본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

신국제협정: 세 가지 패러다임에 관한 검토와 시사점

Thoughts on the new international law-making: A new form of international agreement revisited from a triptych of academic disciplines

김기영
법학연구원 (Legal Research Institute of Korea University)|2023.08|법학논총 (The Legal Studies Institute of Chosun University)|제30권 제2호|pp. 3-56

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Universalism해석법학신국제협정국제입법헌법과 국제법헌법의 변천보편주의 국제법New form of international agreementInternational law-makingInterpretive jurisprudenceConstitutional law and international lawConstitutional change

초록

전통적인 국제법상 국가간 합의, 즉 강학상 국제조약으로 분류될 수 없는 새로운 방식의 행정협정은 국제사회의 긴밀화와 국제관계의 중요성에 상응하여 정치학, 국제법, 헌법학적으로 많은 다툼을 제공하고 있다. 국제법학자(國際法學者)들은 미국의 대통령이 국제주의자이건 고립주의자이건 국제의무를 기꺼이 받아 들이건 그로부터 탈출하건 상관없이 21세기 국제법의 제정은 형식적 기준보다는 보다 실용적 기준을 통하여 이해하여야 하고, 우리는 헌법이 부여한권한을 보다 현실적으로 공유할 수 있도록 하여야 한다고 주장한다. 한편 국제조약의 헌법적 논란은 1990년 로렌스 트라이브(Laurence Tribe)가 클린턴 정부의 북미자유무역협정 가입을 위한 의회와 행정부간 절차가 위헌적이라고 지적한 것에서 시작한다. 그는 신국제협정은 헌법의 문언과 구조에 반하는 위헌적인 것이라고 주장하고 있다. 한편, 정치학자(政治學者)들은 정치는 가치의 배분이고 신행정협정은 의회 정치의 관점에서 살아 있는 생물과 같이 국내 정치와 국제 정치를 연결시켜주는 것으로 비공식적 절차와 의회 관행에 주목하면서 신국제협정의 필요성과 불가피성을 주장하고 있다. 이러한 학설상 논란 상황에서 우리는 그것이 무엇이며, 어떠한 유형이 있는가 살펴보고, 그 정당성(正當性)에 관한 학설들을 살펴본다. 이러한 논의는 기초적이고 법철학적인 것이지만, 구체적 현실 문제를 이해하는데 도움이 될 수 있다. 신국제협정에관한 학자들의 인식은 접근하는 관점에 따라 달라지는데, 본고에서는 신국제협정에 대한 3가지 패러다임을 살펴보고 그 의의와 시사점을 생각해 본다.

Abstract

From the traditionalist position on international law, a new form of compact agreement, which cannot be classified as an international treaty in terms of academic framework, had long fueled much of contention in politics, international law, and constitutional law. A growing practice of compact agreement had been natural as corresponding with the global compression of international community and rising aspiration of peace regime on the international relations. The scholars of international law believe that, regardless of whether the President of the United States is an internationalist or an isolationist, the enactment of international law in the 21st century will be based on more pragmatic rather than formal criteria. It is still true whether or not he is willing to accept or escape the international obligations so that we can more realistically share the powers conferred by the Constitution. On the other hand, a constitutional controversy on somewhat mushy yet sophisticated issues on the compact agreements began with the Laurence Tribe's acrimonious criticism in 1990. He argues that a procedure between Congress and the executive branch for the Clinton administration's accession to the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) is unconstitutional. His criticism pointed out that the NAFTA is unconstitutional since it is contrary to the text and structure of the Constitution. On the other hand, scholars of political science believe that, while a politics is termed as the distribution of values, the new form of compact agreement serves connecting the domestic and international politics as a living organism and must be affirmed from the standpoint of parliamentary politics. The political scientists argue on the necessity and inevitability of a new form of international agreement as pursuant to the nature of political process on informal procedures and parliamentary practices. In respect of the theoretical controversy, the paper is devoted to survey what the new form of compact agreement is, what types we can identify and explore the theoretical contest among the disciplines. As the dealings of paper attempt to touch on the core of scholarly assertions as fundamental and philosophical, the endeavor could inculcate the mind of international lawyers within and outside the government by providing a better framework to understand the specific real-world issues. The perception and rationale for the new form of international agreement should differ varying with their academic disciplines from which their thought stems from. The paper ends with implications within the grand scale of jurisprudence.

참고문헌 (99)

  1. 2017, "한국지식재산연구원 도서 DB", ~
  2. 김경제, "국회의 조약체결 비준동의권 행사의 기능과 현실", 유럽헌법연구, (14), pp.191~224 (2013), 유럽헌법학회
  3. 김경화, "대통령과 국회의 협의를 통한 민주적 조약체결절차 구체화 방안", 헌법연구, 3(2), pp.55~93 (2016)
  4. 배재식, "국제법1 (교과서)" (1997), 한국방송통신대학교출판문화원
  5. 배종인, "대통령의 조약 체결 비준권과 이에 대한 국회의 동의권", 세계헌법연구, 12(1), pp.129~156 (2006), 세계헌법학회한국학회
  6. 이한기, "국제법강의" (2010), 박영사
  7. 정소현, "조약체결절차법 제정 논의에 관한 고찰", 국제법학회논총, 63(3), pp.76~102 (2018), 대한국제법학회
  8. 정인섭, "조약의 체결·비준에 대한 국회의 동의권", 서울국제법연구, 15(1), pp.101~133 (2008), 서울국제법연구원
  9. 최원목, "국제법 강의" (2007), Ewha Womans University Press
  10. Ackerman B., "Is NAFTA Constitutional?", Harv. L. Rev, 108, pp.799~ (1995)
  11. Amar, A. R., "Of Sovereignty and Federalism", Yale L.J, 96, pp.1425~1427 (1987)
  12. Amar, A. R., "The Consent of the Governed: Constitutional Amendment Outside Article V", Colum. L. Rev, 94, pp.457~459 (1994)
  13. Benedict, M. L., "Constitutional history and constitutional theory : Reflections on Ackerman, reconstruction, and the transformation of the American constitution", Yale L J, 108, pp.2011~ (1998)
  14. Black, C. L. Jr, "The Lawfulness of the Segregation Decisions", Yale L.J, 69, pp.421~ (1960)
  15. Bobbitt P., "Is Law Politics?", Stan. L. Rev, 41, pp.1233~1237 (1989)
  16. Bobbitt P., "Reflections Inspired by My Critics", Tex. L. Rev, 72, pp.1869~1897 (1994)
  17. Bodansky, D, "The Legal Character of the Paris Agreement", Rev. Eur., Comp., and Int'l Envtl. L, 25, pp.142~ (2016)
  18. Boyle, A., "The making of international law" (2007), OUP Oxford
  19. Boyle, A. E., "Some reflections on the relationship of treaties and soft law", International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(4), pp.901~913 (1999)
  20. Brest, P., "The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding", B.U. L. Rev, 60(204), pp.209~217 (1980)
  21. Cass, D. Z., "The Nature of International Law", pp.47~90 (2017), Routledge
  22. Corwin, S. E, "Judicial Review in Action", U. Pa. L. Rev, 74, pp.639~ (1926)
  23. Corwin, S. E, "The Steel Seizure Case: A Judicial Brick Without Straw", Colum. L. Rev, 53, pp.53~55 (1953)
  24. Crenshaw, K. W., "Color blindness, history, and the law", The house that race built, 1, pp.280~ (1997)
  25. Crenshaw, K. W., "Toward a race-conscious pedagogy in legal education", Nat'l Black LJ, 11(1) (1988)
  26. Dunoff, J., "International Law: Norms, Actors, Process" (2023), Aspen Publishing
  27. Ely, J. H., "Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review" (1980), Harvard University Press
  28. Fisher, W. W. III, "The Defects of Dualism", U. Chi. L. Rev, 59, pp.955~ (1992)
  29. Foner, E., "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877", pp.276~ (1988)
  30. Forbath, W. E., "Constitutional change and the politics of history", Yale L. J, 108, pp.1917~ (1998)
  31. Galston, M., "Reason, Consent, and the U.S. Constitution: Bruce Ackerman's We the People", Ethics, 104, pp.446~449 (1994)
  32. Henkin, L., "Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution", pp.200~217 (1996)
  33. Dupuy, P. M., "Soft law and the international law of the environment", Mich. J. Int'l L, 12, pp.420~ (1990)
  34. Ely, J. H, "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade", Yale L. J, 82, pp.920~949 (1973)
  35. Goldsmith, J., "Law for states: international law, constitutional law, public law", Harvard Law Review, pp.1791~1868 (2009)
  36. Gray, J., "Congressional Roundup: Taxes; Legal Challenge to Voting Rule", N.Y. Times, ~ (1995)
  37. H. L. A. Hart, "The Concept of Law", pp.97~114 (1961)
  38. Helfer, L. R., "Nonconsensual international lawmaking", U. Ill. L. Rev, pp.71~ (2008)
  39. Hollis, D. B., "“Political” Commitments and the Constitution", Va. J. Int’l L, 49, pp.507~ (2009)
  40. Joseph B. J, "The Framing of the Fourteenth Amendment" (1965)
  41. Kennedy, D., "A new stream of international law scholarship", Wis. Int'l L J, 7, pp.1~ (1988)
  42. Koh, H. H., "International law as part of our law", American Journal of International Law, 98(1), pp.43~57 (2004)
  43. Koh, H. H., "The Fast Track and United States Trade Policy", Brook. J. Int'l L., 18, pp.143~146 (1992)
  44. Koh, H. H., "Transnational Legal Process", Neb. L. Rev, 75, pp.181~ (1996)
  45. Koh, H. H., "Why Do Nations Obey International Law?", Yale L. J, 106, pp.2599~ (1997)
  46. Koh, H. H., "Triptych's End: A Better Framework to Evaluate 21st Century International Lawmaking", Yale LJF, 126, pp.338~ (2016)
  47. 김기영, "A Legacy of Hans Kelsen and Tentative Inquiry ― Transformation and New Discourse for the World Government ―", 법학연구, 31(3), pp.547~598 (2021), 법학연구원
  48. Kim, K., "Human Rights: Are They Just a Tweak for the Policy Makers or Administrators?", European Academic Research, 2(6) (2014)
  49. 김기영, "The World Trade Regime, Transnational Corporations and Human Right", 법학논총, 29(3), pp.135~191 (2022), 법학연구원
  50. Koskenniemi, M., "International legislation today : Limits and possibilities", Wis. Int'l LJ, 23, pp.61~ (2005)
  51. Landry, T. K., "Ackermania!: Who Are We the People?", U. Miami L. Rev, 47, pp.267~ (1992)
  52. Lesch, M., "Informal human rights law-making:How treaty bodies use ‘General Comments’ to develop international law", Global Constitutionalism, pp.1~24 (2023)
  53. Lipkin, R. J., "Can American Constitutional Law Be Postmodern?", Buff. L. Rev, 42, pp.317~ (1994)
  54. Monaghan, H. P, "Our Perfect Constitution", N.Y.U. L. Rev, 56, pp.353~360 (1981)
  55. Newman, G. L., "The uses of international law in constitutional interpretation", American Journal of International Law, 98(1), pp.82~90 (2004)
  56. Tribe, L. H., "On Reading the Constitution", pp.96~ (1991)
  57. Tribe, L. H., "Taking text and structure seriously: Reflections on free-form method in constitutional interpretation", Harv. L. Rev., 108, pp.1221~ (1994)
  58. Tushnet, M., "Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law", pp.60~69 (1988)
  59. McGinnis, J. O., "Should International Law Be Part of Our Law", Stan. L. Rev, 59, pp.1175~ (2006)
  60. Meyer, T., "From contract to legislation: The logic of modern international lawmaking", Chi. J. Int'l L, 14, pp.559~ (2013)
  61. McDougal, M. S., "Treaties and Congressional-Executive or Presidential Agreements: Interchangeable Instruments of National Policy (pt. 1)", Yale L.J, 54, pp.181~ (1945)
  62. Palmer, G., "New ways to make international environmental law", American Journal of International Law, 86(2), pp.259~283 (1992)
  63. Pauwelyn, J., "Informal international lawmaking" (2012), Oxford University Press
  64. Powell, H. J., "The Original Understanding of Original Intent", Harv. L. Rev, 98, pp.885~ (1985)
  65. Reisman, W. M., "International incidents: Introduction to a new genre in the study of international law", Yale J. Int'l L, 10, pp.1~ (1984)
  66. "Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States§303", Am. Law Inst, ~ (1987)
  67. Rogers, M., "Some Lessons About the Law From Self-Referential Problems in Mathematics", Mich. L. Rev, 90, pp.992~ (1992)
  68. Antonin Scalia, "Originalism: The Lesser Evil", U. Cin. L. Rev, 57, pp.849~ (1989)
  69. Sinclair, B., "Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress" (1997)
  70. Scott, C., "Constitutional Moments and Crockpot Revolutions", Conn. L. Rev, 25, pp.967~ (1992)
  71. Tribe, L. H., "Taking text and structure seriously: Reflections on free-form method in constitutional interpretation", Harv. L. Rev, 108, pp.1221~ (1994)
  72. LaFave, W. R., "Case-by-Case Adjudication" versus "Standardized Procedures": The Robinson Dilemma", The Supreme Court Review, 1974, pp.127~163 (1974)
  73. LaFave, W. R., "The Fourth Amendment in an Imperfect World: On Drawing Bright Lines and Good Faith", U. Pitt. L. Rev., 43, pp.307~ (1981)
  74. Wittgenstein, "On Certainty 200, at 27e" (1969)
  75. Wolfrum, R., "Developments of international law in treaty making (Vol. 177)" (2005), Springer Science & Business Media
  76. Yoo, J. C., "Treaties and public lawmaking: A textual and structural defense of non-self-execution", Columbia Law Review, pp.2218~2258 (1999)
  77. "Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194, 202", ~ (1975)
  78. "American Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396", ~ (2003)
  79. "Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721-27", ~ (1986)
  80. "Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 495", ~ (1954)
  81. "Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654", ~ (1981)
  82. "Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393", ~ (1856)
  83. "Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86", ~ (1965)
  84. "Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275-76", ~ (1918)
  85. "INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. at 967, 1005", ~ (1983)
  86. "Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 53", ~ (1905)
  87. "Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 135", ~ (1803)
  88. "Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416", ~ (1920)
  89. "McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316", ~ (1819)
  90. "Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 161-64", ~ (1926)
  91. "Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537", ~ (1896)
  92. "The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700", ~ (1900)
  93. "Trade Act of 1974,19 U.S.C. 2253(c), 2412(b), 2432, 2437", ~ (1976)
  94. "U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1. 2. 3", ~
  95. "U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 2", ~
  96. "U.S. Const. art. III, 2, cl. 2", ~
  97. "United States v. Lopez, 2 F.3d 1342, 1367-68 (5th Cir. 1993) cert. granted,114 S. Ct. 1536", ~ (1994)
  98. "United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S.452, 460-64", ~ (1978)
  99. "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 398-400", ~ (1937)

관련 논문AI추천

미국의 조약체결 관행과 국내적 시사점김인숙한국법제연구원 · 법제연구2012 · 제43호Termination of Treaties and Executive Agreements under the U.S. Constitution라프라드법학연구원 · 법학논총2012 · 제36권 제2호조약의 체결 및 비준 과정에서의 권한쟁의 문제- 사전적ㆍ사후적 통제구조의 재정립 -박지은법학연구소 · 법학논집2025 · 제30권 제2호미국에서의 국제적 합의의 체결권한 : 권력분립의 관점에서정상익사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2007 · 제56권 제9호조약체결에 관한 권한배분구조의 해석과 국회의 권한김경화안암법학회 · 안암법학2016 · 제51호미국의 조약체결절차 및 이론에 관한 소고김영석법학연구소 · 법학논집2004 · 제8권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

해수면 상승에 따른 해양관할권 규범 결정에 대한 법경제학적 분석민한빛pp. 57-88다국적 군사작전 시 교전규칙의 상호운용성 확보를 위한 법·정책적 검토안준형, 손한별pp. 89-122플랫폼 자본주의에 관한 고찰 - 플랫폼 자본주의, 통제가 필요한가?김병록pp. 123-156피의자 얼굴 공개와 머그샷(=경찰 사진)송승현pp. 157-214암호화된 스마트폰 압수·수색 규범의 법률화 필요성이원상pp. 215-246
원문 보기