본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

유엔 안전보장이사회의 자산동결에 관한 제재결의 이행

이용수 129

영문명
Implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions on Asset Freeze
발행기관
국제법평론회
저자명
백지열(Paek, Ji Yeol)
간행물 정보
『국제법평론』제59호, 195~210쪽, 전체 16쪽
주제분류
법학 > 법학
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2021.06.30
4,720

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

영문 초록

The United Nations (UN) began to use asset freeze as a form of targeted sanction in the late 1990’s. The UN Security Council used asset freeze to prevent the sanctioned individuals or entities from engaging in harmful behaviors. Today, most of the UN’s sanctions regimes utilize asset freeze. Over the years, many advancements have been achieved in the implementation of the UN Security Council’s resolutions on asset freeze. However, there are many issues that still persist with regard to the implementation. This study examines and assesses the current status of the UN’s asset freeze system and Korea’s implementation of the sanction. To that end, this study compares the sanctions of the UN and the World Bank, along with a comparative analysis of the laws regulating the implementation of asset freeze. It also analyzes cases involving asset freeze such as the Bank Mellat case. Issues with the UN’s asset freeze system can be summarized as follows. Firstly, the effective implementation of the UN’s asset freeze sanctions is undermined by various factors. The obscure language of sanctions on asset freeze makes it difficult to articulate the targets and objects of asset freeze. In addition, the UN has failed to prevent individuals and entities subject to asset freeze from evading asset freeze through various means. Secondly, the UN’s asset freeze system lacks transparency. The public is only provided with summaries of why certain individuals and entities have been subjected to asset freeze. The UN does not publicly disclose the reasons for decisions on delisting requests. Furthermore, the UN due process is not guaranteed with regard to asset freeze. The UN does not directly notify asset freeze to those subject to the sanction, and the outcomes of delisting requests are restricted by the intentions of the relevant countries. The UN does not have its own review mechanism for delisting requests. The UN should address these issues with the asset freeze system. First, the UN should work toward effective implementation by adopting standardized definitions of terms related to asset freeze, and analyzing and addressing asset freeze evasions. Next, in order to promote transparency, the UN should provide sufficient information regarding the reasons for listing, and disclose the texts of decisions on delisting requests. Futhermore, the UN should guarantee due process by directly notifying asset freeze to those subject to the sanctions, and create a review mechanism for delisting requests. Issues with Korea’s implementation of asset freeze measures include the following. First, in Korea, the effectiveness of implementation is undermined by legislative gaps for certain transactions and sanctions regimes, and evasions of asset freeze using won-denominated accounts. In addition, Korea does not properly guarantee due process in its implementation of asset freeze. Korean laws lack provisions on delisting, and do not provide adequate procedural rights regarding asset freeze. Moreover, regulation of asset freeze implementation in Korea is divided between two regimes: the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act regime, and the Act on Prohibition Against the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction regime. Such division undermines alignment with the UN’s resolutions on asset freeze, and causes confusion regarding the relevant terms and procedures. Korea should address these issues with asset freeze implementation by working toward effective implementation of the sanctions, guaranteeing due process, and solving the issues caused by the division between two regimes. To achieve these improvement goals, this study proposes the enactment of the “Act on the Implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Asset Freeze.”

목차

Ⅰ. 서 론
Ⅱ. 유엔 안보리 제재결의의 법적성격
Ⅲ. 자산동결 이행의 비교법적 검토
Ⅳ. 유엔 자산동결 규율 체계의 문제점과 개선 방안
Ⅴ. 한국 자산동결 이행의 문제점과 개선 방안
Ⅵ. 결 론

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

참고문헌

교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!

신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.

바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

백지열(Paek, Ji Yeol). (2021).유엔 안전보장이사회의 자산동결에 관한 제재결의 이행. 국제법평론, (59), 195-210

MLA

백지열(Paek, Ji Yeol). "유엔 안전보장이사회의 자산동결에 관한 제재결의 이행." 국제법평론, .59(2021): 195-210

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제