본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국 부패방지법(FCPA)의 외국기업에의 적용 － ‘이중적’ 역외적용과 국제법적 함의 －

Application of U.S. FCPA to Transactions and Interactions between Foreign Corporations － A ‘Two-fold’ Extraterritoriality and Its Implication for International Law －

이재민
법학연구소 (The Institute of Legal Studies Konkuk University)|2020.03|서울대학교 법학|제61권 제1호|pp. 425-474|DOI 10.22850/slj.2020.61.1.425

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

역외적용JurisdictionExtraterritorialityState-Owned EnterprisesUN 반부패 협약FCPA반부패 국내법OECD 뇌물방지협약관할권 원칙정부연관 기업Anti-Corruption LegislationOECD Convention on Combatting BriberyUN Convention Against Corruption
주제분류법학

초록

부패문제는 국제사회의 주요 현안이다. 미국의 FCPA는 이 문제에 대처하기 위한 미국의 국내법으로 최근 활발하게 적용되고 있다. OECD와 UN이 주도한 이 분야 국제협약도 중요한 자리를 차지하고 있다. FCPA는 광범위한 역외적용 조항으로 외국정부와 기업의 주요 관심사가 되었고, 그 적용과 관련하여 지속적인 긴장관계를 초래하고 있다. 광범위한 외국기업들이 이 법의 목적상 ‘미국기업’으로 간주되기 때문이다. 특히 이 법은 새로운 차원의 역외적용 문제를 초래하는 독특한 기제를 포함하고 있다. 바로 외국의 ‘정부연관 기업’도 그 외국의 정부기관으로 간주하는 부분이다. 요컨대 적용대상인 미국기업의 범위를 확대 적용하는 것과 더불어 이들 기업의 거래 상대방인 외국정부의 범위도 확대 적용한다는 측면에서 ‘이중적’ 역외적용 상황이 발생한다. 그간 FCPA 적용과 관련한 국제사회 일각의 우려와 갈등은 이러한 특징에서 출발한다. 이 문제는 단지 FCPA에만 국한되지 않고 이 법의 골격을 계수하고 있는 관련 국제협약들에서도 발견되고 있다. 이러한 점을 감안하여 부패에 대응하기 위한 FCPA 등 국내법과 국제협약의 관련 내용은 앞으로 재검토⋅수정될 필요가 있다. 이중적 역외적용의 성격이 충분히 검토⋅반영되어야 한다. 특히 그 핵심인 ‘정부연관 기업’이 거래의 상대방인 경우와 관련하여 기존의 국가책임 문제 내지 통상⋅투자협정이 규율하는 맥락과는 상이하다는 점을 인정하고, 이들 국내법과 국제협약의 목적에 부합하는 새로운 시각에서 조망하여야 한다.

Abstract

Coping with corruption has become a global concern. In particular, bribery of foreign governments’ officials has been found to be causing serious harm to the international community at large. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) of 1977, a U.S. legislation to counter this problem, is being applied robustly in recent years. Anti-Corruption conventions sponsored by the OECD and the UN are also drawing increasing attention in this regard. Close commonalities exist between the FCPA and these international conventions, as the former spearheaded the negotiation and conclusion of these conventions starting from late 1990s. With robust application of the FCPA, attention has been drawn to its broad scope of application, namely treating essentially foreign corporations as U.S. ones by dint of minimal attachment to U.S. market such as registration with the U.S. stock markets and attendant reporting requirements. This exercise of jurisdiction creates a rather typical extraterritorial application situation. Depending upon how one judges the ‘minimal contact’ between foreign corporations and the U.S. market, the legality of the FCPA’s extraterritoriality under international law will be determined. Over the years, attention and controversies surrounding this legislation have continued to increase. A unique feature of the FCPA, which has not received adequate attention though, is its ‘twofold’ or ‘doubled’ extraterritoriality. The act treats a foreign corporation with a certain level of relationship with its government as a foreign government agency. In other words, contact with this ‘government-related’ foreign corporation is the same as contact with the foreign government itself for the purpose of the FCPA. So, the scope of the FCPA is uniquely expansive in that (i) the scope of U.S. corporation has been expanded to include essentially foreign corporations (i.e., conventional extraterritoriality situation), and (ii) the scope of foreign government has also been expanded to include ‘government-related’ foreign corporations. The expansive application thus is twofold and doubled. This structural feature is not found in other conventional extraterritorial legislations and their applications. Controversies and tensions surrounding the FCPA are arguably stemming from this unique feature of the FCPA. Domestic legislations such as the FCPA and related international conventions need to reflect the unique aspects of the twofold application. The scope of ‘foreign government’ should be more carefully and accurately defined. As it currently stands, the term is defined using the criterion developed in other areas of international law－such as state responsibility and trade & investment agreements. These norms in other international law, however, serve different purposes. Blind incorporation of such definition into anti-corruption legislations and conventions has arguably caused controversies and concerns. Reconsideration and proper amendment will be needed for a sustainable global anti-bribery and anti-corruption regime.

참고문헌 (57)

  1. 강성용, "미국 해외부패방지법(FCPA)에 대한 현실주의적 고찰 - 국내적 함의와 대응 방안에 대하여 -", 외법논집, 41(4), pp.293~322 (2017), 법학연구소[DOI]
  2. 권오승, "독점규제법의 역외적용", 학술원논문집(인문⋅사회과학편), 56(2) (2017)
  3. "미국 FCPA의 최근 집행경향 및 FCPA 개정안을 둘러싼 논란과 관련하여" (2012), 김건[URL]
  4. 김대순, "국제법론" (2014), 삼영사
  5. 김석현, "국제법상 국가책임" (2007), 삼영사
  6. 김석호, "미국 經濟制裁法의 국제적 불법성", 법학연구, (30), pp.387~423 (2008), 한국법학회
  7. 김성규, "소극적 속인주의에 대한 제한으로서의 쌍방가벌성의 요건 - 그 문제점과 대안", 성균관법학, 21(1), pp.27~45 (2009), 법학연구원[DOI]
  8. 김종보, "재건축⋅재개발과 형사처벌 －건설분야 부패방지제도의 일부로서－", 서울대학교 법학, 60(2), pp.93~120 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
  9. 盧泳暾, "國內經濟法의 域外適用과 國家管轄權의 衝突에 관한 硏究- 競爭法을 중심으로 -", 국제법학회논총, 47(1), pp.4~76 (2002), 대한국제법학회
  10. 박선욱, "미국 해외부패방지법(Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; FCPA)에 따른 관할권의 역외적용", 법과정책연구, 13(3), pp.1247~1271 (2013), 한국법정책학회[DOI]
  11. 미국 해외부패방지법에 관한 연구, "오규성", 사법정책연구원, ~ (2018)
  12. 이상원, "형법몰수규정의 한계와 독립몰수", 반부패제도의 현황과 과제, 서울대학교 공동연구 학술대회, 서울대학교 아시아태평양연구소 주최 발표문 (2018)
  13. 전지연, "형법 제3조의 적극적 속인주의의 문제점과 해결방안", 법학연구, 19(2), pp.107~129 (2009), 법학연구원
  14. 정인섭, "신국제법강의: 이론과 사례" (2019), 박영사
  15. 정인섭, "국제법 판례" (2016), 박영사
  16. 천경훈, "부패방지와 회사법", 경제법연구, 18(2), pp.91~119 (2019), 한국경제법학회[DOI]
  17. "Non-Commercial Assistance Rules in the TPP: A Comparative Analysis with the SCM Agreement 1"[URL]
  18. Akande, Dapo, "Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign Domestic Courts", The European Journal of International Law, 21(4) (2011)
  19. Alford, P. Roger, "The Extraterritorial Application of American Laws : The United States and European Community Approaches", Virginia Journal of International Law, 33 (1992)
  20. Alstine, P. Van Michael, "Treaty Double Jeopardy: The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the FCPA", Ohio State Law Journal, 73(5) (2012)
  21. "Should FCPA “Territorial” Jurisdiction Reach Extraterritorial Proportions?" (2018)[URL]
  22. Arlen, Jennifer, "Research Handbook on Corporate Crime and Financial Misdealing" (2018), Elgar
  23. "When does an entity amount to an “instrumentality of a foreign government” under the foreign corrupt practices act?”: Emerging Judicial Guidelines"[URL]
  24. Brewster, Rachel, "Enforcing the FCPA : International Resonance and Domestic Strategy", Virginia Law Review, 103(9) (2017)
  25. Chang, Seung Wha, "Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Antitrust Laws to Other Pacific Countries; Proposed Bilateral Agreements for Resolving International Conflicts within the Pacific Community", Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 16 (1993)
  26. Crawford, James, "Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law" (2012), Oxford University Press
  27. Evans, D. Malcolm, "International Law" (2018), Oxford University Press
  28. "How FCPA Applies to Foreign Private Companies, Law360" (2015)[URL]
  29. House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, "Rep. 95-640 REPORT together with MINORITY VIEWS To accompany H.R.3815 (1977. 9. 28.)", ~ (1977)
  30. Hughes, G. Alexander, "Drawing Sensible Borders for the Definition of “Foreign Official” Under the FCPA", American Journal of Crime Law, 40(3) (2013)
  31. Jeydel Peter, "Yoking the Bull : How to Make the FCPA Work for U. S. Business", Georgetown Journal of International Law, 43 (2012)
  32. Li, Enshen, "Combating Foreign Bribery in China: Rethinking Zero Tolerance with ‘Chinese Characteristics’", The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 5(2) (2017)
  33. "Non-US Companies May Also Be Subject to the FCPA, Financial Fraud Law Report" (2009)[URL]
  34. McLean, M. Nicholas, "Cross-National Patterns in FCPA Enforcement", The Yale Law Journal, 121 (2012)
  35. Nichols, M. Philip, "The Neomercantilist Fallacy and the Contextual Reality of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act", Harvard Journal on Legislation, 53 (2016)
  36. OECD, "Corruption, A Glossary of International Standards in Criminal Law", ~ (2008)
  37. "Levelling the International Playing Field Between Public and Private Businesses: What Have We Learnt So Far? 3-5" (2014)[URL]
  38. Paust, J. Jordan, "International Criminal Law: Cases and Materials" (1996), Carolina Academic Press
  39. Perlman L. Rebecca, "The Political Economy of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: An Exploratory Analysis", Journal of Legal Analysis, 9(2) (2017)
  40. Peters, Anne, "Corruption as a Violation of International Human Rights", The European Journal of International Law, 29(4) (2018)
  41. Posadas, Alejandro, "Combating Corruption Under International Law", Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 10 (2000)
  42. Ross, A. Lauren, "Using Foreign Relations Law to Limit Extraterritorial Application of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act", Duke Law Journal, 62 (2012)
  43. Ryngaert, Cedric, "Jurisdiction in International Law" (2015), Oxford University Press
  44. Salbu, R. Salbu, "Mitigating the Harshness of FCPA Enforcement Through Qualifying Good-Faith Compliance Defense", American Business Law Journal, 55 (2019)
  45. Shaw, N. Malcolm, "International Law" (2014), Cambridge University Press
  46. Sivachenko, Irina, "Corporate Victims of “Victimless Crime”: How the FCPA’s Statutory Ambiguity, Coupled with Strict Liability, Hurts Business and Discourage Compliance", Boston College Law Review, 54(1) (2013)
  47. Smith, F. Charles, "“American Imperialism”: A Practioners’ Experience with Extraterritorial Enforcement of the FCPA", University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2012 (2012)
  48. Spahn, Elizabeth, "International Bribery : The Moral Imperialism Critiques", Minnesota Journal of International Law, 18 (2009)
  49. Stockel, Chad, "Sherman’s March on Japan: U.S. v. Nippon Paper and the Extraterritorial Reach of Criminal Antitrust Law", Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 9 (1999)
  50. Torre, J. de la, Mateo, "The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Imposing an American Definition of Corruption on Global Markets", Cornell International Law Journal, 49 (2016)
  51. United States Department of Justice (Criminal Division), "A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practice Act", ~ (2012)
  52. Westbrook, D. Amy, "Enthusiastic Enforcement, Informal Legislation, the Unruly Expansion of the FCPA", Georgia Law Review, 45 (2011)
  53. Woody, Karen, "“Declinations with Disgorgement” in FCPA Enforcement", University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 51 (2018)
  54. Yockey, W. Joseph, "Solicitation, Extortion, and the FCPA", Notre Dame Law Review, 87 (2011)
  55. "글로벌기업 부정행위 증거, 타국 수사기관 이첩 가능성 높다" (2019), 로앤비[URL]
  56. "삼성, 글로벌경영 ‘시계 제로’ …”또 불확실성 수렁속으로" (2019), 연합뉴스[URL]
  57. "America’s Legal Forays Against Foreign Firms Vex Other Countries" (2019)[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

미국 해외부패방지법(FCPA)에 대한 현실주의적 고찰 - 국내적 함의와 대응 방안에 대하여 -강성용법학연구소 · 외법논집2017 · 제41권 제4호미국 해외부패방지법(Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; FCPA)에 따른 관할권의 역외적용박선욱한국법정책학회 · 법과정책연구2013 · 제13권 제3호미국 해외부패방지법(FCPA) 집행정책의 동향과 우리나라의 정책적 대응방향홍대운한국비교형사법학회 · 비교형사법연구2022 · 제24권 제2호미국 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act에 관한 연구오택림사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2012 · 제61권 제6호미국 해외부패행위방지법과 그 역외적용최승재사법발전재단 · 사법2013 · 제1권 제24호미국 해외부패방지법의 집행동향과 국내기업의 대응방안김성진, 이선재중앙법학회 · 중앙법학2014 · 제16권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (5건)

국제인권규범과 헌법: 통합적 관계 구성을 위한 이론적⋅실천적 고찰신윤진pp. 207-246당선 목적 허위사실공표죄의 ‘미필적 고의’에 관한 연구이종수pp. 247-285법률관계 유형에 따른 법정이율 기준김기환pp. 287-366금융거래에서의 담보물의 재활용이영경pp. 367-4242019년 민법 판례 동향권영준pp. 475-624
원문 보기