남북한 통일 시 조약 승계 문제 처리 試論 = The International Legal Issues of Treaty Succession in case of Korean Unification

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In case of the Korean Unification, we may encounter many international legal issues. This paper reviews one of the significant international legal issues, the succession of treaties concluded by ROK and DPRK (North Korea) by the Unified Korea. The issue of succession of treaties in international law is very problematic, although in 1978 the Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (1978 Convention) was adopted under the auspices of the UN. Even before the Convention was adopted, States have shown different positions regarding the succession of States in respect of treaties. Many African newly independent States took an unilateral stance regarding succession of treaties concluded by the colonial powers. The typical examples are the Tanganyika and Zambia cases. And also, even after the conclusion of the 1978 Convention, the States do not give full support to the Convention. Thus, it is not easy to give definite answer to the issue of succession of treaties in case of the Korean Unification. In general, the types of State succession influence the result of succession of treaties. For example, the State succession may occur in cases of Newly Independent States, succession of part of a State territory, uniting of States and division of a States, in each case, the succession of treaties may differ. Thus, in case of Korean Unification, the scope of succession of treaties certainly depends on the type of Unification. If, after the Unification, a new State appears, then, the types of succession will be ‘uniting of States’. In this case, the issue of succession of treaties concluded by ROK and DPRK may arise equally. However, if the Unification takes the form of absorption or incorporation of DPRK into ROK, the issue of succession of treaties concluded by DPRK may arise. In this case, the German example may be a good guidance to Korean Unification. As for the treaties which were concluded by ROK may extended to the area which has been governed by DPRK based on the principle of moving treaty frontier. And as for the treaties which were concluded by DPRK, it would be the best way for DPRK to arrange them whether to succeed or not with the other parties before the Korean Unification is effected.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이성덕, "코소보의 일방적 독립 선언의 국제법상 허용 가능성에 관한 ICJ 권고적 의견에 대한 검토" 중앙법학회 12 (12): 243-278, 2010

2 이현조, "조중국경조약체제에 관한 국제법적 고찰" 대한국제법학회 52 (52): 177-202, 2007

3 신용호, "조약의 국가승계와 국가관행" 대한국제법학회 48 (48): 6-170, 2003

4 정인섭, "조약법강의" 박영사 2016

5 한명섭, "북한의 조약체결 현황 및 향후 처리 방안" 법무부 2010

6 김대순, "국제법론(14판)" 삼영사 2008

7 이근관, "국가승계법 분야의 새로운 경향과 발전" 6 (6): 1999

8 이성덕, "間島 歸屬과 관련한 몇 가지 국제법적 문제에 대한 管見" 중앙법학회 10 (10): 367-398, 2008

9 邵津, "國際法" 北京大學出版社 2000

10 Qerimi Q., "Theories and Practice of Succession to Bilateral Treaties: The Recent Experience of Kosovo" 14 : 1639-, 2013

11 "Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports, Separate Opinion of Judge Ajibola" 6-, 1994

12 "Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports" 6-, 1994

13 Brownlie I., "Principles of Public International Law" OUP 1998

14 Cassese A,, "International Law" Oxford University Press 2005

15 Shaw M.N., "International Law" Cambridge University Press 1997

16 "Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports" 1986

17 "Draft Articles on Succession of States in respect of Treaties with commentaries, Yearbook of International Law Commission, 1974, vol. II, Part One"

18 Malanczuk P., "Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law" Routledge 1997