국제법상 ‘면제’제도의 기본적 쟁점에 대한 분석

• 영문명: Analysis of Some Fundamental Legal Issues with Respect to Immunities in International Law
• 발행기관: 국제법평론회
• 저자명: 최태현(Choi Tae Hyun)
• 간행물 정보: 『국제법평론』제29호, 1~27쪽, 전체 27쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2009.04.30

영문 초록

The immunity systems in international law commonly encompass the concept of jurisdictional immunity, which can be found in State immunity as well as diplomatic or consular immunity, immunity of head-of-State, immunity of international organization, and immunity of warship or members of foreign troops. To the extent that the operation of immunity would deprive a State of its otherwise exercisable jurisdiction or competence, this concept of jurisdictional immunity in such various immunity systems has the same legal nature or characteristics. There are, however, some differences in the rationales for justifying each immunity and in the scope and degree of the immunity among the immunity systems in international law. Jurisdictional immunity does not imply any exemption from the application of substantive law. It where applicable is from local jurisdiction and not from legal responsibility. This absence of substantive immunity is clearly manifested by waiver of jurisdictional immunity or voluntary submission of one State to the jurisdiction of another State. Therefore, the substantive as well as procedural rules of the local law, which may be temporarily suspended on account of the jurisdictional immunity, will resume their normal application. The immunity presupposes a subject-matter over which jurisdiction can be exercised but for the doctrine of immunity, while jurisdictional immunity may be differentiated from non-justiciability or Jack of competence, the two concepts are indeed relative to one another, particularly from a practical point of view. Judicial confirmation of immunity would produce the same effect as determination of lack of competence. Immunity signifies the absence or lack of power or a duty to refrain from exercising such power on the part of State giving immunity, as well as the right of other State of exemption from, or non-amenability to, the exercise of judicial authority by a territorial State. Granting or claiming immunity seems to presuppose the existence of jurisdiction of the territorial State in the first place. Theoretically or logically, State immunity cases should follow a precise order in approaching the jurisdictional question. A court should determine and establish subject-matter and in personam jurisdiction first. Only after this is done does immunity become a proper subject of consideration. If jurisdiction does not exist, then the court should not reach the questíon of immunity. However, frequently the court, when seized of legal proceedings involving foreign States, inquiries first into the question of immunity and then proceeds to deal with other jurisdictional aspects. Though State immunity has been recognized as having grown out of diplomatic immunity and the immunity of personal sovereigns, the State immunity has not had much impact on other types of immunity. Diplomatic immunity, for instance, does not seem to have been rendered subject to the kind of limitations or exceptions to which State immunity is sought to be subject. The coexistence of State immunity and other types of immunity make it possible that suits arising out of same cause of action or based on the same facts may generate different results depending upon whether the designated defendants are foreign States or their embassies or diplomatic agents. The various bases and rationales have been suggested to support the rule of State immunity, absolute or restrictive, respectively. The major bases for restrictive State immunity can be found in the theories of acts jure gestionis, rule of law(fairness to private parties), respect for legitimate exercise of territorial jurisdiction.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 면제의 법적 성질

Ⅲ. 면제의 개념과 관련된 쟁점

Ⅳ. 국가면제의 근거

Ⅴ. 결론

〈Abstract〉

키워드

면제 관할권 관할권 면제 국가면제 외교적 면제 관할 국가면제의 근거 사법관할권 제한적 국가면제 immunity jurisdiction jurisdictional immunity State immunity diplomatic immunity competence bases or rationales for State immunity adjudicative jurisdiction restrictive State immunity