북한 `급변사태` 논의에 대한 국제법적 고찰: 국가성의 존속 및 자결권 원칙을 중심으로

임예준 ( Ye Joon Rim ) 한국사회역사학회 2017 담론 201 Vol.20 No.1

이 논문은 북한의 국가성에 대한 객관적인 이해를 바탕으로, 북한 `급변사태` 발생 시 북한의 국가성과 국제사회의 개입과정, 그리고 통일과의 관계를 국제법적 관점에서 이론적으로 고찰함을 목적으로 한다. 북한 급변사태의 가능성과 시점, 원인과 과정에 대해서는 정확한 예측이나 판단을 할 수 없지만, 급변사태와 관련한 이론적 연구가 불가능한 것은 아니다. 민주적 정당성이 결여된 정권의 붕괴와 체제 전환의 역사적 사례는 유사한 사태에 대한 국제사회의 대응 양상을 보여주었으며, 이와 관련된 규범체계의 검토를 가능케 한다. 한편 대한민국과 북한의 분단국가라는 특수성은 북한 급변사태가 한반도 통일에 어떠한 영향을 미칠 것이며, 이에 대한 준비방안은 무엇인가 하는 정책적 과제를 안겨주기도 한다. 국제법상 북한 급변사태와 한반도의 통일은 별개의 과정이다. 급변상황으로 북한에 실효적 정부가 붕괴된다 하더라도 북한의 국가성은 유지되며, 북한과 별개의 주권국인 대한민국의 관할권이 곧바로 북한 지역으로 확대되는 것은 아니기 때문이다. 따라서 급변사태 발생 이후 한반도의 통일을 모색함에 있어서는 정권 붕괴 이후 신정부 수립까지의 과정에 대한 국제사회의 개입과정을 체계적으로 살펴보고, 이 과정에서의 대한민국의 역할과, 북한주민의 자결권 행사로 이뤄지는 통일의 과정을 이해하고 준비할 필요가 있다. This article examines the discourse on North Korean `contingency` from the perspective of international law, focusing on the continuity of statehood, the legitimacy of international intervention, and the relation to Korean unification. It is difficult to predict the possibility of North Korean contingency, let alone the precise cause and chain of events. However, cases of collapse of a regime lacking democratic legitimacy provide historical examples of international response. A contingency situation in North Korea and Korean unification are separate processes: the statehood of North Korea would continue even if contingency led to the total absence of government, and South Korea`s jurisdiction would not directly extend to the territory of North Korea. In contemplating Korean unification, it is imperative to examine the potential involvement of the international community and the possible role of South Korea, as well as to understand the identity of the `people` exercising the right to self-determination.

국제법상 북한의 법적 지위에 대한 고찰

임예준 ( Ye Joon Rim ) 안암법학회 2015 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.46

This article examines the legal status of the Democratic People`s Republic of Korea (North Korea) from the perspective of international law. In the process of unification international legal issues will be raised, including succession of treaties, membership in the international organizations, and liquidation of State debts. To resolve this complicated set of legal problems, the primary issue would be affirmation of the legal status of North Korea. Indeed, North Korea is not considered as a recognized ‘State’ from the perspective of national law of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). According to Article 3 of the Constitution, the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea extends over the entire Korean Peninsula, and North Korea is an unlawful group illegally occupying the northern part of the territory. Thus, the relationship between South and North Korea is not that between two ‘States’ but is considered in terms of ‘special relations.’ However, viewed externally, North Korea is a sovereign State satisfying all required elements for statehood in inter- national law: there certainly is a population living in a defined territory that a government effectively controls. Moreover, North Korea is engaged in various international legal relations, bilateral and multilateral, and also is recognized by various States. Thus, from the external perspective, the unification of South and North Korea would be not the restoration of effective control over a region that has been impeded by an unlawful opposition group due to its occupation of the territory. It would be a case where two legal persons merge into a single legal person either by way of extinction of one party by absorption, or extinction of two legal persons into a single legal person by an agreement. Although South and North Korea are determined to deal with their relationship not as a relationship between two States but as an internal matter of the Korean people, this rationale could not always be enforced when a third party is engaged in this issue. Through an examination of the legal status of North Korea from the perspective of international law, this article attempts to provide objective understanding of the international legal status of North Korea in order to prepare for possible international legal issues that may be raised in the course of unification.

보호책임의 발전과정과 국제법상 함의

임예준(Rim Ye Joon) 국제법평론회 2014 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.40

This article examines the evolution of the concept of 'Responsibility to Protect'(R2P) since its inception in 2001, and contemplates its implications for international law. R2P reaffirms the primary responsibility of the sovereign State as innate in the concept of sovereignty, while emphasizing the residual responsibility of the international community to protect a population from threats of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This basic principle of R2P was endorsed at the 2005 World Summit, and has since been developed through annual reports of the Secretary-General focusing on the detailed implementation mechanism of the R2P. Meanwhile, the invocation of R2P in the cases of Libya and Côte d'Ivoire, but not that of Syria, reminds us of its limits and constraints. This article examines how the discourse over R2P has been developed in three stages: 1) accepting the concept as a subject of international public discourse, 2) shaping concrete implementation mechanisms, and 3) reappraising the concept vis-a-vis its application in practice. The article then examines the implications for international law. Although there remains a tension and challenge at the heart of conceptualizing and operationalizing R2P, it has already played a decisive role in shaping international debates about human rights and humanitarian response. Indeed, R2P a priori enhances the human rights protection mechanism through emphasizing the primary responsibility of the sovereign State even while requiring the international community to assist the State in this duty, and triggering active engagement of the UN to fulfill the international community's residual responsibility to protect populations from grave humanitarian crisis. Meanwhile, a certain standard for evaluating the performance of the government of a sovereign State has emerged, which is in need of careful calibration and a more circumscribed approach. R2P provides opportunities to review the decision-making process of the UN Security Council, the mechanism for cooperation with regional organizations, and accountability for the responsibility while protecting (RwP), which would ultimately enhance the collective security system of the UN. R2P also promotes the rule of law of the international community by emphasizing the role of the International Criminal Court. The current discourse of R2P illustrates how this concept, originally suggested by an independent research institute, has been integrated into the international community, even while suggesting the role of 'norm entrepreneur' in the development process of the concept.

국제법위원회 최종결과물 형태에 관한 연구

임예준(Rim, Ye Joon) 국제법평론회 2018 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.50

This article examines variety in the final form of the ILC’s work, and its implications for international law. The traditional form of the ILC’s work was ‘draft articles’ which aim to be the basis for conclusion of a convention. However, the trend in the final form of its work has changed; a number of topics now take non-binding forms such as ‘draft principles’, ‘draft guidelines’, and ‘draft conclusions’. To find the implications of this changing trend in the final form, this article categorizes the works of the ILC into specific final forms, and explores the selection process for the final form, as well as considerations arising during the selection. It also examines the recommendations of the ILC to the UN General Assembly with regard to the final outcome, and further discussion and measures taken in and by the Assembly. The variety in the final form of the work of the ILC relates to and is due to the changing topics it approaches. Traditional topics for codification are almost exhausted; and on several topics, the ILC is aiming at the progress development of international law. Indeed, the ILC has enhanced its role in the development of international law through the changing final form of its works, by ensuring the flexibility and efficiency of discussion on the topic. The various final forms, beyond rigid draft articles, ultimately expand the impact of the works of the ILC by widening its audience, extending the range of subjects feasible for discussion, and deepening the scope of discussion. The changing final form of the ILC outcome reflects the recent trend in international law where flexible approaches are needed for its regulation in order to attract the attention and interest of the international community with regard to the extended scope of international matters.

1955년 반둥회의가 유엔체제와 국제법질서에 미친 영향

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

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

국제법상 정부의 개념 및 요건에 대한 소고

임예준 ( Ye Joon Rim ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2015 고려법학 Vol.0 No.76

정부와 국가는 상호 개념을 구성하며 긴밀하게 연결되어 있다. 정부는 국제법상 인정되는 국가의 존재를 전제하므로, 국제법상의 국가로서의 지위가 확정되지 않은 실체에 대한 논의에서 정부라는 용어는 보다 엄격하게 사용된다. 한편, 기존의 정부 역시 한 주권국의 대표성을 상실한 경우 해당 실체에 대한 ‘정부’라는 용어의 사용이 기피되는 것으로 볼 때, 정부라는 용어는 대표성을 전제한다. 그리고 이러한 대표성을 갖는 정부는 하나이다. 이러한 정부 개념의 전제하에 국제사회는 한 국가의 여러 실체가 자신이 해당 국가를 대표할 수 있는 정부임을 주장하는 경우, 이에 대해 불가피하게 개입하게 된다. 어떠한 실체가 정부인가 결정하는 논의에 있어 전통적인, 그리고 일차적인 기준은 해당 실체가 영토와 주민을 실효적으로 통제하는지 여부였으며, 해당 정부가 어떻게 그 권력을 잡게 되었는지, 혹은 해당 주민을 상대로 어떠한 권력을 행사하고 있는가는 국제사회에서의 해당 정부의 지위를 판단함에 있어 고려되지 않았다. 그러나 국제사회는 점차적으로 해당 정부의 국내적 합헌성 외에도, 해당 정부의 민주성에 기초한 대표성과 정당성과 같은 국제사회의 기준을 제시해 나가고 있다. 한편, 정부의 지위에 대해 고려되는 이러한 요소들은 단순한 사실이 아닌 국제법공동체가 공유하는 가치의 문제를 담고 있다. 따라서 후자는 국제법이 발전하는 방향, 즉, 국제적인 규범체계가 완성되어가는 방향에 영향을 받을 수밖에 없다. 이 글은 최근의 시리아, 리비아, 코트디브아르의 사태를 통해 국제사회가 요구하고 있는 정부의 요건이 무엇인가에 대한 문제를 제기하고, 이러한 논의를 통해 국제법상 정부의 개념과 그에 따른 요건에 대해 고찰하였다. 먼저 국제법상 ‘정부’라는 개념에 전제되어있는 국가성, 대표성, 유일성을 나누어 살펴보았다. 이를 토대로 정부승인과는 별개의 일반적 맥락에서의 정부의 요건에 관한 논의의 필요성을 검토하였다. 전통적 요건인 실효성의 경우 대내적 실효성과 대외적 실효성이 달라질 수 있음을 지적하고, 이러한 대외적 실효성을 통해 전통적 요건인 대내적 실효성 역시 국제법의 발전에 영향을 받는, 즉, 국제법공동체의 기준이 적용될 수 있음을 밝혔다. 민주적 자격에 관한 기존 논의를 검토하고, 이러한 논의를 정당성의 논의로 발전시켜, 절차적 민주주의에 근거한 성립과정에서의 정당성의 문제 뿐 아니라, 행위의 정당성의 논의로 발전시킬 수 있음을 제시하였다. 이를 통해 ‘책임으로서의 주권’에 따른 정부의 역할이 정부의 지위에 영향을 줄 수 있는 요건으로 발전하고 있는지를 살펴보았다. ‘Government’ and ‘State’ are interrelated concepts, which mutually frame each other. The term ‘government’ presupposes the existence of the sovereign independent State; thus, it is carefully employed when the legal status of an entity is controversial. As a legally circumscribed concept, the term ‘government’ is carefully used in legal parlance since it may implicitly convey the representative status of an authority claiming to be the government of a sovereign State. There can only be one ‘government’ to represent the State at any given time; and once an authority has been recognized and referred to as the government of the State, the presumption of continuity upholds its status. Governmental status of a sovereign State is a priori the matter of internal affairs to be decided primarily under the municipal system. Nevertheless, from the practical point of view, the international community cannot but interfere in the matter of governmental status, in particular when there are competing authorities claiming to be a government, since they must determine the faction deemed ‘legitimate’ for continuing relations. Traditionally, the status of the government has been predominantly determined by internal effectiveness in controlling the territory and population notwithstanding other factors: how it came to power, and how it exercises its authority and treats its population. However, internal effectiveness cannot be the absolute criterion in considering status of government: practice has suggested that the absence of effective governmental control is compensated for by other factors such as constitutionality, democratic entitlement, or international legitimacy. On the other hand, an effective entity unwilling to comply with international law may fail to gain international recognition as the government or may lose external effectiveness. Such factors reflect evolving norms in the international legal community and are thus inevitably affected by the development of international law. In light of the recent crises in Syria, Libya and Cote d`Ivoire, this article invokes a question on the concept of ‘government’, building from a basic discussion of government and its related requirements embedded or reflected in the current international legal framework. Effectiveness remains the primary criterion for a government, as a prerequisite for functioning as such. However, effectiveness as the traditional requirement of government as a legitimate authority is re-examined in distinguishing between internal and external effectiveness. The article suggests that external effectiveness-which under globalization could also affect internal effectiveness-is largely relevant to the norms respected in the international legal community; and thus can also be affected by the development of international law. Discourses around democratic entitlement are re-approached in relation to legitimacy, with a distinction being made between ‘legitimacy in origin’ and ‘legitimacy in exercise.’ Based on this discussion, this article examines whether protection of the people from mass atrocities according to ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ might be a factor in determining the status of a government.

SaaS(Software as a Service) 플랫폼을 지원하는 Web 2.0 Open API 매쉬업 시스템 설계

진현목(Jin Hyun Mok),임예준(Rim Ye Joon),이승룡(Lee Sungyoung),허성진(Hur Sung-Jin) 한국통신학회 2010 한국통신학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2010 No.2