문화국가원리에서 바라본 문화재 환수와 대여문화재의 한시적 압류면제

김재광 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2018 외법논집 Vol.42 No.1

The principle of culture-state implies a proactive task of the State to protect and foster culture. Protecting cultural heritage aborad should be understood within the context of protecting and fostering culture. The protection of cultural heritage overseas provided for in Articles 67 through 69 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act embodies the principles of culture-state. Legal disputes over the ownership of cultural objects illicitly exported due to a war, etc. or given as reparations have increased. Also, exhibitions may not be held until the ownership disputes are resolved. To prevent such circumstances from occurring, legislation on immunity from seizure of works of art and cultural objects on temporary loan for exhibition has been introduced in Europe since 1994. In America, the Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition of Display is established in 1965. In the Republic of Korea, a need has risen for legislation to provide temporary immunity from seizure of cultural objects on loan for exhibition, which should not be limited to domestic cultural properties but it also should be extended to cover cultural heritage overseas, in consideration of the people’s rights to enjoy and benefit from culture and of the principle of cultural state, ensuring cultural freedom and equality and realizing the value of protecting and fostering culture as an active task of the State. However, because the grant of such immunity contradicts with the obligation to recover cultural properties aborad under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, certain legal issues have arisen. Therefore, more legal efforts needed to be made to respond to them. As a legal effort to proactively handle any arising issues, there is a movement to amend the Museum and Art Gallery Support Act by newly inserting Article 23-2 governing the immunity of loaned works of art and other materials of foreign museums and art galleries from seizure. A tentative draft as follows: “Where works of art and other materials are loaned, from a foreign government, organ equivalent thereto, municipality, public institution, museum, art gallery, etc., for exhibition in museums or art galleries, and if the loan requirements, such as exhibitions should be held in museums or art galleries and for attracting public interest, are met, the Minister of Culture, Sports, and Tourism may prohibit any attachment, seizure, transfer, confinement, etc. of such loaned works of art and other materials during the loan period.” If lawmakers make it mendatory for any museum or exhibition manager desiring to exhibit cultural objects abroad on temporary loan to check the provenance of the cultural objects, or if the Government provides provenance information that it held, many of the worries about temporary immunity of cultural properties overseas on loan from seizure could be dispelled. Also, we need to make more efforts in international cooperation for the repatriation of cultural heritage overseas unlawfully exported. 문화국가원리는 국가의 적극적 과제로 ‘문화의 보호와 육성’을 내포하고 있다. ‘문화의 보호와 육 성’에는 국외소재문화재의 보호도 당연히 포함되는 것으로 해석되어야 한다. 「문화재보호법」은 제67 조부터 제69조까지 국외소재문화재 보호정책을 명시함으로써 문화국가원리를 구체화하고 있다. 전쟁 등으로 불법적으로 반출되거나 전쟁배상으로 지급된 문화재들에 대한 법적인 소유권 분쟁이 증가하게 되었다. 이에 따라 소유권분쟁이 끝날 때까지 전시가 불가능해 질 수 있다. 이를 방지하기 위하여 유럽 각국에서는 1994년부터 전시회를 위해 임대된 미술품 등에 대한 한시적 압류면제에 대한 입법이 이루어졌다. 또한 미국에서는 1965년에 「미국 내의 전시 및 공연 등을 위한 문화재 압류면제 법」이 제정되었다. 우리나라도 문화국가원리가 내포하는 국민의 문화유산 접근 및 문화향유 강화 차원에서 전시목적 대여문화재의 한시적 압류면제제도는 국내에 소재하는 문화재 등에 국한할 것이 아니라 국외소재문화 재 등에로 확대하기 위한 입법의 필요성이 제기되고 있다. 그것은 인류역사의 문화적인 흐름을 존중함 으로써 국제사회에서 문화적인 고아가 되지 않도록 노력하는 개방적이고 미래지향적인 전통문화국가 의 건설과 맥락을 같이한다. 다만 이것이 「문화재보호법」상 국외소재문화재 환수의무와 상충 여지가 있다는 점에서 법적으로 문제되고 있으며 그 해결을 위한 법적 노력이 강구될 필요가 있다고 본다. 「박물관 및 미술관 진흥법」제23조의2(외국 박물관⋅미술관 자료의 압류 등으로부터 보호)를 신설 하여 이 문제에 적극 대응하는 것은 바람직하다고 본다. 연구보고서에 제시된 개정시안은 다음과 같 다. “문화체육관광부장관은 대한민국 국민에게 전시할 공익 목적으로 외국의 정부나 이에 준하는 단체 및 지방자치단체, 공공기관 및 박물관⋅미술관 등에서 대여한 자료들을 박물관⋅미술관에서 전시 하는 경우, 외국의 정부 등으로부터 대여받기 위한 전제 조건일 것과 공익 목적의 전시일 것 등의 조 건에 부합하는 경우 대여기간 동안 다른 법률에 우선하여 압류, 압수, 양도 및 유치 등을 금지할 수 있다.” 이 방안 외에도 미국처럼 별도의 법률을 제정하는 방안, 독일처럼 문화재보호법에 신설하는 방 안도 대안적으로 검토할 것을 제안한다. 그리고 국외소재문화재의 대여 전시를 희망하는 박물관이나 전시 기획자에게 해당 문화재의 출처 (provenance) 확인을 의무화하거나 정부기관이 소장하고 있는 출처정보를 제공하는 경우 국외소재문 화재의 대여 전시에 따른 한시적 압류면제는 논란의 우려를 상당부분 불식시킬 수 있을 것이다. 아울 러 국제공조를 통한 불법 반출된 국외소재문화재 환수를 위한 노력을 경주할 필요가 있다.

고용소송과 국가면제 ‒ 국제인권법과의 관계를 중심으로 ‒

강우현(Kang, Woohyun) 국제법평론회 2019 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.53

The practice of today indicate that not every act of a foreign State is accorded State(or sovereign) immunity, and that many countries distinguish between acts jure imperii and acts jure gestionis and only accord immunity to the former. The United Nations Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property is reflective of this trend, stipulating in Article 11 that if a State employs a person in another State, the employment itself is in principle not a sovereign act, allowing that person to file suits against the employer State in cases of alleged violations of labour law. However, such employment contracts might at times be sovereign, for exmaple when the employee is responsible for acts performed in the exercise of sovereign authority, or when their work is closely related to such sovereign acts. Immunity might also be granted when the employee is more closely related to the employer State rather than the State of the forum, or when allowing the employee to sue the employer State at the State of the forum harms the former s security interests. State practice is not uniform in this area, but most States now take into account these factors in deciding whether to allow State immunity or not. This dissertation explores how according State immunity in employment disputes might clash with the right to access to court in international human rights law. Currently, the European Court of Human Rights accepts sovereign immunity rules, particularly those stipulated in the aforementioned UN Convention, as constituting a legitimate limitation to the right to access to court. This not only diminishes the unique aspects of proportionality analysis in international human rights law, it might in some circumstances constitute a violation on the duty not to discriminate based on nationality. This dissertation argues that this potential clash should be avoided by a fuller proportionality analysis, in particular taking into account whether the applicant has alternative effective remedies available

2019년 제71차 회기 유엔 국제법위원회 작업현황과 제74차 유엔총회 제6위원회 논의 결과

박기갑(Park, Ki-Gab) 국제법평론회 2020 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.55

The International Law Commission (ILC or Commission) at its 71st session on 2019 did various works as follows. With regard to the topic “Crimes against humanity”, the Commission adopted, on the second reading, the entire set of draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, comprising a draft preamble, 15 draft articles and a draft annex, together with commentaries thereto. The Commission recommended to the General Assembly the elaboration of a convention on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity by the General Assembly or by an international conference of plenipotentiaries on the basis of the draft articles. With respect to the topic “Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens)”, the Commission adopted, on the first reading, 23 draft conclusions and a draft annex, together with commentaries thereto. With respect to the topic “Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts”, the Commission adopted, on first reading, 28 draft principles, together with commentaries thereto. Governments, international organizations and others relevant entities are requested to submit comments and observations by 1 December 2020. The Commission continued to work on the topics on “Succession of States in respect of State responsibility” and “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”. As a new topic, the Commission started its consideration on “General principles of law” and “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”. The latter will be discussed by the Study Group chaired by five members. The author considers it is important to pay more attention to the following five points in light of the reactions to the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly, which reviewed the work of the ILC. First, when and how will the 2nd reading draft articles on “Crimes against humanity” be adopted as an international convention? Secondly, the first reading draft on “Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens)” received more attention from the Member States than the first reading draft on “Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts”. Attention should be paid to its draft conclusion 16, which deals with the legal effects of the decision adopted by the United Nations Security Council which conflicts with jus cogens. Thirdly, attention should be also paid to the topics on “Protection of the atmosphere” and “Provisional application of the treaties” of which the 2nd reading drafts will be adopted in 2020. Fourth, there was a lot of disagreement between Member States regarding the two topics presented as a long-term work program to the United Nations General Assembly this year. The Korean government has also expressed its own position on these two topics. Fifth and lastly, we should be aware that the concerns of Member States regarding the change of working methods of the ILC have been expressed.

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

2021년 제72차 회기 유엔 국제법위원회 작업현황과 제76차 유엔총회 제6위원회 논의 결과

박기갑(Park, Ki-Gab) 국제법평론회 2022 국제법평론 Vol.- No.61

Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the 72nd session of the ILC was convened in Geneva in 2021 after a year-long suspension based on the UNGA Decision 74/566 (2020). During the 72nd session, the ILC concluded the second reading of two topics, namely “the Protection of the atmosphere” that consists of 12 draft guidelines together with commentaries and “Provisional application of treaties” comprising 12 draft guidelines and a draft annex, containing examples of provisions on provisional application of treaties, together with commentaries thereto. The ILC continued its deliberations on the other topics: the topic of “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, the ILC adopted 6 draft articles on procedural aspects and safeguards. The ILC made also a progress on the topic of “Succession of States in relation to international law” and “General principles of law”. The ILC established a Study Group to deal with the topic of “Sea-level rise in relation to international law” that was included in the Commission’s programme in 2019. During the session, the Study Group focused on the subject of sea-level rise in relation to the law of the sea, based on the first issue paper. The Study Group next year will fous on issues related to statehood, as well as those related to the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. The ILC decided to include the topic of “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law” in its long-term programme of work. During the 72nd session, the ILC took two memorial meetings for two former ILC members: Judge Alexander Yankov and Judge James Crawford.

공법 : ICC규정 이행입법안 연구 -독일 및 스위스의 경우를 중심으로-

최태현 ( Tae Hyun Choi ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2006 법학논총 Vol.23 No.2

레바논특별재판소의 설립과 관련 법적 쟁점

金亨?(Hyoung-Ku Kim) 대한국제법학회 2008 國際法學會論叢 Vol.53 No.3

2005년 2월 14일 레바논의 수도인 베이루트 시내에서 발생한 폭탄테러로 인하여 레바논 전 총리이자 당시 야당 지도자였던 라피크 하리리(Rafiq Hariri)를 포함한 22명이 사망하는 사건이 발생하였다. 이 사건과 관련하여 UN안전보장이사회는 STL규정이 부속된 2007년 결의 1757을 통해 STL의 설립을 결정하였다. 그러나 STL은 기존의 국제형사재판기관들과 구별되는 특징을 가지고 있으며 이는 STL과 관련한 법적인 논쟁을 야기하고 있다. 그 가운데 심각하게 지적되고 있는 것으로는 첫째, UN의 실패한 설립과정에서 기인한 STL설립에 있어서의 이원적인 접근이라는 상황에서 STL의 설립근거가 무엇이고 설립의 정당성이 무엇인가 하는 문제이다. 둘째, 무엇보다도 국내형법 상의 범죄만을 관할권범죄로 취급하고 있는 STL이 과연 국제성을 가지고 있는 국제형사재판소로 취급될 수 있는지 여부와 STL에서 국가원수 또는 고위공직자에 대한 관할권면제주장은 어떻게 이해되어야 하는가 하는 문제가 있다. 셋째, 국제형사재판절차에 있어 어느 정도의 궐석재판은 인정되어 왔지만 STL의 경우 너무 광범위하게 궐석재판을 허용하고 있는 것이 아닌지 하는 논란이 있다. 넷째, STL의 경우 국내형법전에 규정된 범죄만을 유일한 범죄로 하고 있으면서도 국제범죄에 적용되는 지휘관책임이론 및 공동범죄집단이론과 같은 책임이론을 적용하고 있는바 과연 이것이 죄형법정주의원칙에 합치될 수 있는지 하는 법적 논란이 있다. 이 글은 이하에서 위와 같은 네 개의 주요 법적 쟁점들을 차례로 고찰하고 현행 STL규정에 심각한 법적 문제가 있는 경우 이를 위한 해결책은 무엇인지를 고찰하였다. 아울러 국제형사재판제도의 발전이라는 측면에서 STL의 설립이 국제형사재판제도의 발전으로 평가될 수 있는지 아니면 국제형사재판 제도의 퇴보로 평가될 수 있는지를 평가하고 STL의 향후 활동을 전망 해보았다. On 14 February 2005 there was a terrorist bombing in Beirut, Lebanon and about 22 persons, including Mr. Rafiq Hariri the former prime minister of Lebanon, were killed by this terrorist bombing. Concerning such internationally influencing case, the United Nations Security Council passed the Resolution 1757 in 2007 to establish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (hereinafter ‘the STL’) to prosecute and punish the perpetrators. And the Statute of the STL was annexed to the Resolution 1757. However, comparing its predecessors: other international criminal courts and tribunals, and hybrid courts in East Timor, Cambodia and Kosovo, the STL has the distinguishing or even odd features from the perspectives of international criminal law and international institutional law. Most controversial legal issues are as following. First, what the legal ground of the establishment of the STL is very unclear due to the failure of the UN to establish the STL by the bilateral agreement with the Government of Lebanon. Second, even though the STL is scheduled to be established based upon international assistance, it is not clear whether the STL may be regarded as an ‘international criminal court or tribunal like the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) or the ICC (International Criminal Court). Because the STL can exercise its own jurisdiction on Hariri assassination and its applicable law is only Lebanon national (criminal) laws not international law. In this context, it is not clear whether the STL may exercise its jurisdiction on a head of State activities or not. Thirdly, the STL Statute allows very extensive trial in absentia. Some jurists pointed out that this feature may damage the legitimacy on a trial in the STL and in a case it may violate international human rights standards on a fair trial. Fourthly, although the jurisdiction ratione matrie of the STL is limited to national crimes, the STL Statute allows applying the modes of liability in international criminal law, so-called superior responsibility and joint criminal enterprise. This feature may violate the principle of legality because it is impossible to find such modes of liability in national jurisprudence. This article analyzed the four main legal issues as referred above, and tried to present the desirable solutions on them. In addition, this article tried to evaluate whether the STL may regarded as progression or retrogression or not in the context of the developments of international institutions to enhance the international criminal justice.