Ratification and Implementation of the Amendments on the Crime of Aggression under the ICC Statute in Korea = 한국에 있어서의 ICC규정 침략범죄 개정안의 비준과 이행

국문 초록 (Abstract)

캄팔라 개정문의 국내적 이행방식을 결정할 때, 한국은 침략범죄의 정의 내용을 국내법적 요건에 합치시키기 위하여 그 내용의 일부를 조정하는 것을 원할 수도 있다. 그러나 국내입법에 반영하는 경우, 캄팔라회의에서 합의된 대로의 문구를 사용하여 이를 편입하는 것이 바람직하다. 캄팔라 개정문보다 그 범위를 더 좁게 하거나 또는 더 넓게하여 침략행위를 정의하는 경우 국제법상의 효력문제가 발생할 수 있기 때문이다. 캄팔라 개정문의 침략범죄의 정의는 그동안 발전하여 온 관습국제법의 산물로 볼 수 있기 때문에, 특히 이보다 더 넓게 범죄의 범위를 책정하는 경우 국제적 효력에 대해 의문이 제기될 수 있다. 캄팔라회의 이후 국가들의 초기 관행을 보면, 제8조 bis의 국내적 이행에 있어서 거의 캄팔라 개정문의 문언을 그대로 사용하여 침략범죄를 정의하는 방식을 따르고 있다.
한국이 선택한 관할권 행사체제에 따라서는, 한국의 국내법이 외국의 지도자가 행한 침략행위까지 범죄화하는 경우도 있을 수 있다. 이는 특히 침략행위가 한국의 영토에 대하여 행해짐으로써 한국이 속지주의에 근거하여 관할권을 주장하는 경우에 더욱 그러하다. 그러나 이 경우 한국은 침략범죄가 가지는 지도자범죄로서의 성질에 기인하여 매우 제한된 숫자의 피의자만을 처벌하게 된다는 점과 이 경우 외국지도자의 침략범죄와 관련하여 국가면제가 적용될 수 있다는 점에 유의하여야 한다. 따라서 외국국민들에 대한 한국법원의 국내형사재판권은 구체적인 사건에 있어서 행사되지 못할 수도 있다. 한국은 자국민이 행한 침략범죄에 대해서만 형사재판권을 행사하려는 경우, 외국국민을 기소함에 있어서 수반되는 국제적으로 중대한 정치적ㆍ법적 문제들을 회피할 수 있을 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It is possible to ratify the Kampala Amendments without actually implementing them, and it is also possible to ratify the amendments now and implement them later. Nevertheless, a large number of countries, when they ratify an international treaty, try to implement it within domestic law. In particular, in relation to the Kampala Amendments, countries have legislated domestic implementation laws at the time of ratification, in order to properly apply the principle of complementarity included in the ICC Statute.
When determining domestic implementation methods for the Kampala Amendments, countries may wish to partially adjust the definition of crime of aggression in accordance with the conditions of domestic law. However, when applying the Kampala Amendments to domestic legislation, it is recommended to incorporate the whole phrase that was adopted at the Kampala Conference. This is because if the definition of acts of aggression is narrowed or broadened compared to the Kampala Amendments’ definition, there is a risk of legal validity issues from the perspective of international law. The definition of crime of aggression in the Kampala Amendments can be considered as the product of developments in customary international law to date, and therefore, in particular when the range of this crime is broadened, doubts about international legal validity may arise. Looking at the early actions of countries following the Kampala Conference, domestic implementation of Article 8 bis mostly follows the verbatim definition of crimes of aggression provided by the text of the Kampala Amendments.
Of course, if the expanded domestic law applies only to the residents of the ratifying country (the prosecuting country), there will be no issue of legal validity. However, when the country intends to prosecute a resident of another country for actions outside the definition of crime of aggression agreed at Kampala, there may be difficulties in gaining the cooperation of the other country, and, above all, jurisdictional bases under customary international law will not be available.
According to the jurisdictional system chosen by Korea, in some cases, Korea’s domestic legal system may even criminalize acts of aggression committed by leaders of other countries. This is particularly true when the acts of aggression are perpetrated against Korea, and Korea asserts its jurisdiction on the basis of the territoriality principle. However, in this case, Korea should be aware that only a very limited number of defendants may be punished due to the nature of crime of aggression as leadership crime, and that state immunity could be applied in relation to the crime of aggression committed by foreign leaders. Therefore, Korea’s domestic criminal jurisdiction for foreign leaders in its domestic courts may not be achievable in certain real cases. If Korea asserts criminal jurisdiction only for crimes of aggression perpetrated by their own people, it is able to avoid the major international political and legal issues accompanying prosecution of foreign leaders.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Abstract
• Ⅰ. Introduction
• Ⅱ. Main Substance of the Kampala Amendments
• Ⅲ. Ratification and Domestic Implementation
• Ⅳ. Elements of the Crime
• Ⅴ. The issue of state immunity for foreign high-ranking officials
• Ⅵ. Implications for Korea
• Ⅶ. Conclusion
• 국문초록

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이진국, "국제형법상 침략범죄 구성요건의 신설과 전망" 한국형사정책연구원 24 (24): 331-359, 2013

2 최태현, "국제법 위반행위에 대한 국가면제의 제한" 대한국제법학회 51 (51): 11-43, 2006

3 A. Haya Butler, "Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes under International Law" Univ. of Pennsylvania press 67-76, 2004

4 Michael P. Scharf, "Universal Jurisdiction and the Crime of Aggression" 53 : 357-382, 2012

5 M. Schuster, "The Rome Statute and the Crime of Aggression: A Gordian Knot in Search of a Sword" 14 : 1-13, 2003

6 Stefan Barriga, "The Princeton Process on the Crime of Aggression" The Lichtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University 2009

7 Andreas Paulus, "Second Thoughts on the Crime of Aggression" 20 : 1117-1122, 2009

8 Roger S. Clark, "Negotiating Provisions Defining the Crime of Aggression, Its Elements and Conditions for ICC Exercise of Jurisdiction Over It" 20 : 1103-1105, 2009

9 Jennifer Trahan, "Is Complementarity the Right Approach for the International Criminal Court’s Crime of Aggression? Considering the Problem of ”Overzealous“ National Court Prosecution" 45 : 569-594, 2012

10 최태현, "ICC규정 침략범죄관련 조항의 채택과 함의" 서울국제법연구원 17 (17): 115-153, 2010

11 Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression & Liechtenstein Institute on Self-determination, "Handbook : Ratification and Implementation of the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute of the ICC" 19-, 2012

12 "G.A. Res. 3314, UN. GAOR, 29th Sess, Supp. No. 31, UN. Doc. A/19619 (14December 1974), 제4조"

13 Stefan Barriga, "From Rome to Kampala: The first 2 amendments to the Rome Statute" Bruxelles 33-34, 2012

14 Devyani Kacker, "Coming Full Circle: The Rome Statute and the Crime of Aggression" 33 : 257-271, 2010

15 ICC, "Assembly of States Parties, Informal Inter-Sessional Meeting of Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression" 2005

16 "Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo vs. Belgium), Preliminary Objection and Merits, Judgement"

17 E. Wilmshurst, "An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure" Cambridge Univ. Press 262-, 2007

18 Nu Ri Jung, "A Study on the Efficacy of the Kampala Amendments for Suppression of Aggression: Examined by the Case of Armed Conflicts in the Korean Peninsula" 10 : 157-, 2013

19 Elise Leclere-Gagné, "A Question of Intent: The Crime of Aggression and Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention" 41 : 379-389, 2009