무력충돌 관련 환경보호 논의의 발전과 전망 - 유엔 국제법위원회 제1회독 초안을 중심으로

임예준 경북대학교 법학연구원 2021 법학논고 Vol.0 No.72

In 2019, at its 71st session, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) provisionally adopted the Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts together with the corresponding commentaries. The 28 draft principles underline the importance of preventive and post-conflict measures by extending the temporal phases of environmental protection to the periods before and after an armed conflict. In addition, reflecting the principles of environmental law and international human rights law, the work counterbalances the weaknesses in discussions on environmental protection in existing rules on the law of armed conflict by covering an extended scope and measures of protection. Furthermore, taking into account the nature of modern armed conflict, the draft principles cover also non-state actors and non-international armed conflicts. The article addresses current trends and issues in the development of international discussions on protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts, focusing on the draft principles provisionally adopted by the ILC in 2019 at first reading. After introducing the draft principles and commentaries thereto, the article considers the main controversies over the content encountered in discussions at the ILC and in comments raised by States at the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly. The draft principles at first reading can be expected to be modified according to the following points: using obligatory phrasing, introducing human rights and environmental law principles, and applying the draft principles to non-international armed conflict situations. The ILC draft shows that strengthening the existing rules on this subject is not an easy task, and has limitations. Nevertheless, the draft principles may serve to guide practice on the issue; and meanwhile, comments received from States and revision of the draft may reveal the direction of development of future rules for protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts. 2019년 유엔 국제법위원회(International Law Commission, ILC)는 제71차 회기에서 무력충돌 관련 환경보호에 관한 원칙 초안(Draft principles on protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts)을 주석과 함께 잠정 채택하였다. ILC가 잠정 채택한 28개의 원칙 초안은 무력충돌과 관련한 환경보호의 문제를 무력충돌 상황 뿐 아니라 무력충돌 이전과 종료 후로 시간적 범위를 확대함으로써, 예방적 및 사후적 조치의 중요성을 강조하고 있다. 또한 인권법과 환경법의 개념 및 원칙들을 반영함으로써 기존 무력충돌법에서의 환경보호에 관한 논의의 취약점을 보완하며 보호의 범위 및 조치를 폭넓게 다루고 있다. 나아가 무력충돌의 현대적 양상을 고려하여 국가 뿐 아니라 비국가행위자와 비국제적 무력충돌에 모두 적용되는 원칙을 도출하고자 하였다. 이 글의 목적은 ILC가 2019년 채택한 무력충돌 관련 환경보호 제1회독 초안과 주석의 내용을 중심으로 무력충돌 관련 환경보호의 국제사회의 논의의 발전 동향과 쟁점을 살펴보는 것이다. 이를 위해 제1회독 초안의 주요 내용을 소개하고, ILC에서의 논의와 유엔 총회 제6위원회에서의 국가 논평을 중심으로 동 초안의 쟁점을 살펴보았다. 동 주제에 대한 국가들의 입장을 살펴보았을 때, 제1회독 초안은 원칙이라는 형태와 비구속적 문구의 사용, 인권법 및 환경법 원칙의 도입, 비국제적 무력충돌 상황에서의 환경 보호를 중심으로 한 논쟁과 수정이 있을 것으로 예상된다. 한편 동 초안은 무력충돌시 환경보호 규범을 강화하고자 하였으나 여전히 한계가 있음을 보여준다. 관련한 국가들의 논평과 수정 방향은 향후 무력충돌 관련 환경규범의 발전 방향을 보여줄 것이다.

국가면제에서 ‘국가’의 의미에 관한 소고 ‒북한을 상대로 한 소송에의 함의‒

임예준 국제법평론회 2023 국제법평론 Vol.- No.65

Insofar as the State immunity is granted to a ‘State’, the definition of the legal person entitled to such immunity is a central question in the determination of such status by the domestic courts. While the status of a ‘State’ entitled to immunity would be self–evident in most cases, there may be other cases where the question would arise. In addition, it may not be sufficient to refer a ‘State’ per se, given that a State is brought before domestic courts in the name of different legal entities through different capacities. What, then, is the definition of a ‘State’ entitled to immunity under international law, and how is the status of such a State determined? For instance, should State immunity apply to an entity that is not recognized as a sovereign State by the international community but exists as a so–called de facto State? Does the status of an entity that is entitled to State immunity in domestic courts depend on the forum State’s State recognition?. Regarding recent litigations involving an individual civil damages claim against North Korea in a domestic court, scholars have argued that the State immunity recognized under customary international law should be examined in light of North Korea’s status as an unrecognized State. The applicability of State immunity in cases against North Korea is primarily a question of the multi–layered legal status of North Korea, but it is also fundamentally linked to the epistemological perspective on statehood. The issue is related to the understanding of a State relevant to the objective personality under international law or reciprocal–relative or subjective personality which depends on other circumstances, such as the existence of State recognition. This article examines the definition of ‘a State’ in the context of State immunity to clarify whether the entitlement to State immunity is based on the entity’s objective legal personality under international law, or whether it is subject to interpretation or recognition within the domestic legal order. The article first reviews the use of the term ‘State’ in the UN Convention on State immunity and national legislation in individual States, and examines the external attributes of a State focusing on statehood, independence, and foreignness. In particular, the article examines the practice of domestic courts in applying State immunity to an entity not fully a ‘sovereign independent State’. It further explores the relationship between State recognition and State immunity, and the practice of domestic courts in conferring State immunity on an unrecognized State. The discussion concludes with implications for recent litigation against North Korea.

국제인권규약상 자결권의 의미에 관한 소고

임예준 고려대학교 법학연구원 2022 고려법학 Vol.- No.104

The right to self-determination is one of the controversial concepts in international law. There is no doubt that respect for the right to self-determination constitutes one of the fundamental principles of international law. However, there are still unclear points about the meaning of the right to self-determination in that/in terms of what is the definition of self-determination, and who are the subject of that right, what is the content and the forms for realization of that right is. In particular, when the right to self-determination is claimed outside the context of colonialism, it increases its indeterminacy on its content and the scope for application. As the two main international human rights covenants, namely, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stipulated the right to self-determination in their common Article 1, the right to self-determination confirms its importance as an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of other individual human rights. Since then, the importance of the right to self-determination has been continuously emphasized and developed through various international documents. The question arises why the right to self-determination remains as the most political and controversial norm in international law despite the right has been stated in various documents? What is the meaning of the right to self-determination stipulated in the International Conventions on Human Rights? The purpose of this article is to examine the meaning of the right to self-determination as stipulated in the common Article of the two international human rights covenants, and to understand the controversial points around the right to self-determination, through the analysis of the travaux preparatoires and the Committee’s practices. Another purpose of this article is to discuss the reason why the right to self-determination has been intentionally broadly framed, while there is no way to clarify the meaning of the right to self-termination. To this end, this article examines the development and features of the right to self-determination (II) and the meaning and the scope of peoples as the subject of the right to self-determination (III). It furthers to examine the content and the forms of the right to self-determination (IV); and the obligations upon the State party to respect and to promote its realization (V). In the conclusion, considering the points where the controversy arises, it discusses inherent limitations to provide the concrete definition of the right to self-determination. 자결권은 국제법상 가장 복잡하고 불명확한 개념 중 하나이다. 오늘날 자결권 존중은 국제법 기본원칙이고, 국제인권의 핵심이다. 그러나 자결권이 무엇이고, 자결권의 주체인 인민은 누구이며, 자결권의 내용과 실현방식은 무엇인지에 대해서는 여전히 불분명한 점이 많다. 특히 자결권이 식민주의 맥락을 넘어서 논의되는 경우 그 내용과 범위의 불확정성은 더 커진다. 자결권은 국가 성립의 근거가 되기도 하고 국가 분열의 근거가 되기도 한다. 또한 외부로부터 주권을 보호하기도 하지만 외부의 개입을 고무하기도 한다. 1966년 두 개의 국제인권규약이 인권조약 상 처음으로 자결권을 명시함에 따라 자결권은 기본적 인권의 지위를 확고히 하게 되었으며, 다른 개별적인 인권의 행사를 위해 필수적인 조건임이 확인되었다. 이후에도 자결권의 중요성은 여러 국제문서를 통해 지속적으로 강조되며 발전하였다. 이처럼 여러 문서에서 확인된 권리임에도 불구하고 자결권은 국제법상 가장 정치적이고 논란이 많은 규범이다. 그렇다면 국제인권규약에서 자결권은 어떻게 명문화되었고 그 의미는 무엇일까? 이 글은 1950년대 인권규약 성안 과정과 이후 규약위원회의 논의를 중심으로 두 규약 제1조에 명시된 자결권의 의미를 살펴보고, 이를 바탕으로 자결권을 둘러싼 주요 쟁점을 이해함을 목적으로 한다. 이 글의 또 다른 목적은 자결권이 인권규약에서도 의도적으로, 추상적으로 규정되었을 뿐 아니라 해당 법리를 발전시키고 개념을 명확히 할 수 있는 이후의 방법 또한 없다는 것을 논의하기 위함이다. 이를 위하여 먼저 자결권의 발전과정을 살펴보고, 자결권의 성격, 자결권의 주체, 자결권의 내용, 자결권에 대한 의무를 둘러싼 쟁점에 대해 검토하였다. 결론에서는 쟁점이 발생하는 영역에 대한 고찰을 통해 자결권에 내재한 논의의 한계에 대해 살펴보았다.

국제법학과 국제관계학의 학제 간 연구에 관한 고찰

임예준 경상국립대학교 법학연구소 2021 法學硏究 Vol.29 No.2

International law is an academic discipline that studies the legal order of the international community and is concerned with the process of formation of institutions and norms. International relations is an academic discipline that studies the interactions and processes of various actors in the international community focused on explanation and predictions. Although international law and international relationships essentially share the intellectual exploration of international dynamics and order, they have developed into separate academic divisions, and have formed ‘two cultures’ due to differences in terminology as well as agenda and methodologies. * Assistant Professor, College of Public Policy, Korea University This article examines the development of interdisciplinary research in international law and international relations, as well as the interdisciplinary research field, and theoretically considers the interdisciplinary contacts and the possibility of interdisciplinary research. To this end, it examines the development process of interdisciplinary research in international law and international relations and finds elective affinity with international law by reviewing major theories of international relations. This article specifically introduces Anne-Marie Slaughter's liberal theory of international law to gauge the new methodologies in international law. From the perspective of international law, the theory of international relations allows us to consider the political factors involved in forming laws and better understand the meaning of norms and systems by contextualizing them. Thus, interdisciplinary research in international law and international relations would help effectively apprehend legal norms and institutions, overcoming the limitations of the international law approach that assumed or presupposed an idealistic normative system. It also allows us to deviate from a norm-centric approach and an alternative to the excessive ideologically vaporized international law. 국제법학은 국가 간의 관계를 규율하는 법을 포함하여 오늘날에는 국제공동체 전체의 관계와 질서 그리고 관련 제도와 규범의 형성과정을 주로 연구하는 학문 분야를 일컫는다. 국제관계학은 국가 간의 정치와 정치형태, 그리고 국제사회에서의 다양한 행위자의 상호작용과 과정을 연구하는 학문 분야를 일컫는다. 국제법학과 국제관계학은 기본적으로 국제사회의 역학관계 및 질서라는 지적 탐구 영역을 공유하고 있다. 그렇지만 국제법학과 국제관계학은 별개의 학문 분과로 발전했으며, 의제와 방법론뿐만 아니라, 용어 사용의 차이로 인하여 ‘두 개의 문화’를 형성해 왔다. 이 글은 국제법학과 국제관계학의 학제 간 연구의 발전과정과 학제적 연구영역을 살펴보고, 두 학문의 접점과 학제 간 연구의 확장 가능성을 고찰함을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위하여 국제관계이론을 개괄적으로 검토함으로써 국제법과의 선택적 친화성을 검토하였다. 다음으로 국제법학과 국제관계학의 학제 간 연구의 발전과정을 살펴보고, 활성화 요인과 학제 간 연구의 의의를 분석하였다. 마지막으로 학제 간 연구방법과 주요 연구영역을 살펴보고, 자유주의 이론을 국제법학에 연계하는 방법론을 취하고 있는 Anne-Marie Slaughter의 주요 이론을 통해 학제 간 연구의 방향을 가늠해보았다. 국제법의 관점에서 국제관계이론은 법제도를 설명하는데에 있어 법 형성에 관여하는 정치적 요소를 고려할 수 있게 하며, 규범과 제도의 의미를 규범과 제도가 위치한 맥락을 통해 더욱 잘 이해할 수 있게 해준다는 의의가 있다. 따라서 국제법학에 있어 국제관계학과의 학제 간 연구는 법규범과 제도를 정치적 맥락에서 설명함으로써, 이상주의적 규범 체제를 상정한 국제법학의 한계를 극복하여, 법규범과 제도를 효과적으로 이해하는 데 도움을 준다. 또한, 단순히 규범 중심적인 접근에서 벗어날 수 있게 하며, 국제법이 지나치게 이데올로기화되는 것에 대한 대안이 되기도 한다.

Legislation related to Violence against Women in North Korea

임예준 통일연구원 2019 International journal of korean unification studie Vol.28 No.1

This article examines the legislation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) related to violence against women to identify the sufficiency of its protection according to international standards, as well as the adequacy of implementation. The DPRK criminalizes violence against women through national laws, including the Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Women adopted in 2010. However, domestic violence remains inadequately regulated, and a comprehensive definition of sexual violence including marital rape has not been introduced. This fundamentally derives from the customs of the DPRK’s patriarchal society where the notion of dominance of men over women prevails. Violence against women is a violation of human rights which has generally resulted from the inequality of power between the sexes. Based on recognition of the root causes, the DPRK needs to improve legislation for the protection and support of victims of violence against women.

인공지능 시대의 전쟁자동화와 인권에 관한 소고 - 국제법상 자율살상무기의 규제를 중심으로 -

임예준 고려대학교 법학연구원 2019 고려법학 Vol.0 No.92

4차 산업혁명으로 인한 전쟁자동화와 관련하여 국제사회에서 가장 논란이 되고 있는 것은 자율무기체계의 도입이다. 자율무기란 활성화가 된 이후, 추가적인 인간의 개입 없이 통합정보 및 사전 프로그램 통제 아래 독립적으로 목표를 선택하여 공격할 수 있는 무기체계를 의미한다. 이글은 자율무기의 개념 및 현황과 관련된 국제사회의 논의를 살펴보고, 자율무기의 국제법적 쟁점에 관해 국제인도법을 중심으로 검토한 후, 이를 바탕으로 자율무기의 규제의 필요성과 규제방안을 살펴봄을 목적으로 한다. 자율무기가 신무기로서 적법하기 위해서는 국제인도법의 일반적인 규칙과 특정 무기 또는 전투수단을 금지하거나 이들의 사용방식을 제한하는 국제인도법의 특정한 규칙에 부합해야 한다. 또한 이러한 신무기는 배치되기 이전에 인도의 원칙과 공공양심의 명령에 부합하는지를 검토해야 한다. 자율무기가 국제인도법의 기본원칙을 준수할 수 있는지 여부는 사용되는 환경과 기술수준의 발전에 따라 달라질 수 있다. 그러나 예측불가능한 상황의 연속인 전장에서의 모든 가능한 시나리오를 프로그래밍 하여 국제인도법에 부합하는 결정 및 행위를 할 수 있도록 자율무기체계를 만드는 것은 분명 어려운 일일 것이다. 설령 기술수준의 발전에 따라 국제인도법의 기본원칙을 준수할 수 있다 하더라도, 무기체계가 인간의 통제를 넘어 자율적으로 무력을 사용해 인간을 살상하게 된다는 것은 기본적으로 공공양심의 명령에 부합하지 않는다. 자율무기의 핵심은 인명 살상을 위한 무력사용에 있어 인간의 판단이 배제된다는 것에 있다. 인간의 판단이 부재한 상황에서 인간의 생사가 알고리즘에 기초해 결정된다는 것은 그 자체로서 인간존엄성에 반할 수 있으며, 생명권에 대한 경시로 이어질 수 있다. 또한 국제인도법 및 국제인권법 위반 사안이 발생하였을 때 책임소재가 불분명해지는 자율무기는 그 자체로서 인권 보호의 장애가 될 수 있다. 따라서 인간의 존엄성과 인권을 보장하기 위해서는 공격목표물의 선정과 타격에 관한 결정의 이유를 설명할 수 있는 인간의 통제가 반드시 있어야 할 것이다. 국제사회는 무력사용에 관한 무기체계 개발에 있어서는 최소한 일정 정도의 인간통제는 반드시 필요함을 확인하고, 자율무기 개발로 인해 발생할 수 있는 문제에 대해 선제적으로 대처해야 할 것이다. One of the critical issues of the dehumanization of warfare in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is the introduction of autonomous weapons systems. This term refers to a weapons system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator. This article examines the definition and the current discussion regarding autonomous weapons in international society, and their legality from the perspective of international humanitarian law. Against this backdrop, it explores the necessity for regulation of autonomous weapons systems and the direction of such regulation. As a new weapon, an autonomous weapon must ensure its legality through complying with the relevant rules including the general rule of international humanitarian law applying to all weapons, means and methods of warfare, as well as particular rules of international humanitarian law and international law prohibiting the use of specific weapons and means of warfare or restricting the methods by which they can be used. Such a new weapon must also be in accord with the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience. Compliance with the basic principles of international humanitarian law is a priori dependent upon the context of deployment as well as development at a technical level. However, it is questionable whether it is technically possible to build all possible scenarios into the system to ensure compliance with basic principles of international humanitarian law in the unpredictable circumstances of warfare. And, even if this were technically possible, machine killing beyond human control would still be unacceptable under the Martens Clause. The core of this debate over autonomous weapons is exclusion of human judgment in using lethal force. Determination of life and death based on algorithms would violate the very notion of human dignity, which also leads to disrespect contempt for the right to life. Moreover, autonomous weapons would raise ambiguous accountability issues, as accountability could not be transferred to machines. Therefore, meaningful human control must remain in all weapons systems, such as could explain the reasoning behind determinations based on algorithms. The international community needs to ensure meaningful human control in developing autonomous weapons, while preparing measures to confront potential problems raised by such weapons.

4차 산업혁명 기술과 인권 보호 - 블록체인 기술의 인도주의 활동에서의 활용을 중심으로

임예준 충북대학교 법학연구소 2021 과학기술과 법 Vol.12 No.1

Not enough attention has been given to the positive potential of Fourth Industrial Revolution technology to protect and promote human rights. The purpose of this article is to examine the bright side of this technology through the specific example of its use in humanitarian activities using the case of the World Food Programme’s Building Blocks Project. A blockchain is a form of Distributed Ledger Technology that records data in multiple nodes simultaneously. This decentralization feature enables reducing transaction costs by eliminating intermediaries such as financial institutions, and increases security through the transparency of transactions and consensual mechanisms. The features of decentralization, transparency, and security together increase the efficiency of humanitarian assistance while providing an opportunity to establish digital identity. This is important because digital identity would ultimately serve as the basis for realizing the rights of forcibly displaced people, including refugees, who have been prevented from accessing basic rights because they lack proof of identity. However, like all other new technologies, blockchain has met with reproach as well as reverence. There are concerns such as conflict with the principle of privacy protection, the interest of the tech developer, insecurity of decentralized digital currency, as well as the criticism leveled against blockchain technology itself that it lacks energy efficiency. Such concerns are prima facie based on the uncertainty inherent in new technologies. Therefore, realization of the possibilities and limitations of blockchain technology will largely depend on its further development and use.

해수면 상승과 국가성 : ILC 논의의 의의 및 한계를 중심으로

임예준 대한국제법학회 2022 國際法學會論叢 Vol.67 No.4

Sea-level rise is a pressing concern of the international community as a whole. In 2018, the UN International Law Commission (‘ILC’) included the topic of ‘Sea-level rise in relation to international law’ in its long-term program of work. The syllabus for the topic suggested three issues as sub-topics to be examined concerning the legal implications of sea-level rise: the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. In 2019, the ILC decided to include the topic in its program of work and established an open-ended Study Group. In 2021 the Study Group discussed the first sub-topic of the law of the sea, and in 2022, issues relating to statehood and the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise were discussed. This article examines the discussion of the ILC Study Group on the sub-topic of statehood, focusing on the significance of this discussion and the limitations of the ILC in dealing with statehood. Statehood in relation to sea-level rise is an issue that deserves considerable caution. The consequences of sea-level rise for statehood are an existential matter of sovereign States and are related to the foundational aspect of international law. However, discussion of the issue is prima facie limited in that there is no generally accepted notion of ‘State’ and in that the ‘continuative elements’ for statehood are not addressed in international law. Since there is no record of situations where the territory of a State has been completely submerged or rendered uninhabitable, discussion of the issue is challenging for the ILC in terms of its materials and methodology, to deal with a purely speculative scenario lacking State practice. Moreover, the nature of the issue means it is easier to trigger policy-oriented options than to deal with the legal dimension. This fundamentally raises the question of the role to be played by the ILC, which is established to promote the progressive development of international law and its codification. This article examines the background and assumptions of the discussion and explores the issues related to statehood based on the second issues paper presented by the Co-Chairs and the Report of the Study Group. It further explores the significance, limitations, and challenges of discussions on the sub-topic of statehood, focusing on the role of the ILC. 해수면 상승은 국제공동체가 지대한 관심을 두는 주제이다. 2018년 유엔 국제법위원회(UN International Law Commission, 이하 ‘ILC’)는 ‘국제법 관련 해수면 상승(Sea-level rise in relation to international law)’을 장기작업주제로 채택하고, 해수면 상승의 법적 함의를 다루기 위해, 해양법, 국가성, 해수면 상승으로 인해 영향을 받는 사람의 보호를 세부 주제로 제시하였다. 2019년 ILC는 ‘국제법 관련 해수면 상승’을 새로운 작업주제로 채택하고 스터디그룹을 구성하였다. 2021년에는 첫 번째 해양법 주제를 다뤘으며, 2022년에는 국가성과 해수면 상승으로 인해 영향을 받는 사람의 보호 두 개의 주제를 다루었다. 이 글은 2022년 ILC가 다룬 세부 주제 중 하나인 ‘국가성’에 대한 논의를 살펴보고, 이 주제에 대한 ILC 논의의 의의 및 한계를 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 해수면 상승과 국가성은 신중한 접근이 필요한 주제이다. 해수면 상승이 국가성에 미치는 영향은 그 자체로 주권국의 실존에 관한 중대한 문제이며, 국제법 주체에 관한 논의로서 국제법의 근간과도 연결된다. 그러나 이 주제는 ‘국가’에 대해 보편적으로 합의된 정의 및 국제법상 국가의 ‘존속요건’에 대한 확인이 없는 상태에서 기존 법리 및 법적 체계 내에서 논의될 수 있는 영역의 한계가 있다. 또한, 국가실행이 없는 상태에서 추정적 시나리오를 다루어야 한다는 점은 ILC 논의의 재료와 방법론 측면에서 도전이 되고 있다. 나아가 쟁점의 성격상 법적 함의의 도출보다는 정책적 결론으로 빠지기 쉽다. 이는 국제법의 점진적 발전과 성문법전화를 위해 설립된 ILC의 역할에 관한 질문으로 이어진다. 이러한 문제의식을 바탕으로, 이 글은 먼저 논의의 배경 및 전제를 조망하고, 공동의장이 제출한 두 번째 쟁점 보고서 및 스터디그룹 논의를 거쳐 채택된 보고서를 중심으로 해수면 상승과 국가성 관련 주요 쟁점을 살펴보았다. 이를 바탕으로 ILC가 국가성 쟁점을 다룰 수 있는 논의 범위가 어디까지이며, 어떠한 결과물을 도출해 낼 수 있을지, 향후 과제는 무엇인지에 대해 고찰하였다.

1955년 반둥회의가 유엔체제와 국제법질서에 미친 영향

임예준(Rim, Ye Joon) 국제법평론회 2015 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.42

Sixty years have passed since April 1955 when the heads of State from 29 countries of Asia and Africa gathered in Bandung, Indonesia, for the Asian-African Conference. It was the first international conference held solely by Asian and African States, without the Western powers. Sharing the common experience of colonialism and anti-colonialism, these States aimed to resist imperialism and all forms of colonialism through this conference. As mostly newly independent States, they also tried to emphasize the importance of unity and solidarity among themselves to secure political, diplomatic and military independence from both the Eastern and Western Bloc during the Cold War. Above all, it was the first occasion on which they considered problems of common interest and concern to countries of Asia and Africa and discussed ways and means by which their people could achieve fuller economic, cultural and political co-operation. Although the holding of a second conference was derailed due to the deterioration of the relationship between India, Indonesia and the People’s Republic of China, the spirit of the Bandung Conference provided momentum for the solidarity of the Third World within the international community, and proved an important catalyst for the emergence of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM). Main principles adopted by the Bandung Conference such as political independence through peaceful coexistence and support for national liberation movements became the precondition for membership in the NAM and the foundation for the formation of a worldwide non-alignment reaching beyond the regional confines of Asia and Africa. For such reasons, research concerning the Bandung Conference has been mainly conducted from the angle of diplomatic history within the context of research of the NAM. Going, then, beyond its role as a milestone in the formation of the NAM, what has been the direct influence of the Bandung Conference on the UN system and the international legal order? And further, in juxtaposition to the meaning of this legacy based on the Sprit of Bandung as an abstract notion, what is the significance of the Bandung Conference in respect of the expansion of the international legal community and the development of international law? Through analysis of the content of the Conference’s final communiqué, this article aims to examine the significance of the Bandung Conference from an international legal point of view. In so doing it emphasizes the influence of the Conference on the expansion of the universal order of the international community through acceptance of the principles embodied in the UN Charter.

국제재판소의 ILC 국가책임조항 인용에 관한 연구

임예준(Yejoon Rim) 국제법평론회 2021 국제법평론 Vol.- No.58

In 2001 the UN International Law Commission (ILC) adopted the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts. The UN General Assembly welcomed the conclusion of the work of the ILC on this subject and annexed the text of the Articles to its resolution. Since that time, the General Assembly has discussed development of the Articles into a convention or other appropriate form, but the final decision on that future form has been postponed for almost 20 years. Meanwhile, it is hard to confirm the exact normative status of the Articles. They can be viewed as the draft for a convention on State responsibility, but do not constitute a treaty concluded by States in their current form. Moreover, not all provisions in the Articles can be regarded as reflecting customary law. While the Articles are not a legally binding instrument categorized as a formal source of law, they are nevertheless frequently referred to and quoted in decisions of international courts and tribunals. The question thus arises of what these bodies assume the Articles to represent when they refer them to their decisions. Furthermore, what can be learned from the accumulation of decisions quoting the Articles? The purpose of this paper is to examine the frequency and characteristics of references to and citations of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility in international courts, tribunals, and other bodies since 2001, and to examine the meaning of these accumulating references in terms of identification and establishment of customary international law. To this end, the paper first looks at the statistics on references to the Articles. Next, it examines how individual provisions are referred to in major precedents and the characteristics of such references. Based on these discussions, the paper contemplates the normative status of the Articles, and the significance of this status, from the perspective of customary international law. The accumulation of decisions referencing the Articles would ultimately lead to confirmation of their normative status, and furthermore would develop the normative status of specific provisions where there is not sufficient state practice.