드론 표적살해와 국제법의 간극 - ‘계속적 무력충돌’ 개념을 중심으로
Drone Targeted Killings and Normative Gap in International Law - Focusing on the Notion of ‘Ongoing Armed Conflict’ -
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
테러리스트들에 대한 드론을 사용한 표적살해로 대표되는 ‘테러와의 전쟁’에 있어서 드론은 단순히 여러 무기중 하나가 아니라 ‘바로 그 무기’가 된 것으로 보인다. 예전에는 총과 대포를 들고 싸웠다면, 최소한 ‘테러와의 전쟁’에 있어서는 이제 ‘드론’을 가지고 싸운다고 말할 수 있다. 총과 대포를 가지고 싸우는 전장은 지리적으로 한정될 수밖에 없지만, 드론을 가지고 싸우는 전장은 지리적으로 한정되지 않는다. 시간적 측면을 살펴볼 때에도, 드론을 사용한 미국의 ‘테러와의 전쟁’은 9/11 이후 거의 20년 간 진행중이다. 평시와 전시를 구분하고, 전쟁은 상대적으로 짧은 기간 동안에 지리적으로 한정된 지 역에서 발생하는 예외적인 현상이라는 전제 하에 발전한 기존 국제법 특히 국제인도법은 이러한 상황이 당혹스러울 수밖에 없다. 드론을 사용한 표적살해가 주된 수단이 되고 있는 새로운 전쟁 유형은 기존 국제법의 간극을 드러 내고 있다. 미국은 드론 표적살해를 국제법적으로 정당화하기 위해 ‘계속적 무력충돌’이라는 새로운 개념을 제시⋅원용하고 있는데, 이는 전통적 무력충돌 유형인 ‘국제적 무력충돌’과 ‘비국제적 무력충 돌’에 더하여 제3의 무력충돌 유형을 인정받아 드론을 사용한 표적살해에 국제인도법을 적용시키려는 의도로 보인다. 국제인도법이 적용되는 무력충돌 상황에서는 적에 대한 살해행위가 합법이기 때문이 다. 드론을 통해 현실이 된 새로운 전쟁 양상에 대해 앞으로 국제법이 어떠한 대처를 할지 계속 주목 할 필요가 있다. 이 논문은 주로 ‘테러와의 전쟁’의 맥락에서 미국이 드론을 사용한 표적살해를 정당화하기 위해 주 장한 두 가지 법적 근거 즉 ‘Jus ad bellum 상 자위권 행사’와 ‘국제인도법상 무력충돌 상황의 존재’ 중 후자에 초점을 맞춘다. 아래에서 이어질 논의의 핵심은 미국이 주장하고 있는 ‘계속적 무력충돌’이 라는 개념으로 대표되는 새로운 무력충돌 유형에 대한 법적 타당성 검토와 그에 대한 국제법의 대응이다. 여기서 국제법의 대응이라 함은 다음의 두 가지 대응방안 중 하나를 선택하는 것을 말한다. 즉, Martti Koskenniemi의 도식을 적용하여 본다면, ‘현실적합성(concreteness)’에 무게를 두어 기존의 두 가지 무력충돌 상황에 더해 ‘계속적 무력충돌’이라는 제3의 새로운 무력충돌 유형을 인정할 것인지, 아니면 ‘규범성(normativity)’를 중시하여 특히 20세기 중반 유엔설립 이후 국제사회가 발전시켜 온 국제평화 및 무력사용에 대한 Jus ad bellum, 국제인도법, 국제인권법 체계의 더욱 엄격한 적용을 관 철할 것인지의 선택을 말한다.
Abstract
For decades after 9/11, the United States has actively been using drones for the purpose of targeted killings of terrorists. In the context of the ‘war on terror’, it appears that drones have become ‘the weapon’ rather than simply one of many weapons targeting terrorists. Simply put, they fight the ‘war on terror’ with drones. The traditional warfare fought with conventional weapons are limited in terms of their temporal and geographical scope. Contrastingly, the new battlefields where drones are the main means of military engagements are not temporally and geographically restricted. The ‘war on terror’ after the 9/11 has continued for almost 20 years across the borders of many states. The basic tenet of international law is that it distinguishes war and peace. On that basis, international humanitarian law has been developed under the assumption that war is a relatively short-term affair with limited geographical scope. Because war is an exception, a lower level of respect for ‘right to life’ has been condoned. You can legitimately kill your enemy during the war. However, the new phenomenon of exceedingly protracted drone wars is likely to shake the foundation of international law distinguishing war and peace. That is to say, the new type of war using drones seems to reveal a normative gap in international law. In this context, the United States put forward and invokes the new concept of ‘ongoing armed conflict’ for the purpose of legitimizing its drone warfare. This paper seeks to analyze the legality of the new notion of ‘ongoing armed conflict’ invoked by the governmental officials of the United States, which urges international law to recognize the third type of armed conflict in addition to the traditional international and non-international armed conflict. If this new category of armed conflict becomes law, it is easier for the United States to justify its targeted killing exercises against terrorists because they fall into the realm of legitimate combat activities within the applicable scope of international humanitarian law. How should international law respond to this challenge? There are two options for international law: Borrowing the words from Koskenniemi, espousing ‘concreteness’ and accept the new reality by recognizing the third category of armed conflict or reinforcing ‘normativity’ and strictly applying the existing international law on peace, security and war. International law is still oscillating between lex ferenda and lex lata.
참고문헌 (49)
- 김성원, "의사 또는 능력 결여론에 대한 비판적 검토", 국제법학회논총, 65(3), pp.47~76 (2020), 대한국제법학회[DOI]
- 도경옥, "시리아 내 ISIL 공습에 대한 국제법적 분석", 국제법학회논총, 61(1), pp.103~128 (2016), 대한국제법학회
- 안준형, "국제인도법상 불법전투원의 법적 지위", 서울국제법연구, 28(1), pp.131~165 (2021), 서울국제법연구원[DOI]
- 안준형, "국제인도법상 무력충돌의 유형과 그 적용", 국제법학회논총, 63(4), pp.403~442 (2018), 대한국제법학회
- 정인섭, "신국제법강의(제12판)" (2022), 박영사
- Alston, Philip, "Using International Law to Combat Unlawful Targeted Killings" (2011), Oxford University Press
- Anderson, Ken., "More Predator Drone Debate, in the War Street Journal, and What the Obama Administration Should Do as a Public Legal Position", The Volokh Conspiracy (2010)
- Banks, William, "Targeted Killing and Assassination: The U.S. Legal Framework", University of Richmond Law Review, 37(3) (2003)
- Brooks, Rosa, "How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything" (2017), Simon & Schuster
- "Drone and the International Rule of Law", Ethics & International Affairs, 28(1) (2014)
- DeYoung, Karen., "Newly declassified document sheds light on how president approves drone strikes", The Washington Post (2016)
- Downes, Chris., "Targeted Killings in an Age of Terror: The Legality of the Yemen Strike", Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 9(2) (2004)
- Egan, Brian, "International Law, Legal Diplomacy, and the Counter-ISIL Campaign: Some Observations", International Legal Studies, 92 (2016)
- Fleck, Dieter, "The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts" (1995), Oxford University Press
- Gray, Christine., "International Law and the Use of Force" (2018), Oxford University Press
- Greenawalt, Alexander K. A., "If War Is Everywhere, Then Must the Law Be Nowhere", Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, 32(1) (2018)
- Gunneflo, Markus., "Targeted Killing: A Legal and Political History" (2016), Cambridge University Press
- Heyns, Christof., "The International Law Framework Regulating the Use of Armed Drones", International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(4) (2016)
- Higgins, Rosalyn., "Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use it" (1994), Oxford University Press
- Jinks, Derek, "September 11 and the Laws of War", Yale Journal of International Law, 28(1) (2003)
- Koh, Harold Hongju., "The Obama Administration and International Law", Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, 25 (2010)
- Koskenniemi, Martti., "From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument" (2005), Cambridge University Press
- Melzer, Nils., "Targeted Killing in International Law" (2008), Oxford University Press
- Milanovic, Marko., "Drones and Targeted Killings: Can Self-Defense Preclude Their Wrongfulness?", EJIL Talk! (2010)
- Nicholls, Dominic., "Ninja bomb could increase use of drone strikes, warn military experts", The Telegraph (2020)
- Obama, Barack., "Remark by the President at the National Defense University" (2013)
- Pejic, Jelena, "Terrorist Acts and Groups: A Role for International Law?", British Yearbook of International Law, 75(1) (2004)
- Radin, Sasha, "Global Armed Conflict? The Threshold of Extraterritorial Non-International Armed Conflict", International Legal Studies, 89 (2013)
- Ruys, Tom., "License to Kill? State-Sponsored Assassination under International Law", Military Law and Law of War Review, 44 (2005)
- Saif, Atef Abu, "Sleepless in Gaza: Israeli Drone War on Gaza Strip", Losa Luxemburg Stiftung (2014)
- Sassoli, Marco, "Transnational Armed Groups and International Humanitarian Law", HPCR Occasional Paper Series, (6) (2006)
- Savage, Charlie., "Trump Poised to Drop Some Limits on Drone Strikes and Commando Raids", The New York Times (2017)
- Vlasic, Mark Vincent., "Cloak and Dagger Diplomacy: The U.S. and Assassination", Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 95 (2000)
- Werle, Gerhard, "Principles of International Criminal Law" (2014), Oxford University Press
- Amnesty International, "The United States of America: ‘Targeted Killing’ Policies Violates the Right to Life", ~ (2012)
- Holder, Eric., "Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of Law", United The States Department of Justice website (2012)
- Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "The Operation in Gaza, Factual and Legal Aspects", ~ (2009)
- The White House, "Office of the Press Secretary, Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the President’s Speech on Counterterrorism", ~ (2013)
- The White House, "Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and Laws" (2011), Remarks at Harvard Law School
- The White House, "National Security Strategy", ~ (2010)
- U.K. Attorney General’s Office, "Attorney General’s speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies", ~ (2017)
- U.S. Department of Justice, "Procedure for Approving Direct Action against Terrorist Targets located outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities", Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) (2013)
- U.S. Supreme Court, "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S", ~
- "제네바협약 제1 및 제2 추가의정서", ~ (1977)
- Alston, Philip., "Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Study on targeted killings", Human Rights Council (2010)
- Heyns, Christof, "Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions", ~ (2014)
- "Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 23 April-1 June and 2 July-10 August 2001", Official Records of the General Assembly, ~ (2001)
- Prosecutor v. Tadić, "IT-94-1-A, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction", ~ (1995)
- U.N. Security Council, "Resolution 1566 (2004), Adopted by the Security Council at its 5053rd meeting", U. N. Doc. S, 1566, pp.2004, ~