국내법 우선 적용 조항과 비엔나 협약 제27조
Domestic Law Superiority Provision Contained in Implementing Legislations for Trade Agreements and Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Korea-U. S. FTA has caused various controversies in Korea relating to many subjects. One of such subjects fomenting debates is the provision contained in the implementing legislation of the United States to implement the Korea-U. S. FTA, which provides that U. S. domestic law will apply in the United States in the case of conflict between the FTA and the domestic law. Some people interpret this as a basis for the United States to denounce its obligation under the Korea-U. S. FTA and virtually vitiate the FTA with Korea. In fact, this provision appears in all trade agreements that the United States has concluded since the WTO Agreements in 1994. A more careful reading of the provision indicates that this provision is simply the reflection of the unique nature of the United States in accepting international law (that is,treaties) into its domestic legal system. As regards trade agreements, the United States follows a so-called dualism concept, which always requires domestic implementing legislation and which stands for the proposition that what applies domestically is the domestic legislation, not the treaties themselves. The domestic law superiority provision is the one that reflects this dualism trait in the U. S. law. Thus, it could constitute an exaggeration to portray this provision as a authorized permission of the United States to deviate from the treaty obligations. In addition, established international law jurisprudence has made clear that no country is allowed to justify its international law violation (that is, treaty violation) by relying upon its domestic law. This basically means that the domestic implementing legislation does not actually protect the United States in the case of its violation of the Korea-U. S. FTA. The WTO or FTA panels that hear a dispute between Korea and the United States will simply apply the Korea-U. S. FTA as it is written, and the U. S. domestic law or the Korean domestic law will not provide a binding norm for the panels. In the light of this discussion, the recent debate on the Korea-U. S. FTA relating to the U. S. domestic implementing legislation does not seem to accurately address the reality or is otherwise based on appropriate analysis. More cautious and accurate analyses and discussions would be in order.
Abstract
The Korea-U. S. FTA has caused various controversies in Korea relating to many subjects. One of such subjects fomenting debates is the provision contained in the implementing legislation of the United States to implement the Korea-U. S. FTA, which provides that U. S. domestic law will apply in the United States in the case of conflict between the FTA and the domestic law. Some people interpret this as a basis for the United States to denounce its obligation under the Korea-U. S. FTA and virtually vitiate the FTA with Korea. In fact, this provision appears in all trade agreements that the United States has concluded since the WTO Agreements in 1994. A more careful reading of the provision indicates that this provision is simply the reflection of the unique nature of the United States in accepting international law (that is,treaties) into its domestic legal system. As regards trade agreements, the United States follows a so-called dualism concept, which always requires domestic implementing legislation and which stands for the proposition that what applies domestically is the domestic legislation, not the treaties themselves. The domestic law superiority provision is the one that reflects this dualism trait in the U. S. law. Thus, it could constitute an exaggeration to portray this provision as a authorized permission of the United States to deviate from the treaty obligations. In addition, established international law jurisprudence has made clear that no country is allowed to justify its international law violation (that is, treaty violation) by relying upon its domestic law. This basically means that the domestic implementing legislation does not actually protect the United States in the case of its violation of the Korea-U. S. FTA. The WTO or FTA panels that hear a dispute between Korea and the United States will simply apply the Korea-U. S. FTA as it is written, and the U. S. domestic law or the Korean domestic law will not provide a binding norm for the panels. In the light of this discussion, the recent debate on the Korea-U. S. FTA relating to the U. S. domestic implementing legislation does not seem to accurately address the reality or is otherwise based on appropriate analysis. More cautious and accurate analyses and discussions would be in order.
참고문헌 (39)
- 김대순, "국제법론(16판)" (2011), 삼영사
- 정인섭, "신국제법강의: 이론과사례" (2010), 박영사
- 이병조, "국제법신강" (2008), 일조각
- 국제법(조약,관습법)의 국내적 적용체계에 관한 연구, "최태현", 법제처, ~ (2007)
- 정종섭, "헌법학원론" (2010), 박영사
- 이찬열, "대한민국과 미합중국간의 자유무역협정 및 대한민국과 미합중국간 자유무역협정에 관한 서한교환 이행에 관한 특별법안", ~ (2011)
- 전국경제인연합회, "한-EU FTA 주요 업종별 영향과 대응전략", FKI Issue Paper, (76) (2007)
- 대법원, "대법원 2005. 9. 9. 선고 2004추10 판결", ~ (2005)
- 헌법재판소, "헌법재판소 97헌바65 결정, 1998년 11월 26일", ~ (1998)
- 대법원, "대법원 1986. 7. 22. 선고 82다카1372판결", ~ (1986)
- Martin Dixon, "Textbook on International Law" (2005), Oxford University Press
- John H. Jackson, "Sovereignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept", AM. J. INT’L L, 97 (2003)
- J. L. Brierly, "The Law of Nations" (1976), Oxford University Press
- Antonio Cassese, "International Law" (2005), Oxford University Press
- Burns H. Weston, "International Law and World Order" (1997), West Publishing Co
- Barry E. Carter, "International Law" (2003), Aspen Publishers
- Malcolm N. Shaw, "International Law", ~ (2003)
- "The Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action (SAA)", ~
- "United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act", Public Law No: 112-41, ~ (2011)
- Barceló III, John J, "The Status of WTO Rules in U. S. Law" (2006), Cornell Law Faculty Publications
- USTR, "The 2007 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE)", ~ (2007)
- CRS Report for Congress, "The Proposed South Korea-U. S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA)", ~ (2007)
- "Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products: Resolution of NTBs through a Facilitative Mechanism, Submission by NAMA 11 Group of Developing Countries (Addendum),", TN, W, pp.68, Add. 1[DOI]
- "Concerning Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (The Merits) (F. R. G. v Pol. ), 1928 P. C. I. J. (ser. A) No. 17", ~ (1928)
- "Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, (Fr. v. Switz. ), 1932 P. C. I. J. (ser. A) No. 22", ~ (1932)
- "Appeal from a Judgment of the Hungaro", Czechoslovak Mixed Arbitral Tribunal (The Peter Pazmany University), Judgment, B, No. 61, pp.1933, ~
- "Concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States in Morocco, (Fr. v. U. S. )", I. C. J. 176 (Aug. 27), ~ (1952)
- "United States-Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews-Recourse To Article 21. 5 Of The DSU By Japan, Appellate Body Report", WT, AB, pp.RW, 2009[DOI]
- "Canada-Export Credits And Loan Guarantees For Regional Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Canada under Article 22. 6 of the DSU and Article 4. 11 of the SCM Agreement", Decision by the Arbitrator, WT, ARB, pp.2003, ~
- "United States-Subsidies on Upland Cotton-Recourse to Article 21. 5 of the DSU by Brazil", Panel Report, WT, RW, pp.2007, ~
- "Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon-Recourse to Article 21. 5 by Canada", Panel Report, WT, RW, pp.2000, ~
- "Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil Under Article 22. 6 of the DSU and Article 4. 11 of the SCM Agreement", Decision by the Arbitrators, WT, ARB, pp.2000, ~
- "Brazil-Export Financing Programme for Aircraft-Recourse By Canada to Article 21. 5 of the DSU", Panel Report, WT, RW, pp.2000, ~
- "United States-Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities", Panel Report, WT, R, pp.2000, ~
- "Mexico-Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services", Panel Report, WT, R, pp.2004, ~
- "United States-Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974", Panel Report, WT, R, pp.1999, ~
- "China-Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights", WT, R, pp.2009, ~
- "United States-Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft", WT, 353, ~
- "European Communities and Certain Member States-Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft", WT, 347, ~