주한 유엔군사령부의 법적 지위와 전시작전통제권 전환
Legal Status of United Nations Command in Koreaand Transfer of Wartime Operational Control
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There are miscellaneous disputes on legal status of United Nations Command(UNC) domestically or internationally. Recent researches and official letter of UNSG(United Nations Secretary General) could give us the desperate answer. The letter of UNSG delivered to North Korea says as follows; “It follows, accordingly, that the Security Council did not establish the Unified Command as a subsidiary organ under its control, but merely recommended the creation of such a command, specifying that it be under the authority of the United States(US). Therefore, the dissolution of Unified Command does not fall within the responsibility of any United Nations organ but is a matter within the competence of the government of the United States.” Accordingly, dissolution of the UNC in Korea would depend upon decision of the US Government. As we know UNC signed the Armistice Agreement with North Korea and China on 27 July 1953. It is the responsibility of UNC regarding supervision of the Armistice Agreement. The Republic of Korea (ROK) and US agreed the transfer of wartime operational control on 23 February 2007. The ROK will assume wartime operational control from the ROK-US Combined Forces Command on 17 April 2012. Currently CFC Commander wears another hat, namely UNC Commander. There were legal arguments whether the transfer of wartime command would influence the authority of UNC, especially authority on supervision of the armistice agreement. As General Bell disclose his opinion on 18 January 2007 at Press Conference, mismatches would happen between authority and responsibility on supervision the armistice agreement if UNC could not control the ROK Forces in the area of demilitarized zone(DMZ). How can we break through the legal mismatches? There would be two options about the problem. Firstly, the ROK Forces could take over partial authority from UNC, such as repairing facilities located in DMZ. But this approach would not be permanent solution. Because UNC signed Armistice Agreement, it has the responsibility to supervise the agreement. What is next solution? After dissolution of the Combined Forces Command, United States Korea Command(US KORCOM) will be established. If US KORCOM assume the authority of UNC, deadlock would be easily solved.
Abstract
There are miscellaneous disputes on legal status of United Nations Command(UNC) domestically or internationally. Recent researches and official letter of UNSG(United Nations Secretary General) could give us the desperate answer. The letter of UNSG delivered to North Korea says as follows; “It follows, accordingly, that the Security Council did not establish the Unified Command as a subsidiary organ under its control, but merely recommended the creation of such a command, specifying that it be under the authority of the United States(US). Therefore, the dissolution of Unified Command does not fall within the responsibility of any United Nations organ but is a matter within the competence of the government of the United States.” Accordingly, dissolution of the UNC in Korea would depend upon decision of the US Government. As we know UNC signed the Armistice Agreement with North Korea and China on 27 July 1953. It is the responsibility of UNC regarding supervision of the Armistice Agreement. The Republic of Korea (ROK) and US agreed the transfer of wartime operational control on 23 February 2007. The ROK will assume wartime operational control from the ROK-US Combined Forces Command on 17 April 2012. Currently CFC Commander wears another hat, namely UNC Commander. There were legal arguments whether the transfer of wartime command would influence the authority of UNC, especially authority on supervision of the armistice agreement. As General Bell disclose his opinion on 18 January 2007 at Press Conference, mismatches would happen between authority and responsibility on supervision the armistice agreement if UNC could not control the ROK Forces in the area of demilitarized zone(DMZ). How can we break through the legal mismatches? There would be two options about the problem. Firstly, the ROK Forces could take over partial authority from UNC, such as repairing facilities located in DMZ. But this approach would not be permanent solution. Because UNC signed Armistice Agreement, it has the responsibility to supervise the agreement. What is next solution? After dissolution of the Combined Forces Command, United States Korea Command(US KORCOM) will be established. If US KORCOM assume the authority of UNC, deadlock would be easily solved.
참고문헌 (15)
- 남정옥, "한미군사관계사, 1871~2002", pp.290~291 (2002), 국방부 군사편찬연구소
- 국방부 전사편찬위원회, "미합동참모본부사 한국전쟁(상)", pp.68~ (1990), 국방부 전사편찬위원회
- 오영달, "유엔의 한국전 개입이 유엔체제에 미친 영향 in: 유엔과 한국전쟁", pp.99~ (2004), 리북
- 한표욱, "이승만과 한미외교", pp.77~ (1996), 중앙일보사
- "안보리 결의 제84호, S", 1588(1950.7.7), 1950
- 윌리엄 스툭, "한국전쟁과 미국 외교정책", pp.91~ (2005), 나남출판
- 오충근, "한국전쟁과 소련의 유엔 안전보장이사회 결석:허사로 끝난 스탈린의 ‘실리’외교", 한국정치학회, 335(1), pp.105~123 (2001)
- 정태욱, "주한 '유엔군사령부'(UNC)의 법적 성격", 민주법학, (34), pp.197~227 (2007), 민주주의법학연구회
- 이홍동, "셀리그 해리슨의 코리안 엔드게임" (2003), 삼인
- 오영달, "supra note 3, p. 141", ~
- 김선표, "한반도 평화체제 구축과 유엔사 문제에 대한 소고", 서울국제법연구, 12(2), pp.85~105 (2005), 서울국제법연구원
- 정태욱, "supra note 11, pp. 214-216", ~
- "「한국에 대한 군사 및 경제원조에 관한 대한민국과 미합중국 간의 합의의사록」(1954년 11월 17일 서명 및 발효)", ~
- 박기덕, "북핵문제와 한반도 평화체제", pp.395~396 (2008), 세종연구소
- "Statement of General B. Bell, Commander, UNC: Commander, Republic of Korea- US Combined Forces Command; Commander, USFK, Before The Senate Armed Services Committee, 11 March 2008, pp. 26-27", ~ (2008)
