미국통상법과 트럼프행정부의 통상정책

김채형 ( Chai-hyung Kim ) 안암법학회 2021 안암 법학 Vol.- No.62

2016년 11월 미국은 ‘America First’의 구호를 내세운 Donald Trump를 대통령으로 선출하였으며, 트럼프(Trump)대통령은 보호무역정책을 장려하고 국제협력에서 미국의 국내이익을 우선시하였다. 이러한 방향에서 트럼프대통령은 국제사회의 동맹관계를 중시하지 않고, 협력적이고 외교적인 접근방식을 회피하였다. 이 논문에서는 우선적으로 미국의 보호무역주의정책의 역사를 간략히 살펴보고, 다음으로 미국이 자유무역정책을 표방하고 있음에도 불구하고 미국내에서 보호무역정책의 실행을 위하여 미국 통상법을 적극적으로 적용하는 경향을 분석한다. 미국 행정부는 미국 통상법과 WTO분쟁해결절차를 적극적으로 활용하여, 미국의 상품과 서비스에 대하여 외국시장을 개방하고 있으며, 외국의 불공정한 행위에 대하여 미국 노동자, 기업가, 농부를 보호하고 있다. 그런 방향에서 트럼프행정부는 다른 국가가 미국시장을 부당하게 공격하는 것을 방지하기 위하여 미국 통상법의 적극적이고 효과적인 집행을 시도하고 있다. 트럼프행정부는 미국 산업에 혜택을 주기 위하여 미국의 반덤핑법과 상계관세법의 적극적인 집행을 계속하였으며, 미국의 계속적인 반덤핑조치와 상계관세조치는 보호무역주의가 미국 통상법의 일부분으로 남아 있다는 점을 나타내고 있다. 미국 Trade Act의 Section 301에 따라 불공정한 무역행위 조사절차, Section 201에 따라 세이프가드조사의 절차, 1962년 Trade Expansion Act 의 Section 232에 따라 외국수입에 대한 국가안보 조사절차 같은 이러한 수단들은 대다수 사용되지 않았는데, 최근에 트럼프대통령의 지시에 따라, 미국 행정부는 미국 노동자들을 위한 더욱 공정하고 강력한 미국경제를 창설하기 위하여 활용가능한 모든 수단을 사용하고 있다. 여기서는 미국이 보호무역주의측면에서 사용한다고 판단되는 무역규제조치로써 미국 통상법상의 반덤핑법, 상계관세법, Section 201의 세이프가드조치, Section 301에 의한 조사 및 조치, 국가안보를 위한 Section 232의 조치를 분석하였다. 그리고 WTO의 분쟁해결제도는 강제적 관할권과 권위있는 항소기구로 인하여 가장 광범위하게 준수되는 국제법률제도의 하나이었다. 그렇지만 미국의 트럼프대통령은 이러한 강력한 WTO체제에 대한 신뢰에 의문을 제기하였다. 트럼프행정부는 WTO의 강제적인 통상법규에 관련하여 미국에게 부과되는 국제적 의무에 대하여 회의적인 입장을 나타내었다. 이 논문에서 WTO체제에 대한 트럼프행정부의 입장을 미국 무역대표부(USTR)의 보고서에 따라 분석하며, WTO의 항소기구에 대한 미국의 무력화조치를 검토하였다. WTO체제에 대한 트럼프행정부의 공격은 WTO협정의 규범에 대하여 충격을 가하고 있다. 미국은 지난 수년 동안 WTO 항소기구의 권한확대에 대하여 깊은 우려를 표명하면서, WTO 항소기구의 월권행위는 불공정한 무역행위를 규제하려는 미국의 권한을 제한한다고 주장하였다. 그래서 트럼프행정부는 WTO 항소기구의 신규 위원의 선정을 위한 공식적 절차를 전략적으로 봉쇄하였고, 이러한 봉쇄조치로 인하여 2019년 12월에 WTO 항소기구가 실질적으로 종료되었다. 미국의 반발로 야기된 WTO체제의 위기를 제도적 개혁을 통하여 WTO체제에 다시 활력을 불러일으켜야 할 시점에 있으며, 개별국가가 WTO체제의 분쟁해결제도를 봉쇄하지 못하도록 제도적 완비가 있어야 한다. In November 2016, The United States elected Donald Trump as President following his ‘America First’ campaign, which promoted protectionist policies and prioritized the United States’ domestic interests over international cooperation. In this direction, President Trump seeks to disengage from global alliances, and eschew cooperative diplomatic approaches. This paper addresses briefly the history of Unites States protectionism and analyses the trends in applying actively U. S. trade laws in order to implement protectionist policy in the United States, despite the United States’ simultaneous promulgation of free trade policies. Through the vigorous applications of U. S. trade laws and active use of WTO dispute settlement procedures, the United States open foreign markets to U. S. goods and services and helps defend U. S. workers, businesses, and farmers against foreign unfair practices. In this direction, Trump administration tries to enforce vigorously U. S. trade laws to defend other countries to attack unduly U. S. domestic markets. Trump administration implements continuously vigorous application of U. S. antidumping laws and countervailing duty laws to provide benefits to U. S. industry. The United States’ continuous antidumping duties and countervailing measures are examples of how protectionism has remained a part of U. S. trade laws. U. S. Congress has enacted procedures for unfair trade investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, safeguard actions under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, and national security investigations of imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. In recent decades, these tools were largely unused. But under President Trump’s leadership, the U. S. Administration is using all available tools to create a fairer and stronger economy for American workers. This paper analysed antidumping laws, countervailing duty laws, safeguard measures under Section 201, measures under Section 301, national security measures under Section 232 of the U. S. Trade Act as supposed to be utilized in the aspects of protectionism. The WTO’s dispute settlement system was one of the most widely respected international legal systems in existence due to its large caseload, compulsory jurisdiction, high levels of compliance, and authoritative Appellate Body. But President Trump called into question this confidence in the robustness of the WTO. Trump administration was skeptical of American international commitments more generally. Thus this paper analysed the position of Trump administration according to the reports of United States Trade Representative (USTR), and reviewed U. S. blocking measures regarding to WTO’s Appellate Body. Trump administration’s attacks on the WTO system, in particular, represent a shock to the norms and understanding essential to the WTO agreements. The United States has expressed deep concerns for many years with the Appellate Body’s overreach in various areas. The United States assert that such overreach restricts the ability of the United States to regulate in the public interests and protect U. S. workers and businesses against unfair trading practices. Thus Trump administration blocked the official procedure for nominate or renew the term of Appellate Body members, and WTO Appellate Body is sub- stantially terminated in December 2019. The current crisis of the WTO system caused by the United States’s opposition has to overcome through institutional reform of the WTO. The positive and credible demonstration of support for the WTO would be necessary to rebuild the confidence in the WTO.

미국 특허쟁송실무에 관한 연구 - 연방순회항소법원(CAFC), 연방지방법원, 국제무역위원회(ITC), 특허청(USPTO)을 중심으로 -

송현정 ( Song Hyun Jung ) 사법정책연구원 2016 연구보고서 Vol.2016 No.18

In the twenty-first century, ever more Korean corporations are tapping into foreign markets, exploiting intangible assets with the advent of a knowledge based information society. In doing so, international disputes over patents between domestic and foreign corporations are on the increase. Especially, the patent battle between Apple and Samsung Electronics adds to the increasingly tough environment for Korean companies in the United States. Under such circumstances, it is significant to have a solid grasp of the patent trial proceedings of the United States so as to establish effective confrontation strategies when engaging in patent trials in the United States. The types of patent trials in the United States appear to divide into two categories according to their strategic objectives: infringement and invalidity. A patent trial generally begins with the filing of a complaint alleging patent infringement by a patent owner, and an accused infringer then asserts the defense of invalidity of the patent at stake to avoid liability. The patent owner who believes that his patent is being infringed has two venues for relief. The patent owner may seek relief in a federal district court, the International Trade Commission, or both. Yet, an allegedly infringing article has to be imported into the United States to bring an action before the International Trade Commission. Furthermore, parties seeking monetary relief must resort to the district court since remedies available at the International Trade Commission are limited to prohibition from committing specific unfair trade practices. On the other hand, the accused infringer has several ways to escape liability. Where the proceeding is initiated before the district court or the International Trade Commission, the accused infringer may assert counterclaims of invalidity, or raise an affirmative defense of invalidity. Alternatively, he may challenge the patent’s validity through post grant proceedings at the United States Patent and Trade Office, i.e., post grant review, covered business method review, inter partes review, and ex parte reexamination, to defend against patent infringement trials. If the party remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the trial, he may further file an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since it is the sole appellate court having nationwide jurisdiction over patent appeals. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has long established case law doctrines and unified rules for patent trials. This research articulates the procedural aspects of the aforementioned institutions resolving patent disputes, with special emphasis on the individual practices of judges. By doing so, hopefully this research can contribute to the advancement of sound practices for the Korean judiciary in the field of patent litigations.

미국 특허쟁송실무에 관한 연구

송현정 사법정책연구원 2016 사법정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.2016 No.-

21세기 지식정보화 사회의 도래와 함께 무형자산을 활용한 국내기업의 해외시장 진출이 증가하면서 국내기업과 해외기업 간 국제분쟁이 증가하고 있다. 그 가운데 대표적인 것이 바로 국제 특허분쟁이다. 특히 2011년 삼성과 애플 간 특허소송의 시작으로 한국과 미국 간 국제 특허분쟁이 더욱 심화되고 있다. 이와 같은 상황에서 미국의 유관기관별 특허쟁송 관련 절차 및 법관의 실무에 대한 이해는 미국 내 특허분쟁에 개입되었을 때 효과적이고 체계적인 대응 전략 수립을 가능하게 한다. 미국의 특허쟁송은 특허침해와 특허무효로 대별된다. 일반적으로 특허권자가 특허침해 혐의자를 상대로 특허침해를 주장하면서 법적·행정적 구제를 구하는 것으로 시작되며, 이에 대응하여 특허침해 혐의자는 특허권자의 특허 자체가 무효이므로 침해 자체가 성립하지 않는다고 주장하면서 책임을 면하고자 한다. 특허침해를 다툴 수 있는 기관은 연방지방법원과 국제무역위원회(ITC)가 있다. 연방지방법원의 특허침해소송은 특허권자가 특허침해 혐의자를 상대로 특허침해에 대한 소를 제기함으로 시작되며, 일반 민사소송과 동일한 절차로 진행된다. 연방지방법원에서 승소하면 특허침해행위의 금지를 구할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 손해배상을 받아낼 수 있다. 한편 특허권자는 미국으로 수입되는 제품이 미국에 등록된 특허를 침해한다고 판단된다면 연방지방법원뿐만 아니라 불공정무역 행위를 조사하는 준사법기관인 국제무역위원회(ITC)에도 선택적으로 또는 병행하여 특허침해조사를 신청할 수도 있다. 특허침해조사를 통해 특허침해 사실이 인정되는 경우, 특허침해 제품이 미국으로 수입되는 것을 금지할 수 있는 반면 이로 인해 발생한 손해를 배상받을 수 없다. 특허무효를 다툴 수 있는 기관은 연방지방법원과 특허청(USPTO)이 있다. 특허권자에 의해 연방지방법원에서 특허침해소송이 개시된 경우에 특허침해 혐의자는 특허권자의 특허 자체가 무효이므로 침해에 대한 책임이 없다고 항변하거나, 특허무효 확인판결을 위한 반소를 제기할 수도 있다. 또한 2011년 개정 특허법에 의해 전면적으로 개편된 특허청(USPTO)의 특허무효심판[등록 후 무효심판(PGR), 영업방법 특허에 관한 등록 후 무효심판(CBMR), 당사자계 무효심판(IPR)] 및 특허무효심사[결정계 재심사(EPX)] 제도를 활용 할 수 있다. 드물게는 특허권자에 의해 특허침해소송이 개시되기 전에 특허침해 혐의자가능동적으로 연방지방법원에 특허무효 확인의 소를 먼저 제기하는 경우도 있다. 이와 같이 일차적으로 특허쟁송을 처리할 수 있는 기관이 여러 개다 보니 기관 간 절차가 병행되는 경우가 생길 수 있다. 이에 미국은 연방지방법원에 특허무효의 소를 제기하면 특허무효심판을 신청할 수 없도록 하여 법적으로 두 절차의 병행을 허용하지 않거나, 연방지방법원 법관에게 특허청(USPTO)의 절차가 진행되는 동안 소송을 중지시킬 수 있는 재량권을 부여하는 등 소송경제를 도모하고 있다. 특허침해소송 또는 특허무효 확인소송을 통해 연방지방법원이 내린 판결, 특허침해조사를 통해 국제무역위원회가 내린 최종심결, 특허무효심판 및 특허무효심사를 통해 특허청이 내린 심결에 불복하는 자는 특허법 관련 사건에 대한 전속 관할권(exclusive jurisdiction)을 가지는 연방순회항소법원(CAFC)에 항소 또는 불복할 수 있다. 이처럼 미국 내 특허쟁송은 법률심인 연방순회항소법원(CAFC)으로 귀결되므로 특허분쟁의 판단 기준은 연방순회항소법원(CAFC)을 통해 통일성 있게 정립되어 왔다. 하지만 최근 연방대법원이 연방순회항소법원(CAFC)에 의해 정립되어 온 기준들을 뒤집는 판결을 내리고 있어, 특허전문성을 구축하여 온 연방순회항소법원(CAFC)을 견제하는 것이 아닌가하는 분석이 나오기도한다. 앞서 언급된 특허분쟁을 해결하기 위한 기관인 연방순회항소법원(CAFC), 연방지방법원, 국제무역위원회(ITC), 특허청(USPTO)의 특허쟁송 절차 및 실무를 개괄적으로 살펴본이 연구가 미국 내 특허분쟁에서 효과적이고 체계적인 대응전략을 수립할 수 있게 하는 기초가 되고, 더 나아가 우리나라의 특허쟁송 관련 실무운영의 개선방안을 마련하는 데 도움이 되기를 기원한다. In the twenty-first century, ever more Korean corporations are tapping into foreign markets, exploiting intangible assets with the advent of a knowledge based information society. In doing so, international disputes over patents between domestic and foreign corporations are on the increase. Especially, the patent battle between Apple and Samsung Electronics adds to the increasingly tough environment for Korean companies in the United States. Under such circumstances, it is significant to have a solid grasp of the patent trial proceedings of the United States so as to establish effective confrontation strategies when engaging in patent trials in the United States. The types of patent trials in the United States appear to divide into two categories according to their strategic objectives: infringement and invalidity. A patent trial generally begins with the filing of a complaint alleging patent infringement by a patent owner, and an accused infringer then asserts the defense of invalidity of the patent at stake to avoid liability. The patent owner who believes that his patent is being infringed has two venues for relief. The patent owner may seek relief in a federal district court, the International Trade Commission, or both. Yet, an allegedly infringing article has to be imported into the United States to bring an action before the International Trade Commission. Furthermore, parties seeking monetary relief must resort to the district court since remedies available at the International Trade Commission are limited to prohibition from committing specific unfair trade practices. On the other hand, the accused infringer has several ways to escape liability. Where the proceeding is initiated before the district court or the International Trade Commission, the accused infringer may assert counterclaims of invalidity, or raise an affirmative defense of invalidity. Alternatively, he may challenge the patent’s validity through post grant proceedings at the United States Patent and Trade Office, i.e., post grant review, covered business method review, inter partes review, and ex parte reexamination, to defend against patent infringement trials. If the party remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the trial, he may further file an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since it is the sole appellate court having nationwide jurisdiction over patent appeals. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has long established case law doctrines and unified rules for patent trials. This research articulates the procedural aspects of the aforementioned institutions resolving patent disputes, with special emphasis on the individual practices of judges. By doing so, hopefully this research can contribute to the advancement of sound practices for the Korean judiciary in the field of patent litigations.

냉전시대 미국의 민족국가 형성 개입과 헤게모니 구축의 최전선

許殷(Heo, Eun) 한국사연구회 2011 한국사연구 Vol.155 No.-

This study seeks to identify the methods employed by the United States from a cultural standpoint to intervene in the formation of anation-state during the Cold War Era by analyzing the films produced by the United States Information Service CUSIS) in Korea. Previous studies on the correlation between nation and filmduring the Cold War era have been concentrated on the role of cinema as a tool with which to form the nation out of an imagined community. The present study however focuses on cinema as an implement with which tothe hegemonic power could form a nation-state that was in keeping with the hegemonic order. A look at the Korea-related films produced by the United States Information Service (USIS) shows that in the 1960s, a period in which Korea pursued modernization in a full scale manner, the United States adopted a policy designed to heighten ‘nationalism.’ As part of efforts to heighten the ‘national pride’ of Korea, the United States Information Service (USIS) produced films that highlighted Korea’s standing as a sovereign state within the international community. It also attempted to encourage Korean’s sense of pride in their independence and development through films that dealt with economic development. Here, special attention should be paid to the fact that Korea was encouraged by the United States, which had conveyed culture to Japan through historical films that dealt with cultural exchanges,to develop a perception of the Korean nation which involved the creation of a new culture. In short, the films produced by the United States Information Service (USIS) in Korea during the Cold War era show thatUnited States intervention in the formation of the cultural identity of Korea, a process that wasdeeply related to the formation of the nation, was not limited to the mere conveying of the image of an American-style nation state. The nationalism which the United States intended to promote in Korea during the Cold War era was closely intertwined with the establishment of American hegemony in Korea. As such, the image of the nation-state established by the United States was one of a state that. while enjoying ‘autonomy,’ belonged to the United States-led Cold War hegemonic order.

개화기(1883~1905) 미국 유학생과 민족운동

허동현 ( Huh Dong Hyun ) 한국민족운동사학회 2004 한국민족운동사연구 Vol.38 No.-

The Chǒson dynasty suffered from the power competition among three world powers such as China, Japan and Russia during the onset of the opining. The ruling class as well as intellectuals tended to view the United States as a favorable country to protect Korea. Most of them have the friendly viewpoint toward the United States, and it was expected that students would go to the United States in order to secure human resources, material assistant and diplomatic support necessary for modernization, self-strengthening and independence. However, the exchange of the knowledge and human resources under the ‘Shufeldt Treaty' was ruptured since the United States unilaterally broke the Treaty. The number of Korean students in the United States reached only 70 during the opening when the relations between Korea and the United States were not concretely built. A small number of the Korean students stayed in the Untied States compared to the number of Japanese students in America. Nonetheless, the students in the United States have largely influenced on the development of modern and contemporary Korean history. The learners were considerable persons in a sense that they were the ongll1 of sharply increasing students in America immediately after the end of Japanese colonial period when the relations between the United States and Korea started to be more tightened. However, it is hardly difficult to find out any main research concerning collective backgrounds of the students in the United States and the nationalist movement by the students. Each Korean student in the United States during the opening acknowledged the American society in a basis of his or her own perspective, which rcf1ecrcd his or her political and social strata, religions, motivation of overseas studies and spans of the studies. Furthermore, whether the students had positive or negative viewpoints on the American society determined the direction toward the nationalist movement. Therefore, this paper will deal with collective features of the Korean students in the United States reason for study abroad, political and social background, major career after studies, perception on the United States, and characteristics developed by the students. It focuses on both the first period (1883~1894) and the second period (1895~1905). In examining both periods, it will be revealed how the United States and Korea exchanged knowledge and human resources at the very beginning of the relations between two countries. Also, how the result from the exchange had impact on the Korea history will be coped with. The accomplishment of the research is as follows. First, the students in the United States were very small in number compared to the Japanese students. However, the students in America disseminated the value of the United States Christianity and democracy, and these cultural elements affected the Korean society after they returned to homeland. If their influence on the Korean society is considered, the students can be said to be a new type of innovative intellectuals leading a new era. As a matter of fact, the Korean students in the United States originally came from the lower class in the Korean society, not from the core ruling groups. However, they did not surrender under their origins. Rather, the students became the “creative minority, properly responding to challenges in a new era and leading the development of the Korean society. Second, the students in the United States were a type of achievement oriented persons. They were actively receptive of the practical knowledge like foreign languages and international laws after Kabo Reform movement in 1894. The students characterized the best elites who were well educated in the department of Humanitarian or Social Science in the United States university when they went to the United States in their adolescence. Since the students adapted themselves to the value and way of thinking of the United States at that time with the intermediary of Christianity, they were absorbed into the American culture and value. Therefore, the students played the disseminators for Christianity and democracy after coming back to Korea For example, Syngman Rhee shortly dreamed of the Korean style Christianity nation and the establishment of the democratic republican government when studying in the United States. Rhee strove to realize his hope in his presidential tenure. Similarly, majority of students in the United States had in common; such desires and belief to apply Christianity and democracy to its own country can be found among them. Third, almost all students in the United States except small percent of students like Yu Kiljun in the United States viewed Christianity as a shortcut to liberalize individuals and the nation. They were diversified in a variety of way of reforms or the independence. Yu Kiljun thought that altruistic love in Christianity was incompatible element with the Korean interests. Kim Kyusik criticized the pretended ‘altruism’, pointing out the other side of it, the aspect of invasion to other country. Contrary to Yu Kiljun and Kim Kyusik negative viewpoint on the United States, people including Philip Jaisohn and Syngman Rhce kept their favorable perspectives on the United States, recognizing Christianity as the ‘good therapy’ to rescue individuals and the nation. Accordingly, Syngman Rhee and Philip Jaisohn conceived of the reform or the ideal nation applying the democracy of the United States and Christian nation. In contrary, Yu Kiljun advocated gradually practical reforms based on Dongdosokiron, and Kim Kyllsik unfolded the independence movement and the state building movement through coalition between the leftists and the rightists. Fourth, the students in the United States have various political spectrums depending on when they returned to Korea and how long they stayed in the United States. Yu Kiljun and Yun Ch'i-ho, returning to Korea after study in America, were inclined to pro Japanese. In other sides, Syngman Rhee and Philip Jaisohn who stayed after study and dedicated themselves to the independence movement strongly took pro American positions. Among people keeping pro Japanese tendency, their inwards were influenced by individual experiences and values; Yun Ch’i-ho by racial discrimination and Yu Kiljun by deferred conversion into Christian. More fundamentally, however, these inclinations reflected the class or actual interest under the Japanese rule. Fifth, the native class strata of the Korean students in the United States during the opening became diverse as the time went by. The students were persons tightly connected with the core authorities groups. However, origins of students were extended to the lowest class such as kisaeng and merchant after 1896. Thus, it was turned back to the opening after the independence from Japan and reestablishment of the relations between Korea and the United States that was the America studying in the United States in order to raise the social ladder and to move their social position upward.

19세기 중국인의 아메리카 인식 ― 魏源의 ≪海國圖志≫를 중심으로

이민숙 ( Lee Min-sook ) 고려대학교 중국학연구소 2021 中國學論叢 Vol.- No.74

This paper is meaningful in examining the perception of America in 19th century China through the records of America in WeiYuan(魏源)’s Haiguotuzhi(海國圖志). Weiyuan’s perception of America began with the independence of the United States and the independence of other American countries. However, since the independence of the American countries was influenced by the independence of the United States, Weiyuan’s perception of the Americas was forced to focus on the United States. Therefore, this study examined the United States, Peru, Mexico and Chile according to Weiyuan's perception, and focused on the United States among them. How does Weiyuan perceive America? Weiyuan expressed the characteristics of the United States in six letters: bravery[武], wisdom[智], public[公], democracy[周], rich[富], friendship[誼]. The bravery[武] and wisdom[智] represent American independence, public[公], and democracy[周], rich[富] and friendship[誼] are concepts that symbolize the political system and friendship of the United States. Weiyuan thought that the United States was wise in that it recognized the United States as a brave country because the people had achieved independence against the world's greatest power, Britain, without a superior monarch, and brought Britain's hostility, France, to war and led American independence. In addition, the United States, unlike China, where the state is operated by the emperor, thought it was an public because it chose the president through public elections, said it was an public because it decided according to the principle of majority resolution reflecting the opinions of all people, and recognized it as a country that knows friendship because it does not ignore other countries. At the time, both Britain and the United States were invaders, but from the Chinese point of view, the United States was relatively less hostile to them, and did not harm China with opium like Britain. Therefore Weiyuan and other Chinese people often expressed hostility by expressing Britain as a Yingyi(英夷), while the United States did not label it as an Meiyi (美夷), which is also understood to have been intended to check Britain through the United States. From this, Weiyuan tried to make a model for the revival of China, which is in crisis, by examining the US independence process, the US system.

미국과 영국에서의 법관 임용 실태 및 근무 환경에 관한 실증적 연구

진현섭 ( Jin Hyeon Seop ) 사법정책연구원 2023 연구보고서 Vol.2023 No.9

Korea implemented a new judicial appointment system in 2013 that contributed to unifying the legal profession, selecting judges from among existing lawyers who have a specific amount of legal experience, excellent practical skills, and good character, after modeling the judicial appointment processes of the United States and the United Kingdom. Significant adjustments are anticipated to be made in a number of areas, including the appointment of judges and their supplemental appointments, transfers, work division, salaries, and pensions. In order to ensure that qualified judges with particular legal careers are appointed, it is essential to thoroughly examine issues such as the assignment of previously appointed or upcoming judges to courts, the transfer of personnel, the division of work, the treatment of judges, such as remuneration and pension, and support for trial assistants for judges. This study aims to gather fundamental information to discuss how to better manage judges in Korea, which employed the unification of the legal profession system. This management includes judge allocation to courts, the division of work, and the transfer of personnel, as well as the treatment of judges, including judicial assistants, remuneration, and pension. To that end, detailed empirical data on the legal career at the time of appointment, previous work experience, occupation before the appointment, length of service after the appointment, transfer of personnel, division of work, judicial assistants, remuneration, and pension of judges in the United States and the United Kingdom, where the unification of the legal profession system has been established, would be introduced and analyzed. This study seeks to gain insights that will help provide incentives to appoint many excellent legal professionals as judges, thereby satisfying the purpose for which the unification of the legal profession system was introduced and creating an environment that encourages judges to remain in the profession for a long and stable career to ensure the success of this new system. The second chapter of this research looks into the legal career at the time of appointment, occupation before the appointment, length of service after the appointment, transfer of personnel, division of work, judicial assistants, remuneration, and pension of United States judges. Dividing the United States court system into federal and state courts, Section 1 begins with an overview of the federal court judge appointment process before delving into the legal career at the time of appointment, occupation before the appointment, and length of service after the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, and Federal District Court, before examining transfer of personnel, division of work, judicial duties, judicial assistants, remuneration, and pension. Section 2 investigates the organization and structure of state courts and selects a sample of nine states out of fifty to identify legal careers at the time of appointment, occupation before the appointment, and length of service after the appointment to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Court of First Instance in the selected nine states of judges. Furthermore, it examines the transfer of personnel, division of work, judicial duties, judicial assistants, remuneration, and pension of state court judges. In Section 3, federal and state court judges in the United States are compared with regard to their legal careers at the time of appointment, occupations before appointments, length of service after the appointments, transfer of personnel, division of work, judicial duties, judicial assistants, as well as remuneration and pension, with a view to drawing implications for Korea. Chapter 3 of this research examines the legal career at the time of appointment, occupation before the appointment, length of service after the appointment, transfer of personnel, division of work, judicial duties, judicial assistants, remuneration, and pension of United Kingdom judges. Section 1 provides a systematic overview of the organization of the United Kingdom courts and examines the various types of judges, including Supreme Court Justices, Court of Appeal Judges, High Court Judges, Circuit Judges, District Judges, and Tribunal Judges. Section 2 provides an overview of the appointment process of United Kingdom judges, examines the legal career at the time of appointment, occupation before the appointment, and length of service after the appointment of full-time judges, such as Supreme Court Justices, Court of Appeal Judges, High Court Judges, Circuit Judges, and District Judges, and then examines their transfer, duties, assistant staffs, remuneration, and pension. Section 3 synthesizes the legal career at the time of appointment, occupation before the appointment, length of service after the appointment, personnel transfer, division of work, judicial duties, judicial assistants, remuneration, and pension of United Kingdom judges, and thereby makes implications for Korea. The empirical data presented in this research can be used to draw the following implications by specifically examining the status quo of judicial appointments and the work environments in the United States and the United Kingdom, where the unification of the legal profession system is well established. First, it is not necessary to uniformly require a specific number of years of legal experience for all judicial appointees when determining the number of years of experience required for judge appointments in Korea. Instead, qualification requirements should be established in consideration of the duties to be carried out as a judge after the appointment. Second, the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance in Korea should be made up of qualified judges with comparable legal careers, analogous to the federal court of the United States. Third, in order to develop a pool of candidates with excellent practical skills for judicial appointments, it is necessary to encourage legal professionals with lawyer licenses to enter a variety of fields and expand their roles to include duties similar to those of judges. Fourth, the number of people who support judges in their work should increase, as should the extent of their involvement. Fifth, a body like the Judicial Compensation Commission should be created to regularly assess whether the level of remuneration for judges is appropriate to ensure that lawyers with excellent practical skills and good qualities may opt to serve as judges. Sixth, Korea needs to set up a part-time judge system to verify the competence, qualifications, and expertise of judges, similar to the United Kingdom. Seventh, in order to enhance the professionalism of judges and the specialization of trials, the current rotating judge system should be reduced. Additionally, consideration should be given to the appointment of judges based on function, long-term service in the same court, and long-term performance of the same work. Eighth, as in the United Kingdom, civil and criminal case-handling procedures should be diversified, and cases should be quickly classified to ensure that the most appropriate procedure is applied on a case-by-case basis. It is hoped that this research will contribute to creating incentives for excellent judicial professionals to be appointed as judges who fulfill the purpose for which the unified legal profession system was introduced in Korea and also likely contribute to developing a climate where appointed judges are encouraged to remain in their positions for a significant period to ensure the success of the unified legal profession system.

미국의 철강수입규제와 미국의 통상확대법 Section 232 적용의 적법성 분석

김채형(Chaihyung KIM) 한국국제경제법학회 2020 국제경제법연구 Vol.18 No.1

미국 상무부는 2018년 2월 미국 대통령에게 제출한 보고서에서 외국의 철강제품과 알루미늄제품의 수입이 미국의 국내경제를 약화시켜 미국의 국가안보를 해칠 우려가 있다고 발표하였다. 상무부는 대통령에게 국가안보에 대한 피해를 제거하기 위하여 미국내에 수입된 제품에 대하여 3가지 조치 즉, 전반적인 쿼터(global quota), 전반적인 관세(global tariff), 특정국가에 대한 관세(targeted tariffs on specific countries)중에서 선택하여 부과하도록 권고하였다. 이에 따라 2018년 3월 미국 대통령은 주요 무역상대국들에 대하여 알루미늄제품의 수입에 10%의 관세를 부과하고 철강제품수입에 25%의 관세 부과를 결정하였다. 이러한 관세는 미국의 국내법인 1962년 통상확대법(Trade Expansion Act) Section 232에 따라 부과되었다. 이러한 조치는 미국의 무역상대국들의 보복조치를 불러일으키고 있는데, 이후 미국은 유럽연합을 비롯한 일부 국가에 대하여 일시적인 관세면제를 허용하였다. 유럽연합과 일부국가들은 미국의 일방적인 관세조치에 대하여 관세적용면제의 연장을 받았지만 세계무역기구(WTO)에 제소하였다. 이에 대해 미국은 미국의 조치가 WTO의 분쟁해결절차에 의한 심사대상이 아닌 GATT 제21조에 의한 국가안보의 이슈이라며 주장하였다. GATT1994 제21조는 국가의 중대한 안보이익을 위하여 필요하다고 판단되는 무역제한조치를 예외적으로 허용하고 있다. GATT 제21조(b)는 평화시의 군사적 준비와 전쟁이나 긴급상황에서 취해진 행동을 구별하는데, 전쟁이나 긴급상황에서 수입이나 수출을 제한하는 모든 행동을 실제적으로 허용하지만, 평화시와 긴급이 아닌 상황에서 취해지는 수출입제한조치는 명백히 제한한다. 그런데 경제적 제재조치를 취하는 국가에 의해 주장되는 GATT 제21조의 해석이다. 미국 같은 국가들은 GATT 제21조의 안보예외 적용은 GATT에 대한 통보, 정당화, 회원국의 동의를 요구하지 않으며, GATT의 35년간의 실행에 의해 확인된 절차라고 주장하였다. 환언하면, 국가안보목적의 경제제재 부과는 GATT 제21조에 의한 국가주권의 특권으로서 나타나는 고유한 권리의 행사로 간주되었다. 그래서 미국이 통상확대법(Trade Expansion Act) Section 232에 의하여 안보상의 이유로 취한 수출입제한조치를 분석하기 위하여 미국의 통상확대법 Section 232의 법적 체제를 검토하고 미국이 취한 수출입제한조치에 관한 미국의 국가실행을 살펴본다. 그리고 WTO법 체제에 비추어 미국이 통상확대법 Section 232를 발동한 경우에 GATT/WTO에서 원용하는 GATT 제21조를 분석하는데, 이러한 국가안보조항의 WTO에 의한 사법적 심사불가의 논리와 이와 반대되는 사법적 심사가능논리를 분석한다. 미국이 무역상대국들에 대하여 철강 및 알루미늄제품의 수입에 대한 관세부과조치를 취한 통상확대법 Section 232의 발동은 미국 행정부의 자유재량적 행위이며, 정치적 이유로 미국 행정부에 의해 인위적으로 제재 조치가 조정될 수도 있다. 이러한 점이 통상확대법 Section 232에 대하여 미국의 무역상대국들이 우려하고 있다. 통상확대법 Section 232에 대한 신뢰성은 이 규정의 합리적인 적용과 국제공동체에 의해 어떻게 인식되느냐에 따라 결정된다. On February 2018, United States Department of Commerce announced that steel and aluminum articles were being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security. Thus, the Department of Commerce concluded that “present quantities and circumstance” of steel and aluminum imports threaten national security by “weakening our internal economy.” For both products, the Department of Commerce provided three alternative recommendations to the U. S. President : the imposition of a global tariff, targeted tariffs on specific nations, or quotas limiting imports from all countries. On March 2018, President Trump imposed a global 25 percent tariff on steel articles and a global 10 percent tariff on aluminum articles. These tariffs are imposed pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. These measures generated various responses and challenges from Unites States trading partners. United States granted temporal tariffs exemptions to European Union and to countries who reached negotiated arrangements with the United States. Though EU and other countries received temporal tariffs exemptions from imposing unilateral tariffs of the United States, EU and other countries requested the establishment of a panel at WTO. The United States responded that the measures imposed by the United States concern issues of national security not susceptible to review or capable of resolution by WTO dispute settlement. GATT Article 21 provides that member countries grants exceptionally to take trade restrictive actions considered necessary for the protection of their essential security interests. Subsection (b) of GATT Article 21 distinguishes actions taken in war and emergency circumstances from peacetime military preparations, and permits virtually any action to restrict imports or exports under war and emergency circumstances but explicitly limits actions taken under peacetime and non-emergency circumstances. By the way, what is interesting to note is the interpretation of GATT Article 21 advanced by the countries which sought economic sanctions. Like the United States, these countries stated their understanding that a claim of GATT Article 21 immunity requires neither notification, justification, nor approval, a procedure confirmed by thirty-five years of implementation of the GATT. In other words, the imposition of economic sanctions of national security purposes was viewed as an exercise of the inherent rights implicitly covered as sovereign prerogatives by Article 21 of the GATT. For analysing trade restrictive measures taken with the reason of national security, This paper reviews the legal system of Section 232 of United States Trade Expansion Act and the states practices concerning trade restrictive measures taken by United States. In the case United States took action to protect the national security against foreign imports pursuant to Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act, United States responded that these actions are entitled to impose in light of GATT Article 19 in GATT/WTO system. Thus it is analysed whether national security clause of GATT Article 19 is justiciable or non-justiciable in the WTO panel or judicial body. It seems that the national security determination under Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act lacks a definition of national security. Moreover, the question of whether a claim for protection is based on commercial or political reason rather than national security concerns is left to the discretion of the U.S. executive branch authority. The credibility of Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act depends on its application and how it is perceived by the world community.

남중국해 스카버러 쇼울을 둘러싼 중국과의 해양 분쟁 가열 조짐으로 인한 필리핀-미국 안보협력 강화 : 그 근원적 이해관계(Real Interests) 및 지역안보(Regional Security)에의 함의

박광섭 한국아시아학회 2013 아시아연구 Vol.16 No.2

This study was trying to find out the real interests and implications for regional security by deeply examining the Philippines-United States security cooperation strengthened in the cause of maritime dispute surrounding the Scarborough Shoal territorial issue in the South China Sea between the Philippines and China. In the results of research, the real interests on the Philippines' side were to solve the most pressing problems which should overcome an absolute lack of military power through the United States assistance, and make use of the United States as a pressure card toward China in the international society. On the other hand, the real interests on the United States' side were to have strategic decisions which should make use of the Philippines as a pivot in the process of driving 'the re-balancing strategy toward the Asia-Pacific region', and eventually restrain the power of China as a new rival in the 21st century. Meanwhile, the Scarborough Shoal territorial issue in the South China Sea has made a motive to enter a 'new honeymoon era' in the Philippines-United States relations. It has eventually formed 「the Frame of Philippines-United States vs. China」 which has four implications for the Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific region in large. In other words, 「the Frame of Philippines-United States vs. China」implies the possibilities: firstly, to be proliferated a 'proxy war' between the United States and China; secondly, to expand the scale and frequency of joint military exercises or military drills for themselves in the South China Sea around the Scarborough Shoal by all involved parties; thirdly, to take place internal troubles in ASEAN, which is especially able to include the probability to occur mutual frictions to emerge 'pro-American group' and 'pro-China group' inside ARF(ASEAN Regional Forum) as the only Multilateral Security Organization in the Asia-Pacific region and EAS(East Asia Summit) as Comprehensive Dialogue Channel in East Asia; and lastly, to accelerate an arms race between the United States and China in the Asia-Pacific region. 본 연구는 최근 남중국해 스카버러 쇼울 영유권 문제를 둘러싼 필리핀-중국 간의 해양 분쟁 가열 조짐으로 인해 강화된 필리핀과 미국 간의 안보협력 관계를 깊이 있게 고찰해 보고, 그 근원적 이해관계(real interests)와 지역안보(regional security)에의 함의(implications)를 찾아내고자 하는 것이었다. 연구결과, 필리핀 입장에서의 근원적 이해관계는 미국의 지원을 받아 군사력의 절대적 열세를 극복해야 하는 시급한 문제와 국제사회에서 대(對) 중국을 향한 압박카드로 미국을 활용해야 하는 문제이었으며, 미국 입장에서의 근원적 이해관계는 ‘아태지역으로의 재균형 전략’ 차원에서 필리핀을 중심거점(pivot)으로 활용할 가치가 있다는 판단과 종국적으로 21세기의 새로운 라이벌국인 중국의 세력 확장을 견제하려는 전략적 판단이었던 것으로 드러났다. 한편, 남중국해 스카버러 쇼울 영유권 분쟁문제는 필리핀과 미국 간의 관계를 ‘신밀월시대(新蜜月時代)’로 접어들게 하는 동인(motive)이 되었으며, 이는 결국 「필·미 대(對) 중국 간의 대결구도」를 형성하게 되어 동남아지역 넓게는 아태지역에 크게 네 가지의 중요한 함의를 갖게 하였다. 즉, 「필·미 대(對) 중국 간의 대결구도」양상은 첫째, 미국과 중국 간의 ‘대리전’으로 확산될 가능성을 배제하기 어렵다는 점이다. 둘째, 관련국들로 하여금 남중국해 인근해역에서 합동군사훈련을 비롯한 자체 군사훈련의 규모 및 빈도를 확대시켜 나갈 가능성이 높다는 점이다. 셋째, 아세안 회원국들 간 내부 분열이 일어날 수 있으며, 특히 아태지역의 유일한 다자안보협의체의 성격을 지닌 ARF와 동아시아의 포괄적 대화협의체의 성격을 지닌 EAS 내(內) ‘친미세력’과 ‘친중세력’을 출현시켜 상호 간 마찰이 발생할 개연성(probability)이 있다는 점이다. 마지막으로 미국과 중국이 아태지역에서 군비경쟁을 가속화시킬 가능성이 매우 크다는 점이다.

미합중국헌법과 연방 및 주의 권한

강재규(Kang, Jae-Gyeu) 한국비교공법학회 2015 공법학연구 Vol.16 No.1

& & 미합중국은 연방주의를 채택하고 있기 때문에, 법체계도 단일국가에서처럼 통일되어 있지 못하다. 연방국가에서는 연방을 구성하는 주들도 자주성을 가지며, 그리고 주 또한 독자적인 ‘법 영역(jurisdiction)’을 갖고 있다. 즉 국가구조의 이중성은 당연히 법질서의 이원성을 초래한다. 따라서 미국법을 논의할 때에는, 미국법체계는 우리나라와 같은 단일국가의 통합적인 법체계가 아니기 때문에, 그 법체계가 이중적인 조직을 가지며, 통일된 미국법은 결코 존재하지 않는다는 점을 잊어서는 아니 된다. 이와 같이 복합적인 법구조는 미국법의 이해를 더욱 어렵게 한다. & & 물론 미합중국헌법의 최고법조항에 따르면 연방 헌법이 최상위 규범이기 때문에, 합중국헌법에 저촉되는 연방 법률, 주 헌법 및 주 법률은 위헌으로 무효가 된다. 그러나 연방의 권한과 주의 권한이 서로 충돌하는 경우에도, 주법이 합중국헌법에 저촉되어 위헌인지 아닌지를 판단하는 일은 결코 쉽지 않다. & & 따라서 본 논문에서는 합중국헌법이 연방주의를 채택함으로써 비롯된 복잡한 법체계를 어떻게 해결하는지 밝히기 위하여, 첫째, 연방과 주 사이에 권한배분을 위한 1차적인 기준이자 근거라 할 수 있는 미합중국헌법의 중요한 관련 규정들을 검토하였다. 둘째, 연방 권한의 범위를 정해 주는 합중국헌법상의 연방의회의 주요 권한인 주간통상규제권, 세입세출권, 조약체결권과 관련한 연방최고법원의 주요 판례들을 검토하였다. 마지막으로, 가장 중요한 연방의회의 권한이라 할 수 있는 합중국헌법상 통상조항을 근거로 연방최고법원이 주의 권한을 제한하는 몇 가지 기준들에 대하여 연방최고법원의 주요 판결들을 중심으로 살펴보았다. & & Due to its federalism, the legal system of United States is not unified unlike single national legal system of the Republic of Korea. Each state has independence and has own law area (jurisdiction). The state also has a duality of state structures which leads to the duality of their legal system. While discussing the law of United States, it’s important to keep in mind that the legal system of the United States is dual as well as that it does not have a unified legal system. & & According to the Article Ⅵ of the United States Constitution, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so federal laws state constitutions, and state laws which are in conflict with the Constitution of the United States are considered as unconstitutional. However, it’s not always easy to determine the unconstitutionality of the laws that are in conflict with the Constitution. & & This paper discusses the solution to conflicting legal authority of United States. First of all, it elaborates relevant constitutional provisions which are considered as an important basis in allocation of authority between the federal and the states. Second of all, it reviews the Federal Supreme Court cases deciding whether different state statues infringe upon the federal rights under the major provisions of the United States Constitution. At last, it presents major decisions of the Supreme Court about limiting the authority of different states under the Commerce Caluse, the most important rights of the Congress of the United States.