본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

법원 판결을 통해 살펴 본 국제인권조약의 국내 이행- 국제인권조약의 적용 여부가 문제된 사례를 중심으로 -

A Review on the Internal Implementation of International Human Rights Treaties: Focusing on Cases in which the Court Examined the Application of International Human Rights Treaties

홍관표
법학연구원 (Legal Research Institute of Korea University)|2015.03|법학논총 (The Legal Studies Institute of Chosun University)|제32권 제1호|pp. 81-102|DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18018/HYLR.2015.32.1.081

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

인권국제인권법Human RightsInternational Human Rights Law인권조약기구법원 판결국내 이행Court RulingInternal ImplementationHuman Rights Treaty Bodies
주제분류법학

초록

As for internal implementation of international human rights treaties, it has asignificant meaning whether the treaties concerned can be invoked before thecourts in actual cases as much as whether they are incorporated into the domesticlegal system. Many guidelines for preparing a country report in accordance withinternational human rights treaties stress the need of including cases where thecourts have quoted the concerned treaties as a trial norm. It is also consideredquite seriously in the process of reviewing such reports. Article 6 of the Korean Constitution prescribes that “treaties duly concluded andpromulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules ofinternational law have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic ofKorea.” Accordingly, any international treaties that Korea has signed and ratifiedcan be applied to a domestic court case without legislation. However, apart fromsuch legal ground, international human rights treaties have been invoked only in alimited number of cases, and therefore researches analyzing those cases have neverbeen enough so far. For the purpose of analyzing the current state of internal implementation ofinternational human rights treaties in court rulings, this study finds relevant casesthrough a keyword search based on seven international human rights treaties thatKorea has signed and ratified among the Core International Human RightsInstruments mentioned on the website of the UN Office of High Commissioner forHuman Rights (OHCHR) and tries to categorize the said cases by issue and type of application. With this approach, this article verifies a series of issues in applyingthe international human rights treaties by the courts and makes suggestions toconsider for better implementation of such treaties in domestic cases. By doing so,it could contribute to inducing a progressive change of the courts in Korea tosecure the legal effectiveness of international human rights treaties in the future.

Abstract

As for internal implementation of international human rights treaties, it has asignificant meaning whether the treaties concerned can be invoked before thecourts in actual cases as much as whether they are incorporated into the domesticlegal system. Many guidelines for preparing a country report in accordance withinternational human rights treaties stress the need of including cases where thecourts have quoted the concerned treaties as a trial norm. It is also consideredquite seriously in the process of reviewing such reports. Article 6 of the Korean Constitution prescribes that “treaties duly concluded andpromulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules ofinternational law have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic ofKorea.” Accordingly, any international treaties that Korea has signed and ratifiedcan be applied to a domestic court case without legislation. However, apart fromsuch legal ground, international human rights treaties have been invoked only in alimited number of cases, and therefore researches analyzing those cases have neverbeen enough so far. For the purpose of analyzing the current state of internal implementation ofinternational human rights treaties in court rulings, this study finds relevant casesthrough a keyword search based on seven international human rights treaties thatKorea has signed and ratified among the Core International Human RightsInstruments mentioned on the website of the UN Office of High Commissioner forHuman Rights (OHCHR) and tries to categorize the said cases by issue and type of application. With this approach, this article verifies a series of issues in applyingthe international human rights treaties by the courts and makes suggestions toconsider for better implementation of such treaties in domestic cases. By doing so,it could contribute to inducing a progressive change of the courts in Korea tosecure the legal effectiveness of international human rights treaties in the future.

참고문헌 (67)

  1. 김대순, "국제법론" (2006), 삼영사
  2. 박찬운, "인권법" (2011), 한울
  3. 박찬운, "인권법의 신동향" (2012), 한울
  4. 성낙인, "헌법학" (2013), 법문사
  5. 채형복, "국제인권법(제2판)" (2013), 높이깊이
  6. 한수웅, "헌법학" (2013), 법문사
  7. Ben Saul, "The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – Commentary, Cases and Materials -" (2014), Oxford University Press
  8. Manfred Nowak, "The United Nations Convention against Torture – A Commentary -" (2008), Oxford University Press
  9. Marsha A. Freeman, "The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women –A Commentary -" (2012), Oxford University Press
  10. Olivier De Schutter, "International Human Rights Law" (2014), Cambridge University Press
  11. Sarah Joseph, "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights –Cases, Materials and Commentary-" (2013), Oxford University Press
  12. 김태천, "재판과정을 통한 국제인권협약의 국내적 이행", 인권법연구 (2005), 인권법연구소 카톨릭대학교 법학부
  13. 대법원 국제인권법연구회, "국제인권법의 국내이행과 법원", 대법원 ․ 법무부 국제인권법연구회 공동학술대회 (2013), 대법원 ․ 법무부 국제인권법연구회
  14. 박찬운, "국제인권조약의 국내적 효력과 그 적용을 둘러싼 몇 가지 고찰", 법조, 56(6), pp.141~179 (2007), 법조협회
  15. 이근관, "자유권규약위원회 견해(view)의 규범적 효력에 관한 고찰", 서울국제법연구, 13(1), pp.1~27 (2006), 서울국제법연구원
  16. 정경수, "국제인권법의 국내 적용에 관한 비판적 분석", 민주법학, (17) (2000), 민주주의법학연구회
  17. 대법원, "1993. 12. 24. 선고 93도1711 판결", ~
  18. 대법원, "1997. 6. 13. 선고 96다56115 판결", ~
  19. 대법원, "1999. 1. 26. 선고 98두16620 판결", ~
  20. 대법원, "1999. 3. 26. 선고 96다55877 판결", ~
  21. 대법원, "2002. 10. 25. 선고 2002다32332 판결", ~
  22. 대법원, "2004. 7. 15. 선고 2004도2965 전원합의체 판결", ~
  23. 대법원, "2005. 5. 13. 자 2005초기189 결정", ~
  24. 대법원, "2005. 7. 21. 선고 2002다1178 전원합의체 판결", ~
  25. 대법원, "2005. 8. 19. 선고 2004도6859 판결", ~
  26. 대법원, "2007. 12. 27. 선고 2007도7941 판결", ~
  27. 대법원, "2008. 5. 29. 선고 2004다33469 판결", ~
  28. 대법원, "2008. 11. 13. 선고 2006도755 판결", ~
  29. 대법원, "2011. 1. 20. 선고 2008도10479 전원합의체 판결", ~
  30. 서울고등법원, "1995. 12. 5. 선고 94구26662 판결", ~
  31. 서울고등법원, "2005. 4. 13. 2004나13610 판결", ~
  32. 서울고등법원, "2006. 2. 14. 선고 2005나27906 판결", ~
  33. 서울고등법원, "2007. 7. 24. 선고 2006나112658 판결", ~
  34. 서울고등법원, "2009. 2. 10. 선고 2007나72665 판결", ~
  35. 서울고등법원, "2012. 1. 19. 선고 2011나16525, 16532(병합) 판결", ~
  36. 서울고등법원, "2013. 11. 8. 선고 2011재노155 판결", ~
  37. 서울고등법원, "2013. 12. 24. 선고 2012재노68 판결", ~
  38. 서울고등법원, "2014. 4. 18. 선고 2013누45807 판결", ~
  39. 대전고등법원, "1999. 11. 19. 선고 99노231 판결", ~
  40. 부산고등법원, "2004. 5. 7. 선고 2001나15255 판결", ~
  41. 부산고등법원, "2013. 11. 13. 선고 2011누4053 판결", ~
  42. 서울지방법원, "2000. 4. 12. 선고 99노10804 판결", ~
  43. 서울지방법원, "2002. 1. 29. 선고 2001고합1050, 1228(병합) 판결", ~
  44. 서울지방법원, "2003. 7. 9. 선고 2003노1118 판결", ~
  45. 서울중앙지방법원, "2011. 7. 22. 선고 2010가단263368 판결", ~
  46. 서울중앙지방법원, "2012. 5. 23. 선고 2011가단43400 판결", ~
  47. 서울중앙지방법원, "2013. 5. 9. 선고 2013노943 판결", ~
  48. 서울중앙지방법원, "2014. 6. 11. 선고 2013가합565833 판결", ~
  49. 서울남부지방법원, "2013. 10. 17. 선고 2013고합16, 56, 73(병합) 판결", ~
  50. 서울서부지방법원, "2013. 11. 21. 선고 2013고합267 판결", ~
  51. 서울행정법원, "2011. 9. 15. 선고 2011구합5094, 18687(병합) 판결", ~
  52. 서울행정법원, "2013. 6. 27. 선고 2013구합3269 판결", ~
  53. 대전지방법원, "1999. 4. 1. 선고 99고합6 판결", ~
  54. 대전지방법원, "2003. 10. 15. 선고 2003고단3412 판결", ~
  55. 대전지방법원, "2003. 11. 5. 선고 2003고단2155 판결", ~
  56. 대전지방법원, "2012. 2. 2. 선고 2011노1844 판결", ~
  57. 부산지방법원, "2011. 9. 30. 선고 2011구합2140 판결", ~
  58. 수원지방법원, "2009. 10. 8. 선고 2008가합19235 판결", ~
  59. 의정부지방법원 고양지원, "2011. 11. 3. 선고 2009초기1110 결정", ~
  60. 전주지방법원 김제시법원, "2013. 11. 13. 선고 2013가소2582 판결", ~
  61. Human Rights Committee, "General Comment No. 22 Article 18: The Rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (CCPR", C, Rev.1, pp.Add.4)[DOI]
  62. Human Rights Committee, "General Comment No. 33 The Obligations of States Parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (CCPR", C, 33), 2008[DOI]
  63. Human Rights Committee, "General Comment No. 34 Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression (CCPR", C, 34), 2011[DOI]
  64. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, "General Comment No. 20 Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 2, para. 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) (E", C.12, 20), 2009[DOI]
  65. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, "General recommendation XXX on discrimination against non-citizens (HRI", GEN, Rev.9(Vol. Ⅱ), 2005[DOI]
  66. Human Rights Committee, "Decision Communication No. 204", 1986 A.P. v. Italy (CCPR, 31, pp.D, 204[DOI]
  67. Committee against Torture, "Decision Communication No. 219", 2002 G.K. v. Switzerland (CAT, 30, pp.D, 219[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

국제인권조약의 국내적 효력과 그 적용을 둘러싼 몇 가지 고찰박찬운사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2007 · 제56권 제6호Korea’s Judicial Interpretation and Application of International Law정명현한국법제연구원 · Korea Legislation Research Institute Journal of Law and Legislation2020 · 제10권 제1호국제인권규범과 헌법: 통합적 관계 구성을 위한 이론적⋅실천적 고찰신윤진법학연구소 · 서울대학교 법학2020 · 제61권 제1호헌법재판에서 국제인권조약의 원용가능성 : 미국, 남아프리카 공화국, 우리나라의 사례를 중심으로류성진법학연구소 · 아주법학2013 · 제7권 제1호우리나라에서의 국제형법의 전망과 과제- 국제형사규범의 국내법원을 통한 국내적 이행을 중심으로 -조병선한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2007 · 제19권 제4호한국의 인권조약 비준ㆍ가입의 성취와 과제정경수안암법학회 · 안암법학2008 · 제통권 제26호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

외국 우수인력 유치를 위한 이민법제 개선방안 - 외국 우수인력의 영주자격 및 국적 취득을 중심으로 -김상태pp. 1-22언론보도에 따른 범죄피해자의 2차 피해방지를 위한 법제 등의 검토와 그 개선방안강동욱pp. 23-54영국의 공공조달계약과 노동조건 연계정책김근주pp. 55-80타보험계약의 존재와 고지의무최준규pp. 103-126영국 해상보험법상 고지의무와 워런티 위반에 관한 최근 판례 동향 - SEA GLORY 사건의 보험금을 중심으로 -정영석, 정해석pp. 127-147
원문 보기