초록

AI-Helper

국가의 국제위법행위에 대한 국가책임을 추구할 때 오늘날 판례와 학설은 국가책임의 본질과 성립요소에 관해 통일된 입장을 보이고 있지 않아 여전히 법적 불확실성을 안고 있다. 국제법문제의 기초를 이루는 국가책임의 영역에서의 이러한 불확실성은 국제사회에서의 법의 지배를 약화시키고 강대국이나 완강한 국제법불신국들에게 권력정치의 행사의 빌미가 될 우려가 있다. 국가책임의 본질이 주관적 책임이냐, 객관적 책임이냐, 다시 말해 국가책임의 성립요소로서 과실이 필요한가 아니면 단순히 국제법상의 의무위반으로 국가책임이 성립될 수 있는가에 관하여 유권적인 근거가 확립되어 있지 않기 때문에 국제법위반국가들이 국제법상의 책임을 회피하거나 부인할 수 있는 소지를 준다. 이 문제에 대해 우리나라의 국제법학자들의 인식과 이해에도 다양성을 보이며 통일된 인상을 주지 않고 있다. 대체로 현대적 책임이론인 객관적 책임이론을 선호하면서도 절충설의 필요성을 소개하는 견해도 다수가 있다. 이 연구에서는 최근 UN 국제법위원회에서 채택된 탁월한 국제법발전의 성과로서의 국가책임에 관한 규정초안의 요지를 밝히고 특히 국가책임의 성립요소로서 과실의 존부여부를 중심으로 국내외 학자들의 이론과 판례의 상황을 검토하였다. 결론적으로는 종합적 접근법으로 과실책임과 위험책임을 포괄하는 복합적 책임요소설(theory of composite elements)의 정립이 바람직함을 논술하였다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

This article aims at investigating critically current status of theories and practices of state responsibility on the domestic plane as well as on the international plane. There has been a major debate about whether international law has a general requirement of fault. The debate is between those wh...

This article aims at investigating critically current status of theories and practices of state responsibility on the domestic plane as well as on the international plane. There has been a major debate about whether international law has a general requirement of fault. The debate is between those who maintain subjective responsibility by which international law requires some fault on the part of the State if it is to incur responsibility and supporters of so-called objective responsibility. The case law has been divided though majority tends to support the objective school. When scholarly debate bogs down around some dichotomy such as ‘responsibility for fault’/‘objective responsibility, something has almost always gone wrong. Here the problem is one of level of analysis: there is neither a rule that responsibility is always based on fault, nor one that it is always independent of it. This article has taken a view that it is illusory to seek for a single dominant rule. Whether responsibility is essentially based on acts of omission (as in Corfu Channel Case) considerations of fault loom large. But if a State deliberately carries some specific act, there is less room for it to argue that harmful consequences were unintended and should be disregarded. Everything depends on the specific context and on the content and interpretation of the obligation said to have been breached. After having examined the views and positions taken by Korean international law scholars and foreign experts, this article draws a concluding argument that the ILC Articles endorse a more nuanced view rather than a single dominant rule. Under Articles 2 and 12 the international law of state responsibility does not require fault before an act or omission may be characterized as internationally wrongful. However, the interpretation of the relevant primary obligation in a given case may well lead to the conclusion that fault is a necessary condition for responsibility in relation to that obligation, having regard to the conduct alleged.

주제어