A Critical Study on the assertion of New Rule for New Type of War in IHL = Focused on 9.11 and Afghanistan war

국문 초록 (Abstract)

9.11 테러는 전 세계에 큰 충격을 안겨주었다. 소련의 붕괴 이후, 유일한 절대강자인 미국을 테러의 대상으로 했을 뿐만 아니라, 미국본토에 대한 동시다발적으로 테러행위를 자행한 것은 누구도 예상하지 못한 사건이었다. 그러나 9.11 사건이 전 세계에 안겨준 충격은 비단 이것만은 아니다. 테러행위에 대한 미국의 즉각적인 군사대응과정에서 발생한 -‘아부그라이브 교도소 사건’ 그리고 ‘관타나모 수용소 사건’으로 더 유명한 - 억류된 테러행위 용의자, 탈레반 및 Al Qaeda 전투원에 대한 비인도적인 행위와 인권유린 사건들은 전 세계를 다시 한 번 충격에 휩싸이게 했다.
일련의 충격은 특히, 국제인도법과 관련하여 현행 국제인도법이 비국가행위자와의 무력충돌에 있어서 적절한 규범으로서의 역할을 할 수 있는지 의문을 제기하였으며, 여전히 많은 논의들이 진행 중이다. 최근의 논의들은 현행 국제인도법이 새로운 형태의 무력충돌 -비국가행위자와 국가 간의 무력충돌- 을 규율하는데 있어 한계점을 드러냈으며 새로운 규범제정의 필요하다고 주장하고 있다. 그러나 현행 국제인도법의 법적 공백을 이유로 신 규범을 제정해야 한다는 주장은 다음과 같은 이유에서 제고되어야 한다. 첫째, 신규범제정 주장은 ‘테러와의 전쟁’이라고 명명된 미국의 아프가니스탄 무력공격과 관련하여 무력공격의 대상에 대해서 간과하고 있으며 이로 인해 당해 무력충돌의 성격을 규정함에 있어 처음부터 오류를 범하고 있고 둘째, 신규범제정 당위성론과 부시행정부의 법규해석의 태도는 지나치게 문리적 해석에 치우쳐 있어 최근의 판례의 경향 및 국제인도법의 정신과 목적에 역행하고 있으며 셋째, 새로운 규범이 제정되기 위해서 규율대상인 무력충돌의 성격 또는 형태가 기존의 것과는 확연히 차이가 있어야 함은 물론, 이러한 새로운 유형의 무력충돌이 지배적으로 발생되거나 예상되어 규범의 변경이 불가피한 경우 이어야 함에도 미국이 수행하고 있는 테러와의 전쟁과 같은 무력충돌의 유형이 앞으로도 지배적인 무력충돌의 형태가 될 것인지는 의문의 여지가 있어 신규범제정의 실현 가능성이 희박하며. 끝으로 이른바 관타나모 수용소 사건과 같은 억류된 적대상대방의 전투원에 대한 인권유린 행위가 단순히 규정의 미비에서 비롯된 필연적 귀결이라는 주장의 인과관계가 확실치 않기 때문이다.
이에 본 논문은 9.11테러와 이에 대한 대응조치로서의 미국 주도로 이루어진 아프가니스탄 전쟁에 발발 배경과 과정 등 사실관계에 입각하여 이른바 ‘테러와의 전쟁“의 법적 지위와 함께 현행 국제인도법이 테러와의 전쟁에도 적용됨을 제시하고자 한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

September 11 attack, also referred to as 9/11, launched by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda was a shocking day for everyone around the world. During the immediate Global War on Terror, personnel of the United States military and the Central Intelligence Agency committed series of human rights violation against detainees in the Abu-Graib prison and Guantanamo prison, escalating the trauma even further. These series of human rights violation gave rise a questions of International Law and International Humanitarian Law: whether International Humanitarian Law can effectively resolve the armed conflict between state forces and non-state perpetrators. And there are still debates concerning the issue, recent scholarly assertions proclaim that current International Humanitarian Law shows its limitation and incapacity to regulate new types of armed conflicts―armed conflicts between states and non-state perpetrators such as terrorist groups―and this incapacity resulted in the Guantanamo scandal. Thus, new rule to regulate such armed conflicts must be devised.
However, for the following reasons, I strongly disagree with those who emphasize an ambiguity in current International Humanitarian Law, and those who propose a new law based on such ambiguity.
First, the assertion of new rules for new types of armed conflicts including the War on Terror overlooks the subject matter of the armed attack against Afghanistan by the United States. Secondly, this assertion’s posture of interpretation and application is inconsistent with not only the purpose but also the recent trends of International Humanitarian Law. Thirdly, the assertion of new rule for new type of armed conflicts has bare chance of feasibility. Finally, assuming that International Humanitarian Law is incapable of dealing with this new type of conflict, there is still no traceable causation between this incapability of the law and the Guantanamo scandal where detainees were tortured and subjected to inhumane treatments.
In this regards, the purpose of this paper is to review the premise of the new rule in its effort to identify a new type of armed conflict; whether or not the War on Terror is an armed conflict between states and non-state actors. This examination will also review whether or not there is the third type of armed conflicts, which is neither an international armed conflict nor an armed conflict not of an international character. In addition, it will review whether present International Humanitarian Law can apply to the War on Terror, because even though present International Humanitarian Law may not be able to cover certain new types of armed conflicts until new rules are formally adopted, it is the only source of a rule to regulate armed conflicts and the only means to protect the lives of civilians and combatants in the situation of armed conflicts.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. Introduction
• Ⅱ. Armed Conflict in IHL
• Ⅲ. Terrorism and the Global War on Terror
• Ⅳ. Legal Nature of the Global War on Terror
• Ⅴ. Conclusion
• ABSTRACT
• 국문초록

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김영석, "미국의 대테러전쟁과 2006년 군사위원회법에 관한 법적 분석" 서울국제법연구원 14 (14): 151-170, 2007

2 Manoober Mofidi, "“Unlawful Combatants” or “Prisoners of War”: The Law and Politics of Labels" 36 : 59-, 2003

3 Jordan J. Paust, "War and Enemy Status After 9/11: Attack on the Laws of War" 28 : 325-, 2003

4 Kyoung-Ok Do, "Use of Force and Non-State Actor" 17 (17): 59-89, 2010

5 Karl M. Meessen, "Unilateral Recourse to Military Force Against Terrorist Attack" 28 : 341-, 2003

6 "USA Today"

7 David D. Kirkpatrick, "U.S. Raids in Libya and Somalia Strike Terror Targets"

8 "U.S. Dep’t of State Publication 11409, Country Reports on Terrorism 2006"

9 "Twenty-fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Terrorist Threat to the Americas, O.A.S. Doc. RC.24/Res.1/01"

10 Geoffrey S. Corn, "Transnational Armed Conflict: A 'Principled' Approach to the Regulation of Counter-Terror Combat Operations" 42 : 46-, 2009

11 Alison Cole, "Thomas Lubanga: War Crimes Conviction in the First Case at the International Criminal Court, AJIL Insights"

12 Dinah PoKempner, "The “New” Non-State Actors in International Humanitarian Law" 38 : 552-554, 2006

13 Geoffrey S. Corn, "The War on Terror and the Law of War: A Military Perspective" 1-36, 2009

14 Jessica Stern, "The Ultimate Terrorists 11" Harvard University Press 1999

15 Angus Martyn, "The Right of Self-Defence under International Law-the Response to the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September, Australian Law and Bills Digest Group"

16 "The American Presidency Project, Fact Sheet: Status of Detainees at Guantanamo"

17 Michael H. Hoffman, "Terrorists Are Unlawful Belligerents, Not Unlawful Combatants: A Distinction with Implications for the Future of International Humanitarian Law" 34 : 227-, 2002

18 "Terrorism Research, What is terrorism?"

19 INGRID DETTER, "THE LAW OF WAR" Routledge 2013

20 Bill Miller, "Skyscraper Protection Might Not Be Feasible, Federal Engineers Say"

21 Derek Jinks, "September 11 and the Law of War" 28 : 1-9, 2003

22 "S.C. Res. 1373, ¶ 8, U.N. Doc. S/Res/1373"

23 "S. C. Res. 1368, ¶ 5, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1368"

24 Neil McDonald, "Rational Interpretation in Irrational Times: The Third Geneva Convention and the “War on Terror”" 44 : 301-, 2003

25 "Press Release, North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], Statement by the North Atlantic Council"

26 Sang-don Lee, "President War Power under US Constitution – Regarding War Resolution Act" Hankook Bubhakwon 18 : 47-63, 1985

27 Alex P. Schmid, "Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors Concepts, in Data Bases, Theories and Literature" 5-6, 1988

28 "Pakistan to Demand Taliban Give Up Bin Laden as Iran Seals Afghan Border"

29 Shan Carter, "One 9/11 Tally: $3.3 Trillion"

30 Carl von Clausewitz, "On War [Vom Kriege] 2" Routledge & Kegan Paul 1832

31 "New York Magazine"

32 Jack M. Beard, "Military Action against Terrorists under International Law: America's New War on Terror: The Case for Self-Defense under International Law" 25 : 559-, 2001

33 Ulf Laessing, "Libya condemns U.S. arrest of Benghazi suspect"

34 Harold Hungju Koh, "Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Address Before the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law: The Obama Administration and Intranational Law"

35 Mary Ellen O’Connell, "Lawful Self-Defense to Terrorsim" 63 : 889-899, 2002

36 John C Yoo, "International Law and the War on Terrorism 5-6, (Berkeley Law Sch. Working Paper Series, 2003)"

37 Gabor Rona, "Interesting Times for Interantional Humanitarian Law: Challenges from the “War on Terror" 27 : 55-, 2002

38 Peter Bergen, "In This Issue: Terrorism: What the Next President Will Face; Special Editor: Richard A. Clarke: Section One: Al Qaeda's Incarnations: Al Qaeda, the Organization: A Five-Year Forecast" 618 : 14-, 2008

39 Int’l Committee of the Red Cross, "How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law?"

40 Geoffrey S Corn, "Hamdan, Lebanon, and the Regulation of Hostilities: The Need to Recognize a Hybrid Category of Armed Conflict" 40 : 295-, 2007

41 Amos M. Guiora, "Global Pespective on Counterterrorims 5" Aspen Publishers 2011

42 "George W. Bush, U.S. President, Address to the Nation on the Terrorist Attacks"

43 Thomas M. Frank, "Editorial Comment: Criminals, Combatants, or What? An Examinaton of the Role of Law in Responding to the Threat of Terror" 98 : 686-, 2004

44 Michael P. Schart, "Defining Terrorism as the Peacetime Equivolent of War Crimes: Problems and Prospects" 30 : 359-, 2004

45 Michael J. Matheon, "Continuity and Change in the Law of War: 1975 To 2005: Detainee and POWs" 38 : 543-, 2006

46 "Confidential Cable"

47 "Bin Laden death prompts questions about legality"

48 "Bin Laden death prompts questions about legality"

49 "Bin Laden death prompts questions about legality"

50 Nam-sik In, "Al Qaeda’s Recent Trends and the U.S. Counter-Terrorism Policy Prospects"

51 "Al Jazeera News"

52 "1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft"