21세기 사회에서 우리 국적법의 과제 ― “진정한 유대이론”의 해석과 적용 ―

권채리 한국공법학회 2023 공법연구 Vol.52 No.1

개인과 국가와의 법적관계 내지 특정 국가의 구성원이 되는 자격을 일컫는 개념이며 지위가 국적(國籍, nationality)이다. 그런데 현실적으로 개인에게 국적이란 무엇인가. 모든 사람은 태어나면서부터 속지주의 또는 속인주의에 따라 최소 하나 이상의 국적을 국가로부터 부여받는다. 그런데, 특히 20세기 후반 이후 국가와 개인의 법적관계는 점차 복잡해지기 시작한다. 자발적 이주나 지역분쟁, 그리고 전쟁 등으로 인해 변동을 겪기 때문이다. 그리고 이때 국적은 종종 인종, 종족의 문제와 연결되어 전개되며, 특히 동양보다는 서양, 특히 동유럽과 러시아 등에서 두드러지게 그리고 집중적으로 나타난다. 구 유고슬라비아의 해체, 그리고 현재 진행 중인 러시아-우크라이나 전쟁의 본질 또한 종족분쟁에서 비롯된다. 요컨대 2차 세계대전 이후 미국과 소련의 이념대립에 가려진 “종족의 정치”는 오늘날 그 양상을 달리하여 “이민의 정치”로 바뀌고 있고, 이는 다시 유럽 전역에 걸쳐 “국적의 정치”로 그 현상이 옮아가고 있다. 또한 1895년에 확립된 국적유일의 원칙은 단일국적 유지의 의미에서는 오늘날 더 이상 유효하다고 보기 어려우며, 반면 국적변경권, 국적포기권의 행사를 통한 국적자유의 원칙은 여느 때보다 활발히 적용되고 있다. 한국은 인종 또는 종족으로 인한 갈등요인은 없어 왔으나, 700만이 넘는 디아스포라를 가지고 있고 동시에 분단국가로 인한 병역문제가 국적법 및 재외동포법제에 반영되어 있다. 따라서 재외동포에 관한 정책과 법제는 향후 대한민국 국민의 범위를 규정짓는데 있어 적지 않은 영향을 미친다고 볼 수 있다. 이와 관련하여 최근 재외국민의 국적이탈에 관한 입법개정과 외국국적동포의 국적회복 요건의 완화 요청이 있었다. 이에 더하여 2021년 입법예고는 되었으나 좌초된 보충적 출생지주의의 도입을 언급할 수 있다. 즉, 한국의 재외동포에 있어서는 탈(脫) 국적과 국적취득의 대척(對蹠)과 갈등이 공존하는 것이 다. 그렇다면 재외국민, 외국국적의 동포 또는 민족, 혈통의 기반이 없는 영주권자와 한국사회와의 “진정한 유대관계”는 어떻게 새길 것인가. 이 연구에서는 1948년 제헌헌법의 위임에 따라 제정된 우리 국적법의 주요규정 및 관련 판례가 진정한 유대이론의 시각에서 어떻게 해석될 수 있는지 살펴보았다. 국적의 변경과 포기, 복수국적, 무국적, 보충적 출생지주의의 도입, 국적유보제도의 도입 등 다양한 변화가 복잡한 법리와 적용의 갈등을 거치며 끊임없이 진행 중이다. 인구구조의 변화에 대한 대응과는 별도로 국적의 문제는 개인에게 있어 국가와의 가장 근원적인 지위이며 바로 그로부터 향유할 권리인 만큼 새로운 원칙과 그 적용기준이 정립되어야 할 시점이다. Nationality, which refers to an individual's legal relationship with a state, or rather his or her status as a member of a given nation. Everyone is assigned at least one nationality by Jus Sanguinis either by Jus Soli. The legal relationship between the state and the individual is subject to change due to voluntary migration or war, or involuntary circumstance. However, nationality is often linked to issues of race and ethnicity, relatively more often in the West, as compared to the cases of the East, as seen notably in Eastern Europe and Russia. The breakup of the former Yugoslavia and its aftermath, and the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war are fundamentally ethnic in nature. In short, the “politics of race”, which was overshadowed by the ideological confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II, is nowadays being transformed into the “politics of immigration”, which in turn again is being translated into the “politics of nationality” across good many parts Europe. In addition, the principle of unity of nationality established in 1895 is by all means no longer valid any more today in the sense of maintaining a single nationality, in the face of the right to change nationality and renunciation of nationality, ever developing since the latter part of the 20th century. Although Korea has been a country almost free from racial or ethnic conflicts, it has a diaspora of more than 7 million people, and the unique problem of military service based on the conscription, stemming from the national division, as reflected in the Nationality Act and the Overseas Koreans Act. Therefore, policies and laws regarding overseas Koreans have a significant impact on defining the scope of Korean citizenship in the future. In this regard, there have been flood of on-going arguments for legislative amendments favoring denationalization of overseas Koreans and relaxation of the requirements for restoring the nationality of overseas Koreans. In addition, we can mention the introduction of a supplementary birthplace system, which was proposed at the National Assembly in 2021, but stalled. In other words, the pros and cons debates are going on the issues of denationalization and nationality acquisition for overseas Koreans. One might rightly raise the questions like do overseas Koreans, foreign compatriots, or permanent residents with no ethnic or genealogical ties to Korea, inscribe their “genuine connection” to Korea? This study examines how the main provisions of the Korean Nationality Act, enacted under the mandate of the 1948 Constitution, and related case law can be interpreted through the lens of true bond theory. Changes and renunciations of nationality, multiple citizenships, statelessness, the introduction of supplementary birthplace principle, and the introduction of a reservation of nationality are constantly underway. Apart from responding to demographic changes, the issue of nationality is, as aforementioned a fundamental right for individuals requiring close scrutiny in the light of the changes.

재미동포사회의 선천적 복수국적제도 개선 요구 분석

오정은 성결대학교 다문화평화연구소 2019 다문화와 평화 Vol.13 No.2

Some people hold dual or multiple citizenships by birth, if they inherited different nationalities from each of their parent, or if they inherited one nationality from their parent(s) and acquired another nationality from the country where they were born, which offer birthright citizenships, at the same time. In the past, the Republic of Korea (here after, Korea) did not allow to maintain multiple citizenships and it imposed to choose only one nationality on persons with multiple nationality by birth when they became legally adults. However, since 1st January 2011, the Korea has permitted multiple citizenships in certain cases. As for the persons who obtained multiple citizenships by birth, it is allowed to keep their multiple nationalities if they take a vow not to exercise a foreign nationality. When the Ministry of Justice drafted a bill permitting multiple citizenships to people who acquire them by birth, some argued that the new Nationality act would allow certain privilege to upper class society with multiple nationalities. However, after the bill was implemented as a revised Nationality Act, many Korean-americans who became multiple citizenship holders complain about the new Act saying that the new Act pose an obstacle for Korean-american adults with multiple citizenships who wish to be certain high-ranking government officials which are apt to prefer candidates with mono citizenship as American, because the new act severly restrict to renounce the Korean Nationality for men who reach the age for Korean military service until they fulfill Korean military duty, unlike that the previous Act made lose Korean Nationality automatically for Korean- american adult who held both Korean and American nationality. The complaint from Korean-american means that the permission of the multiple citizenship made unexpected side-effects and that the multiple citizenship system is in need of reform. 한 사람이 출생과 동시에 두 개 이상의 국적을 취득하여 선천적 복수국적자가 되는 경우가 있다. 부와 모의 국적이 서로 다른 상태에서 양계 혈통주의에 따라 부와 모의 국적을 모두 취득하는 경우와, 속인주의(혈통주의) 국적법에 따라 부모의 국적을 부여받는 사람이 속지주의(출생지주의) 국적법이 적용되는 국가에서 태어나게 되어 부모의 국적과 출생한 국가의 국적을 동시에 취득하는 경우가 여기에 해당한다. 한국은 과거 엄격한 단일국적주의 국가였고, 선천적 복수국적자에게는 성인이 되었을 때 1개의 국적만 선택하도록 요구하였었지만, 2011년 1월 1일부터는 선천적 복수국적자가 국내에서 외국국적을 행사하지 않겠다는 외국국적불행사서약을 하면 계속해서 복수국적을 유지하도록 허용한다. 복수국적 도입 전에는 선천적 복수국적 허용이 사회 상류층에 대한 특권 부여라는 비난이 일었다. 그런데 실제로 선천적 복수국적제도가 시행되자, 재미동포사회에서 선천적 복수국적자들이 해당 제도의 피해자임을 주장하며 국적법 개정을 요구하기 시작했다. 대한민국 국적법이 남성 선천적 복수국적자에게 만18세가 되는 3월 이후에는 병역의 의무가 해소될 때까지 대한민국 국적 이탈을 금지하고 있는데, 성인이 되어 뒤늦게 이러한 법을 알게 된 재미동포 가운데 한국국적 이탈을 못해서 미국에서 사관학교에 진학하거나 정부의 고위직으로 승진하는 등 자신의 꿈을 펼치는데 어려움이 있다는 주장이다. 재미동포사회의 불만은 선천적 복수국적 허용이 본래 취지를 살리지 못하고 부작용을 낳고 있음을 보여주는 것으로, 현행 복수국적 제도에 대한 개선 검토가 필요함을 의미한다.

국적판정제도의 의의

오승진 대한국제법학회 2023 國際法學會論叢 Vol.68 No.4

국적법은 국민의 범위에 관하여 정의하지 않으며, 북한주민이 국민인지 여부에 관하여 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 이는 대법원 판례, 북한이탈주민보호법, 국적판정제도에 의하여 보충된다. 국적법 제20조는 대한민국 국적의 취득이나 보유 여부가 분명하지 아니한 자에 대하여 법무부장관이 국적을 판정할 수 있는 제도를 도입하고 있다. 현재 사할린동포와 북한이탈주민보호법의 적용대상에서 제외되는 북한국적동포가 국적판정에 의하여 국적을 취득하고 있다. 국적판정은 국내에서만 신청될 수 있으므로 해외의 북한국적자는 국적판정을 통하여 국적을 취득할 수 없다. 그리고, 한국 정부에 의하여 영구귀국 대상자로 선정된 사할린동포만이 입국 이후에 국적판정을 신청할 수 있다. 국적판정에 대하여는 한국 정부의 재량이 광범위하게 인정되어 있으므로 이 절차는 특별한 귀화절차에 해당한다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 법무부장관은 국적판정제도를 통하여 정책적 판단에 따라 국적법 등 국민의 요건에 관한 엄격한 해석에서 벗어나 국적을 부여할 수 있는 재량을 가지고 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다. The Nationality Law does not define the scope of nationals of South Korea and does not stipulate whether North Koreans have South Korean nationalities. The Law, however, is supplemented by a case law of the Supreme Court, the Law on Protection of North Korean Defectors, and the Nationality Determination Process. Article 20 of the Nationality Law introduces the Nationality Determination Process, which stipulates that Justice Minister could determine the nationality of those whose Korean nationality is not clear. The Sakhalin Koreans and North Koreans who are excluded from the protection by the Law on Protection of North Korean Defectors may acquire South Korean nationalities by the Precess. The Nationality Determination Process may be applied only domestically and North Koreans outside of North Korea may not acquire the nationality by the Process. The Sakhalin Koreans selected as Permanent Returning Koreans by the Korean Government may apply the South Korean nationality under the Process after being admitted to Korea. The Korean Government has a lot of discretion in the Process, and, therefore, the Process may be called as a special naturalization process. Justice Minister may, through the Process, deviate from the strict interpretation of the Nationality Law, and grant Korean nationality based on various policy considerations.

중국조선족의 이주와 관련된 중국국적법의 현행 과제

엄해옥 ( Hai Yu Yan ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2015 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.30

Nationality is a Legal basis that one country selected its own national and granted national rights and obligations. Therefore, with the development and changes of international society, in order to maintain rights and interests, a lot of countries enacted and amended nationality law. Emigration and nationality are closely linked, which clashed with the nationality law. Chinese Korean is an emigration nationality. The positive conflict whose emigration arose ever made a significant influence on the Nationality Law of Qing Government. China’s Nationality Law was enacted under the ground of the Cold War. Its provisions and contents are too simple, and have a certain distance with the requirement of the global era. After the end of World War Ⅱ, the nationality problem has been developed from the restrictions to the protection of nationality rights. Now a days, the center of the world gradually shifted from Europe to Asia. The transformation has two types. One is to Asia, and the other is to China. No matter that the center of the world transferred to Europe or Asia, with the improvement of China’s position and prestige in the international community, China’s nationality has gotten the attention of the international community. Subsequently, the emigration will cause the positive conflict of nationality. Protecting the national interests and state’s rights and interests is the purpose of the nationality law, and is also the ultimate purpose of amending the nationality law. The value of the nationality law reflects the guarantee of state’s sovereignty and national human rights. With the changes of international society, it is necessary for China to amend the existing Nationality Law. The amendment should be in favor of international public law and international private law, its national interests and its rights and interests, and in particular China’s prestige and future.

복수국적의 허용과 규제 그리고 과제

권채리 한국비교공법학회 2019 공법학연구 Vol.20 No.2

The newly amended Nationality Act of 2010 permits, in a limited way, multiple nationalities, for those who certify not to exercise one's own right of nationality, especially in the absence of the obligation to renounce the original nationality as a precondition to the acquisition of the second nationality. It is however important that all the conceivable considerations as to the changing international environments as well as the internal interests should be well taken into accounts before the adoption of the system of plural citizenship. One might raise some problems as follow. First of all, it is not easy to understand fully the detailed regulations of the relevant law, in the light of this Act being a limited and exceptional measure for the plural nationality. This means that so many details of exceptions for allowing and banning the cases of plural nationalities. Secondly, it appears enormously difficult to pinpoint the applicable person or cases in relation with the status of multinational nationals in the administrative process. Therefore it is hardly realistic to expect a fair and proper administration of the matter involving nationalities, among the complex and dubious petitioners holding plural nationalities. In addition, the question of expanding or limiting the multiple nationalities in the years to come, let alone at present, might go beyond the limit of the writer with many other factors and contexts broadly taken considerations. Statutory approach may not be the only alternative. Empowering the Ministry of Justice to exercise the discretionary review the selection may very well be another solution in the light of the complexities of the question, A few unique problems, as they relate to cases in Korea, need to be brought to special attentions ; mandatory conscription system of Korea, changes in age group among those emigrants, mostly aged foreign nationality holders, returning or visiting to Korea, and others. Those cases, which have given rise to a revision of law or even new enactment might be viewed piecemeal legal approaches to a very delicate contemporary problem like plural nationality. 우리 국적법은 2010년 개정에서 제한적으로 복수국적을 용인하였고 외국국적 불행사서약을 하면 원국적 포기의무가 면제된다. 그런데, 국제조류와 국익에 부합하는 방향으로 관련 규정을 개정하고자 복수국적제도가 도입되었고 이러한 취지에 맞추어 개정이단행되었지만 몇 가지 문제점이 제기된다. 우선, 복수국적의 전면허용이 아닌 제한적 허용이다 보니 적지 않은 예외규정이 마련되면서 관련 법 규정을 수범자가 이해하기 쉽지않다. 또한 실무행정에서 정확한 복수국적자 현황 및 관리에 어려움이 있고 이러한 맥락에서 즉, 복수국적자를 모두 파악할 수 없는 구조에서 국적선택명령제도를 운용하는 것이 현실적으로 합리적이지 못하다. 이어, 보다 근본적으로 복수국적의 허용범위를 확대할 것이냐는 문제와의 연계선상에서 현재처럼 제한적으로 허용하되 그 적용범위를 보다 넓힐 것인지 또는 전면적으로 허용할 것인지 - 사회적 공감대 및 사회적 비용의 증가로 쉽지는 않겠지만 -, 확대할 경우그 방식은 법률로 할 것인지 또는 법무부장관의 재량으로 할 것인지 아니면 그 밖의 방식으로 할 것인지의 문제가 남는다. 국적선택기간은 우리 특유의 병역제도와 맞물려 합리적이지 못한 측면이 존재한다. 다만, 관련 단체에서 지속적으로 요청하고 있는 영주귀국 고령동포의 연령하향 문제와마찬가지로 (남성의) 국적이탈 문제는 적지 않은 나름의 문제점을 안고 있어 입법안 발의로도 이어졌지만 실질적인 수혜자가 특정 집단에 집중되어 있는 만큼 어느 선에서 조정할 것인지 여부를 결정함에 있어 신중한 검토 및 합의가 요구된다고 하겠다.

제네바 제4협약 제4조에 대한 舊 유고슬라비아 국제형사재판소의 목적론적 해석 1) - 피보호자를 위한 국적 기준 -

김효권(Kim, Hyokwon) 국제법평론회 2018 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.51

Nationality functions as a double-edged sword. On one hand, granting an access to rights of a citizen, it is often described as the right to have rights. Nationality in this context is a prerequisite for national protection as well as a desideratum for individual human beings. On the other hand, it is worth to note that, in a considerable number of cases, an alleged perpetrator of human rights violations is itself the state of nationality. Here, nationality, the link between a state and the persons forming it, is not a right but a shackle tying the victims to the state of perpetration. When nationality nothing but forcibly and formally links a person to the state of perpetration, there is no reason for international law not to dismiss such negative function to maximize its role as a human rights defender. In this vein, the nationality test for protected persons ruled by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) provides potential implication. In related cases, the Tribunal considered the function of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention IV, which defines persons protected by the Convention as those “in the hands of a Party to the conflict or occupying power of which they are not nationals.” The accused in the case concerned argued that he had the same nationality as the victim whereby the victim does not fall within the scope of the Article 4. The ICTY, however, stressed that technical and formal bond of nationality conferred by a State is not absolute in international plane while the lack of both allegiance to a State and protection by that State should be regarded as more important concern in determining the status of protected persons. This teleological approach relying on the object and purpose of the Geneva Convention, directed to the protection of civilians to the maximum extent possible, also confirms that legal concept of nationality must be interpreted within the framework of international law. In short, the judicial intent of the ICTY was to reflect the practical need to protect the victim of international crimes even if such teleological approach is clearly inconsistent with the language of Article 4. The nationality test for protected persons indicates that the protective goals embedded within the international humanitarian regime are so important that nationality — the fruit of municipal law — does not bear overriding its object and purpose.

복수국적자의 외교적 보호에 관한 소고

이진규(Lee, JinKyu) 한양법학회 2011 漢陽法學 Vol.35 No.-

Multiple nationality is the subject that may cause various issues in the area of international law. Especially, diplomatic protection in respect to a multiple national is a very controversial issue. It can’t be asserted yet that standards of diplomatic protection in respect of multiple nationality have been firmly established. To some extent, however, the standards are being settled through being treated in many arbitral decisions and codification endeavors of ILC. There is still support for the requirement of a close connection between States of nationality and a multiple national in case of exercising the diplomatic protection by one or all of the States of nationality against the third State. According to a majority opinion, however, any State of nationality may exercise diplomatic protection, and even jointly. This rule has more recently been followed and upheld by many cases and ILC. Based on a traditional view, there is non-responsibility rule between States of nationality with respect to the exercise of diplomatic protection by one State of nationality against another State of nationality. This view is still considered as the principle related to the exercise of diplomatic protection between States of nationality in contemporary international law. Some arbitral decisions and codification of ILC, however, show that the State of effective or predominant nationality may bring proceedings against another State of nationality in an exceptional situation. This also makes it clear that the burden of proof is on the claimant State to prove that its nationality is predominant. Korea allows multiple nationality by the amended Nationality Act. Although there is still a negative perception on the multiple nationality, the allowance of multiple nationalty is a revolutionary change in the legal system of nationality in Korea. The issue of the exercise of diplomatic protection in respect of a multiple national had been discussed in the beginning of the work for amendment of the National Act. The amended Act has not finally come to include such a clause. Consequently, there is no provision to describe the factors to be taken into account in exercising diplomatic protection for a multiple national in the Act. We, however, can infer from the interpretation of the Act that such factors include the application of Korean domestic laws, legal marriage, habitual residence, special contribution to Korea, distinguished talent in various fields and military service, etc. Korea is currently developing domestic legal system in various areas including nationality. In other words, it means that Korea should take responsibilities for nationals as subjects or objects of its legal system. Focusing on the fact that the exercise of diplomatic protection still entirely depends on the will of State, we should bear in mind that an effective protection of multiple nationals can be achieved by government’s strong will to reflect the current international law in domestic legal system and to execute policies established through such endeavors.

대한민국 국적법의 현황과 문제점

최윤철 ( Yoon Cehol Choi ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2010 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.17

Korean Nationality Law, since it was created in 1948, has been revised several times over the years until now. Especially, revision that took place in 1997 was to do with entire Nationality Act. However, the principle of personal and single nationality which forms the basis of the law hasn`t changed. However, the nationality law revision policy that the Korean law department is about to legislate shows many exceptions regarding single nationality principle. The rapid increase in foreigners, overseas expa nsion and trading of Koreans, has become the proof that keeping single race, single citizenship, and purity of Koreans through nationality law has become impossible, and the principles at the time of legislation of the law no longer applies. The current Korean nationality law is based on the second article of the constitution. The constitution relies entirely on nationality law on deciding who gets to have a nationality, so nationality law contains detailed indication on who gets to be a people, requirements to become a people, and how someone gets to lose or recover nationality. The nationality law until this day has gone through many revisions, but rapid change in Korean society and globalization calls for many revisio ns in many areas. Korea is now faced with the age of globalization and diversification. Korea is now in situation where it needs to be prepared for rapid overseas expansion and contacts of Koreans, long term foreigners, and decrease of population and competency due to low birth rate. The identity of modern nation comes from being a constitutional state, and also from members of the nation accepting diversities and coexisting based on democratic principles. Rather than the nationality being translated as a blood line or race where these are the first signature of being a citizen, it should be looked at as a legal position and symbol of regulation as a citizen of democratic country.

만주국의 국적법을 둘러싼 딜레마: 조선인의 ‘이중국적’문제

최봉룡 한국민족운동사학회 2011 한국민족운동사연구 Vol.0 No.69

본 논문은 만주국의 국적법을 제정하기 위한 논의과정에서 나타난 다양한 기본 원칙과 목적 및 내재적인 모순논리를 살펴봄으로써 만주국 속에서 이른바 조선인의 ‘이중국적’문제를 고찰하였다. 근대국가의 상징적인 부속물로서 출현된 국적법은 흔히 한 국가의 국민으로서의 신분 또는 국민(혹은 공민)이 되는 자격 취득과 상실 및 회복에 관한 법률을 말한다. 또한 국적법은 대체로 출생주의와 혈통주의 및 출생과 혈통이 결합된 원칙, 그리고 각 국가의 역사 전통과 구체 상황에 따라서 법률적인 수단을 통해 그 국가에 귀속되는 국민들의 국적을 확정한다. 때문에 국적법은 각 국가에 따라 다양하게 표출된다. 1932년 3월 1일 ‘독립국가’를 표방하면서 성립된 만주국은 국적법을 ‘국가 존립요소’로서 주목하면서 이른바 ‘만주국 국민’ 혹은 ‘만주인’의 정체성을 창출하려고 했다. 그리하여 만철경제조사위원회, 관동군 특무부, 만주국 총무청 및 일본법계 학자들이 만주국 국적법에 관한 ‘초안’과 ‘문건’ 및 논문을 통하여 그 기본 원칙, 국적(국민)의 범위 및 ‘이중국적’과 ‘단일국적’ 및 ‘무국적’ 등 문제를 둘러싼 다양한 논의가 전개되었다. 본 논문에서 필자는 만주국이 국적법을 제정하기 위한 그 기본 목적이 만주국의 ‘독립성’과 ‘합법성’ 및 ‘정체성’을 현시하기 위한데서 부터 출발했음을 지적했다. 즉 첫째는 만주국의 국적법을 ‘국가 존립의 요소’로 주목하면서 ‘독립국가’의 틀을 만들려는데 있었고, 둘째는 만주국의 국적법을 통해 ‘만주국인’ 혹은 ‘만주국민’이란 새로운 정체성을 창출하려는데 있었으며, 셋째는 만주국의 국적법을 통해 만주국 내 중국인과 ‘중화민국인’의 연원관계를 차단하고 일본인의 지배적 위상을 확보하려는데 있었음을 엿볼 수 있었다. 본 논문에서 필자는 만주국의 기본 구성분자-‘오족’과 기타 외국인으로 구성된 복합민족(다민족)에 대하여 국적을 확정함에 있어서 자체적 논리모순을 밝혔다. 즉 첫째로 근대 국적법의 보편적인 원칙으로서 ‘혈통주의’와 ‘출생주의’는 만주국 국적법에 적용될 수 없었다. 둘째로 민족차별주의 논리에서 출발한 국적법 제정원칙- ‘강제주의’와 ‘비강제주의’는 만주국이 건국이념으로 표방되었던 ‘오족협화’, ‘평등대우’에도 배리되었다. 셋째로 민족월등주의에 입각하여 조선인을 포함하는 일본인의 ‘이중국적’과 기타 외국인의 ‘단일국적’은 동일한 ‘만주국인’의 정체성을 표상할 수 없었다. 특히 만주국에서 일제가 창출했던 이른바 ‘五族協和’, ‘內鮮一體’ 및 ‘鮮滿一如’ 등 식민지 지배논리가 담고 있던 이율배반적인 딜레마에 빠져들었다. 만주국 총무청의 주도로 ‘국적법제정주비위원회’를 구성하고 협의를 거쳐 만주국 국적법을 입안하려고까지 했지만, 결국은 최종적으로 만주국의 종말과 함께 수포로 돌아갔다. 또한 필자는 만주국의 조선인에 대한 지배정책을 통해 일제의 그 지배논리는 이율배반적으로 표출되었음을 지적했다. 즉 만주국 내에서 조선인은 ‘황국신민’ 혹은 ‘2등 국민’으로 취급되었지만, 실질적으로 일제의 민족분리 책략에 따라 鮮系에 대한 日系의 지배원리에서 작동되었음을 밝혔다. 또한 국적법의 시각에서 본다면 만주국 내 조선인들은 ‘일본신민’이자 또한 ‘만주국 국민’이라는 ‘이중국적’문제는 근 ... This paper examines the problem of dual nationality of Korean in Manchuria through various basic principles, purpose and inner dialectic in the process of discussion for enacting the Manchukuo Nationality Law. In modern countries, the symbolic appendage is the appearance of nationality law. Nationality law is about take, lose and reinstatement of qualifying as a nation. It was also confirmed by some principles of jus soli, jus sanguinis, combine of jus soli and jus sanguinis. Also people’s nation is confirmed by a nation’s history, traditions and some other situations. March 1st in 1932, Manchukuo formed as ‘independent country’. Nationality law had received wide attention as ‘component of national existence’ in Manchukuo, so that tried to create identity of ‘nation of Manchukuo’ or ‘Manchuria’. So The Mantie滿鐵 Economic Board of Inquiry, Spy Department of Kwantung Army, Manchukuo Ministry of Public Management and Japan law scholars considered the problems about basic principles, range of nationality(nation) and ‘dual nationality’, ‘single nationality’ and ‘statelessness’ by ‘draft’, ‘document’ and thesis about nationality law. In my treatise the basic purpose of enacting nationality law for revelation ‘independence’, ‘legitimacy’ and ‘identity’. In other words, first, nationality law of Manchukuo is considered ‘component of national existence’ for creating a frame of ‘independent country’. Second, create identity of ‘nation of Manchukuo’ or ‘Manchuria’ by enacting nationality law. Last, shut off relationship between Chinese in Manchuria and ‘Nationals of the Republic of China’ and then secure the Japanese own high stature by enacting the nationality law. In this paper, I have clarified contradictions about dividing ‘five ethnic’-the basic elements of Manchukuo and ‘composite nation’ including other foreigners. First, As a general rule of modern nationality law, ‘jus sanguinis’ or ‘jus soli’ cannot be applied to nationality law of Manchukuo. Second, ‘five ethnic harmony’ and ‘being treated equally’ which Manchukuo formed as founding principles do not come up with the rule of enacting nationality law from racist. Third, Korean and Japanese could take dual nationality from ethnic superiority. But other foreigners could take ‘single nationality’. Therefore it means the identity of ‘Manchuria’ is not united. Especially slogans such as ‘five ethnic harmony’, ‘integration of Japan and Chosun’ and ‘Unity in Chosun and Manchuria’ etc. faced with the dilemma of antinomy. While ‘arrangement of enacting nationality law committee’ formed by Manchukuo Ministry of Public Management in order to draft nationality law of Manchukuo went down the drain when Manchukuo went away. The study also attempts to clarify Japanese logic of rule is antinomy by rule policy for Korean in Manchukuo. Korean in Manchukuo were treated as ‘imperial subject’ or ‘No.2 nation’. And it just was slaving principle of national separatism in practice. Korean in Manchuria had dual nationality, not only ‘Japanese subjects’ but also ‘nation of Manchukuo’. So the problem of dual nationality did not even exist. In fact, Korean in Manchuria were statelessness.

Towards Dual Nationality: China’s Legal and Policy Initiative for Human and Capital Inflow and Promotion of Social Justice

Yin Liu 이준국제법연구원 2017 China and WTO Review Vol.3 No.2