인도적 간섭의 적법성과 정당성

국문 초록 (Abstract)

한 나라 안에서 양민들이 무고하게 박해를 받고 대규모의 인권유린의 참상이 일어나는 경우 이를 방지하거나 종식시킬 목적으로 그 국가의 허락을 얻지 않고 인접국이나 국제사회에서 무력을 사용하여 개입하는 소위 인도적 간섭의 허용여부는 현대 국제법 체제에서 핵심적 쟁점사항 중 하나이다. 이 문제에 대하여 이 논문은 인도적 간섭 부정설, 실정국제법준거의 긍정설, 관습국제법 준거의 긍정설의 세 가지 접근법을 검토한다. 현대 국제법체제하에서 인도적 간섭에 의한 무력행사는 UN 안전보장이사회의 수권이 있는 경우에만 그 적법성을 인정받는다고 보는 것이 보통이다. 그러나 UN 안보리의 수권이 없더라도 부득이 인도적 간섭을 허용해야만 하는 극히 예외적인 경우를 볼 수 있다. 이 논문에서 필자는 1999년 코소보사태에서 UN의 수권을 받지 않은 상태에서 NATO의 무력에 의한 인도적 간섭과 같은 경우 이를 정당화할 수 있는 논증방법은 관습국제법에서만 그 근거를 가장 잘 찾아볼 수 있다는 주장을 하고 있다. UN헌장 제2조4항의 무력행사의 금지의 원칙, 제2조7항의 타국의 국내문제불간섭의 원칙, 그리고 UN헌장 제7장의 안전보장이사회의 무력행사 통제권과 같은 현행 실정국제법 체제의 범위 내에서 안전보장이사회의 수권없이 지역기구 등에 의한 소위 ‘일방적 인도적 간섭’을 현대 국제법체제 이전인 근대국제법의 성립이래 인정되고 발전되어 온 인도적 간섭에 관한 관습국제법의 원리에서 찾으려는 노력을 하고 있다. 관습국제법의 구체적 적용가능성은 쟁점 사실에 대한 법규범의 적용문제를 브라이얼리와 같은 국제법학자처럼 비실증주의적이고 탄력적인 국제법해석 방법론, 토마스 프랭크와 같은 국제법학자처럼 변천하는 국제사회의 실상과 이를 적절히 반영하며 정의롭게 규율해야하는 국제법규범의 변화필요성에 즉응한 법과 도덕의 연관적 접근법에서 그 가능성을 찾고 있다. 인도적 간섭이 국가의 주권존중과 함께 인권보장에 역점을 두어야 하는 국제적 법치주의의 원리 하에서 적법성과 정당성을 확보하기 위하여 구비해야 할 최소한의 요건들로서 예외적이고 최종적인 선택성, 무력행사에 따른 가해와 피해예방과의 비례성, 집단적 행사 요건 등을 검토하고 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Under the current regime of international law, a most controversial issue of international law today is that if and when without UN Security Council authorization or General Assembly action, any use of armed force for humanitarian intervention would be regarded as lawful or not. Because of inaction from Security Council owing to veto power wielded by Permanent Member states or no endorsement from General Assembly due to lack of consensus among member states, there arises a legal impasse of being no action for supporting a proposed case of humanitarian intervention, overlooking the human rights catastrophe.
With these cases the overwhelming majority of contemporary legal opinion has been addressed against the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention. The rationale to defend conservatively the current collective security framework of the UN Charter is that it seems ultimately more likely to preserve a thin rule of law in international affairs than any 'right' of unilateral intervention wielded selectively by powerful states. They envisage from a cautious analysis of the state practice and opinio juris that unilateral humanitarian intervention remains an inchoate principle, occasionally tolerated by states without being endorsed. Their conclusion is that at most the doctrine of humanitarian intervention has a tenuous basis, not yet crystallized, in current international customary law.
On the other hand, still a substantial body of opinion and of practice has supported the view that when a state commits cruelties against and persecution of its nationals in such a way as to deny their fundamental human rights and to shock the conscience of mankind, intervention in the interest of humanity is legally permissible. This position, however, treats the right of humanitarian intervention as a matter of last resort and confines it to extreme cases.
My position in this paper is to take an affirmative approach to the issue based on customary rule of international law. Although careful analysis is needed for armed intervention to pass the current criteria of legality under international law system, a genuine case of humanitarian intervention should not be frustrated which might be caused by malfunctioning of UN driven not by interest of peoples but by interest of super power countries. Conditions to pass for humanitarian intervention by intervening states would be as follows: first, when faced with an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, which a government has shown it is unwilling or unable to prevent or is actively promoting, the international community should intervene. Because Intervention in internal affairs of other country is a sensitive issue, so there must be convincing evidence of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring urgent relief. it must be objectively clear that there is no practical alternative to the use of force to save lives. But we should act on the principle that a UN member state should not be able to plead its sovereign rights to shield conduct which is inconsistent with its obligations as a member of the UN. We need to strike the correct balance between the sovereign rights of states and the humanitarian right of the international community to intervene where necessary; secondly, any use of force should be proportionate to achieving the humanitarian purpose and carried out in accordance with international law; thirdly, any use of force should be collective. No individual state can reserve to itself the right to act on behalf of the international community.
Furthermore in some extreme cases such as genocide or crime against humanity, a right of humanitarian intervention may be turn into a duty to intervene where the doctrine of responsibility to protect would be employed. At present this doctrine of responsibility to protect may be better justified in terms of enhancing the legitimacy of international law system rather than by merely satisfying the legality of its action

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
• Ⅱ. 인도적 간섭의 적법성
• Ⅲ. 법의 비실증주의적 해석과 법과 도덕사이의 연관성
• Ⅳ. 권리로부터 의무로의 이행인가?: 보호책임
• Ⅴ. 적법성과 정당성 사이의 간격 축소: 국제적 법치주의의 추구
• Ⅵ. 결론
• 국문요약
• ABSTRACT

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이성덕, "인도적 간섭: 자유주의와 포스트모더니즘에 입각한담론" 한국법철학회 6 (6): 261-284, 2003

2 유형화, "국제법학회논총" 47 (47): 1-19, 2002

3 이병조, "국제법신강, 제9개정판" 197

4 제성호, "국제법상 인도적 간섭의 합법성에 관한 일고" 32 (32): 111-145,

5 김대순, "국제법론 제14판" 삼영사 1300-, 2008

6 김대순, "국제법론 제14판" 삼영사 1297-, 2008

7 성재호, "간섭의 이론과 실제" 35 (35): 201-218, 1990

8 장복희, "現代 國際法에서의 人道的 干涉의 適法性" 대한국제법학회 44 (44): 305-331, 1999

9 김석현, "國際法에 있어서의 民主主義" 대한국제법학회 44 (44): 35-54, 1999

10 金泰雲, "國際法上 人權을 蹂躪하는 부당한 政權에 대한 人道的 干涉의 適法性 및 類型化" 대한국제법학회 47 (47): 1-22, 2002

11 김병렬, "人道的 干涉의 正當性에 관한 一考" 대한국제법학회 46 (46): 1-16, 2001

12 김병렬, "人道的 干涉의 正當性에 관한 一考" 대한국제법학회 46 (46): 1-16, 2001

13 金奭賢, "UN憲章 第2條 4項의 危機- 그 例外의 擴大와 관련하여 -" 대한국제법학회 48 (48): 3-102, 2003

14 Rosalyn Higgins, "Themes and Theories" Oxford University Press 269-, 2009

15 Jose E. Alvarez, "The Schizophrenias of R2P in Human Rights, Intervention, and the Use of Force" Oxford University Press 275-, 2008

16 Oscar Schachter, "The Legality of Pro-Democratic Invasion, 78 Am. J. Int'l L. 649"

17 J. M. Brierly, "The Law of Nations, 3rd ed" Clarendon Press 24-, 1949

18 Anthony D'Amato, "The Invasion of Panama was a Lawful Response to Tyranny, 84 Am" 520 : 1990

19 J. L. Holzgrefe, "The Humanitarian Intervention Debate in Humanitarian Intervention - Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas" Cambridge University Press 18-, 2003

20 Arpad Prandler, "The Concept of 'Responsibility to Protect' as an Emerging Norm Versus 'Humanitarian Intervention' in Human Rights, Intervention, and the Use of Force" Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 711-728, 2008

21 Michael W. Reisman, "Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law in Democratic Governance and International Law" Cambridge University Press 256-257, 2000

22 Nicholas J. Wheeler, "Saving Strangers - Humanitarian Intervention in International Society" Oxford University Press 2000

23 Nicholas J. Wheeler, "Saving Strangers - Humanitarian Intervention in International Society" Oxford University Press 2000

24 Stahn, "Responsibility to Protect" 99 :

25 Allen Buchanan, "Reforming the International Law of Humanitarian Intervention in Humanitarian Intervention"

26 Ian Brownlie, "Principles of Public International Law, Seventh Edition" Oxford University Press 745-, 2008

27 Alexander Orakhelashvili, "Peremptory Norms in International Law" Oxford University Press 50-51, 2006

28 "Oscar Schachter, The Right of States to Use Armed Force, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 1620-1646" 1984

29 Michael L. Burton, "Note-Legalizing the Sublegal: A Proposal for Codifying a Doctrine of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention, 85 Geo. L. J. 417"

30 "Nicaragua v. United States (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua Case) ICJ Report" 14-, 1986

31 Judith Gardam, "Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States" Cambridge University Press 185-, 2004

32 Bruno Simma, "NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects, 10 EJIL 1-22"

33 Martin Dixon, "Materials on International Law, 4th Edition" Oxford University Press 549-, 2003

34 Thomas Franck, "Legality and Legitimacy in Humanitarian Intervention in Humanitarian Intervention, NOMOS XLVII" NYU Press 143-, 2006

35 Ian Brownlie, "Kosovo Crisis Inquiry: Memorandum on the International Law Aspects, 49 ICLQ 878"

36 Richard B. Lillich, "Kant and the Current Debate over Humanitarian Intervention, 6 J. Transnat'l L & Pol'y 397"

37 Simon Chesterman, "Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law" Oxford University Press 2001

38 Thomas M. Franck, "Interpretation and Change in the Law of Humanitarian Intervention" Humanitarian Intervention 221-223, 2003

39 C. Greenwood, "International law and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo: Memorandum submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons"

40 Oscar Schachter, "International Law in Theory and Practice" Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 126-, 1991

41 Christine Gray, "International Law and the Use of Force, Third Edition" Oxford University Press 52-, 2008

42 Fernando R. Teson, "Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality" Transnational Publishers 15-16, 1997

43 Carla Bagnoli, "Humanitarian Intervention as a Perfect Duty: A Kantian Argument in Humanitarian Intervention, NOMOS XLVII" New York University Press 2006

44 Ryan Goodman, "Humanitarian Intervention and Pretexts for War, 100 Am. J. Int'l L. 107"

45 W. Michael Reisman, "Humanitarian Intervention and Fledgling Democracies, 18 Fordham Int'l L. J. 794"

46 Ulrich Beyerlin, "Humanitarian Intervention" 2 : 926-930, 1999

47 David Wippman, "Defending Democracy through Foreign Intervention, 19 Hous. J. Int'l L. 659"

48 W. M. Reisman, "Coercion and Self-Defense: Construing Charter Article 2(4), 78 Am. J. Int'l L. 644"

49 Martin Dixon, "Cases and Materials on International Law" Oxford University Press 554-555, 2003

50 Jonathan I. Charney, "Anticipatory Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo" 838-839,

51 Thomas M. Franck, "After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force" 275 : 1973