國際資本移動의 法的 問題點과 規制方案

都時煥(See-Hwan DOH) 대한국제법학회 2003 國際法學會論叢 Vol.48 No.1

資本의 自由로운 移動은 世界化된 經濟共同體로서의 國際社會가 緊密한 協力과 眞正한 連帶의 地球村社會를 形成하기 위한 가장 중요한 先決課題가 되었다. 그것은 지난 20세기말 世界到處에서 同時多發的으로 발생한 外換危機事態를 통하여 資本의 自由로운 移動이 含意하는 金融世界化의 本質과 方向性에 대해서 새롭게 摸索하는 契機가 되었기 때문이다. 그러나 問題는 資本의 自由로운 移動에 따른 弊害의 深刻性이 露呈되었음에도 불구하고 이를 管掌하고 規制하는 國際經濟法上의 規範體制가 不在하다는 데에 있는 바, 國際社會의 共同體化에 必然的으로 隨伴되는 資本의 移動을 통하여 世界資源의 最適의 活用과 效率的 配分을 圖謀함으로써 國際共同體 전체의 福祉增進에 寄與하고자 하는 國際經濟法의 意義와 目的을 提高하기 위해서도 資本의 自由로운 移動에 대하여 바람직한 國際經濟法秩序의 새로운 整備와 樹立이 要請되고 있다. 제2차 世界大戰 以後 美國의 主導下에 설립된 西方 資本主義 진영의 政治經濟秩序는 國內的으로 케인즈주의적 國家介入에 기초한 福祉國家 體制와 이를 위한 資本의 國際的 移動에 대한 統制를 기반으로 하는 ‘連繫된 自由主義’(embedded liberalism)에 立脚함으로써, 國際通貨秩序를 관장하기 위해 설립된 IMF는 協定 제6조 제3항과 제8조 제2항에서 經常去來를 제외한 國際資本移動을 規制하기 위하여 會員國이 필요한 統制를 행할 수 있음을 規定하고 있다. 여기서 國際通貨體制上의 資本의 移動과 관련한 Mundell의 三位不一體論(Unholy Trinity)을 대비하여 보게 되면 換率決定 룰의 嚴格性, 完全한 資本移動, 國民國家의 經濟政策 自律性이라는 세 가지 基準 내지 要求를 동시에 충족시키는 國際通貨體制란 존재할 수 없다는 것이다. 따라서 현실의 國際通貨體制는 이 세 가지 基準 내지 要求들간의 妥協에 의해 비로소 유지될 수 있는데, 브레튼우즈 體制에서는 短期資本移動에 대한 統制로 인해 完全한 資本移動이라는 기준은 貫徹되지 않는 대신, 換率決定 룰의 嚴格性과 國民적 經濟政策의 自律性이 확보될 수 있었던 것이다. 그러나 브레튼우즈體制에 기초한 國際通貨秩序 역시도 美國과 英國을 위시한 先進國들의 선택의 결과로서 1950년대 말부터 시작하여 1970년대 말 이후 급속히 추진한 金融世界化로 인하여 崩壞되었는데, 그 과정이 이른바 國境을 초월하여 世界經濟와 資本市場의 統合을 지지하는 “競爭的 脫規制”(competitive deregulation)라는 新自由主義的 理念에 立脚하고 있는 것이다. 한편 資本의 自由로운 移動은 國際通貨體制로부터 派生되는 問題임과 동시에 國際投資의 自由化 문제로서 제2차 世界大戰 이후 國際投資는 國際貿易보다 더욱 높은 比率로 伸長됨으로써 世界經濟活動의 가장 중요한 영역의 하나가 되었음에도 불구하고 이를 規律하는 多者間投資規範은 존재하지 않고 있다. 더욱이 신자유주의적 금융세계화와 더불어 OECD 등 先進國을 중심으로 한 投資規範이 摸索되면서 1980년대 이후 國際投資規範은 投資誘致國의 義務와 投資者의 權利를 强調하는 方向으로 展開되고 있다. 그러한 선진국 주도하의 國際投資規範인 OECD資本移動自由化規約, 兩者間投資協定, 多者間投資協定草案 모두 經濟的 效率性을 강조하는 강대국의 입장에서 형평성에 입각한 법규범적 논리가 배제시킴으로써, 국제자본의 이동과 관련하여 포트폴리오(portfolio)投資의 保護에 관한 問題點, 自由送金(Transfer)의 例外로서의 세이프가드의 問題點, 收用(expropriation)에 대한 補償基準(standard of compensation)의 問題點, 投資者 對 國家間 紛爭解決節次에 관한 問題點 등이 파생되는 원인이 되고 있는 것이다. 요컨대, 向後 새롭게 定立되어야 할 國際經濟秩序로서의 國際通貨體制와 國際投資規範의 基準에 있어서는 投機資本에 대한 規制의 論理로서 連繫된 自由主義下에서 定立된 經濟主權의 原則과, 運帶性의 原則, 具體的 平等의 原則 및 이들을 擔保해내는 法的 論理로서의 國際開發法과 國際公序로서의 新國際經濟秋序의 理想이 反映되어야 한다. 이는 결국 共存과 協力 나아가 連帶의 地球村社會를 形成하고 指向해 가고 있는 現 國際社會의 世界化現象 속에서 規範으로서의 國際法과 國際經濟法秋序가 定立해 나가야 할 理念의 本質에 관한 問題가 될 것이다. 왜냐하면 對內外的으로 福祉理念을 지향한 連繫된 自由主義下의 브레튼우즈體制가 政府의 市場經濟介入과 社會保障支出로 인한 非效率로 歸結되었다면, 그러한 問題의 分析을 통한 改善이라는 方向性의 摸索이어야 함에도 불구하고, 그 修辭와는 달리 覇權國家의 주도에 의한 無條件的인 舊秩序로의 復歸를 통하여 ‘脫近代’的 國際秩序인 新自由主義가 樹立됨으로써 國際經濟法秩序의 중요한 영역을 형성해온 國際社會의 社會福祉法으로서의 國際開發法의 理念의 失踪에 대하여 우려하지 않을 수 없기 때문이다. 따라서 超國籍 投機資本의 獨食에 의한 貧富隔差가 갈수록 深化되는 世界化는 平和를 지향하는 國際社會의 理念이 될 수 없다. 일찍이 Verwey, Roling, Galtung 등이 喝破한 바 있는, 國際社會의 眞正한 平和는 단지 戰爭이 없는 ‘消極的 平和’(negative peace)가 아니라, 幸福, 福祉 그리고 繁榮이 보장되어 있는 ‘積極的 平和’(positive peace), 즉 모든 苦痛과 窮乏으로부터의 解放을 포함한 具體的 平等과 實質的 正義가 具現되는 것에 다름 아님을 되새겨 볼 必要가 있는 것이다. 따라서 向後 論議되고 새롭게 定立되어야 할 國際通貨體制와 國際投資規範의 出發은 世界覇權을 掌握한 强大國이나, 超國籍 投機資本勢力을 위한 것이 아니라, 國境을 超越하여 世界化된 經濟共同體로서의 地球村社會를 構成하고 있는 全 人類의 福祉와 繁榮을 指向하고, 衡平과 效率의 對立이 아닌 調和를 통한 發展의 摸索과 指向이어야 하는 바, 國際經濟法이 그러한 役割을 先導할 수 있어야 할 것이다. The free movement of capital has become the most important prior question in order that the international society as a global economic community may form a global society based on close cooperation and true solidarity. That is because the events of foreign currency crisis that concurrently occurred in almost all parts of the world at the end of the last 20th century provided an opportunity to newly grope for the intrinsic nature and orientation of the globalization of finance. However, the problem is that although the seriousness of bad effects caused by the free capital movement has been already revealed, any rule or normative system for international economic law has not yet been prepared that could control and regulate the capital movement. Under this condition, in order to heighten the import and purposes of the international economic law, which has the intention of contributing to promoting the public good for the entire international community by encouraging optimum utilization and efficient allocation of world resources through the movement of capital that is bound to appear as the international society becomes an integrated community, working out a new desirable order of international economic law concerning the free movement of capital is required. The political and economic order of the Western capitalist camp that has formed under the leadership of the United States since World War Ⅱ is grounded on 'embedded liberalism,' which is built on the welfare state system with Keynesian governmental interventionism for its basis and, for the purpose of ensuring such system, the control of the capital movement across the world. The International Monetary Fund that was established to govern the international currency order stipulates in Article Ⅵ Clause 3 and Article Ⅷ Clause 2 of its Agreements that member states can take control over capital flow across their national borders except for current transactions. At this point, when compared with Mundell's theory of Unholy Trinity concerning the capital flow in the international currency system, it is apparent that there can exist no such an international monetary system that simultaneously meets three standards or demands, such as rigorous rule for determining exchange rates, complete free movement of capital, and nation states' self regulation of economic policies. Therefore, the current international monetary system can be maintained only by an appropriate adjustment among these three standards. Under the Bretton Woods Agreement, while the standard of complete free movement of capital was not satisfied because of the control over short-term capital flows, the rigorous rule for determining exchange rates and nation states' self regulation of economic policies were able to be can be obtained. However, even the international monetary system that was based on the Bretton Woods system and that was the result of choice by developed countries, including the United States and Britain, collapsed as a consequence of the globalization of finance that stated at the late 1950s and has rapidly progressed from the end of 1970s. The process of its collapse is grounded upon the nee-liberalistic idea of competitive deregulation that supports the integration of the world economy and capital markets across national borders. On the one hand, the free flow of capital is not only the problem deriving from the international monetary system itself but also that of the liberalization of international investment. As it had increased at a much higher rate than international trade since World War Ⅱ, it became the most important area of activities in the world economy. Nevertheless, any multilateral investment norm for regulating capital flows across borders is not still prepared. Furthermore, as the principle of political consideration to developing countries, which had been dominantly admitted until the 1960s and 1970s, became gradually weakened, an attempt to work out a new international inves

일본군‘위안부’ 문제의 해결을 위한 국제법적 과제

도시환 ( Doh See-hwan ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2015 외법논집 Vol.39 No.1

After spending six years as U.N. human rights chief, Navi Pillay strongly urged Japan to investigate “every allegation of sexual slavery” and “prosecute perpetrators” through a rare statement and then again a media interview last month. Her perspective and interest in the issue of the “comfort women” stand out because they demonstrate the international community’s human rights standards and growing demands for Tokyo’s action. In the Aug. 6 statement, Pillay expressed “profound regret that Japan has failed to pursue a comprehensive, impartial and lasting resolution of the issue of wartime sexual slavery” and thus the human rights of the victims “continue to be violated decades after the end of the Second World War.” During an Aug. 31 press interview, she criticized the Japanese government and ultra-conservative forces, saying she was “shocked” that some civic groups even raised questions about the genuineness of the victims while no progress was being made at all on the resolution of the sex slavery issue. Pillay also repeatedly emphasized that the U.N. has recommended Tokyo offer an apology and compensation through the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review and other various treaty organizations and human rights experts. The international community has been rallying behind the cause. Since the U.S. House of Representative adopted a resolution calling for Japan’s acknowledgement, apology and redress for its wartime sex slavery in July 2007, similar measures have been taken in the Netherlands, Canada, the European Parliament and elsewhere. In response, the Japanese government has been insisting that the issue has been resolved. At the UPR meeting in June 2008, it made a case using logic that is most favorable to its position, such as involving the 1993 Kono Statement, the 1995 Asia Women’s Fund and previous accords. Yet the Japanese government’s argument failed to calm the criticism. First, the Kono Statement came after the historic public testimony by victim Kim Hak-sun in 1991, the unearthing of documents by professor Yoshiaki Yoshimi in 1992, and an ensuing 20-month investigation that led Tokyo to acknowledge its military’s involvement in the forced mobilization of the women. Upon its inception in 2006, however, the Shinzo Abe administration set out to deny “the forcibleness in a narrow sense,” downplaying the landmark statement as mere political rhetoric. Second, the Asia Women’s Fund was simply a tool for Japan to disregard the victims’ demands for a formal apology and compensation and evade its state responsibility for what constitutes war crimes against humanity. In 1998, U.N. Special Rapporteur Gay McDougall issued a watershed report calling for the establishment of a “new administrative fund with appropriate international representation” since the Asian Women’s Fund “does not in any sense provide legal compensation.” Third, contrary to Japan’s claim, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty could not clear its legal responsibility for sex slavery, because the pact was signed when Korea’s signatory status was excluded in the first place, with Japan taking the lead. The 1965 agreement that normalized bilateral relations also address neither crimes against humanity involving Japan’s state power nor any illegal acts directly linked with colonial rule. The 2010 joint statement by intellectuals in Korea and Japan, a 2011 ruling by the Korean Constitutional Court and a 2012 verdict by the Supreme Court here all reaffirmed internationally recognized historical truths. Against this backdrop, Tokyo’s argument that its forced annexation of Korea was legal, as well as its sexual enslavement of young women who lived in regions it invaded including Indonesia during the Pacific War, violates international law as follows. First, these actions constitute crimes against humanity, which means cases in which anti-human acts such as killings of civilians, extermination, slavery-like exploitation, rape, sexual enslavement are committed extensively or systemically regardless of the region’s domestic law, in not only wartime but also peacetime. Second, it constitutes sexual slavery, which breaches the 1930 International Labor Organization Convention concerning forced labor, ratified by the Japanese government in 1932. In May 2014, Seoul officially demanded Japan’s resolution of the issue at an ILO panel session. Third, it runs counter to the Article 46 of the 1907 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which prohibits rape during wartime. Fourth, it violates the 1910 Convention for the Suppression of White Slave Traffic, which Japan ratified in 1925, the 1921 International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children, and the 1926 Slavery Convention, which works as customary international law. Fifth, Japan’s war responsibilities remain unresolved since the mobilization of “comfort women” is applicable to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1968. Given that today’s international human rights law was born out of the soul-searching on the aggression and atrocities committed by Japan and Germany during World War II which marked extreme devaluing of human dignity, Pillay’s perception on the “comfort women” is in line with her statement issued while serving the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda that “From time immemorial, rape has been regarded as spoils of war. Now it will be considered a war crime. We want to send out a strong signal that rape is no longer a trophy of war.” In this vein, the Japanese government must atone and compensate the victims by realizing that sex slavery constitutes crimes against humanity and a breach of human rights which are a universal value. Ultimately, perpetrators should be held accountable, and education conducted to prevent a future relapse. I urge Tokyo to give the aging survivors one last chance to bring justice. Japan must bear in mind that it will leave the biggest, irreparable stain in human society if it fails to respond to the requests of Pillay and the overall international community.

1910년 ‘한·일병합조약’의 국제법적 재조명

도시환 ( Doh See-hwan ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2010 외법논집 Vol.34 No.1

The year 2010 is marking the centennial of Japan's forced annexation of Korea. Japan has claimed that the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty of 1910 was legally and morally valid. Or, it has made a far-fetched argument that the treaty was, at least, legal, even though it was seen as lacking in moral validity. It is a task of historical importance as well as a call for justice to get a glimpse of the true nature of the ongoing conflict between Korea and Japan over the shameful modern history ahead of the 100th anniversary of the annexation treaty. In the 21st century, the two countries need to work together to contribute to peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia through mutual understanding and cooperation. For this, they should first overcome the painful legacy of the 20th century and their dark history. But the deep-rooted memories of aggression and the scars of plunder and exploitation still remain a barrier to a better future for co-existence and co-prosperity. It goes without saying that Japan's coerced annexation of Korea is the root cause of the conflict over history. This conflict is the vestiges of Japan's imperialism and aggression that should be eliminated. The pending historical issue confronting the two countries stems from the annexation. In judgment the effect of the Korea-Japan forcible annexation in 1910 as a historical event from the perspective of international law, we can divide it into the following three opinions based on reviews based on the relations between legality and legitimacy. First, legality theory beors the position held by then Japan, which claims that the annexation was for the sake of Oriental peace without the p and legal problems, asserting the treaty was made under a due process based on free will and equalon heSecond, the vsiti but un but theory roces view held by the majority of scholarocend polonicians in Japan todayheIt claims that the treaty of annexation was not prohibited by the then positive lawheLastly, Korean and conscientious Japanese scholarocessert the treaty failed to have legal requirementscondit was made in forcible means without permit from then emperor. According to this, legality and legitimacy should not be separated in the assessment of Japan's annexation of Korea. Legitimacy is a basic prerequisite and a common value that should be met to fulfill the legality and therefore must be considered together when assessing an international act or event from the legal point of view. Nevertheless, what matters is that majority of Japanese relevant figures see this as separable. First, Article 2 of the Treaty on the Basic Relations between Korea and Japan stipulates that “All treaties and agreements made between the Empire of Korea and the Empire of Japan are confirmed as null and void already.” With regard to the ‘void’ period, the government of Japan claims that old treaties and agreements were made in both legality and validity until the 15th of August in 1948. However, the article can be reasonably understood as to mean and confirm that the past annexation was retroactively invalid, because ‘void’ was used instead of ‘voidable’ when selecting the legal terms. Second, the treaty failed to fulfill the requirements for the validity of an international treaty according to the international law for the following reasons: Japanese demonstration of its military power and threatening up to the point of annexation of Korea, coerced conclusion of a treaty, omission of Korean emperor’s signature and seal on the original treaty document and non-existence of the ratification of the treaty. Third, an absolutely invalid treaty in its essence can not be changed in the status of its validity by the approval of a third party country. Therefore, approval of the annexation by a third party country can not create any legal effect at all. Fourth, with regard to the ‘Intertemporales Recht’ which is claimed by Japan as a reference for legal judgment, it was commonly said even at that time that a treaty without a commission of full powers or ratification was invalid when we analyzed the forms and procedures for concluding a treaty explained in well-known introductory books on international law in 1910 such as L. Oppenheim and Ariga Nagao. Fifth, even though Japan claims legality of the treaties, colonization through annexation is an international crime against peace and humanity, infringing the rights to live peacefully, from the viewpoint of ‘lex ferenda.’ Now we are seeking to establish the right history and promote historical reconciliation as the centennial of Japan's forced annexation and colonization of Korea approaches. Japan's colonial rule in Korea was illegal because it was made possible due to the invalid annexation treaty. As such, the conscription of young Koreans was illegal. Besides, the mobilization of comfort women was the violation of jus cogens, as a peremptory norm of general international law. Japan should recognize that its denial of disgraced history is tantamount to a negation of justice and a refusal of peace. The Tokyo government ought to resolve the history conflict by respecting the universal values of justice and conscience. Only after that can Japan truly become a peace-loving member of the international community.

을사늑약의 국제법적 문제점에 대한 재조명

도시환(DOH See-hwan) 대한국제법학회 2015 國際法學會論叢 Vol.60 No.4

1905년 을사늑약은 국제법적 성립요건으로서 비준의 불비와 국가대표에 대한 강박이라는 효력요건상의 하자에 더하여 일본이 주장해온 시제법의 법리 역시 현저히 노후하고 부당하며 부적합한 규범은 폐절된다고 보는 것이 당사자들의 동의의 기초이자 국제법 관계를 형평의 원리에 따라 해결하라는 법의 일반원칙임을 검토하였다. 요컨대, 일본정부의 입장은 시제법, 즉 을사늑약 체결 당시의 국제법에서는 합법이었다는 것으로, 침략을 본질로 하는 무효사유로서의 국가대표에 대한 강박을 은폐하기 위해 체결형식과 절차에서 국제법적 성립요건을 구비하려 했던 것이다. 그러나 당시의 국제법에서도 전권 위임장과 국가원수의 비준서 등이 구비되지 못한 조약은 국제법상 무효로 입증됨으로써, 역사적 정의의 관점에서 재고를 요구하고 있다. 더욱이 1906년 을사늑약의 강제적 체결에 따른 무효론을 제기한 레이(Rey) 교수에 대한 아리가 나가오(有賀長雄) 교수의 반론은 ‘국가대표 의사의 자유’와 ‘주권국가의 평등성’이라는 국제법적 규범성의 요청에 대해 침묵함으로써 당시 식민제국주의의 근간이었던 국가주의 실행의 논거 제공에 다름 아니었던 것으로 평가된다. 아울러, 1963년 유엔 국제법위원회 보고서는 을사늑약을 국가대표 개인에 대한 강박의 대표적인 사례로 제시하고 있을 뿐만 아니라 안중근 의사의 재판관할권과 관련하여 재검토되어져야 한다. 1905년 을사늑약은 안중근 의사가 이토오 히로부미(伊藤博文)를 사살한 15가지 죄상 중 가장 중요한 것으로서, 을사늑약 효력의 유무는 1910년의 안중근 의사에 대한 재판의 불법성까지도 좌우하는 것이기 때문이다. 안중근 재판에 관한 법원의 판단을 보게 되면 1910년 2월 14일 뤼순(旅順) 관동도독부 지방법원 마나베 주죠(眞鍋十藏) 판관이 검찰관의 주장을 채택하고, 변호인의 주장을 배척하며 언도한 판결에서, 을사늑약 제1조를 근거로 한국신민에 대한 평등한 보호라는 해석하에 일본형법을 적용하고 있다. 안중근 의거는 일제의 주권침탈과 식민침탈에 맞선 의병전쟁이자 민족해방전쟁의 일환으로 국제법상 정당행위이자 전시 합법적 교전행위임에도 불구하고, 결국 절대무효인 을사늑약에 근거하여 일제형법상 살인죄로 사형판결을 언도했다는 점에서 치명적이고 중첩된 불법의 극치로 평가되기 때문이다. 을사늑약 110년과 광복 70년 그리고 한일협정 체결 50년을 맞이함에 있어 일제식민지배 피해자의 구제를 위한 국제법적 과제에 대한 논의의 출발은 일본정부가 전가의 보도마냥 강변해온 ‘한일협정체결완결론’의 극복에서 나아가 그 토대로서의 일제식민지책임의 규명과 청산이 되어야 할 것이다. 그것은 일본군‘위안부’ 문제를 비롯하여 일제식민지배 관련 연구에 천착해 온 전 세계 학자의 개별적인 연구가 역사정의 추구라는 동일한 맥락의 한목소리로 귀결되고 있다는 점에서도 확인되고 있기 때문이다. 따라서 중대한 인권침해 하의 일제식민지배 피해자의 구제를 위한 국제법적 과제로는 한국 사법부가 역사적인 판결을 통해 천명하고 있는 바와 같이, 일제식민권력이 관여한 반인도적 범죄로부터 인권, 정의, 그리고 평화의 세 가지 시대정신을 정립하는 것이 되어야 할 것이다.

1910년 ‘한일병합조약’ 체결강제의 역사적 진실규명과 국제법적 조명

都時煥(DOH See-Hwan) 대한국제법학회 2010 國際法學會論叢 Vol.55 No.4

식민지책임판결과 한일협정체제의 국제법적 검토

도시환 ( Doh See-hwan ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2014 외법논집 Vol.38 No.1

On August 30, 2011, the Constitutional Court of Korea made a decision on the constitutional petition filed by Korean “comfort women” for the Japanese military and Korean survivors of nuclear bombing in during World War II. The Court held that the Korean government’s non-performance of its obligation to work proactively on diplomatic negotiation or arbitration under Article 3 of the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea (“Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty”) was unconstitutional. On May 24, 2012, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned the original ruling that recognized the effect of a Japanese court decision running against the core values of the Korean Constitution (i.e. forcible mobilization of Korean men and women during the colonial period viewed as a lawful act). These were historic decisions clearly reiterating that the victims’ rights to compensation―for illegalities against humanity involving the Japanese state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule―were not part of what was agreed on under the Basic Relations Treaty. In this paper, we discuss the limitations of and problems with lawsuits for “postwar compensation” filed in Japan, including the multiple “obstacles” of Japan’s failure to acknowledge the truth, the amount of time passed since those atrocities were committed, the lack of response or solution from the state, and political restraints. We then examine the 2010 Joint Statement from Korean and Japanese intellectuals who declared the 1910 Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty “already null and void,” followed by the ideological shift of the international community from nationalistic philosophy to human rights-centric thinking, and the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action which proclaimed cleansing the legacy of colonialism to be a historic mission. These rulings on Japan’s “colonial responsibility” have been denounced by the Japanese government, businesses and media as “politicized,” claiming that such responsibility was already fulfilled once and for all by the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty. More recently, a lengthy register of colonial victims was found in the Korean Embassy to Japan. With this respect, Ihara Junichi, director general of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau at Japan’s Foreign Ministry, claimed the claims of the United States and other Allied powers was resolved with the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty; as for Korea which it did not fight a war against, he asserted that the Basic Relations Treaty, which was allegedly made to handle issues with the country’s “colonial rule,” put an end to its colonial responsibility. The Korean court decisions call for Japan’s compensation for its colonial injustices, or “illegalities against humanity involving the Japanese state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule,” while the Japanese government argues, “The Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty, signed as a separate postwar agreement on Japanese colonial rule, waived all the relevant rights to compensation.” In other words, the Japanese government claims that Korean courts made unfair and politicized decisions going against what was agreed upon between the two countries when individual victims’ rights to compensation for forced labor and other damages caused by Japanese colonial rule had already been addressed with the Basic Relations Treaty. It is on this basis that this paper that this paper reexamines the decisions on “colonial responsibility” as well as the arguments of its advocates and opponents. The Japanese government has had the normative recognition that, as the forced annexation of Korea and Japan in 1910 was made by the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty which was legal under the international laws of the time, Japan’s forcible occupation of Korea and subsequent colonial rule made on this basis were also legitimate. It has denied its responsibility to compensate for illegalities against humanity involving its state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule; it has also been consistent in claiming that the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty brought these issues to a complete end. Then comes the question: Was the Basic Relations Treaty actually intended to address issues with Japan’s “colonial rule,” as argued by Ihara Junichi? To answer this question, this paper empirically reviews the proceedings of the Japanese Diet from the conclusion of the Treaty in 1965 through the country’s first apology for its colonial rule in 1995. In the meeting of the Special Committee on Treaties and Agreements between Japan and the Republic of Korea on November 5, 1965, then-Prime Minister Sato said the 1910 Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty was lawfully concluded; Foreign Minister Shiina also stated that, with the conclusion of the 1965 Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty, the diplomatic protection of the two countries was waived while the compensation rights of individuals remained. On August 15, 1995, Prime Minister Murayama expressed his apology for Japan’s colonial rule and aggression. In the general session of the Upper House on October 5, however, he claimed the 1910 Annexation Treaty was entered into in a legally effective manner. In the meeting of the Upper House Budgetary Committee on August 27, Foreign Minister Yanai Shunji responded to a question by saying individual rights to compensation existed. Furthermore, the proceedings of the Japanese Diet―from the conclusion of the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty in 1965 through Japan’s first apology for its colonial rule in 1995―hint that Japanese government officials have been unaware of the country’s standing as the assailant and thus have not recognized its “colonial responsibility.” Until former “comfort women” filed a lawsuit in the United States in 2000, they provided fairly consistent answers that diplomatic protection was “waived only partially.” In other words, they believed the Japanese government could not override individual rights to compensation. Against this backdrop, it would be fair to say that the Restitution claims to the government of Japan, prepared in September 1949 in regards to the reality of “colonial responsibility” that should have been incorporated into the Basic Relations Treaty, represented a rational demand for legitimate rights to recover colonial sacrifices―rather than a retaliation for penalizing Japan. With only one tenth of forced laborers reporting to the United States Army Military Government, the amount of compensation for damages and sacrifices caused by the forcible annexation of Japan and Korea and the subsequent Japanese colonial rule was estimated at 31.4 billion yen, or two billion dollars at the exchange rate of the times, which is comparable with the Economic Cooperation Fund of 1965. Japan’s colonial responsibility specified in the Restitution claims to the government of Japan was left unaddressed under the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty as the Japanese government had no intention to fulfill such responsibility. Taking advantage of the United States’ Cold War strategy in East Asia, it believed its colonial rule over Korea was justifiable, viewing it as a “dispensation” for Koreans which helped modernize them. Focusing on “property” and “claims” as stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph (a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the negotiations between Korea and Japan on postwar claims did not specify Japan’s responsibility for colonial rule. This, paradoxically, left “colonial responsibility” as an issue unresolved and to be therefore addressed under the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty. In other words, the victims’ rights to compensation for illegalities against humanity involving the country’s state power and other unlawful acts associated directly with its colonial rule could hardly be seen as subject to the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty. Since the conclusion of the Basic Relations Treaty, the Japanese government had consistently claimed that individual claims under the Treaty continued to exist. In 2000, however, its stance changed following a lawsuit filed in the United States by former “comfort women” for the Japanese troops, and Japanese courts have since made “politicized decisions” on this basis. Ihara Junichi’s claim that the Treaty was made to resolve the issue of Japan’s “colonial responsibility” mirrors the Japanese government’s stance. Released in 2010 as the centennial of forcible annexation between Korea and Japan, the Joint Statement of intellectuals from the two countries is the East Asian version of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Getting the regional history right, it suggests, will lay the foundation for seeking a genuine process of historical reconciliation. Going beyond “negative peace” as a basic element of international laws premising an apology and compensation for colonial rule and war of aggression, we should now go for “positive peace” in which human dignity and rights are respected as universal values. This will make sure that another 50 years following the 50th anniversary of the Korea-Japan Basic Relations Treaty in 2015 serves as the starting point for working hand in hand to bring a East Asian peace community into reality.

일본군‘위안부’ 문제의 현황과 국제인권법적 재조명

都時煥(See-Hwan Doh) 대한국제법학회 2008 國際法學會論叢 Vol.53 No.3

2007년 7월 미국 하원을 시작으로 네덜란드, 캐나다 의회에 이어 유럽의회의 결의안 채택에 이르기까지 일본정부에 대해 ‘위안부’ 문제의 해결을 촉구하는 국제사회의 한목소리는 이제 거스를 수 없는 거대한 물결이 되었다. 그러나 일본군‘위안부’의 강제동원 사실을 부인하며 역사교과서까지 왜곡하던 일본정부는 위안부 문제의 해결에 여전히 침묵과 외면으로 일관하고 있다. 더욱이 지난 5월 제네바에서 개최된 2008년 UN인권이사회 정기검토(UPR)에서는 ‘위안부’ 문제의 해결을 촉구하는 각국의 권고와 질의를 담은 실무그룹 보고서의 정식 채택에 맞서, 일본정부는 고노담화를 통한 사과, 조약을 통한 법적 문제의 해결, 아시아여성기금의 활동을 통해 ‘위안부’ 문제가 완결되었음을 주장하였다. 이에 지난 10월 27일 우리 국회도 ‘일본군위안부 피해자 명예회복을 위한 공식사과 및 배상 촉구 결의안’을 채택하였으며, 10월 30일에는 UN B규약(자유권규약)인권위원회가 처음으로 일본정부에 대해 ‘위안부’문제에 대한 법적책임을 인정하고 충분한 사죄와 적절한 보상조치를 조속히 강구할 것을 촉구하는 보고서를 발표하였다. 이와 같이 일본군 ‘위안부’ 문제의 해결을 촉구하는 국제사회의 목소리가 어느 개별국가의 의회 차원을 넘어서서 범국가적, 범세계적으로 확산되고 있는 것은 2차대전 당시 강제 동원되어 성노예로 희생된 ‘위안부’ 여성들의 피해가 단지 ‘아시아 지역의 과거사’에 국한된 문제가 아니라는데 인식을 공유하고 있음을 보여주고 있는 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 이에 대한 일본정부의 부인은 역사적 정의에 대한 부정이며 인류보편적 가치로서의 인간의 존엄성과 인권에 대한 도전인 것이다. 따라서 일본군‘위안부’ 문제의 진실에 대한 규명작업은 현재와 미래 세대 모두에게 부여된 역사적 과제이자 정의의 의무를 수행하는 것이다. 일본군‘위안부’ 문제는 제2차 세계대전 중 대표적인 반인권적 국제범죄로서 그에 대한 부각과 해결은 국제인권법의 이정표이자 시금석으로 자리매김하게 되었다. 2차 세계대전 이후 국제인권법의 발전은 일본과 독일의 침략과 잔학행위가 인간의 존엄성에 대한 극단적인 경시를 기초로 한 전통적인 국가우선주의 철학의 결과라는 점, 개인의 배상청구권은 인권의 본질적 부분으로서 인정되고 보장되는 것이라는 점, 인권 관련 제 조약의 체약국은 국제관습인권법에 대해서도 그 관할권 내에 있는 모든 개인에 대한 여러 의무를 이행해야 한다는 점, 중대한 인권침해에 대한 피해회복에 관련한 청구는 시효와 무관하다는 점, 뉘른베르크 재판 당시 인도에 반한 죄에 대해서는 이미 시제법의 위반이 아니라고 판시하였던 점을 상기하여야 할 것이다. 일본정부는 일본군‘위안부’ 문제가 전시하에서 여성의 인권을 말살한 반인권적 국제범죄임을 분명히 인식해야 한다. 또한 일본의 사법부 역시 위안부 문제의 핵심이 ‘법적인 평가’에 관련된 것인 이상 일본의 재판소가 문제의 완전한 해결을 위해 적극 나서지 않으면 안 된다. 일본이 주장하는 조약을 통한 법적 문제의 해결이라는 것은 법의 본질인 정당성과 공정성을 도외시한 채 형식적 합법성만을 주장하는 것으로 국제인권법의 토대로서의 법철학적 판단의 부재에 다름 아님을 인식해야 할 것이다. 오늘날 대표적인 국제인권 관할기관인 UN인권이사회와 UN B규약인권위원회 등 국제사회가 한목소리로 일본정부에 ‘위안부’ 문제의 해결을 촉구하고 있는 것은 ‘인류 보편적 가치로서의 인간의 존엄성’이 보호받아야 한다는 점 때문이다. 또한 국제사회 공동규범으로서의 국제법은 전시하에서의 여성과 아동에 대한 보호를 불가침의 강행규범으로 승인하고 있다. 일본정부는 인류의 보편적 정의와 양심으로 위안부 문제의 해결에 나서야 할 것이며, 위안부 피해자에 대한 사죄와 배상을 통해 평화를 지향하는 국제사회 공동체의 일원으로 거듭나야 할 것이다. The international community is now joining hands in calling for the early settlement of the issue of “comfort women,” forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese army during World War II. Parliaments of the Netherlands, Canada and the European Union adopted resolutions toward that end, following the lead of the U.S. Congress in July 2007. But the Japanese government, having denied its alleged forcible mobilization of the women and even approving distorted history textbooks, has continued to bury its head in the sand and keep mum despite increasing calls from the international community. In its Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the U.N. Human Rights Committee formally adopted a working-level report of many nations' recommendations and queries on the issue during a meeting held in Geneva last May. In defiance, the Japanese government renewed its claim that the comfort women issue had already been settled, citing its apology via the 1993 statement by then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei, the setup of an accord for legal resolutions and the launch of the Asian Women's Fund. In response, Korea's National Assembly on Oct. 27 also adopted a resolution demanding a formal apology, compensation and the restoration of the honor of the victims. The U.N. committee's B-Convention on Oct. 30 first presented a report calling on the Japanese government to acknowledge its legal responsibility over the issue and to make appropriate apologies and compensation as soon as possible. As me nt i oned above , t he i nt er nat i onal c ommuni t y, beyond t he differences of nationalities and political entities, is joining forces in calling for a solution to the problem, which shows the matter is not mere “past history in the Asian region.” Japan's denial is against historical justice and poses a frontal challenge to the universal value of human dignity and human rights. Shedding light on the issue of comfort women is a historical mission imposed upon current and future generations, and a must for justice. The mobilization of comfort women is regarded as one of the most representative cases of crimes against humanity committed during WWII, of which settlement will surely be a landmark and milestone for international human rights. International human rights law for the post-WWII period has been focused on the following points: The aggression and atrocities of Japan and Germany were the result of chauvinistic nationalism sacrificing human dignity. The individual right to demand compensation is an essential part of human rights. Nations with agreements on human rights should carry out various duties on individuals within their jurisdiction in accordance with the International Customary Human Rights Law. There is no statute of limitations on heinous crimes against humanity involving appeals for damages. Judges at the Nuremberg trials ruled that crimes against humanity are not subject to the statute of limitations. Japan needs to bear in mind the aforementioned principles in dealing with the issue. The Japanese government should admit that it committed a crime against humanity by mobilizing women as sexual slaves during war. And Japan's courts should also roll up their sleeves to find a fundamental solution to the problem, which largely hinges on “legal judgment.”Japan has been calling for ending the dispute through accords, which shows Japan's lack of judgment from legal and philosophical perspectives by asserting only formal legality while ignoring justice and fairness. International organizations like the U.N. Human Rights Committee have been calling for the settlement of the issue to protect the universal value of human dignity and human rights. In addition, international law, as the common code of the international community, puts more stress on the protection of women and children during armed conflicts. The Japanese government needs to show a sincere attitude to be reborn as a responsible member of the international commu

한일청구권협정 관련 대법원 판결의 국제법적 평가

도시환(See Hwan Doh) 한국국제사법학회 2013 國際私法硏究 Vol.19 No.1

동아시아의 여성정책

도시환(Doh See-Hwan) 한국법학원 2017 저스티스 Vol.- No.158-2

동아시아의 여성정책에 대한 논의의 출발은 20세기로부터의 유산인 동아시아지역의 최대 역사 현안이자 평화공동체를 지향하는 국제사회의 최대 인권 현안으로서 일본군‘위안부’ 문제의 해결이 되어야 할 것이다. 그것은 21세기 현 시점에서도 국제사회 인권문제의 블랙홀이자 병목현상의 주범으로서 동아시아 여성정책의 총체적인 발전을 잠식하고 있기 때문이다. 일본정부는 2007년 7월 미국 하원을 시작으로 네덜란드, 캐나다, 유럽 의회 등 전세계적인 일본군‘위안부’ 결의채택에 대응하여, 2008년 6월 개최된 유엔인권이사회 국가별 정례인권 검토회의 (Universal Periodic Review; UPR)에서, 자국에 가장 유리한 논거로, 고노 담화를 통한 사과, 아시아여성기금을 통한 보상, 조약을 통한 법적 문제의 해결 등 일본군‘위안부’정책을 제시하였다. 그러나 일본정부의 정책은 다음과 같은 비판을 받고 있다. 첫째, 2007년 1차 집권 이래 아베 내각은 ‘위안부’의 강제동원을 부인하였을 뿐만 아니라 재집권 이후 고노담화에 대한 검증결과의 발표를 통해 신뢰성을 훼손함으로써 정치적 수사에 불과한 것으로 퇴행시켰다. 둘째, 아시아여성기금의 경우 공식 사죄와 배상이라는 피해자들의 요구를 외면한 채 반인도 범죄에 대한 일본의 국가책임 회피수단에 불과한 것으로, 이미 1998년 유엔특별조사관인 맥두걸 보고서는 적절한 국제적 대표자로 구성된 새로운 행정기금의 설치를 주장했다. 셋째, 조약을 통한 법적문제의 해결과 관련하여 일본이 전가의 보도마냥 주장해 온 1910년 ‘식민지배합법론’과 1965년 ‘한일협정완결론’에 대해, “1910년 한일병합조약은 원천무효”라는 2010년 한일지식인 공동성명을 기점으로 2011년 헌법재판소와 2012년 대법원은 “일본의 국가권력이 관여한 반인도적 불법행위를 비롯하여 식민지배와 직결된 불법행위에 대한 손해배상청구권이 한일협정에 포함되지 않았다”는 역사적인 판결을 내렸다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 2015년 12월 28일 한일 정부간 합의 이후, 유엔 여성차별철폐위원회(the UN Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW))의 2016년 2월 16일 일본에 대한 심의 당시 스기야마 신스케(杉山晋輔) 외무성 심의관의 일본군‘위안부’ 강제연행 부정과 발언 내용의 외무성 홈페이지 게재, 기시다 후미오(岸田文雄) 외무상의 한일협정완결론의 강조와 배상금적 성격 부정, 아베 총리의 피해자에 대한 사죄편지 거부로 이어진 일련의 행보는 일제 식민지배 여성에 대한 전쟁범죄로서 일본군‘위안부’ 피해라는 중대한 인권침해의 구제를 정책적으로 부정해온 궤적의 전형이자, 정부간 합의의 본질에 대한 형해화에 다름아님에 주목해야 할 것이다. 결론적으로, 일본정부는 인류보편적 가치로서의 인권에 대한 침해이자 반인도적 범죄로서의 일본군‘위안부’ 피해에 대한 사죄와 배상을 통한 명예회복에서 나아가 재발방지를 위한 책임자의 처벌 및 교육을 정책적으로 조속히 시행함으로써, 동아시아 최대 역사 현안이자 국제사회 최대 인권 현안으로서의 일본군 ‘위안부’ 문제를 해결해야 할 것이다. As a starting point of the discussion on women policies in East Asia, there should be some resolutions in the issue of ‘comfort women.’ Remaining as a remnant of 20th century, it is one of the most pressing historical issue of East Asia, as well as the greatest humanitarian issue of the international society. This issue brings an alarm to the 21st century because it hinders the development of women policy in East Asia as a whole as the main source of the black hole of the human rights problem. In the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) held in June 2008, the government of Japan proposed its ‘comfort women’ policy, which includes apologies through Kono Dialogue, reparation through Asian Women Fund, and legal solution through treaties, based on the grounds that are highly beneficial for its national interest. It is considered to be a response to worldwide adoption of the ‘Comfort Women’ resolution, which started from the US Congress in July 2007 and expanded to legislatures of the Netherlands, Canada, European Union, and etc. However, the policy by the Japanese government is criticized by following reasons. Firstly, ever since its first term, the Abe cabinet not only denied the compulsory mobilization of comfort women, but also defamed credibility of the Kono Dialogue by announcing the verification results and degenerated it as a mere political rhetoric. Secondly, Asian Women Fund is a mere hedging instrument to avoid criticisms for the crime against humanity without any considerations on the demand of the victims for proper apologies and reparations. Already, in 1998, the McDugall Report stated that it should be replaced with a new fund consisted of proper international representatives. Thirdly, regarding to Japan’s solution through treaty, the Constitutional Court in 2011 and the Supreme Court in 2012 made a historical decision that “the claims for damages done by the atrocities and crimes during the Japanese colonial rule were not included in the contents of the Korea-Japan Normalization Agreement in 1965” after the Joint Declaration of Korea-Japan Intellectuals in 2010 that announce that ‘the Annexation Treaty in 1910 was invalid.’ These are counters against the previous Japanese claims that ‘colonial rule was inevitable’ in 1910 and ‘all reparations were completed via Korea-Japan Normalization Agreement’ in 1965. Despite such criticisms, after inter-governmental consensus between Korea and Japan in 2015, Deputy Director-general of Japanese Foreign ministry, Sugiyama Shinsuke, denied the compulsory mobilization of comfort women during CEDAW in February 16th 2016, and uploaded this statement to the homepage. Foreign Minister, Kishida Humio, emphasized the completion of the deal in 1965 and Prime Minister Abe opposed to write apology letter to the victims. Seen from this process. it is a typical case of denial of comfort women, the atrocity against women, and damage to fundamentals of the inter-governmental consensus. In its final analysis, the comfort women issue was an atrocity against human rights, which is an universal virtue. Thus, the Japanese government should apologize and compensate for the damages of the comfort women victims and recover their dignity, and implement policies to be responsible for punishment of the perpetuators and prevention of such atrocity against humanity. As the most important historical issue of East Asia, and the most pressing humanitarian issue of the international society, the comfort women issue should be resolved promptly.

일제식민지책임 청산을 위한 한일조약체제의 과제

都時煥(Doh, See-Hwan) 효원사학회 2015 역사와 세계 Vol.- No.48

제2차 세계대전의 전후 및 광복 70년 그리고 한일협정 50년이 중첩된 ‘역사의 해’를 맞이했다. 지난 2010년 한일강제병합 100년의 시점에서 한일지식인 1,139명이 천명한 “1910년 한일병합조약 원천무효” 공동성명은 ‘식민주의의 역사적 종식’을 담은 2001년 더반선언의 동아시아버전으로서 올바른 역사의 정립을 통한 기반위에서 진정한 역사화해를 모색해 나가야 한다는 것이었다. 그것은 식민지배와 침략전쟁에 대한 사죄와 배상을 전제로 하는 국제법상의 기본적인 소극적 평화(negative peace)에서 나아가 오늘날 인류보편적 가치로서의 인간의 존엄성과 인권의 존중을 전제로 하는 적극적 평화(positive peace)를 도모함으로써 2015년 한일협정 반세기는 동아시아평화공동체를 함께 실현해가는 진정한 출발점으로서 기여할 수 있어야 한다는 것이다. 그러나 일본 정부는 일본에 의한 한국병합이 당시의 국제법상 합법적인 ‘한일병합조약’의 체결로 한국강점과 식민지배 모두 합법이라는 전제하에 일본의 국가권력이 관여한 반인도적 범죄와 식민지배와 직결된 불법행위에 대한 배상책임을 부정하며 1965년 한일협정을 통해 완결되었음을 주장하고 있다. 그러한 맥락에서 본고에서는 식민지책임 청산의 세계적 동향을 검토하고, 국가주의에 입각한 일본 정부와 사법부가 지속적으로 부정해 온 일본군‘위안부’와 일제강제징용 등 “일본의 국가권력이 관여한 반인도적 불법행위 및 식민지배와 직결된 불법행위”에 대한 한국 사법부의 일제식민지책임 판결과 한일조약체제의 역사적인 과제를 논의하였다. 따라서 일제식민지배 피해자에 대한 전쟁범죄로서 일본군‘위안부’와 일제강제징용 등 중첩적인 중대한 인권침해의 구제를 위한 국제법적 과제로는 한국 사법부의 역사적인 판결을 통해 천명하고 있는 바와 같이 인권, 정의 그리고 평화의 세 가지 시대정신을 정립하는 것이 되어야 할 것이다.