본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

국제인권조약 당사국의 역외 인권의무: ‘관할’의 의미와 초국경적 인권문제를 중심으로

Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations of States under International Human Rights Treaties: The Meaning of “Jurisdiction” and Transnational Human Rights Problems

신윤진
한국인권학회 (Korean Association of Human Rights Studies)|2021.06|인권연구 (Journal of Human Rights Studies)|제4권 제1호|pp. 101-176|DOI 10.22976/JHRS.2021.4.1.101

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

실효적 지배유럽인권재판소European Court of Human Rights인권의 보편성Effective ControlUniversality of Human Rights인권의무 상대방인권 존중 의무인권 보호 의무인권 실현 의무Rights HoldersDuty to RespectDuty to ProtectDuty to Fulfil

초록

초국경적 이동성과 지구적 상호의존성이 증대하고 인권침해와 인권위기의 양상이 다변화, 초국경화되고 있는 현실에서 국제인권조약 당사국의 인권의무 범위에 대한 영토중심적 접근은 한계를 가질 수밖에 없다. 주권국가 간의 법적 권한 경계로서의 국제공법상 전통적 ‘관할권’ 개념과 국가와 인권주체 개인 간의 관계에 초점을 두고 국가가 가지는 인권의무의 상대방 범위를 정하는 국제인권조약상 ‘관할’(jurisdiction) 개념은 규범적으로 중요한 차이가 있다. 그러나 최근까지 유럽인권재판소는 유럽인권협약 당사국이 부담하는 인권의무 상대방 범위로서의 ‘관할’의 의미가 원칙적으로 일반 국제공법상 해당 국가의 영토적 관할권과 일치한다고 보면서, 개별 사안에서 ‘실효적 지배’라는 개념을 통해 예외적으로 당사국의 역외 인권의무가 인정될 수 있는지를 판단하는 방식을 취하고 있다. 자유권규약위원회와 미주인권재판소의 경우 초국경적 인권사안에 보다 적극적으로 대응하기 위한 새로운 해석적 접근을 제시하고 있으나, 의무의 존재 요건과 위반 요건을 혼용하는 등 이론적으로 정교하지 못한 모습을 보이고 있다. 한편 사회권규약위원회는 보편적 인권 실현을 위한 국제적 협력의무를 강조하여 특정 개인과의 관할 관계에 구속되지 않는 방식의 인권의무 구성이 가능함을 확인하고 있다. 인권조약 당사국의 인권의무 상대방 범위에 대한 현재까지의 해석 실무와 그간 국제학계에서 제안된 대안적 해석론에 대한 비판적 검토를 통해 인권의무의 다양한 층위와 종류, 성격을 반영한 보다 체계적이고 세분화된 해석 모델의 필요성이 도출된다. 소극적 인권의무인 인권 존중 의무에 대해서는 관할이나 상대방 범위의 제한을 두지 않는 것이 타당하고, 적극적 인권의무인 인권 보호 의무와 인권 실현 의무의 경우 관련 국가의 입법관할권과 국제 협력의무를 함께 고려한 종합적이고 맥락적인 접근이 필요하다. 국가의 역외 인권의무에 대한 보다 정교한 이론적 발전은 인권침해의 외주화 위험과 초국가적 인권사안에서의 인권보장 공백을 최소화하고 인권의 지구적 보편성을 지향하는 국제인권조약이 본래적, 그리고 시대적 역할을 수행하는 데 기여할 수 있다.

Abstract

With the growth of transnational mobility and global interdependence, human rights violations are increasingly acquiring transnational features. A territorial approach to the scope of states’ international human rights obligations is inadequate for effectively responding to the diverse and complex aspects of transnational human rights problems. It is first necessary to recognize important normative differences between the traditional concept of jurisdiction under public international law that delimits the scope of a sovereign state’s legal competence and the meaning of jurisdiction under international human rights law that is focused on the relationship between the state and the individual rights-holder. The European Court of Human Rights, however, interprets the term ‘jurisdiction’, a standard for defining the scope of protected individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights, as in principle identical to territorial jurisdiction as understood in general public international law. In relevant decisions, the Court has proceeded to review whether there are justificatory grounds in individual cases for the exceptional recognition of extraterritorial human rights obligations of states parties. While the Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have in recent years sought to deliver new interpretive approaches that more proactively address today’s transnational human rights issues, those attempts exhibit theoretical loopholes, conflating elements of the existence of obligations and those of their violations. On the other hand, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has confirmed the possibility of constituting human rights obligations in a way that does not confine the scope of protected individuals on the basis of specific jurisdictional links and instead emphasizes international cooperation for the universal realization of human rights. A critical examination of recent practices and scholarly proposals illuminates the urgent need to develop a systemic and detailed interpretive model that adequately reflects the diverse dimensions, types and features of human rights obligations. For negative human rights obligations (the duty to respect), jurisdictional restrictions on the scope of protected individuals should be eliminated. With regard to positive human rights obligations, including the duty to protect and the duty to fulfil, more comprehensive and contextualized approaches are needed that take into account the prescriptive jurisdiction of the relevant state and a duty of international cooperation. More precise interpretive approaches to states’ extraterritorial human rights obligations will reduce the gap in human rights protection and the risk of outsourcing human rights violations, and ensure that international human rights law will accomplish its intrinsic and contemporary roles in widely transnationalizing human rights realities.

참고문헌 (92)

  1. "외교부"[URL]
  2. 정인섭, "신국제법강의" (2020), 박영사
  3. 최지현, "국제인권조약의 장소적 적용범위 확대 － 역외적용 가능성에 대한 일반적 고찰 －", 안암법학, (34), pp.995~1031 (2011), 안암법학회[DOI]
  4. "Two Concepts of Sovereignty" (1999)[URL]
  5. Ben-Nafli, Orna, "Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories", Israel Law Review, 37(1), pp.17~118 (2003)
  6. Benvenisti, Eyal, "Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity: On the Accountability of States to Foreign Stakeholders", American Journal of International Law, 107(2), pp.295~333 (2013)
  7. Bhuta, Nehal, "The Frontiers of Human Rights" (2016), Oxford University Press
  8. Brilmayer, Lea, "From ‘Contract’ to ‘Pledge’: The Structure of International Human Rights Agreements", British Yearbook of International Law, 77(1), pp.163~202 (2006)
  9. Brownlie, Ian, "Principles of Public International Law" (2003), Oxford University Press
  10. "A Response to Milanovic" (2011)[URL]
  11. De Schutter, Olivier, "Commentary to the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", Human Rights Quarterly, 34(4), pp.1084~1169 (2012)
  12. De Schutter, Olivier, "International Human Rights Law" (2014), Cambridge University Press
  13. Detrick, Sharon, "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires”" (1992), Martinus Nijhoff
  14. Heijer, Maarten den, "Global Justice, State Duties: The Extraterritorial Scope of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in International Law" (2012), Cambridge University Press
  15. International Law Commission, "Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II" (2001)
  16. Joseph, Sarah, "Blame it on the WTO? : A Human Rights Critique" (2011), Oxford University Press
  17. Künnemann, Rolf, "Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties" (2004), Intersentia
  18. Milanovic, Marko, "Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties" (2011), Oxford University Press
  19. Mills, Alex, "Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law", British Yearbook of International Law, 84(1), pp.187~239 (2014)
  20. "Towards Universality: Activities Impacting the Enjoyment of the Right to Life and the Extraterritorial Application of the ICCPR" (2018)[URL]
  21. "International Human Rights Law"[URL]
  22. "“Jurisdiction of States.” In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law" (2007)[URL]
  23. "A Response to Milanovic on Extraterritorial Application of Human Treaties: The Significance of International Law Concepts of Jurisdiction" (2011)[URL]
  24. Peters, Anne, "Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty", European Journal of International Law, 20(3), pp.513~544 (2009)
  25. Pogge, Thomas, "Severe Poverty as a Violation of Negative Duties", Ethics & International Affairs, 19(1), pp.55~83 (2005)
  26. Raible, Lea, "Human Rights Unbound: A Theory of Extraterritoriality" (2020), Oxford University Press
  27. "A Response to Milanovic" (2011)[URL]
  28. Salomon, Margot E., "Global Responsibility for Human Rights: World Poverty and the Development of International Law" (2007), Oxford University Press
  29. "Bad Cases Make Bad Law, But Good Law Books!" (2011)[URL]
  30. Sohn, Louis B., "The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather Than States", American University Law Review, 32(1), pp.1~64 (1982)
  31. "(Not) Investigating Kunduz and (Not) Judging in Strasbourg? Extraterritoriality, Attribution and the Duty to Investigate" (2020)[URL]
  32. "M.N. and Others v Belgium: No ECHR Protection from Refoulement by Issuing Visas" (2020)[URL]
  33. Teitel, Ruti G., "Humanity’s Law" (2011), Oxford University Press
  34. Van Hoof, Godefridus J.H., "The Right to Food" (1984), Martinus Nijhoff
  35. "Human Rights and the Protection of the Environment: The Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (2018)[URL]
  36. Wilde, Ralph, "Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law" (2013), Routledge
  37. "Lotus Case (France v. Turkey)", P.C.I.J. Series A, no. 10, ~ (1927)
  38. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, , I.C.J, ~ (2004)
  39. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, , I.C.J, ~ (2005)
  40. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, , I.C.J, ~ (2007)
  41. "Loizidou v. Turkey", Application No. 15318, 1995
  42. "Osman v. the United Kingdom", Application No. 23452, 1998
  43. "Cyprus v. Turkey", Application No. 25781, 2001
  44. "Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others", Application No. 52207, 2001
  45. "Öcalan v. Turkey", Application No. 46221, 2003
  46. "Ilaşcu and Others v. Republic of Moldova and Russia", Application No. 48787, 2004
  47. "Issa and Others v. Turkey", Application No. 31821, 2004
  48. "Ben El Mahi v. Denmark", Application No. 5853, 2006
  49. "Pad and Others v. Turke", Application No. 60167, 2007
  50. "Manitaras and Others v. Turkey", Application No. 54591, 2008
  51. "Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia", Applications Nos. 44574, 98 and 48316, pp.99, 2008[DOI]
  52. "Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom", Application No. 61498, 2009
  53. "Medvedyev and Others v. France", Application No. 3394, 2010
  54. "Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom", Application No. 55721, 2011
  55. "Catan and Others v the Republic of Moldova and Russia", Application No. 43370, 2012
  56. "Jaloud v. the Netherlands", Application No. 47708, 2014
  57. "M.N. and Others v. Belgium", Application No. 3599, 2020
  58. "Hanan v. Germany", Application No. 4871, 2021
  59. Ecuador v. Colombia, Inter-Am, , Comm’n H.R., ~, pp.Comm’n H.R., Report No. 112 (2010), 10
  60. Coard et al. v. United States, Case No. 10.951, Inter-Am, , Comm’n H.R., ~, pp.Comm’n H.R., Report No. 109 (1999), 99
  61. Alejandre et al. v. Cuba, Case No. 11.589, Inter-Am, , Comm’n H.R., ~, pp.Comm’n H.R., Report No. 86 (1999), 99
  62. The Haitian Centre for Human Rights et al. v. United States, Case No. 10.675, Inter-Am, , Comm’n H.R., ~, pp.Comm’n H.R., Report No. 51 (1997), 96
  63. Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment, , Inter-Am.Ct.H.R, ~, pp.Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (ser. C)Report No. 22 (1988), 86
  64. State Obligations in relation to the Environment in the Context of the Protection and Guarantee of the Rights to life and to Personal Integrity: Interpretation and scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, , Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., ~, pp.Advisory Opinion OC-23 (2017), 17
  65. Trail Smelter Case (United States of America v. Canada), , International Arbitral Awards, ~ (1941)
  66. "Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, Decision", International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ~ (1995)
  67. "BVerfG, 1 BvR 2835", 17, 2020
  68. CESCR(Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), "General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11 of the Covenant)", U.N. Doc. E, 1999, pp.5, 1999[DOI]
  69. CESCR, "General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12 of the Covenant)", U.N. Doc. E, 2000, pp.4, 2000[DOI]
  70. CESCR, "Statement on Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", U.N. Doc. E, 2001, pp.10, 2001[DOI]
  71. CESCR, "General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant)", U.N. Doc. E, 2002, pp.11, 2003[DOI]
  72. CESCR, "General Comment No. 18: The Right to Work (Art. 6 of the Covenant)", U.N. Doc. E, GC, pp.18, 2006[DOI]
  73. CESCR, "General Comment No. 19: The Right to Social Security (Art. 9 of the Covenant)", U.N. Doc. E, GC, pp.19, 2008[DOI]
  74. CESCR, "General Comment No. 20: Non-discrimination (Art. 2, Para. 22 of the Covenant)", U.N. Doc. E, GC, pp.20, 2009[DOI]
  75. CESCR, "Concluding Observations: Israel", U.N. Doc. E, ISR, pp.CO, 3[DOI]
  76. CESCR, "General Comment No. 23: The Right to Just and Favourable Condition of Work (Art. 7 of the Covenant)", U.N. Doc. E, GC, pp.23, 2016[DOI]
  77. CESCR, "General Comment No. 24: State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities", U.N. Doc. E, GC, pp.24, 2017[DOI]
  78. CESCR, "Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of Australia", UN Doc. E, AUS, pp.CO, 5[DOI]
  79. CESCR, "Concluding Observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of the Netherlands", E, 2017, pp.12~
  80. CESCR, "Concluding Observations on the Fourth Periodic Report of Israel", U.N. Doc. E, ISR, pp.CO, 4[DOI]
  81. Commission of Human Rights, "6th Sess., Summary Record of the Hundred and Thirty-eighth Meeting", U.N. Doc. E, SR.138, pp.1950, ~
  82. Committee Against Torture, "Conclusions and Recommendations: United State", U.N. Doc. CAT, USA, pp.CO, 2[DOI]
  83. Committee Against Torture, "General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties", U.N. Doc. CAT, GC, pp.2, 2008[DOI]
  84. Declaration on the Right to Development, "G.A. Res. 41", 128, RES, pp.41, 128[DOI]
  85. Human Rights Committee, "Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay", U.N. Doc. A, 40, pp.1981, ~
  86. Human Rights Committee, "General Comment No. 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant", U.N. Doc. CCPR, 21, pp.Rev.1, Add.13[DOI]
  87. Human Rights Committee, "Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Annex I", U.N. Doc. CCPR, USA, pp.3, 2005[DOI]
  88. Human Rights Committee, "Concluding Observations: United States of America", U.N. Doc. CCPR, USA, pp.CO, 3[DOI]
  89. Human Rights Committee, "General Comment No. 36: Article 6 (Right to Life)", U.N. Doc. CCPR, GC, pp.36, 2018[DOI]
  90. International Law Commission, "Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities", U.N. Doc. A, 10, pp.2006, ~
  91. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "G.A. Res. 217 (III) A", U.N. Doc. A, 217(III), pp.1948, 217~
  92. United Nations Millennium Declaration, "G.A. Res. 55", 2 (VIII), RES, pp.55, 2[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

국제인권조약의 장소적 적용범위 확대 － 역외적용 가능성에 대한 일반적 고찰 －최지현안암법학회 · 안암법학2011 · 제34호국제인권법상 국가의 역외적 인권보호의무 -다국적 기업에 의한 해외 인권침해의 맥락에서-이상수법학연구소 · 홍익법학2021 · 제22권 제3호국제인권규범과 헌법: 통합적 관계 구성을 위한 이론적⋅실천적 고찰신윤진법학연구소 · 서울대학교 법학2020 · 제61권 제1호국가의 적극적 인권의무에 대한 체계적 이해와 소수자 인권 맥락에서의 고찰신윤진한국인권학회 · 인권연구2025 · 제8권 제2호다국적 기업의 인권보호의무 강화방안정성숙법학연구소 · 일감법학2025 · 제60호국제인권조약의 국내적 효력과 그 적용을 둘러싼 몇 가지 고찰박찬운사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2007 · 제56권 제6호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (4건)

코로나19 위기 온택트 경험을 통해 살펴본 정보격차 연구김현숙, 황혜미pp. 1-45인권연구 4권 1호 권두언이주영pp. 2-4성적지향에 기초한 차별에 관한 연구: 국내법 사례를 중심으로김태환pp. 47-100장애여성운동, 교차하는 억압에 저항하는 횡단의 정치: 장애여성공감 20주년 선언문 <시대와 불화하는 불구의 정치>에 대한 교차성 페미니즘적 독해정정훈pp. 177-205
원문 보기