국내법원의 국제인권법규 해석 - 병역법 위반 사건을 중심으로 -
Interpretation of International Human Rights by Domestic Courts -focusing on judgement of the violation of the military service law case -
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
조약은 해석에 의해 살아 있는 법이 된다. 각국 외교부와 국제재판소는 조약의 해석에서 중요한 역할을 수행하여 왔다. 국내법원 역시 중요한 조약해석기관이라는 점이 간과되어서는 아니 된다. 병역법 위반 사건(이하 ‘이 사건)에 대한 대법원 판결(2007도7941)은 대한민국 국내법원에 의한 조약해석의 실행을 볼 수 있다. 이 사건의 쟁점은 ‘양심적 병역거부자에게 병역의무 면제나 대체복무의 기회를 부여하지 아니한 채 병역법 제88조 제1항 위반죄로 처벌하는 것이 시민적 및 정치적 권리에 관한 국제규약 (이하 ’규약‘)에 반하는지 여부‘이고, 사법심사의 기준이 된 규약은 제18조 사상, 양심 및 종교의 자유이다. 이 사건에서 대법원이 직면한 규약 해석의 쟁점은 규약 제18조가 양심적 병역거부권을 포함하고 있는가와 병역법 에 의거한 양심적 병역거부자의 처벌이 규약 제18조의 권리 제한 요건을 충족하고 있는가이다. 대법원은 여러 쟁점들을 검토하면서 조약법에 관한 비엔나협약 에 담긴 조약해석규칙을 인식하고 또한 활용하였다. 그러나 구체적인 조약해석규칙의 적용방식과 태도는 국제법상 확립된 조약해석규칙을 적절하게 이해하고 적용하였는지에 대해서는 의문의 여지가 있다. 또한 제18조의 권리 제한 요건에 입각한 병역법 의 규약 합치성에 대한 전면적이고 직접적인 심사를 회피하였다는 한계를 보여주었다. 이 사건에 관한 대법원의 인권조약 해석과 적용은 한편으로는 국내법원에 의한 국제인권법규의 해석과 적용의 수준을 한 단계 높았다는 평가가 주어질 수 있다. 다른 한편으로는 국내법원이 효과적인 국제인권법규의 해석과 적용을 위해서 인권조약의 대상과 목적을 고려하여 효과적이고 발전적인 해석기법을 활용해야 한다는 과제를 던지고 있다.
Abstract
Treaty becomes a living law by interpretation. International Tribunals as well as Ministry of Foreign Affairs of each and every nation have carried out significant function in treaty interpretation. Furthermore, domestic courts as an institution for treaty interpretation shall not be overlooked. The Supreme Court’s decision in regard to the Military Service Law Infringement Case (henceforth “this case”) could be seen as a practice of treaty interpretation by the domestic court of the Republic of Korea. The issue of the case is whether punishing the conscientious objectors according to the violation of the Article 88(1) of the Military Service Law while not providing a possibility of conscription exemption or an option of alternative service would violate International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (henceforth “the Covenant”) or not. The rule provided as standard of judicial review is the Article 18 of the Covenant, which stipulates the freedom of thoughts, conscience, and religion. The issues the Supreme Court had to face were twofold: First, whether the Article 18 of the Covenant includes the right to conscientious objection to military service or not. Second, whether punishing the conscientious objectors according to the Military Service Law suffices the criteria for limiting the rights enshrined in the Article 18. The Supreme Court has been aware of and has utilized the rules stipulated in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatieswhile reviewing various issues in this case. Nonetheless, the method and the attitude the Supreme Court took in application of the rules provide us room for doubt whether the Supreme Court has understood the rules of treaty interpretation properly. Moreover, the Supreme Court seems to have avoided a direct and in-depth review in regard to the question whether the Military Service Law is in accord with the criteria for limiting the rights enshrined in Article 18 of the Covenant. On one hand, however, considering the interpretation and application of the human rights treaties by the Supreme Court, it could be assessed that the Supreme Court has raised the standard of the interpretation and application of international human rights laws in domestic courts. On the other hand, in order to effectively interpret and apply international human rights laws, there still is a task remaining; Domestic courts should utilize effective and expansive interpretative techniques by considering the object and purpose of human rights treaties.
참고문헌 (44)
- 안토니오 카세세, "국제법, 제2판" (2012), 삼우사
- 이상영, "법철학" (2006), 한국방송통신대학교출판부
- 이안 브라운리, "이안 브라운리 국제법" (1998), 현암사
- 정경수, "국제법의 국내적용에 관한 한국의 법체계와 경험", 국제법평론, (28), pp.95~125 (2008), 국제법평론회
- 정인섭, "신국제법강, 제5판" (2014), 박영사
- 최동렬, "대법원판례해설, 제74호" (2007)
- Alexander Orakhelashvili, "Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights", European Journal of International Law, 14(3) (2003)
- Anthony Aust, "Modern Treaty Law and Practice" (2000), Cambridge University Press
- Rudolf Bernhardt, "Evolutive Treaty Interpretation, Especially of the European Convention on Human Rights", German Yearbook of International Law, 42 (1999)
- Franz Matscher, "The European System for the Protection of Human Rights" (1993), Martinus Nijhoff
- Gavan Griffith, "Collection of Essays by Legal Advisors of States, Legal Advisers of International Organizations and Practitioners in the Field of International Law" (1999), United Nations
- George Letsas, "A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights" (2007), Oxford University Press
- George Letsas, "Strasbourg’s Interpretive Ethic: Lessons for the International Lawyer", European Journal of International Law, 21(3) (2010)
- H. Victor Condé, "A Handbook of International Human Rights Terminology, 2nd ed" (2004), University of Nebraska Press
- J. G. Merrills, "The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd ed" (1993), Manchester University Press
- Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, "European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights", German Law Journal, 12(10) (2011)
- Kerstin Mechlem, "Treaty Bodies and the Interpretation of Human Rights", Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42 (2009)
- L. Oppenheim, "International Law : A Treatise. Vol. .I. - Peace, 3rd ed" (1920), Longmans, Green and Co.
- Loukis G. Loucaides, "The European Convention on Human Rights" (2007), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
- Magdalena Sepúlveda, "Human Rights Reference Handbook, 3rd. ed" (2004), University of Peace
- Manfred Nowak, "U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—CCPR Commentary, 2nd ed" (2005), N. P. Engel, Publisher
- Manley O. Hudson, "The World court, 1921-1938 : a handbook of the Permanent court of international justice, 5th ed" (1938), World Peace Foundation
- Mark E. Villiger, "Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convetion on the Law of Treaties" (2009), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
- Philip Leach, "Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd ed" (2005), Oxford University Press
- René Provost, "Reciprocity in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law", British Yearbook of International Law, 65(1) (1994)
- Rosalyn Higgins, "Problems and Process" (1994), Clarendon Press
- Schwarzenberger, Georg, "International Law, 3rd ed" (1957), Stevens & Sons
- "Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. Ⅰ" (1966)
- , 2007
- , 2004
- , 2004
- , 1998
- "Airey v. Ireland, Application no. 6289", 73, Judgement of 9 October 1979, Series A, No. 32, 1979
- "Austria v Italy, Applicaiton no 5310", 71, Judgement of 18 January 1978, Series A, No 25, 1978
- "CCPR", C, D, pp.1321-1322, 2004
- "Cossey v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 10843", 84, Judgment 27 September 1990, Series A, No. 184, 1990
- "Engel and others v. the Netherlands, Application no. 5100", 71; 5101, 71; 5354, pp.72; 5370, 72, Judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A, No 22
- "Golder v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 4451", 70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A No 18, 1975
- "Klass and Othrs v. Germany, Application no. 5029", 71, Judgment of 15 December 1970, Series A, No. 28, 1970
- "Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951", ~ (1951)
- "Soering v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 14038", 88, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A, No. 161, 1989
- "Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 6538", 74, Judgment of 26 april 1979, Series A, No. 30, 1979
- "The Effect of Reservation on the Entry Into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 74 and 75), Advisory Opinion OC-2", 82, 24 September 1982, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series A, Number 2, 1982
- "Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 5856", 72, Judgment of 25 February 1978, Series A No. 26, 1978