국제위법행위에 대한 ""司法的"" 대항조치
Judicial' Countermeasures to Internationally Wrongful Acts
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
일반 국제법상 이른바 ‘사법적’ 대항조치, 특히 국내법원에 의한 대항조치의 허용 여부는비교적 최근까지도 거의 논의되지 않았다. 명시적으로 ‘사법적’ 대항조치를 금지하는 일반국제법규는 없지만, 국가가 자국 법원의 결정을 대항조치로 정당화한 사례는 찾아보기 어렵다. 만약 일반 국제법상 사법적 대항조치가 허용되지 않는다면 왜 그러한 대항조치가 허용되지 않는지 물을 수 있을 것이고, 또 사법적 대항조치가 허용되지만 단지 실제 사례가없는 것일 따름이라면 왜 그런 사례가 없는지 물을 수 있을 것이다. 이 글의 목적은 이 질문에 대한 답을 찾아보는 데 있다. 현행 국제법상 ‘사법적’ 대항조치가 금지되지는 않은 것으로 보이고 또 그러한 대항조치로 볼 수 있는 사례가 전혀 없지는 않지만 드문 것이 사실이다. 사법적 대항조치로 볼 수 있는 사례가 드문 까닭은 다음과 같은 몇 가지 사정 때문이라고 할 수 있다. 첫째, 입법부나 행정부의 협력 없이는 특히 해당 외국의 선행 국제위법행위가 확인되지 않으므로 대항조치의 요건이 충족되지 못한다는 점이다. 둘째, 사법적 결정,특히 외국이나 국제기구의 관할권 면제를 부인하는 법원의 결정은 적어도 부분적으로는비가역적이라는 점이다. 셋째, 일반적으로 국가는 자국이 취하는 조치가 국제법상 적법하다고 주장하며, 그것을 대항조치라고 명시하기를 꺼린다는 점이다. 한편 Kadi 사건이 시사하는 바와 같이, 예컨대 유럽연합 법원은 유엔의 국제의무 위반에 해당하는 안전보장이사회의 결정을 이행하기 위해 양 기구의 회원인 국가가 취한 조치를 위법이라고 판시하거나이를 취소하는 결정을 내릴 수도 있을 것이다. 일반 국제법상 피해국 이외의 국가 또는 국제기구에 의한 대항조치의 허용 여부는 아직 불분명하지만, 그러한 국가나 국제기구도DARSIWA 제54조와 DARIO 제57조의 의미에서 ‘합법적 조치’를 취할 수는 있을 것이기때문이다.
Abstract
Until recent days, it has ben rarely discused whether or not the so-caled “judicial”countermeasures are permited under general international law, especialycountermeasures by domestic courts. There is no rule of general international law thatexplicitly prohibit “judicial” countermeasures, but it is dificult to find cases in which aState justifed the decisions of its own courts as countermeasures. If judicialcountermeasures are not permited under general international law, you may ask whysuch countermeasures are not permited; if such countermeasures are permited but justreal cases do not exist, you may ask why there are no such cases. This paper aims atfinding the answer to this question. It does not apear that “judicial” countermeasuresare prohibited under curent international law, but there are few examples that can beregarded as such. There sems to be several reasons why such instances that may beregarded as judicial counter- measures are few. First, without the coperation of thelegislative or the executive, the requirements of countermeasures would not be satisfied,as no previous internationaly wrongful acts by other States or international organizationscould be confirmed. Second, judicial decisions including those denying jurisdictionalimmunites of other States or international organizations, are ireversible at least in part. Third, a State usualy argues that the action it takes is lawful under international la and is reluctant to specify it as a countermeasure. On the other hand, as the Kadi casesugests, the European Union courts, for instance, could decide the legality or ilegalityof the measure taken by a State member of the the EU, which is also a member of theUN, to implement such Security Council decisions that are alegedly in violation of theUN’s international obligations. While it apears to be stil controversial whethercountermeasures by States or international organizations other than the injured are permited, such States or international organizations may take “lawful measures” withinthe meaning of Article 54 DARSIWA and of Article 57 DARIO.
참고문헌 (25)
- "Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2019", 7~ (2019)
- "Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012", 99~ (2012)
- "Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary", Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, 1997, pp.7~
- "Air Services Agreement of 27 March 1946 between the United States of America and France (United States of America", France), Decision of 9 December 1978, R.I.A.A., vol. XVIII, 1978, pp.417~493
- "Case T-315", 01, Kadi v. Council and Commission, Judgment, 21 September 2005, 2005
- "Joined Cases C-402", 05 P and C-415, pp.2008, ~
- "Case T-85", 09, Kadi v. Commission, 30 September 2010, 2010
- "Joined Cases C-584", 10 P, C-593, 10 P, Commission and others v. Kadi, Judgment, 18 July 2013, 2013[DOI]
- "Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany (Case No 11", 2000 (288933)), Greek Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos), 4 May 2000, International Law Reports, vol. 129, 2000, pp.513~
- "Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany (Case No 5044", 2004), Italian Court of Cassation, 11 March 2004, International Law Reports, vol. 128, 2004, pp.568~
- O.J. No. 2800, , 2004
- "Western European Union v. Siedler, Cour de Cassation, 21 December 2009, No.S.04.0129.F", ~ (2009)
- "General Secretariat of African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States v. Lutchmaya, Cour de Cassation, 21 December 2009, No.C.03.0328.F", ~ (2009)
- "General Secretariat of African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States v. B.D., Cour de Cassation, No.C.07.0407.F", ~
- "Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No 10 CIV 4518 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)", ~ (2013)
- "Bank Markazi v. Peterson et al., 136 S. Ct. 1310 (20 April 2016)", ~ (2016)
- "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries 2001", UN Doc. A, 10, pp.2001, 30~143
- "Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations with commentaries", UN Doc A, 10, pp.2011, 46~48
- "Committee against Torture, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention", UN Doc CAT, SR.646, pp.Add.1, 2005[DOI]
- O. Y. Elagab, "The Legality of Non-Forcible Counter-Measures in International Law" (1988), Oxford University Press
- A. Tzanakopoulos, "Disobeying the Security Council : Countermeasures against Wrongful Sanctions" (2011), Oxford University Press
- D. Franchini, "State Immunity as a Tool of Foreign Policy: The Unanswered Question of Certain Iranian Assets", Virginia Journal of International Law (2019)
- P. T. Moser, "Non-Recognition of State Immunity as a Judicial Countermeasure to Jus Cogens Violations: The Human Rights Answer to the ICJ Decision on the Ferrini Case", Goetingen Journal of International Law, 4(3), pp.809~852 (2012)
- S. Vezzani, "Sul diniego delle immunità dalla giurisdizione di cognizione ed esecutiva a titolo di contromisura", Rivista di Diritto Internazionale, 97, pp.36~87 (2014)
- K. N. Trapp, "Smooth Runs Water where the Brook is Deep : The Obscured Complexities of Germany v Italy", Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1(1), pp.153~168 (2012)