorism: Finding a Common Starting Point" 4 (4): 288-319, 2013
• 49 Gable, Kelly A, "Cyber-Apocalypse Now: Securing the Internet against Cyberterrorism and Using Universal Jurisdiction as a Deterrent" 43 (43): 57-118, 2010
• 50 García-Mora, Manuel R, "Criminal Jurisdiction Over Foreigners for Treason and Offenses Against the Safety of the State Committed Upon Foreign Territory" 19 : 597-590, 1957
• 51 ILC., "Commentary to the ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts" Ⅱ (Ⅱ): 2001
• 52 Schultz, Thomas, "Carving up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface" 19 (19): 799-840, 2008
• 53 Crawford, James., "Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law" Oxford University Press 2012
• 54 ICJ, "Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1970"
• 55 Lewis, James A., "Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism, Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats" Center for Strategic &International Studies 2002
• 56 ICJ, "Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2002"
• 57 Brenner, Susan W., "Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction" 4 (4): 1-48, 2004