초록 열기/닫기 버튼
남북합의서가 조약이면 남북에 법적 구속력을, 신사협정이면 정치적 책임만을 수반할 것이다. 이러한 견해의 대립은 우리 사법부의 결정과 2006년 남북관계발전법의 시행에도 불구하고 남북합의서의 법적 지위에 대한 논쟁으로 이어졌다. 대북정책의 법적 기초 마련과 남북관계의 안정성과 일관성 확보를 위해 남북합의서가 실효적으로 이행되어 한 단계 높은 남북관계로 약진해야 한다는 취지 아래 이 논문은 남북합의서의 법적 성격 및 지위를 규명하고 이를 바탕으로 남북합의서의 실효적 이행방안을 마련함을 주된 목적으로 한다. 남북합의서의 법적 성격을 규명하기에 앞서 반국가단체, 잠정적 특수관계, 개별국가로 분류되는 북한의 3중적 법적 지위를 통해 북한이 조약체결 능력을 갖추는지 선결적으로 확인했다. 그 결과 북한이 어느 것에 해당하더라도 조약체결권과 남북합의서의 체결 권능을 부정할 수 없다는 결론에 도달했다. 이어 체결·비준, 국무회의 심의, 필요에 따른 국회의 동의, 공포의 순서로 효력이 발생하는 남북합의서의 성립 절차는 국제조약법 및 국내 조약성립 조약을 국내법화하는 과정과 거의 동일하다. 또한, 남북관계발전법의 남북합의서 체결 조항을 문언 분석과 판례, 과거 관행 등을 통해 살펴본 결과 국제법학자 Oppenheim이 제시한 조약의 5가지 충족요건에 부합한다. 이를 이유로 남북합의서의 조약성(性)은 긍정된다고 보는 것이 적절하다. 이를 통해 일관성 있는 남북관계와 통일정책의 투명성과 정당성을 확보하고 남북관계를 한층 더 제도화시키기 위해 ① 남북합의서의 국회 비준 동의의 중요성, ② 남북관계발전법 제23조의 효력 범위 구체화, ③ UN에의 등록, ④ 남북합의서의 불이행 시 필수적인 분쟁해결방안을 살펴본다.
If Inter-Korean Agreements are regarded as a treaty, it would bring legal binding force to the parties. Conversely, if considered as a gentleman’s agreement (or an MOU), it would solely entail political responsibility. The enactment of the Development of Inter-Korean Relations Act and judgements made by the judiciary branch partially settled such controversy, but it did not terminate it wholly. Such controversy has been extended to whether the Inter-Korean Agreements concluded under article 23 of the Devlopment of Inter-Korean Relations Act can be legally binding in international law, namely, whether it can be regarded as a treaty or not. To resolve such disputes, under the motives that Inter-Korean relations must progress, this paper discusses the legal characteristics and status of the Inter-Korean Agreements to seek its effective application, Prior to determining the legal nature of the Inter-Korean Agreements, the legal status of North Korea has been preemptively discussed. Is North Korea an independent state? Or is it an anti-state organization? Analysis was carried out from three perspectives; a domestic view, under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, a bilateral view (between the two Koreas), under the Inter-Korean Basic Agreement, and an international view, under the United Nations Charter and it’s practices. Such analysis concluded that whatever status North Korea can be interpreted in, its eligibility as a party can be denied in neither a treaty nor an Inter-Korean Agreement. In addition, the procedural requisites for the effective application of the Inter-Korean agreement are identical to those required to legalizing international treaties under domestic law. Treaties, after the signature of parties, are followed by domestic procedures; ratification, deliberation of the state council, approval of the National Assembly, promulgation. The procedures for the effectiveness of Inter-Korean Agreements are in accordance, or at least in conformity. Such analysis were examined according to Oppenheim’s five conditions of treaties; Do the parties of the treaties enjoy the ability to sign treaties? Did a legitimate person sign the treaty? Was a flawless agreement concluded between the representatives appointed by each parties? Are the contents of the treaty feasible and legal? Were certain procedures for the effectiveness of treaties carried out? Ultimately, this paper reached that the legal nature of Inter-Korean Agreements as a treaty cannot be denied. For improved transparency and legitimacy of inter-Korean relations and North Korean policies, parliamentary ratification, materializing the scope of the legal status of the inter-Korean agreements under article 23 of the Development for Inter-Korean Relations Act, registering the agreements to the United Nations, and devising dispute resolution measures have been suggested and examined in this paper.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Inter-Korean Basic Agreement, Inter-Korean Agreement, Inter-Korean Relations, International Law, Treaty, Gentlemen’s Agreement, National Assembly, Development of Inter-Korean Relations Act, Oppenheim
