The Restrictive Immunity Doctrine and Employment Claims: Recent Trends in the Face of Competing Interests

Yasir Gökçe (사) 이준국제법연구원 2016 Journal of East Asia and International Law Vol.9 No.2

Absolute immunity means that a State cannot exercise legislative, judicial or executive powers over another State due to the mere fact that the latter is sovereign. Today, it is rejected by a considerable number of States which represent various legal systems. States argue that private acts of a State performed jure gestionis, apart from the conducts performed jure impreii, are justiciable. It can be asserted that the current State practice embracing the restrictive approach is the direction in which international law has been evolving. That said, States’ interests which led to the adoption of State immunity still continue to induce legislative bodies and courts to be cautious in formulating a broad exception to immunity for employment contracts, causing them to refocus on the question of whether the employment relationship is destined for governmental, public, or sovereign purposes.

外交問題에 대한 美聯邦大法院의 태도변화에 관한 소고

金明植(MyeongSik Kim) 한국토지공법학회 2002 土地公法硏究 Vol.16 No.1

  The Supreme Court of the United States repeatedly has held that cases presenting issues related to the conduct of foreign affairs present political questions. But, in Baker v. Carr, the Court explicitly rejected the dictum that anything touching foreign affairs is immune from judicial review. For example, the Court has held that the Presidents employment of executive agreements instead of treaties to implement main foreign policy agreements did not present a political question, upholding the constitutionality of the Presidents action on the merits. Moreover, the Court has buttressed the constitutionality of the exercise of the treaty power for particular subject matters.<BR>  In the meantime, when the Court have held that foreign affairs are not reviewable, its decisions are grounded primarily in the political question doctrine; however, other doctrines are sometimes cited allowing judicial abdication from those issues, i.e., the act of state doctrine and the sovereign immunity doctrine.<BR>  Applying the two doctrines, judges have refused to decide large categories of foreign affairs claims, precisely because they believed politicians and diplomats were better positioned to resolve disputes involving the legitimacy of foreign governments laws and activities. While the courts claimed to be deferring to foreign laws and governments, in practice they were deferring to the U.S. political branches, which were thought to be better suited to dealing with the effects of laws and actions of foreign states.<BR>  However, Congress can legislatively direct the courts to find certain foreign affairs cases justiciable, instead of accepting the judges reticence. Professor Frank regarded such initiatives as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Hickenlooper Amendment to Foreign Assistance Act as a hopeful sign that the political branches have actually sought to propel the judiciary to say what the law is. The judiciary, while not necessarily welcoming this role, has not seen in the Constitution any significant barrier to its being vested with these new responsibilities in an area which it had previously abdicated.<BR>  Therefore, it is troublesome to identify any principle that determines which foreign policy issues are justiciable and which ones present political questions. It is perhaps more reasonable, then, to simply describe the areas where the political question doctrine has been applied within the sphere of foreign affairs.

지적재산권침해행위에 대한 관할권행사의 한계

표호건 영산대학교 법률교육연구원 2005 영산법률논총 Vol.2 No.1

The state of the forum shall never exercise its jurisdiction unless the act of infringing the intellectual property right is caused in the State of the forum. Sovereign immunity is a ground for a domestic court not to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. More logically, under international law, whether the State of the forum actually has jurisdiction over the lawsuit shall be considered before determining sovereign immunity. However, in actual State practices, whether the State of the forum has jurisdiction over the lawsuit is considered at the stage of determining immunity from jurisdiction. Although the issue of whether the State of the forum has jurisdiction over the lawsuit shall logically precede the determination in respect of immunity from jurisdiction, this issue is treated as a criterion for determining immunity from jurisdiction as far as intellectual property infringement lawsuits are concerned. However, no consensus has been established concerning in what cases an infringing act would be deemed to have occurred in the State of the forum. Consequently, it is necessary to consider how the issue of jurisdiction over an intellectual property infringement is judged in lawsuits between private persons. Since the rules on jurisdiction are included in the rules on immunity, courts may at least make different decisions in regard to the jurisdiction of a foreign State from those in lawsuits between private persons.

공공고용관계의 헌법상 지위의 변화: 미국 연방대법원 판례를 중심으로

제갈돈,제갈욱 한국의정연구회 2023 의정논총 Vol.18 No.1

In public employment relationship, the U.S. Federal Judiciary’s policy change had a decisive impact on the constitutional status of public employees. It attempted to make “deconstitutionalization” of public employment relationship with the intention of reducing the scope of protection of constitutional rights of public employees through U.S. Supreme Court decisions, while overturning traditional "doctrine of sovereign immunity" and expanding the scope of public responsibility. Since the issue of public responsibility in public employment relationships is very important in securing the efficiency of public services, this study will provide developmental implications for future public employment relationships by analyzing benchmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. 공공고용관계에서 미국 연방사법부의 정책 변화는 공공근로자들의 헌법상 지위에 결정적인 영향을 미쳤다. 연방대법원 판례를 통하여 공공근로자들의 헌법상 권리에 대한 보호의 범위를 축소하려는 의도 하에서 공공고용관계를 “비헌법화(deconstitutionalization)”하려고 시도하였다. 다른 한편으로는 전통적인 “주권면책원칙(doctrine of sovereign immunity)” 을 번복하고 공적 책임의 범위를 확장함으로써 정부의 면책에 결정적인 역할을 담당하였다. 공공고용관계에서 공적 책임의 이슈는 공공근로자들의 법적 보호와 공공서비스의 효율성을 확보하는 데 매우 중요하다. 따라서 본 연구는 미국 연방대법원의 이정표적 판례를분석하여 미래의 공공고용관계에 발전적인 함의를 제공할 것이다.

The Lawsuit against the United States for Causing COVID-19

Patthara Limsira 이준국제법연구원 2020 Journal of East Asia and International Law Vol.13 No.2

미국 연방대법원 판결례에서 본 이중배상금지의 원칙 - 대상판결: 판결대법원 2017. 2. 3. 선고 2015두60075 판결 -

정하명 한국행정판례연구회 2017 행정판례연구 Vol.22 No.2

The Korean Constitution Article 29(2) and the Korean State Compensation Act Article 2 provide the prevention of double compensation for the injured military men and police officials from their service related activities. The injured military men are only entitled to get veteran benefits and victim's compensations as prescribed by Act, but shall not be entitled to have a claim against the state on the grounds of unlawful acts committed by public officials in the course of military duties. Korean Supreme Court ruled “the prevention of double compensation clause is based on a uniform and comprehensive compensation program for injured veterans and victim's family.”(Korean Supreme Court 2002. 5. 10. 2000Da39735) Korean Supreme Court recently ruled that the prevention of double compensation clause shall not limit the remained family's application for military victim's compensation program after the family already got the damage compensation from the government.(Korean Supreme Court 2017. 2. 3. 2015Du60075) The U.S Supreme Court established Fares Doctrine at Feres v. United States(340 U.S. 135 (1950)). According to the Fares Doctrine, the injured military man from incident-to-service injuries shall not sue against the U.S. but apply veteran's programs and other benefits. The Feres Doctrine would be a reference for the Korean Supreme Court's proper interpretation of the prevention of double compensation clauses of Korean Constitution and State Compensation Act. 우리나라는 헌법 제29조 제2항과 국가배상법 제2조 제1항 단서에서군인 등에 대한 이중배상금지의 원칙을 규정하고 있고 대법원은 “그 조항의 입법취지가 국가 또는 공공단체가 위험한 직무를 집행하는 군인 등에대한 ·군무원·경찰공무원 또는 향토예비군대원에 대한 피해보상제도를 운영하여, 직무집행과 관련하여 피해를 입은 군인 등이 간편한 보상절차에 의하여 자신의 과실 유무나 그 정도와 관계없이 무자력의 위험부담이 없는확실하고 통일된 피해보상을 받을 수 있도록 보장하는 대신에, 피해 군인등이 국가 등에 대하여 공무원의 직무상 불법행위로 인한 손해배상을 청구할 수 없게 함으로써, 군인 등의 동일한 피해에 대하여 국가 등의 보상과배상이 모두 이루어짐으로 인하여 발생할 수 있는 과다한 재정지출과 피해군인 등 사이의 불균형을 방지하고, 또한 가해자인 군인 등과 피해자인 군인 등의 직무상 잘못을 따지는 쟁송이 가져올 폐해를 예방하려는 데에 있고, 또 군인 등이 전투, 훈련 기타 직무집행과 관련하는 등으로 공상을 입은 데 대하여 재해보상금, 유족연금, 상이연금 등 별도의 보상제도가 마련되어 있는 경우에는 이중배상의 금지를 위하여 이들의 국가에 대한 국가배상법 또는 민법상의 손해배상청구권 자체를 절대적으로 배제하는 규정”에해당한다 해석하고 있다.(대법원 2002. 5. 10. 선고 2000다39735 판결) 대법원은 최근 국가배상법 제2조 제1항 단서가 보훈보상자법 등에 의한 보상을 받을 수 있는 경우 국가배상법에 따른 손해배상청구를 하지 못한다는것을 넘어 국가배상법상 손해배상금을 받은 경우 보훈보상자법상 보상금등 보훈급여금의 지급을 금지하는 것으로 해석하기는 어렵다고 판시하여이중배상금지의 원칙의 적용범위를 점 더 명확히 하는 판결을 하였다.(대법원 2017. 2. 3. 선고 2015두60075 판결) 미국 연방대법원은 이미 1950년에 Feres v. United States 판결(340 U.S. 135 (1950))을 통하여 군복무관련부상(incident-to-service injuries)에 대해서는 국가배상소송을 인정하지 않는다는 Feres의 법리를 확립하였다. 연방대법원의 판례를 통하여 확립된 Feres의 법리의 핵심적 내용은 이중배상금지의 원칙의 내용은 연방정부에 대한 국가배상을 청구하는 것을금지한다는 것에 있는 것이므로 우리나라 대법원에서 이중배상금지의 규정을 해석하면서 비록 군관련 자살사고로 인하여 국가배상을 받은 경우라고하더라도 보훈법상 보상 등은 청구할 수 있다고 판시한 것은 타당한 해석이라고 할 것이다.

Obstacles on Federal Litigation as Remedy for Victims of Jeju Massacre

Lennox S. Hinds 세계환경사회거버넌스학회 2020 World Environment and Island Studies Vol.10 No.4