본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

국제인권법상 국가의 역외적 인권보호의무 -다국적 기업에 의한 해외 인권침해의 맥락에서-

Extrateritorial Human Rights Obligation to Protect under the International Human Rights Law in the Context of Human Rights Abuses Commited Abroad by Multinational Corporations

이상수
법학연구소 (The Institute of Legal Studies Konkuk University)|2021.09|홍익법학 (Journal of hongik law review)|제22권 제3호|pp. 239-277|DOI 10.16960/jhlr.22.3.202109.239

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

관할인권실사국제인권법다국적 기업international human rights lawjurisdiction역외적 인권의무역외적 인권보호의무extrateritorial human rights obligationextrateritorial human rights obligation to protectmultinational corporations (TNCs)human rights due dilgence
주제분류법학

초록

최근 한국 기업의 해외 인권침해가 많은 논란을 야기하고 있다. 본고는 이런 사건들에대해서 대한민국 정부는 어떤 대응을 해야 하는지에 대해 국제인권법에 기초하여 대답을모색해 본다. 동시에 현재 국제인권법 하에서 국가가 일반적으로 역외적 인권보호의무를갖지 않는다고 한 ‘유엔 기업과 인권 이행원칙’(이하 이행원칙)의 입장을 비판적으로 검토한다. 먼저, 원칙적으로 국가의 역외적 인권의무가 있다는 것을 보이기 위해서 이 문제에 관한다양한 국제인권기구의 입장을 검토했다. 지금까지 국제인권법에서의 논의를 종합해볼 때,국가는 지역적이든 인적이든 실효적 통제가 미치는 경우라면 국경밖이라고 하더라도 인권의무를 진다는 원칙이 널리 수용되고 있다. 국가의 인권의무가 인권의 존중, 보호, 충족으로 구성된다고 했을 때, 현행 국제인권법상 기업활동과 관련하여 국가의 역외적 인권‘보호’의무가 없다고 단정한 이행원칙의 입장은 수용하기 어렵다. 다만 미해결의 문제는 국가의 인권보호의무가 ‘다국적 기업’의 해외 인권침해라는 맥락에서 구체적으로 어떻게 발현될지이다. 여기서 제기되는 중요한 난관은 역외적 관할권 행사가 낳는 외교적 충돌 가능성 이외에도, 다국적 기업의 복잡한 조직구조, 법인격분리에따른 책임추궁의 어려움, 해외의 인권피해자가 부담하는 과도한 입증책임 등이 있다. 이런어려운 문제에 대해 국제인권기구가 최근 제시한 혁신적 대안은 영토내의 기업에게 인권 실사를 의무화함으로써 해외에서의 인권침해를 막고 나아가 사법적 구제의 길을 확대하자는 것이다. 이것은 사회권위원회의 일반논평 제24호가 상세히 설명하고 있는데 이는Schuter가 제안한 ‘모회사 기반의 역외규제’이며 이행원칙이 말하는 ‘역외적 함의를 갖는국내적 조치’이다. 이런 접근법이 확고하게 현행 국제인권법의 일부가 됐다고 장담하기에는 다소 이를 수 있지만, 적어도 EU나 유엔은 이런 식의 접근을 구현하기 위한 구체적인움직임을 시작했다는 것이 사실이다. 대한민국도 사회권규약을 위시한 주요 인권조약에 가입한 이상 역외적 인권보호의무를지는 것이 당연하므로, 한국 정부는 한국 기업이 해외에서 초래하는 인권침해를 방치해서는 안 되며 다양한 수단을 동원하여 해외의 인권피해자를 위한 인권보호조치를 취해야 한다. 특히 국내에 주재한 다국적 기업에게 인권실사를 요구하는 것이 필요해 보인다. 이것이국가의 역외적 인권보호의무와 관련하여 주요 선진국들이 이미 취하고 있는 방향이고 국제인권법이 진화해가고 있는 방향이기도 하다.

Abstract

Recently human rights abuses commited abroad by Korean companies draw muchatention, raising questions on whether, and how, the Korean government should adresthem. This article tries to answer to those questions drawing on international humanrights law. In doing so, it also disputes the argument proposed by the UN GuidingPrinciples on Busines and Human Rights (the UNGPs) that so far States are notgeneraly required under international human rights law to regulate extrateritorialactivites of busineses domiciled in their teritory and/or jurisdiction. This article first reviews the various human rights treaty bodies’ understandings onextrateritorial human rights obligation of state. A general agrement on this isue is thatstate parties to human rights treaties bear the extrateritorial obligation on the humanrights abuses as far as the abuses ocur within the area under its efective control. Giventhat state’s human rights obligation comprises the obligation to respect, protect and fulfill human rights recognized by international human rights instruments, the UNGPs’ shernegation of state’s extrateritorial human rights obligation ‘to protect’ is simplyunaceptable. The question to be raised then is how the obligation can be defined in the context ofhuman rights abuses commited abroad by ‘transnational corporations’ (TNCs). Majorchalenges to this question come from the complex organizational structure of TNCs, thedoctrine of separation of legal personality, excesive burden of prof burdened byforeign victims as wel as the potential diplomatic tensions arising from the uninvitedexercise of extrateritorial jurisdiction. An inovative alternative aproach adopted bysome international human rights regimes to adres these chalenges is to obligate stateparties to require TNCs within its teritory to exercise human rights due dilgence as away of preventing human rights abuses abroad and strengthening victim’s aces tojudicial remedy. This aproach is most systematicaly elaborated in the GeneralComment No. 24 of the UN Commite on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights andsemingly has its origin in the idea of ‘parent-based extrateritorial regulation’ coined byde Schuter and of ‘domestics measures with extrateritorial implication’ of the UNPGs. It may be excesive to insist that this aproach has ireversibly become a part ofinternational human rights law, but it is true that at least EU and UN tok firm stepstowards this aproach as a part of the human rights law. As a state party to many human rights treaties including the International Covenanton the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Korean government should dischargeits extrateritorial obligation to protect foreign individuals and groups from human rightsabuses commited by Korean companies, with various methods and preferably byrequirng TNCs domiciled in Korean teritory to exercise human rights due dilgence ontheir suply chain. This is what several developed states have already adopted as a wayof fulfiling their extrateritorial human rights obligation to protect and what majorinternational human rights law regimes are moving toward

참고문헌 (53)

  1. 2016 해외 한국기업 인권실태 조사: 멕시코 조사 보고서, "기업과 인권 네트워크", ~ (2016)
  2. 이상수, "'기업과 인권 조약' 논의의 쟁점과 전망", 법과 기업 연구, 7(1), pp.65~104 (2017), 법학연구소[DOI]
  3. 사회적 가치 관점에서 본 프랑스 실사의무화법 제정의 의의, "이상수", 한국법제연구원, ~, pp.이슈페이퍼21-19-① (2021)
  4. 조선일보, "‘SK건설 참여’ 라오스 댐 붕괴로 수백명 실종…사망자도 속출", ~ (2018)
  5. 최지현, "국제인권조약의 장소적 적용범위 확대 － 역외적용 가능성에 대한 일반적 고찰 －", 안암법학, (34), pp.995~1031 (2011), 안암법학회[DOI]
  6. "한국은 선진국 공식 인정…UNCTAD ‘개도국→선진국’ 지위 변경" (2021)[URL]
  7. Brabant, Stehpane, "A Closer Look at the Penalties Faced by Companies", Revue Internationale de la compliance et de l'éthique des affaires--supplément à la Semaine Juridique entreprise et affaires, (30) (2007)
  8. FIDH, "Italian Legislative Decree No. 231", 2001: A Model for Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation?, 2019
  9. "The European Union's Human Rights Obligations Towards Distant Strangers" (2016)[URL]
  10. Kirshner, Jodie A., "A Call for the EU to Assume Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Corporate Human Rights", Nw. J.Int'l Hum. Rts., 13, pp.1~ (2015)
  11. Parallel Report:Korea's Extraterritorial State Obligations on ICESCR, For the Review of the Republic of Korea's 4th State Report on Implementation of ICESCR, "Korea Transnational Corporations Watch", ~ (2017)
  12. Mallory, Conall, "Human Rights Imperialists : The Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights" (2020), Hart Publishing
  13. Milanovic, Marko, "Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda In Strasbourg", European Journal of International Law, 23(1) (2012)
  14. Milanovic, Marko, "Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy" (2011), Oxford University Press
  15. Schaack, Beth Van, "The United States' Position on the Exterritorial Application of Human Rights Obligations : Now is the Time for Change", Int'l Stud., 90, pp.20~ (2014)
  16. "Towards Mandatory Due Diligence in Global Supply Chains" (2020)[URL]
  17. Schutter, Olivier De, "Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", Human Rights Quarterly, 34 (2012)
  18. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction as a Tool for Improving the Human Rights Accountability of Transnational Corporations, "Schutter, Olivier De", ~ (2006)
  19. Schutter, Olivier De, "International Human Rights Law" (2014), Cambridge University Press
  20. Shany, Yuval, "Taking Universality Seriously: A Functional Approach to Extraterritoriality in International Human Rights Law", Law & Ethics Hum. Rts., 7, pp.47~ (2013)
  21. Shue, Henry, "Basic Rights, Subsistence, Affluence, and US Foreign Policy" (1980), Princeton University Press
  22. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction : Lessons for the Business and Human Rights Sphere from six Regulatory Areas, "Zerk, Jennifer A.", John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, ~, pp.Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 59 (2010)
  23. "European Court of Human Rights, X. v. The Federal Republic of Germany, Application no. 2699", 65, 1965, 1965
  24. "European Court of Human Rights, Bankovic and others v. Belgium and 16 Other States, Application No. 52207", 99, 12 December 2001, 2001
  25. "European Court of Human Rights, Al-Skeini and Others v the United Kingdom, Application No. 55721", 07, 7 July 2011, 2011
  26. "European Court of Human Rights, Andreou v Turkey, Application no. 45653", 99, Judgment, 27 October 2009, 2009
  27. "European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey, Application no. 25781", 94, 10 May 2001, 2001
  28. "European Court of Human Rights, Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, Application No. 48787", 99, 8 July 2004, 2004
  29. "European Court of Human Rights, Issa and others v. Turkey, Application no. 31821", 96, 16 November 2004, 2004
  30. "European Court of Human Rights, Loizidou v Turkey, Series A. No. 310, 23 March 1995", ~ (1995)
  31. "European Court of Human Rights, Medvedyev and others v France, Application no. 3394", 03, 29 March 2010, 2010
  32. "European Court of Human Rights, Öcalan v Turkey, Application no. 46221", 99, 2003, 2003
  33. "European Court of Human Rights, Traska v Albania and Italy, Application no. 26937", 04, 29 June 2006, 2006
  34. Draft Report with Recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability, "European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs", ~ (2020)
  35. "International Court of Justice, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), 19 December 2005", ~ (2005)
  36. "International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 2004", ~ (2004)
  37. "International Court of Justice, Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Report, 1996", ~ (1996)
  38. "UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of the Republic of Korea, E", C.12, CO, pp.4, 6 October 2017[DOI]
  39. "UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 24, On State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities, E", C.12, 24, 23 June 2017, 2017[DOI]
  40. "UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Statement on the Obligations of States Parties regarding the Corporate Sector and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E", G.12, 1, 12 July 2011 (2011), 2011[DOI]
  41. "UN Economic and Social Council, The Rights to Adequate Food as an Human Rights, Report prepared by Mr A Eide, E", CN.4, 1983, pp.25, 1983[DOI]
  42. "UN Economic and Social Council, The Rights to Adequate Food as an Human Rights, Report prepared by Mr A Eide, E", CN.4, 1987, pp.23, 1987[DOI]
  43. "UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 15, The Position of Aliens Under the Covenant, E", C.12, 21, 21 December 2009, 2009[DOI]
  44. "UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, CCPR", C, Rev.1, pp.Add.13, 26 May 2004[DOI]
  45. "UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36, On Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on Rights to Life, CCPR", G, 36, 30 October 2018, 2018[DOI]
  46. "UN Human Rights Council, Improving Accountability and Access to Remedy for Victims of Business-Related Human Rights Abuses, Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, A", HRC, 19, May 2016, 2016[DOI]
  47. "UN Human Rights Council, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, A", HRC, 5, 7 April 2008, 2008[DOI]
  48. "UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, The Economic Interests of the Myanmar Military, Human Rights Council, A", HRC, CRP.3, 5 August 2019, 2019[DOI]
  49. "UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, Business and Human Rights: Enhancing Accountability and Access to Remedy, OHCHR Working Paper No. 2, April 2015", ~ (2015)
  50. "UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human rights, A", HRC, 21, pp.11, 18 October 2012[DOI]
  51. Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and other Enterprises, "UN Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group with respect to Human Rights", ~ (2020)
  52. "UN, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, HR", PUB, 04, 2011, 2011[DOI]
  53. "United Kingdom House of Lord, Judgments, Al-Skeini and others (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant); Al-Skeini and others (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals), 2007", ~ (2007)

관련 논문AI추천

다국적 기업의 인권보호의무 강화방안정성숙법학연구소 · 일감법학2025 · 제60호공기업의 인권침해에 대한 국가의 책임 – 한국 공공기관 인권경영 정책에 대한 비판적 평가를 겸함 –이상수법학연구소 · 홍익법학2025 · 제26권 제2호해외진출 한국기업의 인권침해에 대한 책임구성 고찰김병준법학연구소 · 일감법학2013 · 제25호국제인권조약 당사국의 역외 인권의무: ‘관할’의 의미와 초국경적 인권문제를 중심으로신윤진한국인권학회 · 인권연구2021 · 제4권 제1호기업의 인권책임 제고를 위한 법제 개선방안문상일한국경제법학회 · 경제법연구2020 · 제19권 제3호다국적기업의 인권의무 확립을 위한 국제법적 모색: 국제인권법의 수평적 효과를 중심으로정경수민주주의법학연구회 · 민주법학2002 · 제22권

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (18건)

가상자산거래소에 대한 최근의 규제 동향과 개선과제-이용자 보호의 측면을 중심으로-이채율, 김범준pp. 13-47미래세대를 위한 메타버스(Metaverse)의실효성과 법적 쟁점에 관한 논의이준복pp. 49-82메타버스 시대, NFT 아이템의 도입에 따른게임산업법의 쟁점 및 정책적 고려사항에 관한 연구임종욱pp. 83-103장애인차별금지법의 한계와 개정 방향 : 포괄적 ‘차별금지법안’과의 비교를 중심으로박나원pp. 105-130조약문의 ‘通常的 意味’에 대한말뭉치 언어학의 접근방법박현석pp. 131-164
원문 보기