국제법상 선제적 무력행사의 합법성에 대한 검토
Review on the Legality of the Pre-emptive Force under International Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
알 카에다 테러조직이 2001년 9월 11일, 세계무역센터와 미 국방성을 공격하는 대참사가 발생하자, 자위의 문제를 근본적으로 재논의해야 한다는 주장이 제기되었다. 부시 대통령은 테러와의 전쟁을 선언하고, 선제적 무력행사는 미국의 ‘국가안보전략’의 일부가 된다고 천명했다. 오늘날, 무력행사는 일반적으로 안보이사회의 수권과 자위의 경우에만 가능하다. 그런데 자위는 실제의 무력공격이나 무력공격에 버금가는 사태를 전제로 한다. 그렇다고 해서 위협이 급박할 경우에 잠재적 피공격국에게 자위권의 행사를 위해 무력공격을 당할 때까지 기다릴 것을 요구할 수는 없다. 그러나 이 경우의 무력행사도 국제관습법상의 ‘필요성’ 및 ‘균형성’의 원칙을 준수해야 한다. 그런데 어떤 자는 예상되는 무력공격의 진원지가 되는 국가가 그 공격을 저지할 의사, 또는 능력이 없거나 또는 그 공격에 대해 책임이 있을 경우에는 필요성의 기준을 완화할 필요가 있다고 주장한다. 즉, 잠재적 피공격국은 선제적 무력행사를 적극적으로 고려할 수 있다는 것이다. 미국의 국가안보전략에서 주창하는 ‘선제조치’는 아직은 용인할 수 없는 예비적 자위의 확대를 의미한다. 그러나 선제적 자위의 모호함 그리고 남용의 가능성 때문에 오히려 과거의 방식에 머무는 것이 현명하다고 판단된다. 새로운 변화는 무력행사금지 원칙의 파기를 불러 올지도 모른다. 최근에 대두된 ‘새로운 위협’은 오히려 안보이사회에서 논의하는 것이 바람직할 것 같다.
Abstract
After terrorists attacked on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September, a fundamental reappraisal of the law on self-defense comes out. President Bush declared a war on terrorism. Finally pre-emption and prevention of attacks have become a part of the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Today the use of military forces is only available if it is authorized by the Security Council and under the name of self-defense. Self-defense requires the actual existence of an armed attack or a situation to be considered as equivalent to an armed attack and the observance of the principles of necessity and proportionality under customary international law. But if a threat is so direct and overwhelming, it is impossible to require a potential victim state to wait to act in self-defense until the attack has actually started. It has been generally agreed that anticipatory self-defense must be limited to actions in response to an attack that is imminent and unavoidable by other means. But someone argues a more flexible standards for determining necessity in the case which the state from which attacks are anticipated is either unwilling or unable to prevent the attacks, or may even be responsible for them. In such circumstances, it may be reasonable to expect target states to consider pre-emption. The doctrine of preemptive self-defense formulated in the recent National Security Strategy proposes to adapt this concept to new perceived threats in a way that would constitute an unacceptable expansion of the right of anticipatory self-defense. But because of the vagueness and possibility of abuse of preemptive use of force, we had better maintain the traditional strict approach. A change might result in the abolition of the prohibition of the use of force altogether. To adopt a broader possibilities for preemptive self-defense is not desirable. To face so-called new threats, recourse to the Security Council is preferable to unilateral use of force based on a doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense.
참고문헌 (38)
- 李漢基, "國際法講義", pp.21~29 (1983), 博英社
- Albrecht Randelzhofer, "Article 2(4) in The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed., Vol.1" (2002), Oxford University Press
- Albrecht Randelzhofer, "Article 51 in The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed., Vol.1" (2002), Oxford University Press
- American Society of International Law, "Self-Defense in an Age of Terrorism", society of International Proceeding, 97, pp.147~148 (2003)
- Anthony Clark Arend, "International Law and the Use of Force" (1993), Routledge
- Christine Gray, "International Law and the Use of Force, 2nd ed" (2003), Oxford University Press
- Christine Gray, "The Use of Force and International Legal Order in International Legal Order" (2003), Oxford University Press
- Dinah Shelton, "International Law and ‘Relative Normativity in INTERNATIONAL LAW" (2003), Oxford University Press
- D.W. Bowett, "Self-Defence in International Law" (1958), Manchester University Press
- Ian Brownlie, "International Law and the Use of Force by States" (1963), Oxford University Press
- J.N. Singh, "Use of Force Under International Law", ~ (1984)
- Louis Henkin, "How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed" (1979), Columbia University Press
- Louis Henkin, "International Law: Politics, Values and Functions", Recueil Des Cours, 216 (1989)
- Louis Henkin, "Use of Force: Law and U.S. Policy in Might V. Right, International Law and the Use of Force" (1989), Council on Foreign Relations
- Lipson, "Why Are Some International Agreements Informal? in International Law Norms, Actors, Process, A Problem-Oriented Approach" (2002), Aspen publishers
- Mary Ellen O’Connel, "The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense", ASIL Task Force on Terrorism, ~ (2002), http:
- Oscar Schachter, "International Law in Theory and Practice" (1991), M.Nijhoff
- Peter Malanczuk, "Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th revised ed" (1997), Routledge
- Thomas Franck, "Recourse to Force: State Action against Threat and Armed Attacks" (2002), Cambridge University Press
- C.H.M. Waldock, "The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law", Recueil des Cours, 81 (1951)
- Yoram Dinstein, "War and the Use of Force by States, 3rd ed" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Yoram Dinstein, "War, Agression and Self-Defence, 3rd ed" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Abraham D. Sofaer, "On the Necessity of Pre-emption", European Journal of International Law, 14 (2003)
- Christine Gray, "From Unity to Polarization; International Law and the Use of Force Against Iraq", European Journal of International Law, 13 (2002)
- Christopher Greenwood, "International Law and the Pre-emptive Use of Force; Afghanistan, Al-Qaida and Iraq", San Diego International Law Journal, 4 (2003)
- Mary Ellen O’Connell, "Evidence of Terror", Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 7 (2002)
- Michael Bothe, "Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force", European Journal of International Law, 14 (2003)
- Michael Glenon, "The Fog of Law: Self-Defense, Inherence, and Incoherence in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter", Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 25 (2002)
- Quincy Wright, "The Prevention of Aggression", AJIL, 50 (1956)
- Sean D.Murphy, "Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law", AJ IL, 96 (2002)
- Sean D. Murphy, "Terrorism and the Concept of Armed Attack in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter", Harvard International Law Journal, 43 (2002)
- Sean D. Murphy, "The Doctrine of Preemptive Self-defense", Vilanova Law Review, 50 (2005)
- Thomas Franck, "Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense", AJ IL, 95 (2001)
- Thomas M. Franck, "Who Killed Article 2(4)?", AJ IJ, 64 (1970)
- W. Michael Reisman, "Assessing Claims to Revise the Law of War", AJ IL, 97 (2003)
- "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, I .C.J . Reports 1986", ~
- "Legality of the threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I .C.J . Reports 1996", ~
- "Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgement, I .C.J . Reports 2003", ~